Big Bang Theory Question.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not avoiding the question, but they're not possible to answer because that would means I'd adhere to what you believe. You're asking loaded questions from the stance you, not I, believe.

You seem to have it decided that there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and therefore time could not pass and didn't exist, as a result. I disagree, because I believe there was something. Not nothing AS something, something else entirely for time to pass.

Yes, I understand the concept you are suggesting and while it does merit thought, that’s all. Just thought. But what, in your opinion, is required for time as a whole, to pass exactly? It’s been proven that it isn’t entirely independent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know, and that would apply if I believe nothing existed except that which is necessary for the big bang to happen (Something at atomic level of reaction.). I do not, though.

This debate was born out of you telling me I was wrong for saying time existed pre-big bang, based on your belief that nothing existed therefore time can't pass. I believe something did, so I believe time passed and as a result, the big bang happened. Well, not as a result, but you get the idea.

Then, the Big Bang suddenly happens out of nowhere, an event completely arbitrary and random and for no reason in a single instant of time and ‘expands’ already into this ‘something’ of yours (which physically resembles our universe). Does that mean we’re a universe inside a universe?

Yes, you have explained that theory already. I understand what you’re getting at there. No need to do it further.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not talking about time being infinite, I'm talking about everything being infinite and time being there as a result. With there being a before in which SOMETHING was existing, at which point time would resultantly exist, time could therefore, pass.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're too hung up on how the big bang occurred out of nothing to see that I don't disagree. The big bang may have happened out of nothing atomically speaking, it doesn't mean that ELSE existed, though.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's exactly what I mean. "Remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything.". Remember? I never believed it in the first place. I don't believe nothing existed, I believe that is one of the most flawed theories a human mind can possess in what is becoming an ironic search for knowledge.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You say "If things existed, it doesn't make sense how or why the big bang happened.". You're a 16 year old boy, you honestly believe that you will be able to make sense of such things when the greatest scientific minds in the history of Earth cannot settle on a theory enough to prove it? I don't mean that in a patronizing way, in case you took offense, I'm just trying to prove a point.

And I’m 17 now, thanks.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, I don't have to take their word for it. They cannot prove that I am wrong. They can only prove that their theory does not coincide with what I believe, as you are doing. You make the mistake of taking their theory as gospel and subsequently let it lead you to the belief that I am not rational.

Not rational is saying there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, for sure. It's more rational to say there might have been.

I take it as ‘gospel’ because I respect their research and their expertise in the knowledge that I don’t know nearly as much as they, on the topic of astrophysics or Genesis. I don’t have to, but I still do. And no, this has very little to do with me saying your way of thinking on this subject is irrational; I said your beliefs were irrational because they aren’t based on solid fact, only speculation. How does believing there was a ‘before’ make things more rational?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't see where I'm going. I'm not of the Moore-esque belief that everything is happening now, past, present and future. The future is conceptual, nothing truly exists but the present. My point was that there's always a present, there's always something, in my opinion. There is simply too much space (infinite, in my opinion), for that not to be the case.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I said time existed before the big bang, you said it didn't. Your reason for believing so is because you believe there was nothing, and you believe the scientists because they are scientists. All you can do is say "My theory doesn't agree with your theory.". You take your theory as fact, and then say "Mine couldn't have happened like it did if you are correct.", well then deal with that. That isn't my problem.

I didn’t take my theory as hard fact, never did. It’s a likely possibility, yes, but seeing how it hasn’t been proven I don’t know how you can imply that I take it as fact. I applied whatever knowledge I had on the subject, thought about both theories. I think “In the case of…” applying fundamentals and trying to make sense of it. They face the same physics principles and basic concepts. Why can’t I use those concepts to analyze your theory?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point is; I believe time existed before the big bang because I believe there was something for time to pass. Nobody here can prove me undeniably wrong, can they? No.

Originally posted by DarkC
Even if they’re not possible to conceptually answer, I assume you still have a reason for believing that the fact that nothing happened before the Big Bang. To you they are ‘loaded’ because they’re not what you would call a standard question. I was never asking you to prove outright that there was a ‘before’ with respect to the big bang(obviously that’s impossible). To me though, there are holes in your reasoning.

Because I'm not so arrogant as to make the definite decision regarding something the human race cannot comprehend. I'm not saying there definitely was anything, I'm saying I believe there was because there is so much we don't understand, and I find that it's more realistic to believe there might be something than definitely nothing.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I understand the concept you are suggesting and while it does merit thought, that’s all. Just thought. But what, in your opinion, is required for time as a whole, to pass exactly? It’s been proven that it isn’t entirely independent.

Anything. If nothing exists, time can't pass, if something does, it can. My point was to counter yours. You say time didn't exist before the big bang, I say it did, because I believe there was something.

Originally posted by DarkC
Let’s for a moment assume your point of view. If there was “something” else going on (as you said) and time was already passing at that particular moment then some sort of space already existed (as time requires space to ‘pass’ as a series of sequential and individual events). That would create a similar scenario to the universe we already have right now.

Then, the Big Bang suddenly happens out of nowhere, an event completely arbitrary and random and for no reason in a single instant of time and ‘expands’ already into this ‘something’ of yours (which physically resembles our universe). Does that mean we’re a universe inside a universe?

