The Beginning

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sorry, I don't think so.

There is a religious truth, and that may very well be creationism. There are other religious truths out there too.
There is a scientific truth, and that's evolution.

But there are no middle grounds here. It's either religion or science. The both cannot ever be mixed!

Creationists often try to convince that science backs ...[text shortened]... to do with science! Creationism is pure religion. Religion and science cannot ever be mixed!

actually they can.

there is evolution and there is god(at least i believe so)
both can "be"
the fact that a black hole can be a 0 volume point singularity or a fuzzball of strings can be true at the same time as jesus having fed the doodz with 3 fishes is true.

there can even be a cause and effect relation as in god being is the cause and big bang is the effect.

what cannot be is that one be used to prove others. and also one thing possible(actually quite probable) is that science is not all true(we used to believe in alchemy) just as religion is not all true(noah's frikin ark)


Creationists often try to convince that science backs up creatioism - sorry, it cannot. Because creatioism is based upon the belief that there is a creator. That's totally outside the domains of science. Why? Because creationism has nothing to do with science! Creationism is pure religion. Religion and science cannot ever be mixed
these ultimatums sound like robbie proverbs only on the other side of the moon. some science can prove some religion just as some religion can be in accordance with science. it is our jobs to keep an open mind in regards to both. with science having the upper hand as it can be proven and reasoned.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are mistaken about a few things.
1. There does not have to be a beginning.
2. Even if there is a beginning, there doesn't have to be a 'from' - in fact, I find such a concept to be self contradictory unless the beginning in question is not the true beginning.
3. There are more possibilities than you seem to think. I personally believe that the foll ...[text shortened]... universe is just a small part, or there could be gods that are just a part of our universe.

b) There was a beginning with no 'before' ie that is where it starts

------------whitey---------------------------------------

I understand that a true beginning would have no "before" or "from" - just like I understand that a true unicorn would have only one horn. The problem is I could never understand why you saw such an option as realistic.

An absolute beginning requires absolute nothingness. Only a beginning that is set against a complete void of non-existence can be truely said to be the beginning of everything. I always have felt (and still do) that there ever was a void of nothingness then nothing would ever happen. A beginning that magically "begins" for no reason does not make sense.

How did you work your brain round this problem? Was it just word play or something else ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
b) There was a beginning with no 'before' ie that is where it starts

------------whitey---------------------------------------

I understand that a true beginning would have no "before" or "from" - just like I understand that a true unicorn would have only one horn. The problem is I could never understand why you saw such an option as realistic. ...[text shortened]... ow did you work your brain round this problem? Was it just word play or something else ?

Imagination.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
actually they can.

there is evolution and there is god(at least i believe so)
both can "be"
the fact that a black hole can be a 0 volume point singularity or a fuzzball of strings can be true at the same time as jesus having fed the doodz with 3 fishes is true.

there can even be a cause and effect relation as in god being is the cause and big bang i ...[text shortened]... ind in regards to both. with science having the upper hand as it can be proven and reasoned.

these ultimatums sound like robbie proverbs only on the other side of the moon

imitation, the greatest compliment one can pay, who can blame him?

Originally posted by knightmeister
An absolute beginning requires absolute nothingness. Only a beginning that is set against a complete void of non-existence can be truely said to be the beginning of everything.

Correct, so long as you realize that said nothingness is devoid of time and space and anything else that makes up reality.

I always have felt (and still do) that there ever was a void of nothingness then nothing would ever happen.
And that is where you make the error. You give the nothingness existence and place thus generating time and space for it.

A beginning that magically "begins" for no reason does not make sense.

How did you work your brain round this problem? Was it just word play or something else ?
No, it is not word play at all. I am very serious. If there is a beginning, then there is no before. If there is no beginning, then space-time is infinite. You of course would rather have a third option - that is what does not make sense.
You will run into the exact same problem if you accept that the spacial dimensions are finite.
Do you therefore believe that space is infinite?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct, so long as you realize that said nothingness is devoid of time and space and anything else that makes up reality.

[b]I always have felt (and still do) that there ever was a void of nothingness then nothing would ever happen.
And that is where you make the error. You give the nothingness existence and place thus generating time and space ...[text shortened]... cept that the spacial dimensions are finite.
Do you therefore believe that space is infinite?[/b]

And that is where you make the error. You give the nothingness existence and place thus generating time and space for it.
---------------whitey-----------------------------

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!! You need to understand that it is YOUR error not mine. I give no such place in time and space for nothingness.

Take a deep breath and please try to understand that there is a difference between the way I describe nothingness (I repeat DESCRIBE) and the way I conceive of nothingness. The reason for this is because of the limitations of language and description.

It's very difficult to talk about nothingness without saying things like "if there ever was nothingness" - but this does not mean that I seriously think that nothingness exists in space/time. That would be a foolish contradiction.

