Argument from Temporal Beginning
This argument is an old one from my original website Doxa, But Skeptical walked right into it by putting himself in a position to make the beginning of time an issue, Here's how it was set up.
JLH (Me):
"I just told you why God can be eternal and nature can't be, Nature is time bound and caused and God is eternal; and is the basis of reality,God is being itself ... because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science"
Skep:
You specifically made the claim that the universe is time-bounded, and that implies that there was a time before the big bang,JLH:
that is really stupid, where the hell do you get the idea that time having a beginning means there's time before time? I Just said God is outside time why he's eternal,, you do not understand the most basic concepts,
Skep:
which in turn is your basis for saying that it was caused by God.
JLH:
Obviously sine the Big Bang can't just pop into existence out of nothing.Skep:
I'm simply telling you that your whole concept of the beginning is wrong, according to current cosmological theory.JLH:
... you said that I claim there;s time before time I never said that. you don;t understand what eternity is
Skep:
There was no time before the big bang, and therefore, you can't make any claims about causation.JLH:
that's really stupid, If God creates time he doesn't have to create things that go in time before time,he just crates time then starting thing in time.Skep:
This turns into a God argumemt you cannot answer, you have the same problem how can BB happen in non time? it can;t so how did it come to be? because a mind is needed to change the rules.the author of reality changed the ruels to create time. In your sustem of naturalism you have no answer,
Causation is ALWAYS time sequential. But if there is no before, then there is no cause.
JLH:
God can turn the rules on he can turn them off
Skep: - So the universe has to have a cause because it's the rules. But the rules also say that causes come before the effect. And if time begins with the universe, there is no before. But that's not a problem because God can turn off the rules. So why does the universe have to have a cause? Joe just shot himself in the foot.
JLH:
Look at it this way Skep, both sides have the same problem: that time has to emerge agaisnt a backdrop of no time, meaning nothing can change. Something had to happen to make a different thing happen even in your naturalistic no God world. The most logical thing for that to be is a mind that wrote the rules and can then change the rules to make something happen.
Argument from Temporal Begining.
B Version of argument
We need a B version because beginning of time is assumed with singularity models of Big Bang, and those are out of fashion now (at least with atheitss on Message boards):
Advanced physics theory posits "beyond time" in which super symetry theory is applied to grand unified theory, but "beyond" still posits a timeless state of nothingness in which nothing can happen and no change can take place.
God must exist in order to rewrite the rules or to circumvent the rules of temporality. Now some argue that from a timeless perspective the space/time bubble in which our universe exists would also be. That may be true, and the beginning and the end of our universe would always be as well. Causality, or source may be hierarchical as well as linear
Answer:
Some atheists have tried to answer this by using Relativity theory to argue that time is an illusion, its relative, get it? But Relativity doesn't say there is no time. It merely says that the observation of time is relative.
2) Some other freaky theory of time.
Answer: Some have tried to argue that t=0 (time has a begining) is wrong. It could be t=>0. This is similar to xeno's paradox, in that it segments time into infetessemals so that it gives the illusion of no time, no motion, or perhaps infinite time. But that "infinity" of time could be hidding in a Plank interval, so and that would not do anything to the basic hypothesis. From the Cosmological argument (no.II) I quote physicists saying that t=0 is still the best way to think about it. Three major sources document this. Freasure in Time the Familaure Stranger (one of the major authorities on Time research), Paul Davies in God and The New Physics and in the Book Time's Arrow All agree that beyond time there is no motion, causality, or change. More documentation time begins with Big Bang:
Sten Olenwald
NASA Scientist
2003
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11839.html
No time "before" BB.