Possibly, who knows? Nobody. I don't spend my time trying to solve puzzles that I have no pieces to. My point of view was simply that I believe time existed before the big bang. There's no need for over-philosophising, yes, you know your stuff, congratulations. Over-application isn't necessary though. If you're asking me questions with a view to somehow believing what I do, it won't happen will it? Because you disagree with me.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, you have explained that theory already. I understand what you’re getting at there. No need to do it further.

The suggestion that everything could be infinite is definitely lacking. If, for example, something is so big as to not be able to measure it, does it automatically count as infinite? No, it simply means that it is too big to measure. That’s the end of it. Space isn’t automatically infinite simply because we haven’t hit its boundaries. Also, how is the manner in which time passes affected by spatial size?

I never said space is infinite because we've not hit boundaries, I simply said that given the nature of what space is, I don't believe there's an end to it. Time isn't affected by size, I never said it was. Presense, not size.

Originally posted by DarkC
Beats the hell outta me why you say that now when you believe that something else did exist before the Big Bang. What, is ELSE supposed to be an acronym?

Learn to live outside of textbooks, Dark. I believe there was something else, I don't know what, but I just do not have reason to believe there was nothing at all. Exercise some lateral thinking, think outside of the books and box. I don't need to know specifically what I believed existed to know that I believed there was some kind of existence.

Originally posted by DarkC
Until astronomers have proven or disproven their current hypothesis, I’m going to go ahead and believe what they currently have. Face it, we aren’t the experts here and throwing out theories with no real basis in scientific fact isn’t going to miraculously prove otherwise. I have no doubt that there are people who do believe as you do, but they don’t happen to be international-class scientists who have researched the topic.

Then you do that, it doesn't mean I have to, it doesn't mean you are any more correct than I. Does it? Getting too close to something prevents seeing a bigger picture. People can be so involved in a profession that they forget what it means. For example, I know people who play instruments to such a high degree that they cannot simply listen to music for the enjoyment of it. The enjoyment is there, but so is perpetual critique-like perception.

The same with scientists. They know a lot about things they can work with, but they are no closer to proving anybody wrong. They have their nose too far in the books to step out of it and simply say "...in spite of what we know...".

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I’m young and I’m still learning, but by no means does it stop me from looking in on the subject, learning about it and offering my two cents, which I have. Everyone has the right to. However, lecturing me about a lack of astronomical knowledge as you are now, unless you’re a astronomer with a Doctorate in astrophysics; then your opinions or theories are no more credible than mine are. Let’s not walk this road. And I’m 17 now, thanks.

Precisely. Our opinions are no more credible since neither can prove our beliefs. So why sit there saying "Remember, before the big bang there was nothing.", as if it's fact?

Originally posted by DarkC
If you think you know better than the most learned scientists in the world, many of whom which have spent many years of their lives researching this topic solely, please at least justify your claims. If you want to actively disprove their hypothesizing, hey, knock yourself out. No problem with the truth coming out. Unless you support your belief with more evidence though, it’s not going to go anywhere.

This is precisely what I meant about over-analysing, over-application.

Who said it simply has to go anywhere? I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong. You are. I'm proving that I believe what I do, not that my beliefs are correct. You, just like the scientists you revere, feel that there has to be definite endings and destinations. I don't. I believe what I believe. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, if I'm right, I'm right. In this case, I simply hold a belief on a subject. I can't prove any scientist wrong, just as they cannot prove me wrong.

Originally posted by DarkC
I take it as ‘gospel’ because I respect their research and their expertise in the knowledge that I don’t know nearly as much as they, on the topic of astrophysics or Genesis. I don’t have to, but I still do. And no, this has very little to do with me saying your way of thinking on this subject is irrational; I said your beliefs were irrational because they aren’t based on solid fact, only speculation. How does believing there was a ‘before’ make things more rational?

I respect their research too, but I also see that it does not give them the power to decide what happened before. I respect it, that doesn't mean I have to believe it. I'm not ignoring fact, I'm not adhering to an opinion that I do not favour. I simply disagree with "Nothing existed before the big bang.", and there is no conclusive evidence to prove me wrong, just enough to convince YOU that they are right. My beliefs AREN'T based on fact, they are purely speculatory. As are yours.

Originally posted by DarkC
Nothing truly exists currently but the present. Time’s still measured only with a frame of reference. Past has happened, but it’s real; Future is uncertain, but it exists. No matter how much space there is, there’s still limitations. As we know it, it could be larger than we could fathom, basically a speck of dust in an entire solar system, but it could still have boundaries.

The future doesn't technically exist, it's just considered imminent. Me typing the paragraph following this isn't out there happening, we just know it will happen because I've said so and will do so. It's still conceptual. However unlikely; I could die before I finish this post.

Originally posted by DarkC
I didn’t take my theory as hard fact, never did. It’s a likely possibility, yes, but seeing how it hasn’t been proven I don’t know how you can imply that I take it as fact. I applied whatever knowledge I had on the subject, thought about both theories. I think “In the case of…” applying fundamentals and trying to make sense of it. They face the same physics principles and basic concepts. Why can’t I use those concepts to analyze your theory?

