'Jesus was not the messiah'

Originally posted by TacDavey
Are you asking me what evidence I have that time came into existence at the Big Bang? It's all there in the quotes.

no, I'm asking how you know the pre-universe was homogeneous, as this is something all astrophysicists/cosmologists I know of disagree with.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If something has no beginning it doesn't need a cause. I don't get what you're saying here...

what has no beginning?

Originally posted by TacDavey
According to modern cosmology, matter, space, and time came into being at the Big Bang. So before the Big Bang, none of those things existed.

time (as in what exists as a physical property of our universe) is not the same as causality.

but you are right, none of those things existed, they are a property of our universe... what is your point?

The fact is that "something" existed in some form that we can model with math, and all such models still depend on causality. There is no evidence to suggest that the conditions of the pre-universe are set, unchanging or homogeneous.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i disagree with the premise that whatever resulted in the creation of 'time' as we know it was 'eternal' in the sense that it had no beginning and no end. i view time not as a restrictive force but as a dimension of our own universe. i have presented several alternative scenarios to your assertion that singularity had to be a never ending eternal state prior to the big bang, but you rejected those without giving any definitive reason why they couldn't be true.

If something has a beginning or an end then it exists in time. Beginning and ends are things specific to time. They both require a "timeline" in that there needs to be a point at which it didn't exist and then a point at which it did.

To say something can be outside of time and have a beginning or end is logically impossible.

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I don't know what you mean by a "dimension of our universe". It didn't exist before the Big Bang. At least that's what the cosmologists are saying, and you have given me no reason that I should take your word over theirs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This self contradictory. If the supernatural created the Big Bang then the supernatural is sufficient to cause it. If it could only be the supernatural then it is necessary.

Let me clarify, it couldn't be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that didn't have a will of it's own. Technically you could call God the "necessary and sufficient conditions", but you know what I meant.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I'm asking how you know the pre-universe was homogeneous, as this is something all astrophysicists/cosmologists I know of disagree with.

what has no beginning?

time (as in what exists as a physical property of our universe) is not the same as causality.

but you are right, none of those things existed, they are a property of our universe... what is your point?

The fact is that "something" existed in some form that we can model with math, and all such models still depend on causality. There is no evidence to suggest that the conditions of the pre-universe are set, unchanging or homogeneous.

Yes, whatever existed before the Big Bang had to be changeless, because change requires time. Which didn't exist.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, whatever existed before the Big Bang had to be changeless, because change requires time. Which didn't exist.

ok, let me state this in an unquestionable way:

This is in stark disagreement with what the best and brightests scientists have to say on the matter. I am not an astrophysicist, so I probably can't explain it really well to you, but it is out there. Any model on how the universe came to be assumes some sort of change, and no, it does not require the physical "time" of our universe for this to happen.

I know your faith predisposes you to think otherwise, but what you are saying is distinctly not in line with modern science at this point.

you do relize that this is a pointless argument, becuase it will just keep going, until someone gives up

Originally posted by TacDavey
If something has a beginning or an end then it exists in time. Beginning and ends are things specific to time. They both require a "timeline" in that there needs to be a point at which it didn't exist and then a point at which it did.

To say something can be outside of time and have a beginning or end is logically impossible.

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I don't know what you mean by a "dimension of our universe". It didn't exist before the Big Bang. At least that's what the cosmologists are saying, and you have given me no reason that I should take your word over theirs.

before our own version of time/space came into existence with the creation of our universe, its completely possible that another version of time and space existed and collapsed back in on itself creating the singularity that lead to the creation of our universe. or its possible that our universe hatched out of the conditions of a larger multiverse with many alternate dimensions of time and space existing simultaneously.

perhaps the 'eternal conditions' which birthed all of existence are merely the mathematical probabilities which dictate the ensuing physical realities that we now observe and perceive as the divine manifestations of a limitless creator.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, let me state this in an unquestionable way:

[b]This is in stark disagreement with what the best and brightests scientists have to say on the matter. I am not an astrophysicist, so I probably can't explain it really well to you, but it is out there. Any model on how the universe came to be assumes some sort of change, and no, it does not require the physical "time" of our universe for this to happen.