Answer: Some have tried to argue that t=0 (time has a begining) is wrong. It could be t=>0. This is similar to xeno's paradox, in that it segments time into infetessemals so that it gives the illusion of no time, no motion, or perhaps infinite time. But that "infinity" of time could be hidding in a Plank interval, so and that would not do anything to the basic hypothesis. From the Cosmological argument (no.II) I quote physicists saying that t=0 is still the best way to think about it. Three major sources document this. Freasure in Time the Familaure Stranger (one of the major authorities on Time research), Paul Davies in God and The New Physics and in the Book Time's Arrow All agree that beyond time there is no motion, causality, or change. More documentation time begins with Big Bang:
Sten Olenwald
NASA Scientist
2003
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11839.html
No time "before" BB.
In the quantum world...the world that the universe inhabited when it was less than a second old...many things work very differently. One of these is that time itself does not mean quite the same thing as it does to us in the world- at-large. Although we have no complete theory of the relevant physics, there are many indications from the mathematics that yield sound experimental results, that time itself may have ceased to have much meaning near the Big Bang event. This means that there was no 'time' as we know this concept 'before' the Big Bang. That being the case, the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible physical answer. The evolution of the universe has always been a process of transformation from one state to the next as the universe has expanded. At some point in this process, looking back at the Big Bang, we enter a state so removed from any that we now know, than even the laws that govern it become totally obscure to science itself. In the quantum world, we see things 'appearing' out of nothing all the time. The universe may have done the same thing. What this means to us may never be fully understood."As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]
astronmy cafe
Odenwald, 2004
Was there really no time at all before the Big Bang?
As I have mentioned in a previous question, we do not know what the state of the universe was like at the Big Bang and beyond.
Our best guess at this time suggest that time and space as we know these concepts will become rather meaningless as the universe enters a purely quantum mechanical state of indeterminacy. Cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking suggest that the dimension of time is transformed via quantum fluctuations in the so-called "signature of the spacetime metric", into a space-like coordinate so that instead of 3-space and 1-time dimension, space-time becomes a 4-dimensional space devoid of any time-like features. What this state is imagined to be is anyone's guess because as humans trained to think in terms of processes evolving in time, our next question would then be, What came before the Hawking space-like state? There is no possible answer to this question because there is no time in which the concept of 'before' can be said to have a meaning. The question itself becomes the wrong question to ask.
_____________________________________
Physical law works in time
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html Cambridge Relativity and Quantum Gravity. 1996, University of Cambridge The physical laws that govern the universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time. In classical physics, if the initial state of a system is specified exactly then the subsequent motion will be completely predictable.
Even assuming no beginning of Time, Susy Gut theory still postulates a "beyond time" as a putative state of affairs. This description confirms my argument since it describes a state in which no change can ever come to be. That leaves the scientific solution still seeking some higher set of coordinates upon which the universe must be contingent:
Sten OdenwaldBeyond the Big Bang.
Copyright (C) 1987, Kalmbach Publishing
"Theories like those of SUSY GUTS (Supersymetry Grand Unified Theory) and Superstrings seem to suggest that just a few moments after Creation, the laws of physics and the content of the world were in a highly symmetric state; one superforce and perhaps one kind of superparticle. The only thing breaking the perfect symmetry of this era was the definite direction and character of the dimension called Time. Before Creation, the primordial symmetry may have been so perfect that, as Vilenkin proposed, the dimensionality of space was itself undefined. To describe this state is a daunting challenge in semantics and mathematics because the mathematical act of specifying its dimensionality would have implied the selection of one possibility from all others and thereby breaking the perfect symmetry of this state. There were, presumably, no particles of matter or even photons of light then, because these particles were born from the vacuum fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime that attended the creation of the universe. In such a world, nothing happens because all 'happenings' take place within the reference frame of time and space. The presence of a single particle in this nothingness would have instantaneously broken the perfect symmetry of this era because there would then have been a favored point in space different from all others; the point occupied by the particle. This nothingness didn't evolve either, because evolution is a time-ordered process. The introduction of time as a favored coordinate would have broken the symmetry too. It would seem that the 'Trans-Creation' state is beyond conventional description because any words we may choose to describe it are inherently laced with the conceptual baggage of time and space. Heinz Pagels reflects on this 'earliest' stage by saying, "The nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe is the most complete void we can imagine. No space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity..."