You’re really just stating the obvious when you claim someone can’t prove you undeniably wrong. They neither have the resources or expertise to do so. Finding out about something like this would have been a big discovery anyways. We’re at a standstill really; you can’t prove me undeniably wrong, I can’t prove you undeniably wrong.

If you had stopped trying to come at this debate with nose buried in text book, showing that you know some science, as many people here do, including myself, you'd realise it's not wholly relevant.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because I'm not so arrogant as to make the definite decision regarding something the human race cannot comprehend. I'm not saying there definitely was anything, I'm saying I believe there was because there is so much we don't understand, and I find that it's more realistic to believe there might be something than definitely nothing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anything. If nothing exists, time can't pass, if something does, it can. My point was to counter yours. You say time didn't exist before the big bang, I say it did, because I believe there was something.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Possibly, who knows? Nobody. I don't spend my time trying to solve puzzles that I have no pieces to. My point of view was simply that I believe time existed before the big bang. There's no need for over-philosophizing, yes, you know your stuff, congratulations. Over-application isn't necessary though. If you're asking me questions with a view to somehow believing what I do, it won't happen will it? Because you disagree with me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never said space is infinite because we've not hit boundaries, I simply said that given the nature of what space is, I don't believe there's an end to it. Time isn't affected by size, I never said it was. Presence, not size.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Learn to live outside of textbooks, Dark. I believe there was something else, I don't know what, but I just do not have reason to believe there was nothing at all. Exercise some lateral thinking, think outside of the books and box. I don't need to know specifically what I believed existed to know that I believed there was some kind of existence.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then you do that, it doesn't mean I have to, it doesn't mean you are any more correct than I. Does it? Getting too close to something prevents seeing a bigger picture. People can be so involved in a profession that they forget what it means. For example, I know people who play instruments to such a high degree that they cannot simply listen to music for the enjoyment of it. The enjoyment is there, but so is perpetual critique-like perception.

The same with scientists. They know a lot about things they can work with, but they are no closer to proving anybody wrong. They have their nose too far in the books to step out of it and simply say "...in spite of what we know...".

Having had a teacher who was a researcher for a few decades, I can say that real research scientists have to constantly remind themselves what the hell they’re researching in the first place and why. It’s true that a rather large chunk of them lose track after a while and forget, but whatever facts, figures, or formulas they’ve discovered/proved still remain in existence and are irrefutable.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely. Our opinions are no more credible since neither can prove our beliefs. So why sit there saying "Remember, before the big bang there was nothing.", as if it's fact?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is precisely what I meant about over-analysing, over-application.

Who said it simply has to go anywhere? I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong. You are. I'm proving that I believe what I do, not that my beliefs are correct. You, just like the scientists you revere, feel that there has to be definite endings and destinations. I don't. I believe what I believe. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, if I'm right, I'm right. In this case, I simply hold a belief on a subject. I can't prove any scientist wrong, just as they cannot prove me wrong.

What, does interest in a scientific concept automatically make me revere any scientist who researches it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I respect their research too, but I also see that it does not give them the power to decide what happened before. I respect it, that doesn't mean I have to believe it. I'm not ignoring fact, I'm not adhering to an opinion that I do not favour. I simply disagree with "Nothing existed before the big bang.", and there is no conclusive evidence to prove me wrong, just enough to convince YOU that they are right. My beliefs AREN'T based on fact, they are purely speculatory. As are yours.

Yes, the theory I believe is still technically speculatory, but the speculation in question is accompanied with analysis of scientific fact. It isn’t completely out of the blue. Unlike yours, it has evidence backing it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you had stopped trying to come at this debate with nose buried in text book, showing that you know some science, as many people here do, including myself, you'd realize it's not wholly relevant.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that; I realize that as a race humanity doesn’t know everything, but assuming or believing otherwise something that has no real scientific support is not the most logical path to take. At least in my opinion. Until then, when the theory’s been proven otherwise or evidence points toward another solution, I’ll continue to believe their version of events. Whether they’re ideally realistic or not.

It's not logical to me to look at what facts SUGGEST and assume the suggestion is correct. Facts suggest what you are saying, but they do not prove it. Believe it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by DarkC
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, time cannot pass given no space in which events occur. This ‘something’ of yours, however obscure it is at the moment, still has to follow this. Considering how I analyzed, or over-analyzed it, it simply doesn’t make sense.

The bottom line is; You don't understand why I hold a believe that is speculatory. That is not my problem, but you're essentially asking me to prove things and make you understand. You've spent too much time in textbooks and not enough time just generally contemplating the unknown, the infinite and the eternal.

When I think about space and time, I don't think of what they tell in text books, because what's the point? We know that, we know that scientists have proven things. I enjoy thinking about what hasn't been proven. I prefer to think about what I feel, not feel what I think. You simply don't understand this. Maybe it is because you haven't had the time to significantly establish a set of individual beliefs, maybe you've not had enough experience outside of textbooks, but either way, you don't understand what my point of view is. I can't necessarily ask you to either, as it is vague, but accept that you don't understand it. You seem to fear that which you can't read about.