Really , credit me with more intelligence than that. To really think about what nothingness actually is (or isn't) is a mind bending thing. What I am saying is that the closer I get to conceiving of such a state (or "non" state) then the chances of a beginning of any sort just dissappear. The reason for this?

Simple. My contention is that things that begin , begin for a reason. They don't just "magically" begin or "appear".

Nothingness gives rise to more eternal nothingness. There's no reason for anything , so nothing happens. This state would be so completely void of anythingness that it's almost impossible to conceive of.

Life would never begin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct, so long as you realize that said nothingness is devoid of time and space and anything else that makes up reality.

[b]I always have felt (and still do) that there ever was a void of nothingness then nothing would ever happen.
And that is where you make the error. You give the nothingness existence and place thus generating time and space cept that the spacial dimensions are finite.
Do you therefore believe that space is infinite?[/b]

Do you therefore believe that space is infinite?
-----whitey------------------------------

Nope . I see no reason to assume that space/time is the ultimate form of existence. The space /time bubble we live in called the Universe may only be a tiny part of existence that could have trillions of unimaginable dimensions to it.

What I do believe is that existence is not neccessarily limited by space/time. This is partly supported by the evidence of the universe. Space/time seems to be a phenomena that comes into existence as a result of the big bang. However , the big bang itself cannot logically take place within the confines of space/time.

Therefore at least one event can be said to have occured without the need for space/time. That event is the creation of space/time itself. However it came about it cannot have occured within the confines of space/time.

In short , the beginning of space/time itself must have occured in a way that does not depend on space/time . It was a "timeless" event of sorts , thus proving that space/time is not neccessary for things to occur. This proves that existence must be in some way possible independent of space /time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.

===================================
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.
======================================

If time is infinite how could an infinity of number of moments be traversed over for us to arrive at today ?

If the universe is infinitely old how come all the stars have not dispersed into the coldness of space, all the black holes radiated themselves into nothing according to Hawking's theory of black hole radiation?

How come the galaxies have not already burned out all of their energy? An infinitely old universe should have dispersed into cold ashes long ago.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.
=========================== l of their energy? An infinitely old universe should have dispersed into cold ashes long ago.

[/b]Not necessarily.
Although it's now largely discredited the Steady State theory was the model of the day in the 1950s - it was able to describe an infinite universe with ongoing galaxies.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.
=========================== ...[text shortened]... l of their energy? An infinitely old universe should have dispersed into cold ashes long ago.

Furthur proof that God has a sense of humour?

Originally posted by amannion
Not necessarily.
Although it's now largely discredited the Steady State theory was the model of the day in the 1950s - it was able to describe an infinite universe with ongoing galaxies.[/b]

======================================
Not necessarily.
Although it's now largely discredited the Steady State theory was the model of the day in the 1950s - it was able to describe an infinite universe with ongoing galaxies.
================================

I knew about Steady State theory.

The operative phrase here is "largly discredited".

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.
=========================== ...[text shortened]... l of their energy? An infinitely old universe should have dispersed into cold ashes long ago.

excellent!

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
Not necessarily.
Although it's now largely discredited the Steady State theory was the model of the day in the 1950s - it was able to describe an infinite universe with ongoing galaxies.
================================

I knew about Steady State theory.

The operative phrase here is "largly discredited".[/b]

Of course, but the point is that it's possible to imagine a universe that is infinite but still has stars and galaxies.

Originally posted by amannion
Of course, but the point is that it's possible to imagine a universe that is infinite but still has stars and galaxies.

====================================
Of course, but the point is that it's possible to imagine a universe that is infinite but still has stars and galaxies.
===================================

Yes, we can imagine many things.

Some mathematicians, however, cannot imagine how an infinity of past time could be traversed so as to arrive at the present moment.

To these theorists the present moment proves that a finite number of moments were traversed and therefore time had a beginning.

Its a point to ponder.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Simple. My contention is that things that begin , begin for a reason. They don't just "magically" begin or "appear".

First of all, that is nothing more than an unfounded claim - not supported by any known laws of physics and the current evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Secondly and more importantly, the whole concept suggests you are imagining a time and place in which 'nothingness' exists and thus something must 'begin'.
If the universe is the only existence, then there is no such place for things to be 'magically' beginning and so the problem simply doesn't exist.

Nothingness gives rise to more eternal nothingness.
How can nothingness be eternal? I thought we agreed it had no spacial dimensions?

There's no reason for anything , so nothing happens. This state would be so completely void of anythingness that it's almost impossible to conceive of.
And no such 'state' is being proposed in the first place. It is all in your head.

Life would never begin.
Life has nothing to do with it. Life is a relatively recent development in the universe.