Answer(s) William Lane Craig's answer is that God creates everything in one thorw, so time is created at exactly the same time that God desires to create. That might be worked out as an asnwer, but it strikes me as still requiring a seqeuntial order. My own personal answer is that I accept Bishop Berkely's notion that we are thoughts in the mind of God. Thus, while the naturalistic assumption is that there is a "beyond time" and this is concieved as a giant room filled with non-time (and the space/time bubble like a beach ball floating around in that room--or say a beach ball in the ocean of non-time) that is purely a naturalitstic assumption. We have no idea what is beyond the BB. Thus, I posit the notion that physical reality is in the mind of God. God is like the Platonic forms in that he is in an abstract reality which has no physical locus, and thus is "everywhere and nowhere." So in that case there is no "beyond time" there is only the mind of God. That is a world of the mind, thus it does contain causality, but no temproal progress, it is controlled by the "thoughts" of God. Thus the problem of causality beyond time is solved, but this only works if one believes in God.
twp possibilities, There could be a special God ordained pre temporal form of time, an Island of time amid eternity, in which God thinks and plans. But it;seven more logical to just assume that the state of no time beyond big bang is merely naturalistic assumption. If God is real then that assumption is wrong, not that there is time before the BB but that the nature of what is there is different than we know Thus God can think outside of time,
If reality is a thought in the mind of God then God mind controls events ultimately even laws of physics,
Comments
- The problem here is that you don't understand your own statement. I DID NOT say that time having a beginning means that there's time before time. I DID say that the universe being time-bounded implies that there's time before the universe. It means there a boundary point in time, where the universe doesn't exist on one side of that boundary, but does exist on the other side. The idea of a time-pounded universe is in direct contradiction to the idea that time begins with the universe. But you don't seem to understand that.
that's really stupid, If God creates time he doesn't have to create things that go in time before time,he just crates time then starting thing in time.
- Your answer is incoherent. The very basis for claiming that God has no cause is the eternity of his existence. I will agree that whatever exists outside of time is eternal and has no cause. But I will also insist that cause is ALWAYS time-sequential, and you caan't show me one single example of something that violates that fundamental rule of causality. That being the case, to claim the the universe itself is subject to causality is incoherent if time itself is part of that creation. There is nothing temporally before it to be the cause.
Look at it this way Skep, both sides have the same problem: that time has to emerge agaisnt a backdrop of no time, meaning nothing can change. Something had to happen to make a different thing happen even in your naturalistic no God world. The most logical thing for that to be is a mind that wrote the rules and can then change the rules to make something happen.
- The most logical thing is that the unchanging natural reality which is responsible for our universe exists eternally. There is nothing in that reality that implies some God or some intentional act of creation.
- The problem here is that you don't understand your own statement. I DID NOT say that time having a beginning means that there's time before time. I DID say that the universe being time-bounded implies that there's time before the universe. It means there a boundary point in time, where the universe doesn't exist on one side of that boundary, but does exist on the other side. The idea of a time-pounded universe is in direct contradiction to the idea that time begins with the universe. But you don't seem to understand that.
I suspect that's the no singularity stuff that's not necessarily canon in science There ls room for the idea tine an universe go together, space/time.
You don;t understand my point that God is the boundary so it doesnp;t matter which theory you take you have no evidence that God is not the boundary to space and time
JLHthat's really stupid, If God creates time he doesn't have to create things that go in time before time,he just crates time then starting thing in time.
- Your answer is incoherent.
It's over your head
The very basis for claiming that God has no cause is the eternity of his existence. I will agree that whatever exists outside of time is eternal and has no cause. But I will also insist that cause is ALWAYS time-sequential, and you caan't show me one single example of something that violates that fundamental rule of causality. That being the case, to claim the the universe itself is subject to causality is incoherent if time itself is part of that creation. There is nothing temporally before it to be the cause.