Originally posted by DarkC
You’re not trying to solve them, that doesn’t seem to be the case; however, you do leave a lot of pieces lying around that I feel need to be at least addressed, which I have. You see this as over-analyzing, which is fine, really; I like details and I don’t mind delving. I know your point of view and I disagree with it, but I’m not as biased as some members here. It doesn’t stop me from at least trying to apply knowledge to your belief in an attempt to make some sense out of it. And yes, I try to know my stuff.

They don't need to be addressed, they are fine as they are. I'm fine with where they are. Your obsession with trying to make everything fit, make sense and add up is why you're not getting this. You're sitting there almost suggesting alternate things for me to believe.

Originally posted by DarkC
Even if humanity never finds an end to space, it doesn’t mean it’s infinite; it just means we can never find an end to it. That it’s still too massive to map. Put it this way, you can explore and explore and not find any boundaries, but that doesn’t prove anything significant; on the other hand, you can explore and explore until you hit a boundary and it’ll prove something. Yes, that’s repeating what I said before, space spawns the existence of time passage conceptually. The space as we know it can be infinite, but it doesn’t make time infinite.

As long as there is something existing, time will pass. It depends on whether the existence in question is infinite or not. You are essentially saying that infinity can't exist. "There not being any visible boundaries doesn't mean there aren't any somewhere.". So what's the next step? If space is infinite, nobody will ever find a boundary. Are we to just assume that we keep not-finding existing boundaries? To me, that's silly. Ockham's razor applies, in that case.

Originally posted by DarkC
We’re in a thread that’s in the GDF, not the Philosophy forum, so in this kind of a thread I tend to rely on what is concrete, what is fact. Which is why I have tried to maintain a scientific, analytical point of view. What we already know isn’t intellectually as important as what we don’t know, but it leads to something.

That's a bit of a flawed view of what the GDF is. Just because it's not a purely philosophical topic does not mean there is definite concrete conclusion to be had. You're being analytical because you love details and you love conclusive evidence, fine, but it's not achieving anything here, is it? You just don't understand why I believe what I do, and you're asking for a definitive explanation. I can't give one, it's speculatory. It makes sense to me, and I'm not acting as if I have a mass of scientific backing. You do, and how much closer to your opinions being correct are you? No closer than I am. So this debate is somewhat fruitless.

Originally posted by DarkC
As in which is more likely? Who can say, really? It also isn’t prudent to assume simply that nearing a solution prevents completely the ability to maintain the whole purpose. Your analogy of your friend listening to music does get the point across, but actually comparing the two, music and scientific research, is an entirely different thing altogether.

The principle remains the same. How can you suggest a conclusion to a theory, when the theory is based on things we simply believe to be true? All the evidence in the world hasn't proven the subject of this debate to be factual, and you only have one side of the perception glass, because you aren't feeling, you're thinking too much.

Going back to my music analogy; Paul Gilbert, one of the world's best technical guitarists, wrote a guitar lick in a song called Green Tinted 60s Mind by Mr. Big. In a video demonstration of how to play it, when he's not thinking, he plays it perfectly. When he's concentrating on it, trying to demonstrate, he says "It gets confusing when it gets slow.". If you think too hard, you're missing a lot. As Bruce Lee once said in Enter the Dragon; A finger points to the Moon, if you concentrate on the finger you miss the heavenly glory of the Moon itself.

You're too consumed with focusing on technicality, and you're not wrong to do so, you have evidence that makes you believe a suggested, but not proveable occurance. Fine. My point is, having a more balanced vision of thought and feeling would do you well in this debate.

Originally posted by DarkC
Having had a teacher who was a researcher for a few decades, I can say that real research scientists have to constantly remind themselves what the hell they’re researching in the first place and why. It’s true that a rather large chunk of them lose track after a while and forget, but whatever facts, figures, or formulas they’ve discovered/proved still remain in existence and are irrefutable.

And what's irrefutable here? "We've proven that we think this might have happened, and here's why.". Ok, great. In relation to YOUR beliefs, that means a whole lot. In relation to mine, it means nothing.

Originally posted by DarkC
I say it because as I said before, I believe the gospel stories of something from nothing. It isn’t fact, I never implied it was. I assume so because currently facts suggest it, that’s all. Obviously it’s going to be a little opinionated. Learn to look past it.

They aren't gospel though. They're not "true", they aren't proven. You believe the SUGGESTED conclusion because there are adequate suggestions. Me having less suggestions doesn't make it any less possible.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
I entered this thread and got involved because I actually find the subject interesting, and in turn try to absorb everyone else’s opinions and ideas. I do have some of my own. Your belief, to me, appears to be misguided and that’s where I start the sermonizing. I’m not forcing you to listen to it, but I do want to hear exactly why you stick to this belief or others if it disagrees with mine. Hence the constant questioning. I disagree, the end.

Precisely. It's ignorant and pretentious to preach to me about how my belief doesn't make sense in general, because YOU don't get it. There are other people here who may disagree, but don't say it makes no sense. It's not a nonsensical belief, you just don't grasp it.

What do you mean you want to hear why I stick to it if it disagrees with yours? As if it's mentally retarded to even have an opposing belief to yours, which is subjective anyway, by the way. I stick to it because no other belief is appealing to me, what more do you need? Put down the book, stop trying to make sense of everything, for once, and just accept that not all beliefs need factual backing. If I was trying to prove you wrong, I would. I'm not, so I don't.