I know your faith predisposes you to think otherwise, but what you are saying is distinctly not in line with modern science at this point. [/B]

Those quotes say otherwise.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you're still looking at time as if it is strictly a restrictive force that governs matter in the known universe. 'if something has a beginning and an end then it is within time.' this is a false assumption. time is a dimension of the known universe, a plane on which we can travel. if you dont know what i mean by this then you haven't been looking into the subject thoroughly enough. there are 3 physical dimensions along with time, that make up a 4 dimensional reality. 4 planes on which travel is possible.

before our own version of time/space came into existence with the creation of our universe, its completely possible that another version of time and space existed and collapsed back in on itself creating the singularity that lead to the creation of our universe. or its possible that our universe hatched out of the conditions of a larger multiverse with many alternate dimensions of time and space existing simultaneously.

perhaps the 'eternal conditions' which birthed all of existence are merely the mathematical probabilities which dictate the ensuing physical realities that we now observe and perceive as the divine manifestations of a limitless creator.

Oh, I see. You are holding to the theory that the universe bangs out, contracts, and bangs out again. This is not in line with what modern cosmology has found. Again, I'll point right back to the quotes. The Big Bang is the start of matter, space, and time. Not the recycling of them, the start.

As for the multiple dimension argument, I have yet to see any hard facts or evidence supporting this. As I have heard it, there is no good evidence that other dimensions exist.

You cannot just offer possibilities and claim they combat my argument. Here's another possibility. The universe was made by a giant invisible plant creature. It's possible. Is it likely? No. Does it combat my argument. No.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let me clarify, it couldn't be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that didn't have a will of it's own. Technically you could call God the "necessary and sufficient conditions", but you know what I meant.

I note that you still haven't proven why it needs to have a will of its own.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I note that you still haven't proven why it needs to have a will of its own.

Yes I have. I think I've explained it at least twice now. Probably more like three times. Go back and read my arguments.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Oh, I see. You are holding to the theory that the universe bangs out, contracts, and bangs out again. This is not in line with what modern cosmology has found. Again, I'll point right back to the quotes. The Big Bang is the start of matter, space, and time. Not the recycling of them, the start.

As for the multiple dimension argument, I have yet to see any hard facts or evidence supporting this. As I have heard it, there is no good evidence that other dimensions exist.

You cannot just offer possibilities and claim they combat my argument. Here's another possibility. The universe was made by a giant invisible plant creature. It's possible. Is it likely? No. Does it combat my argument. No.

what i said is perfectly in line with modern cosmology, and the big bang theory. in fact it is based on the arguments of scientists who support that model that i got these ideas in the first place. i didn't simply make them up.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_big_bang_no.html
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

meanwhile, none of the credible scientists seem to adhere to the rhetoric you are espousing: that since time as we know it didnt exist before the big bang that the conditions prior to were necessarily unchanging or 'eternal'.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, whatever existed before the Big Bang had to be changeless, because change requires time. Which didn't exist.

What if the Big Bang that created our universe was the collapsing and re-expansion of a previous universe where time existed as well, hence the collapsing and re-expansion (aka Big bang).

Pretty much turns your whole "time didn't exist before the Bing Bang, therefore God was there/did it" angle to shit, no?

Originally posted by red g jacks
you seem to be confused.

what i said is perfectly in line with modern cosmology, and the big bang theory. in fact it is based on the arguments of scientists who support that model that i got these ideas in the first place. i didn't simply make them up.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_big_bang_no.html
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

meanwhile, none of the credible scientists seem to adhere to the rhetoric you are espousing: that since time as we know it didnt exist before the big bang that the conditions prior to were necessarily unchanging or 'eternal'.

The only thing those articles said is that they are looking into the possibilities of what existed before the Big Bang. We all know SOMETHING did. And these are just theories at the moment. I took this right from the second article:

Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”

Originally posted by Robtard
What if the Big Bang that created our universe was the collapsing and re-expansion of a previous universe where time existed as well, hence the collapsing and re-expansion (aka Big bang).