It's true in ether a world without God or a world in which God is just another thing, But it can't be true in a world where reality is in the mind of God, If God writes the rules causality does not always have to obey the rules of natural world.
JLHLook at it this way Skep, both sides have the same problem: that time has to emerge agaisnt a backdrop of no time, meaning nothing can change. Something had to happen to make a different thing happen even in your naturalistic no God world. The most logical thing for that to be is a mind that wrote the rules and can then change the rules to make something happen.
- The most logical thing is that the unchanging natural reality which is responsible for our universe exists eternally. There is nothing in that reality that implies some God or some intentional act of creation.
you have not solved the problem dude no time = no change,what made change? You can;t just point to it and say it;s eternal doesn;t tell ushow:It:could makes soethig nd hange with no tine,
Still does;t exponential where laws of physic came from.
- It is what most every astrophysicist and particle physicist believes. The idea of a singularity was a first-cut approximation od the beginning, as a consequence of our understanding that the universe is expanding. But it doesn't work as a scientific theory, and it has long since been abandoned by the scientific community. There are still a few theists who want to cling to it. Inflation theory solves the problems with the singularity.
You don;t understand my point that God is the boundary so it doesnp;t matter which theory you take you have no evidence that God is not the boundary to space and time
- Oh, I understand your point quite well. Mr. Magic thinks the universe into existence, and all problems of physical impossibility or logical incoherency are solved instantly. God did it, and that's all we need to know. Never mind the fact that you are still ducking the very same questions that you claim must be answered. All we have to say is "God did it", and all those problems are solved by magic. Case closed.
It's over your head
- Your facile answer is still incoherent.
you have not solved the problem dude no time = no change,what made change? You can;t just point to it and say it;s eternal doesn;t tell ushow:It:could makes soethig nd hange with no tine
- Dude, you are totally unaware of all the thinking that has gone into the formulation of scientific cosmological theories. This is not a case of starry-eyed theists pondering the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Do you imagine that inflation theory is as simple-minded as saying "God did it"? Do you understand that if the creation of a universe from an unchanging eternal reality is logically impossible, then God can't do what is logically impossible, either?
Still does;t exponential where laws of physic came from.
- If you think that question must be answered, then why do you think it's so stupid to ask "where does God come from?" Why do theists like you insiste that all these questions must be answered by naturalists, but they exempt themselves from having to provide any coherent answers about their God? If God can simple exist, why can't natural reality simply exist?
- It is what most every astrophysicist and particle physicist believes. The idea of a singularity was a first-cut approximation od the beginning, as a consequence of our understanding that the universe is expanding. But it doesn't work as a scientific theory, and it has long since been abandoned by the scientific community. There are still a few theists who want to cling to it. Inflation theory solves the problems with the singularity.
wrong, it;s standard model and it is still standard,
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.
The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking
JLHYou don;t understand my point that God is the boundary so it doesnp;t matter which theory you take you have no evidence that God is not the boundary to space and time
- Oh, I understand your point quite well. Mr. Magic thinks the universe into existence, and all problems of physical impossibility or logical incoherency are solved instantly. God did it, and that's all we need to know. Never mind the fact that you are still ducking the very same questions that you claim must be answered. All we have to say is "God did it", and all those problems are solved by magic. Case closed.
the important bit you are missing is the idea that reality is the thought in God's mind,that's different than just saying "he did it." Stop sulking, just because people see things differently from you is no reason to whine
It's over your head
- Your facile answer is still incoherent.
then why do you keep missing the important points?
JLHyou have not solved the problem dude no time = no change,what made change? You can;t just point to it and say it;s eternal doesn;t tell ushow:It:could makes soethig nd hange with no tine
- Dude, you are totally unaware of all the thinking that has gone into the formulation of scientific cosmological theories. This is not a case of starry-eyed theists pondering the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Do you imagine that inflation theory is as simple-minded as saying "God did it"? Do you understand that if the creation of a universe from an unchanging eternal reality is logically impossible, then God can't do what is logically impossible, either?