Originally posted by DarkC
Correct, it is not within their power to decide if anything happened before, nor is it up to the Church. History is written by the winner, in this case it is science. However, they are still the experts here. It doesn’t necessarily mean they can spoon feed us, but it still wouldn’t be a good idea to completely dismiss their ideas. You say “I believe something existed before the Big Bang”, I ask why, that seems to be the short of it. There isn’t likely to be real conclusive evidence in our lifetime to prove such a theory.

I'm not completely dismissing them, I'm saying I disagree with them. They could very well be right, I don't think they are. I could be wrong. Stop, for the love of spirits, saying "There won't be any proof to prove your theory, conclusively.", so what? I'm not saying there will be. There certainly won't be anything to factually prove otherwise, will there? So my beliefs are quite safe. Your obsession with proveably theories is out of place in a debate of subjective belief. You don't get why I believe there was something else, fine, not asking you to.

I believe it because as I have said, I just do not see how there could be emptiness, nothing at all, everything just happened. I also fail to see how any human can know that. Answer? No human can. So I'm not going to jump on the side of the fence I don't agree with.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, the theory I believe is still technically speculatory, but the speculation in question is accompanied with analysis of scientific fact. It isn’t completely out of the blue. Unlike yours, it has evidence backing it.

The evidence amounts to nothing, though. It really doesn't.

"I believe nothing existed before the big bang because scientists say it happened like this, and have proof that says it might have.". That's all they have, proof that it's very possible. They don't have anything else. If that's good enough for you, rock and roll. For me, it isn't. If you want me to believe there was nothing, give me conclusive proof. I'm not performing a sermon, you are. You're trying to learn, I don't need to. I know your side of the debate, and why. I accept it.

Originally posted by DarkC
As I said, I do have to look at the facts first and try to digest such things as why or how and such along those lines. Sorry, but simply forming a belief out of the blue just doesn’t seem to me like logic. It’s a belief, yes, but how do you justify it? I’m not attempting to show off how much I know, if that’s what you’re suggesting, but I admit to always wanting to get down to the skinny of it if I’m interested. Fact still has tremendous influence and relevance on scientific speculation, there is no denial of that.

The skinny of it is what I've been saying above, quote after quote, and will probably have to keep repeating to you. You should know by now that if something is a fact, I think it's stupid to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that your belief has facts suggesting it's very possible, but that's all they are. If you're asking me why I believe what I do, and I explain it, you still don't get it. So you assume it's something faulty in MY debate, rather than your perception.

-AC

After reading through this thread, I've learned a lot of pretty cool information, but have a question of my own...

How can you guys actually be arguing over something that mankind can't even comprehend and has no way of really, truly finding out? Everything in this thread is theoretical; one can not sit here and say "you're wrong." This is not an argument with a definite answer, it's more a discussion regarding feasible theories associated with the beginning of our universe.

I find it remarkable that you guys actually manage to tell other people they're wrong about this stuff, as if there's a definite answer, even one that's attainable by mankind.

I'm not telling anybody they are wrong.

Someone here simply doesn't understand, or know how to understand, my subjective beliefs or why I hold them. So he keeps on and on, assuming I'm the one with the faulty beliefs simply because he has difficulty perceiving mine, other's don't.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that; I realize that as a race humanity doesn’t know everything, but assuming or believing otherwise something that has no real scientific support is not the most logical path to take. At least in my opinion. Until then, when the theory’s been proven otherwise or evidence points toward another solution, I’ll continue to believe their version of events. Whether they’re ideally realistic or not.

gotta be careful with that line of thinking . . .

galileo and st augustine may disagree with you. 🙂

BIG BANG ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not logical to me to look at what facts SUGGEST and assume the suggestion is correct. Facts suggest what you are saying, but they do not prove it. Believe it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The bottom line is; You don't understand why I hold a belief that is speculatory. That is not my problem, but you're essentially asking me to prove things and make you understand. You've spent too much time in textbooks and not enough time just generally contemplating the unknown, the infinite and the eternal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When I think about space and time, I don't think of what they tell in text books, because what's the point? We know that, we know that scientists have proven things. I enjoy thinking about what hasn't been proven. I prefer to think about what I feel, not feel what I think. You simply don't understand this. Maybe it is because you haven't had the time to significantly establish a set of individual beliefs, maybe you've not had enough experience outside of textbooks, but either way, you don't understand what my point of view is. I can't necessarily ask you to either, as it is vague, but accept that you don't understand it. You seem to fear that which you can't read about.

I’ll admit I don’t like uncertainties, in the real world. It doesn’t make me comfortable to leave things unanswered. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They don't need to be addressed, they are fine as they are. I'm fine with where they are. Your obsession with trying to make everything fit, make sense and add up is why you're not getting this. You're sitting there almost suggesting alternate things for me to believe.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As long as there is something existing, time will pass. It depends on whether the existence in question is infinite or not. You are essentially saying that infinity can't exist. "There not being any visible boundaries doesn't mean there aren't any somewhere.". So what's the next step? If space is infinite, nobody will ever find a boundary. Are we to just assume that we keep not-finding existing boundaries? To me, that's silly. Ockham's razor applies, in that case.