Pretty much turns your whole "time didn't exist before the Bing Bang, therefore God was there/did it" angle to shit, no?

Not really, considering this isn't currently supported by cosmology. We've actually been talking about that very point. Read the posts.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The only thing those articles said is that they are looking into the possibilities of what existed before the Big Bang. We all know SOMETHING did. And these are just theories at the moment. I took this right from the second article:

Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”

i don't see how this contradicts my point that these are valid ideas that are being looked into by the very experts you claim reject such notions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea... its sort of an open area of study right now.

i don't see how this contradicts my point that these are valid ideas that are being looked into by the very experts you claim reject such notions.

It's just speculation at this point. That's why. If the mere possibility of an alternative was enough to discredit our ideals, we couldn't believe in ANYTHING.

EDIT: And this is not being held by the majority of cosmologists, either. The first specifically said the mojority wasn't "warming up" to it. And the second clearly stated it is speculation, and even went so far as to put even money on it being wrong.

your idea that whatever 'created time' has to be eternal is just speculation as well.

primary difference being that my speculative arguments are plausible and are being looked into by the scientists that are doing their best to explain where our universe came from, while your speculative argument is largely philosophical in nature and not provable even in the most basic sense of the word.

Originally posted by red g jacks
your idea that whatever 'created time' has to be eternal is just speculation as well.

primary difference being that my speculative arguments are plausible and are being looked into by the scientists that are doing their best to explain where our universe came from, while your speculative argument is largely philosophical in nature and not provable even in the most basic sense of the word.

No, that's not just speculation. I already explained the logic behind it. If time came into being at the Big Bang (which is currently the held cosmological view) then whatever existed before it had to be outside of time, which is eternal.

The fact that scientists are looking into something doesn't show that it is logical. When they prove it, THEN it becomes logical. Not before hand. Otherwise we could say that it's logical to assume the universe was made by the giant invisible plant I mentioned earlier based off of nothing other than the fact that it's being looked into as a possibility.

the logic you provided was not scientific nor an objective observation based on the properties of space and time. its a philosophical viewpoint based on the idea that 'time' is an absolute restrictive force that is applied to matter in the known universe. you haven't proven/displayed that there can be no causality without 'time' as we now measure it, you've simply repeated this premise in the hopes that it would hold. saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

the fact that scientists are looking into and seriously considering the scenarios i highlighted does prove that these ideas AREN'T contrary to the conclusions of modern cosmology, as you have tried to suggest.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the logic you provided was not scientific nor an objective observation based on the properties of space and time. its a philosophical viewpoint based on the idea that 'time' is an absolute restrictive force that is applied to matter in the known universe. you haven't proven/displayed that there can be no causality without 'time' as we now measure it, you've simply repeated this premise in the hopes that it would hold. saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

the fact that scientists are looking into and seriously considering the scenarios i highlighted does prove that these ideas AREN'T contrary to the conclusions of modern cosmology, as you have tried to suggest.

Yes I have. In order for something to be "caused" or "begin to exist" it has to exist inside time. Think about what you are saying when you say something doesn't exist and then it does. You have just made a very basic TIMELINE.

You seem to be placing more worth on the scientific studies than is merited. It's speculation. It's merely an idea someone had and said "Hey, we should see if this is possible." The first article even states that the majority of cosmologists are not siding with this stance. My invisible plant example still rings true. Say I got a team of scientists to investigate the possibility of a giant invisible plant creator. According to your line of reasoning, as long as they are looking into it, it thus becomes a logical explanation until they prove it false. Illogical until proven logical. Not logical until proven illogical.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Those quotes say otherwise.

no, they most emphatically don't

Stephen Hawking does not believe the pre-universe was homogenous or unchanging. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes I have. In order for something to be "caused" or "begin to exist" it has to exist inside time.

but then by your own definition, the universe can't exist, as it would have had to have been created outside of time