OOOO it's science is it now? faith and begora, it has to be rignt we don't dare question it, it doesn't have to tell us how it;s science it;s holy and prefect you have to accept without question. trying to impress us by whining about how awesome science is is not an answer,,
JLHStill does;t explain where laws of physic came from.
- If you think that question must be answered, then why do you think it's so stupid to ask "where does God come from?"
Because the universe has a beginning and Go does not.
Why do theists like you insiste that all these questions must be answered by naturalists, but they exempt themselves from having to provide any coherent answers about their God?
because you try to bluff your way to being thought to have answers when you have none,A naturalistic universe that's worships since has to supply answers because that;s what you claim to do. Religion only claims to answer questions about God and salvation and things theological.
If God can simple exist, why can't natural reality simply exist?
because it;s made of contingent things so it has to have a necessity,
- You are wrong, Joe. You don't understand current cosmological theory at all. Nobody believes there was a singularity. It doesn't work, precisely because all the physical laws break down. Inflation is the currently accepted standard.
the important bit you are missing is the idea that reality is the thought in God's mind,that's different than just saying "he did it." Stop sulking, just because people see things differently from you is no reason to whine
- And you think you are not saying God did it? Because it's a thought in God's mind, that's not just another way to say God did it? God thinks it, or God snaps his fingers - what's the difference? What additional questions does it answer? And how can you presume to know what is in the mind of God anyway, after you've told us that it's incomprehensible?
OOOO it's science is it now? faith and begora, it has to be rignt we don't dare question it, it doesn't have to tell us how it;s science it;s holy and prefect you have to accept without question. trying to impress us by whining about how awesome science is is not an answer
- Trying to pretend you know what you don't know is no way to cover up your ignorance of real science.
Because the universe has a beginning and Go does not.
- You ignored my question. If God can exist without a beginning and a cause, why can't natural reality?
because you try to bluff your way to being thought to have answers when you have none,A naturalistic universe that's worships since has to supply answers because that;s what you claim to do. Religion only claims to answer questions about God and salvation and things theological
- And yet here you are bluffing your way through a (theological) explanation of the universe.
because it;s made of contingent things so it has to have a necessity
- Natural reality is not created. It has no beginning in time. Just like you say your God is. If you don't need an explanation for that, then you don't need an explanation for reality.
- You are wrong, Joe. You don't understand current cosmological theory at all. Nobody believes there was a singularity. It doesn't work, precisely because all the physical laws break down. Inflation is the currently accepted standard.
that is bull shit you are ignorant the quote I used proved it, you are so ignorant, you are merely refusing to distinguish between proposals and accepted theory,
"The Big Bang theory is the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the universe, but it is hardly a consensus among scientists.
Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves is part of a group of researchers who dare to imagine a different origin. In a study recently published in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Neves suggests the elimination of a key aspect of the standard cosmological model: The need for a spacetime singularity known as the Big Bang."
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicist-explores-possibility-vestiges-universe.html
best known and most accepted means there are still plenty who accept it
- What you don't understand is the way they talk about the "big bang". They still use the term, because it is close enough to the original concept. Many even still use the term 'singularity'. But it doesn't exactly have its original meaning, which was an infinitesimal-sized point of infinite density. Inflation theory, which IS the most widely accepted replaces the singularity with a very small and dense region of space that originates from a quantum event, and then expands. This is more properly known as the "initial state". Even the Wikipedia article on this topic uses the term 'singularity' to refer to this. But the terminology is a remnant of the past. Guth, the inventor of inflation theory says that nobody believes in an infinite-density singularity any more. You can read the Wikipedia article for yourself, but I know you won't understand a word of it.