No, you’re assuming that simply because you cannot see a limit that infinity exists. That sounds a lot like when the ocean was first discovered, just because the Ancient Greeks couldn’t see the horizon doesn’t mean that it went on forever. However, much like you they assumed it, that they would fall off the edge of the Earth.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's a bit of a flawed view of what the GDF is. Just because it's not a purely philosophical topic does not mean there is definite concrete conclusion to be had. You're being analytical because you love details and you love conclusive evidence, fine, but it's not achieving anything here, is it? You just don't understand why I believe what I do, and you're asking for a definitive explanation. I can't give one, it's speculatory. It makes sense to me, and I'm not acting as if I have a mass of scientific backing. You do, and how much closer to your opinions being correct are you? No closer than I am. So this debate is somewhat fruitless.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The principle remains the same. How can you suggest a conclusion to a theory, when the theory is based on things we simply believe to be true? All the evidence in the world hasn't proven the subject of this debate to be factual, and you only have one side of the perception glass, because you aren't feeling, you're thinking too much.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Going back to my music analogy; Paul Gilbert, one of the world's best technical guitarists, wrote a guitar lick in a song called Green Tinted 60s Mind by Mr. Big. In a video demonstration of how to play it, when he's not thinking, he plays it perfectly. When he's concentrating on it, trying to demonstrate, he says "It gets confusing when it gets slow.". If you think too hard, you're missing a lot. As Bruce Lee once said in Enter the Dragon; A finger points to the Moon, if you concentrate on the finger you miss the heavenly glory of the Moon itself.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're too consumed with focusing on technicality, and you're not wrong to do so, you have evidence that makes you believe a suggested, but not provable occurrence. Fine. My point is, having a more balanced vision of thought and feeling would do you well in this debate.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And what's irrefutable here? "We've proven that we think this might have happened, and here's why.". Ok, great. In relation to YOUR beliefs, that means a whole lot. In relation to mine, it means nothing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They aren't gospel though. They're not "true", they aren't proven. You believe the SUGGESTED conclusion because there are adequate suggestions. Me having less suggestions doesn't make it any less possible.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely. It's ignorant and pretentious to preach to me about how my belief doesn't make sense in general, because YOU don't get it. There are other people here who may disagree, but don't say it makes no sense. It's not a nonsensical belief, you just don't grasp it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you mean you want to hear why I stick to it if it disagrees with yours? As if it's mentally retarded to even have an opposing belief to yours, which is subjective anyway, by the way. I stick to it because no other belief is appealing to me, what more do you need? Put down the book, stop trying to make sense of everything, for once, and just accept that not all beliefs need factual backing. If I was trying to prove you wrong, I would. I'm not, so I don't.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I believe it because as I have said, I just do not see how there could be emptiness, nothing at all, everything just happened. I also fail to see how any human can know that. Answer? No human can. So I'm not going to jump on the side of the fence I don't agree with.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The evidence amounts to nothing, though. It really doesn't.

"I believe nothing existed before the big bang because scientists say it happened like this, and have proof that says it might have.". That's all they have, proof that it's very possible. They don't have anything else. If that's good enough for you, rock and roll. For me, it isn't. If you want me to believe there was nothing, give me conclusive proof. I'm not performing a sermon, you are. You're trying to learn, I don't need to. I know your side of the debate, and why. I accept it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The skinny of it is what I've been saying above, quote after quote, and will probably have to keep repeating to you. You should know by now that if something is a fact, I think it's stupid to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that your belief has facts suggesting it's very possible, but that's all they are. If you're asking me why I believe what I do, and I explain it, you still don't get it. So you assume it's something faulty in MY debate, rather than your perception.

-AC

whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Pangea/Pangaea

yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Actually the evidence is quite extensive.

Identical landforms on continents sperated by huge oceans. The continents actually do fit together rather well. There is evidence of contintental drift. Without the Pangea theory migrations of animals would have required hundreds of spontaneous landbridges between continents.

i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Its an odd concept yeah.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove it to the point that I cannot sit here and say "I disagree.".

-AC

That is not a thing to be proved, but I am not disagreeing with you. In the way it is defined in physics, a time before the Big Bang is not a empirical time. It is not a time that can be measured. Since science is empirical that time you´re talking about(if discovered) would be just something that appears in the equations, not a real time. Like virtual particles for example, they are interpreted more like being variables than like real particles.

But I agree that you can interpretate that time in another way to give it physical significance. There is nothing agaisnt it and its done many times by physicists.

Originally posted by DarkC
It neither is logical to assume something out of context when very little or obscure evidence supports it. Especially if it’s hard to disprove. If the facts add up, you simply cannot ignore that. And really, the same can be said for you.

Facts add up...to what? To saying something might have happened a certain way. Big deal, I accept that it might have happened that way, I'm simply saying I disagree, and I have given reasoning as to why. You simply do not understand that reasoning and that is why there are two posts for me to reply to.

Originally posted by DarkC
You’re right, I don’t understand why you hold such a belief because you have not once offered an explanation that is clear to me and makes me thoughtfully go “Oh, I see.” I live in the real world here, where fact is fact and speculation is speculation. I never once asked you to prove outright, I asked you to explain. It’s hard really for me, I admit it, to contemplate those things when little, if nothing, is known about them. How does that work? I don’t get it. Imagination does not create reality, at least not here.