- What you don't understand is the way they talk about the "big bang". They still use the term, because it is close enough to the original concept. Many even still use the term 'singularity'. But it doesn't exactly have its original meaning, which was an infinitesimal-sized point of infinite density. Inflation theory, which IS the most widely accepted replaces the singularity with a very small and dense region of space that originates from a quantum event, and then expands.
that's just another way of describing the same thing, it also means there's a timeless void then something happens.
This is more properly known as the "initial state". Even the Wikipedia article on this topic uses the term 'singularity' to refer to this. But the terminology is a remnant of the past. Guth, the inventor of inflation theory says that nobody believes in an infinite-density singularity any more. You can read the Wikipedia article for yourself, but I know you won't understand a word of it.
Can you deny that reality moves form timeless state to time bound state? do you assert time has been running eternally? where?
I want you to document that with sources,
you didn;t read any of this did you?
"Answer: Some have tried to argue that t=0 (time has a begining) is wrong. It could be t=>0. This is similar to xeno's paradox, in that it segments time into infetessemals so that it gives the illusion of no time, no motion, or perhaps infinite time. But that "infinity" of time could be hidding in a Plank interval, so and that would not do anything to the basic hypothesis. From the Cosmological argument (no.II) I quote physicists saying that t=0 is still the best way to think about it. Three major sources document this. Freasure in Time the Familaure Stranger (one of the major authorities on Time research), Paul Davies in God and The New Physics and in the Book Time's Arrow All agree that beyond time there is no motion, causality, or change. More documentation time begins with Big Bang:
Sten Olenwald"
"In the quantum world...the world that the universe inhabited when it was less than a second old...many things work very differently. One of these is that time itself does not mean quite the same thing as it does to us in the world- at-large. Although we have no complete theory of the relevant physics, there are many indications from the mathematics that yield sound experimental results, that time itself may have ceased to have much meaning near the Big Bang event. This means that there was no 'time' as we know this concept 'before' the Big Bang. That being the case, the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible physical answer. The evolution of the universe has always been a process of transformation from one state to the next as the universe has expanded. At some point in this process, looking back at the Big Bang, we enter a state so removed from any that we now know, than even the laws that govern it become totally obscure to science itself. In the quantum world, we see things 'appearing' out of nothing all the time. The universe may have done the same thing. What this means to us may never be fully understood.--Odenwald
"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]
yoiu must quote thing that specifically disprove this very source
- It's close enough that many people talk about it as if it's the same thing, but there are important differences. In particular, the original Big Bang theory does not entail cosmic inflation. The newer theory explains how the initial state arises, and doesn't involve any violations of known physical laws.
Can you deny that reality moves form timeless state to time bound state? do you assert time has been running eternally? where?
- No. Reality itself doesn't "move" from one form to another, even if the universe does progresses from one phase to another. reality is strange, and perhaps difficult to comprehend, but larger than the universe. Time exists only within the confines of a universe. That does not have a bearing on the broader reality that exists outside the universe.
I want you to document that with sources
- It was described in the paper by Hawking that you cited last week, but you didn't understand it. Any paper I show you (including the Wikipedia article on Inflation Theory) is beyond your ability to understand. But this IS the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.
yoiu must quote thing that specifically disprove this very source
- This quote from Olenwald agrees with everything I've been telling you. Your problem is that YOU don't understand what it means. In particular, if you bother to read it, you can see that he says there is no time before the big bang. That implies there is no time bound to the universe, which is the same thing Hawking says. Note that he says: "the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible physical answer." This means that there is no causation (as we understand it) involved, but it is still consistent with quantum laws.
that's just another way of describing the same thing, it also means there's a timeless void then something happens.
- It's close enough that many people talk about it as if it's the same thing, but there are important differences. In particular, the original Big Bang theory does not entail cosmic inflation. The newer theory explains how the initial state arises, and doesn't involve any violations of known physical laws.
Inflation doesn't change anything about time having a beginning,it does not effect the argument at all.
JLHCan you deny that reality moves form timeless state to time bound state? do you assert time has been running eternally? where?
- No. Reality itself doesn't "move" from one form to another, even if the universe does progresses from one phase to another.
that is mere psycho babble. all your saying is you can't answer the argument so you will define it into another discussion,
reality is strange, and perhaps difficult to comprehend, but larger than the universe. Time exists only within the confines of a universe. That does not have a bearing on the broader reality that exists outside the universe.
sure we can;t answer it but hey it;s all part of the rich pageantry of scienceland BS!BSBSBSBSBBWSBSBSBS
JLHI want you to document that with sources
- It was described in the paper by Hawking that you cited last week, but you didn't understand it.
No the paperer says time begins, it says we go from timeless void to something you can;t say how it get; around the time barrier. you only look at the stuff that helps you you then divert attention form what you can;t answer which is most of it,
Any paper I show you (including the Wikipedia article on Inflation Theory) is beyond your ability to understand. But this IS the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.
I did Ph.D work If finished all my mouse world and passed qualifying exam you never went to graduate school.
argumentation is not about being worthy to win It;s not about who knows more,you have to out argue on the points in discussion You have never done done that with me,
JLH you must quote thing that specifically disprove this very source
- This quote from Olenwald agrees with everything I've been telling you. Your problem is that YOU don't understand what it means. In particular, if you bother to read it, you can see that he says there is no time before the big bang.
Yes I know that's my argument stupid,I told you you didn;t understand the issues, dumb ass
That implies there is no time bound to the universe, which is the same thing Hawking says.
Note that he says: "the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible physical answer." This means that there is no causation (as we understand it) involved, but it is still consistent with quantum laws.
I answered that already genius I said that assumes a world without God where things happen by random chance. But If we assume God then beyond the tine bound world there is just the mind of God, Things dont;happen by the laws of physics but by the will of God.
notice I don;t say before the BB I never said that,i say beyond not before beyond, that;s what they do they put time in to spacial terms, beyond space time there is just the mind of God
- Joe, you argued that the universe is time-bounded. You don't even know what that means. The universe is NOT time-bounded. I corrected you, and now you're pretending that your argument doesn't change. That is moronic. Of course it changes your argument. If you were smart enough to understand your own claims, you would see that.
that is mere psycho babble. all your saying is you can't answer the argument so you will define it into another discussion
- Stop pretending, Joe. When you discuss cosmological issues, you are in way over your head. It's OK to admit that you don't understand this stuff.
No the paperer says time begins, it says we go from timeless void to something you can;t say how it get; around the time barrier. you only look at the stuff that helps you you then divert attention form what you can;t answer which is most of it
- It says nothing about the universe coming from a timeless void, and it does not include any "time barrier". Inflation is postulated as an eternal phenomenon (which you would know if you actually read the material I pointed out for you). And time is boundless, much the same way as there is no barrier at the south pole, but nothing south of it, either.
argumentation is not about being worthy to win It;s not about who knows more,you have to out argue on the points in discussion You have never done done that with me
- Every time I do, you just pretend I have said nothing meaningful. I'm sure it's not meaningful to you, because you understand so little about scientific matters.
Yes I know that's my argument stupid,I told you you didn;t understand the issues, dumb ass
- I argued the same thing Olenwald is saying, and you disagreed with me.
I answered that already genius I said that assumes a world without God where things happen by random chance. But If we assume God then beyond the tine bound world there is just the mind of God, Things dont;happen by the laws of physics but by the will of God.
- That's your theistic belief. It's not based on facts, and it's not the view of most cosmologists.