So if you don't understand why, despite me telling you why, what's the point in asking me again and again? Do you think I have a wealth of explanations I'm hiding from you or something?

This all stems from your inability to just understand that I believe what I believe, and it is indeed a loose believe. No facts disprove it. My goal is not to offer an explanation that makes one kid with a lack of understanding believe or agree with me, or understand me for that matter. My goal was to say "You believe time didn't exist before the big bang because you believe there was nothing. I don't agree there, so we clearly don't see eye to eye.". You're still trying to tie down concepts you cannot do so.

You say it's hard to contemplate because so little is known, then DON'T. Stop thinking so hard. I don't sit here with masses of backing for what I believe here, but it's because we will always know so little, that I cannot agree there was nothing based on some things we DO know, which comparitively, isn't much.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, speculation can be enjoyable at times but it still doesn’t create reality. It creates a wide amount of possibilities, allows for thought and imagination to intermingle, but the fact remains, it cannot be so because one said it would be so. I have individual beliefs, not sure whether they’re significant enough to contribute to a sense of individuality but they are real, they’re just opposite of yours. I believe in a beginning and an end, fortunately science tends to agree with me. You believe in existence of infinity. That’s all I get.

Funny, because you are saying those scientists are correct because they say so. They are correct in saying we have reason to believe something happened a certain way, not that it DID happen. Do you not see what I'm saying?

Science agrees with you, so what? It's still science's opinion. That's all you get, precisely. That is literally all you get. You're assuming I have a flawed stance just because you have limited perception. Did you not consider that you don't get it because you don't understand, rather than, you don't get it because my stance is flawed? My stance is fine, it's perfectly fine, you just don't get it.

Originally posted by DarkC
I’ll admit I don’t like uncertainties, in the real world. It doesn’t make me comfortable to leave things unanswered. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.

But things WILL be unanswered, this is something you have to learn, accept, and deal with. Because it's serving no purpose here is it? Where are we going? You're the only one here who has trouble with anything I've said. Is that not ringing bells? I've actually debated with a scientist on this site who isn't as stiffly thoughtless as you are.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, but to an analytical mind such as mine, I like the details as I said. Your reasoning does have ambiguities in it, which I’m trying to make sense of. Almost? I’ve been suggesting things the whole time, it’s entirely up to you what to take them as.

Stop trying to suggest alternate beliefs for me, just because it'd be easier for you if I adopted them. This whole thing is because you lack understanding, and I respect the whole "I'm trying to learn.", that's good. That's better than most young teens, but you have to accept that everything has been said, the pieces are there, you simply don't understand my belief. Accept that and move on.

There have been people in the music forum who have said they think Scott Stapp of Creed is an amazing singer, just because they think so. Will I ever understand that? No. Scientists have a better chance of shitting a black hole, but do I press it? No, I can't. I simply do not understand why they would think that. The answer is, they just do.

Originally posted by DarkC
You seem to have taken what I’ve said there out of context; I was suggesting that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to actually find out if there is infinity. I was labeling the possibilities there, they are real.

No, you’re assuming that simply because you cannot see a limit that infinity exists. That sounds a lot like when the ocean was first discovered, just because the Ancient Greeks couldn’t see the horizon doesn’t mean that it went on forever. However, much like you they assumed it, that they would fall off the edge of the Earth.

I understand your point. Space doesn't have to be infinite just because we haven't the means to say "Here's where it ends.". Fair enough, I have understood that. My point is; if it is indeed infinite, we'll never find a boundary, so what are we to keep assuming? That there might be boundaries, no matter how obvious it seems that it's infinite?

Originally posted by DarkC
It’s true, there definitely are philosophical elements to this discussion, but only because things are unclear. However, it still does not rule out scientific fact and influence. I base my explanation on those. Definitive or not, beliefs still have an underlying explanation. Even if it is purely speculation.

Yes, and I've given you my explanation. You don't understand it, so you ask me again, I tell you again, you ask again. Drop the whole "I NEED ANSWERS!". It's not worth anything here. The first rule of science is working to find answers, not assuming there are answers.

Originally posted by DarkC
I can’t really see it as a conclusion and I don’t know how you can take my words as that way. It’s a possibility, nothing more, nothing less. I simply find it more likely, based on scientific facts and evidence. This debate is about the Big Bang and if something was before or not. Yes, it’s inconclusive, but it still deals with facts, even if they are hazy. Scientists do not form a hypothesis out of the , they analyze first using known things. You cannot deny that this debate is in part factual.

What's wrong with you? I'm not denying that part of the debate is factual, but it means nothing to me because it doesn't prove anything that brings us any closer to a conclusion. You find it more likely to believe what you do, fine, do it. I'm not seeing where you're having trouble any more.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, AC. I see where you’re getting at, as I said previously. Congratulations, you know your examples. While the concept of immersing one’s self too deeply in their work or thought to be blind to the whole is not unheard of, as you have proven, the circumstances behind each case are different and are neither entirely irrelevant nor negligible.

I know they're not irrelevant, that's why I used them as examples.