- Joe, you argued that the universe is time-bounded. You don't even know what that means. The universe is NOT time-bounded. I corrected you, and now you're pretending that your argument doesn't change. That is moronic. Of course it changes your argument. If you were smart enough to understand your own claims, you would see that.
is the universe does not have a beginning in time or with time? that's at odds withh what Hawking says so you are correcting Hawking brave man,
JLHthat is mere psycho babble. all your saying is you can't answer the argument so you will define it into another discussion
- Stop pretending, Joe. When you discuss cosmological issues, you are in way over your head. It's OK to admit that you don't understand this stuff.
big talk from a little man, stop flapping your ignorant gums and say something. that is not an argument it;s ad hom you are not going to say that arraign or you are out of here, understand dub ass?
the stranger who interrupted us and knew all about Qm theory took my side said you dont know shit about it, remember? Mark Tester
JLHNo the paperer says time begins, it says we go from timeless void to something you can;t say how it get; around the time barrier. you only look at the stuff that helps you you then divert attention form what you can;t answer which is most of it
- It says nothing about the universe coming from a timeless void,
Odenwald, Brief Hisotry of Time.commmon knoweldge
and it does not include any "time barrier".
Odewald says no change in timneless void you must quote a scientist saying there can;be change will contradict your argument,
Inflation is postulated as an eternal phenomenon (which you would know if you actually read the material I pointed out for you). And time is boundless, much the same way as there is no barrier at the south pole, but nothing south of it, either.
:look at the graphic stupid inflation is an immediate expansion following nothing,
- Every time I do, you just pretend I have said nothing meaningful. I'm sure it's not meaningful to you, because you understand so little about scientific matters.
half of what you say is telling me I don;t know anything the other half is begging the question,
JLHYes I know that's my argument stupid,I told you you didn;t understand the issues, dumb ass
- I argued the same thing Olenwald is saying, and you disagreed with me.
not on that stupid
JLHI answered that already genius I said that assumes a world without God where things happen by random chance. But If we assume God then beyond the tine bound world there is just the mind of God, Things dont;happen by the laws of physics but by the will of God.
- As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. I agree with what Hawking says, and you don't. I didn't say the universe has a beginning in time, and Hawking didn't either. We are both saying that time has a beginning in the universe, and that's altogether different. But it's beyond your comprehension.
big talk from a little man, stop flapping your ignorant gums and say something. that is not an argument it;s ad hom you are not going to say that arraign or you are out of here, understand dub ass?
- Oh, brother. If you are so opposed to ad hominem, then I would suggest you stop using it.
the stranger who interrupted us and knew all about Qm theory took my side said you dont know shit about it, remember? Mark Tester
- I told you before that the entire conversation between Tester and me was way over your head. We didn't disagree on the science, but we disagreed on philosophical issues. He is a theist, just like you. And it strikes me as cowardice on your part to put your distorted summary in a site where I couldn't respond to your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.
Odenwald, Brief Hisotry of Time.commmon knoweldge
- The "timeless void" is not common knowledge. Odenwald says: "The question itself becomes the wrong question to ask." As far as I know, Hawking never used the term "timeless void" to describe where the universe comes from (and I own a hard-bound copy of "A Brief History of Time", something that you have obviously never read). In fact his whole point is that it doesn't "come from" anything. It has no beginning it time.
Odewald says no change in timneless void you must quote a scientist saying there can;be change will contradict your argument
- As I have been desperately trying to tell you, scientists do not postulate any "change in timneless void". They do not postulate a timeless void. The issue is meaningless.
look at the graphic stupid inflation is an immediate expansion following nothing
- It doesn't say it "follows" anything. .
half of what you say is telling me I don;t know anything the other half is begging the question
- In matters of science, you simply don't know what you are talking about. You look up quotes on the internet, but you don't understand them.
- In matters of science, you simply don't know what you are talking about. You look up quotes on the internet, but you don't understand them.
You know nothing about science, you are doing ideology not science.
I told you a longtime ago to stop that :you don;t known anything about science,: it;s not an argument it;s not proof,it;s argument ad honm.
argument ad hominem is the lowest from of argumemt and it has caused the level discussion on both blogs to dip in to the gutter, you were banned before I gave you chance after chance, that's it. no more