Originally posted by DarkC
I know that I’m a bit on the deep end here with the facts currently. It’s something that I can’t just ignore, though. That’s just me. In response to your suggestion, I do realize it probably would, but balancing fact and speculation isn’t just me. Still can’t see how one can trust their feelings when it comes to a scientific concept.

So just because you can't see how, that means it's not sensible? Sorry, but that's false.

I'm not sitting here disagreeing with fact. I see the facts, they are undeniable, but they do not prove ENOUGH for me to believe as you do. Essentially, you are trusting feelings too. All that evidence does is provide you with a bit more reason to make a leap of faith, it's still a leap of faith.

Originally posted by DarkC
My choice of wording there was a slight parody of your post to me earlier, if that isn’t apparent. I don’t know why you see probability as either proven, 50/50, or none at all. How does less hard evidence on your part not make it any less possible? I can’t see how that works.

Because those suggestions are "right"...NOW. Something could happen that entirely changes the way you think, the way scientists think, and one day they may look at that theory and say "Oh...hmm.".

So before I continue and reply to your next post, please, stop with the "I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR BELIEF!". I know you don't, I accept that you don't, it's time you accept it too. Others understand it, that is enough proof that you are the one not grasping it here.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I said it didn’t make sense, but after I analyzed it using the facts that I have learned. It’s opinionated and you should be able to see that I wasn’t forming a sweeping generalization. It makes sense to you while it doesn’t to me, that’s it.

Exactly, it makes sense to me (And many others) but not to you. Now show me where you're having a dilemma with that.

Originally posted by DarkC
Where on Earth did you get that from? If I want to hear your side of the story, it implies neither insult nor ignorance on your part. I’m just inquisitive, that should be apparent by now. Last time I checked, curiosity was not a sin. You seem to see me as adamantly remaining on one side and refusing to budge. No, I absorb information and think on it. Which is why I ask you questions in the first place.

Like I said, I am glad you aren't some dullard who sits there without using your brain, but all I'm saying is that you do need to accept that science is a search for answers, not a guarantee in finding them. Be they personal or not.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that but I also assume that there must be a definite reasoning behind your belief. I’m not trying to drag you over the fence here, I’m trying to understand your point of view. I’m bringing your theory into a bit of an extreme diagnostic view (even if it’s overdoing it) here, finding things that contradict, which is why I disagree in the first place.

Why do you assume that? Definite in what sense? In your sense?

My belief does have a definite reasoning, that doesn't make it a specific one. Just accept this. You are finding things that contradict what, your theory? Well that's your problem. You simply don't accept that I have the freedom to believe what I do. As previously mentioned, we're both making leaps of faith. You're standing on a few facts and jumping toward a conclusion, I'm standing on beliefs and jumping toward one, we're both jumping, and neither of us are sure of if we're right or not.

Originally posted by DarkC
The evidence doesn’t amount to nothing, it amounts to educated guesses. Why is it you take that and presume different. I in fact think it leads to something, it’s just essentially a staircase leading up to a sealed door. I cannot give you conclusive proof no more than you can give me. It’s pretty much pushing on opposite sides of swivel doors. What I can do decisively here is to put your belief on the table, examine it best as I can, and give you a conclusion. I already have.

Educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. That's all that need be said about that.

You're being to presumptuous. You've given me a conclusion? You don't have a right to give me a conclusion that you can't prove, or a conclusion that I don't believe. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to give me alternate choices, in hopes that I pick them over my current one. Why? Because you have such a hard time debating against someone who holds a belief your mind cannot comprehend. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but you've more or less said it.

Stop doing it. You don't get it, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, so just accept you don't get it. Other people here "get it".

Originally posted by DarkC
I’m not forcing you to remain if you really tire of my incessant questioning, but I feel like trying to understand it rather than being dismissed. No, I still don’t get why. You say that it is entirely my problem anyways, my obvious lack of perception on both fields. We’re not in a world of black and white here. I’ve admitted do lack open-mindedness in that regard, but it doesn’t mean I am entirely accountable for simply not understanding why.
Nothing accounts yet for your idiosyncratic comment regarding choice of beliefs. If you already accept my theory and reasoning as you say you do, then why did you say that it was ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ earlier on for people to believe other than your own ideas?

The more you try to find an answer you won't get, or get but don't understand, the closer you will get to being dismissed. Because all I'm doing is sitting here telling you why I believe what I do, so you can say "I don't understand, because what I believe doesn't coincide with what you do.". So what? It doesn't coincide. I'm not having nightmares over that, why can't you just accept it also?

It does mean you are entirely accountable for not understanding why, because people here understand why, even if they disagree.

I've accepted that you believe it, I haven't accepted it in any other way than that, as a whole. I think it's dumb to say "There was nothing, nope, not a thing." based on suggestions, however good the suggestions are. My belief is closer to "Whatever will be will be.", but in addition, I find it hard to believe there was nothing, I don't believe there was. I don't know that, but I can't be sure. I just tire of human arrogance assuming that because we get two things right, the third is definitely correct. That's not the case.

So as above, I'm more than willing to discuss the topic more with you, I enjoy talking about space, time etc, and you appear to be someone who is genuinely interested, but if it's going to be more pointless "I don't understand, I want to find out.", then stop.

-AC