'Jesus was not the messiah'

Originally posted by inimalist
no, they most emphatically don't

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

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

Well, he seems to support the idea that time came into being at the Big Bang. Which directly suggests there was no change.

And even if you can show Steven Hawking doesn't, which you haven't yet, that doesn't do anything to refute the other quotes.

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

What CAUSED the universe is outside of time. Not the universe itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, he seems to support the idea that time came into being at the Big Bang. Which directly suggests there was no change.

/facepalm

like, at this point you have to be literally ignoring the fact that everyone has, many times, explained to you that time isn't the same as causality

and no, I don't have to go look up all of your other quotes to know that if the person is anywhere important to the science of astrophysics, they don't believe the pre-universe was uniform.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What CAUSED the universe is outside of time. Not the universe itself.

so there is time outside of the universe?

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

like, at this point you have to be literally ignoring the fact that everyone has, many times, explained to you that time isn't the same as causality

and no, I don't have to go look up all of your other quotes to know that if the person is anywhere important to the science of astrophysics, they don't believe the pre-universe was uniform.

It's linked in that something that is outside of time needs no cause.

Originally posted by inimalist
so there is time outside of the universe?

...What? The thing that caused time is outside of time. That's what's important.

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

Cosmology relates to how he universe is now; we're specifically talking about what came before, so yeah, it fits just as well as your "god must have done it" argument.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea im familiar with ur restrictive logic, but it doesnt seem to reflect the scientific reality of what experts think really happened. 'time' as we know it isn't necessarily the only plane for cause and effect that could possibly exist. another version of 'time' could've preceded our own, or cause an effect can be independent of the dimension that we measure as 'time.'

So you're saying that perhaps there are two different versions of time and it simply switched between the two? Do you have evidence to support this idea?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dont get it... a second ago what i was saying was contrary to the beliefs of 'modern cosmologist,' now i'm putting to much emphasis on what they think?

No, you're mistaking speculation for logical belief. My invisible plant example shows how absurd this is. By your line of rational, the simple act of having scientists look into something as a possibility is grounds for considering that possibility logical. So if I get a ton of well known scientists to look into the invisible plant theory, then that becomes the more logical conclusion to hold, is that right?

Originally posted by Robtard
Cosmology relates to how he universe is now; we're specifically talking about what came before, so yeah, it fits just as well as your "god must have done it" argument.

It most certainly does not. Cosmology is not simply the study of how things are now. Cosmologists also work on the origins of the universe, and as I have shown with those quotes, they do not currently hold to an eternal universe.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It most certainly does not. Cosmology is not simply the study of how things are now. Cosmologists also work on the origins of the universe, and as I have shown with those quotes, they do not currently hold to an eternal universe.

Correct, but what we're directly referring to is cosmogony: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmogony

No, you have not shown much and you've dodged repeatedly others request for you to prove your post with something other than logical fallacies.

What/how created our universe is ultimately unknown; no one professes to know it as fact. What I said (not an eternal universe, btw, Mr. Strawman), a prior universe collapsing into itself and re-expanding thereby forming "our" universe fits in with classical relativity and a beginning singularity. Though there are theories concerning that the universe is eternal, no beginning or end, just ever changing cycles.

Granted, I have no proof for this 'prior universe collapsing/expanding', but I'm not professing it has to be true, as you are with your "time didn't exist before our universe therefore it was God, cos he's timeless" argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, you have not shown much and you've dodged repeatedly others request for you to prove your post with something other than logical fallacies.

Sigh... this is getting old. You all continuously accuse me of committing fallacies yet cannot point out which ones or where.

Originally posted by Robtard
What/how created our universe is ultimately unknown; no one professes to know it as fact. What I said (not an eternal universe, btw, Mr. Strawman), a prior universe collapsing into itself and re-expanding thereby forming "our" universe fits in with classical relativity and a beginning singularity. Though there are theories concerning that the universe is eternal, no beginning or end, just ever changing cycles.

Granted, I have no proof for this 'prior universe collapsing/expanding', but I'm not professing it has to be true, as you are with your "time didn't exist before our universe therefore it was God, cos he's timeless" argument.

I'd say what/how created our universe is up for debate. True, we can't know for 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't look at what we do know and make the most logical choice with what is presented to us. Which is what I'm doing with this argument.

I'm not saying it HAS to be true, either. I'm saying it's the most logical explanation. No one can say for sure what is absolutely true and what isn't, even our most trusted scientific beliefs may be refuted in a few years.

So, Tac, what say ye
regarding nonlocality?
For sake of rhyme
I'll say no time
is when things happen
instantly.

It does, you know
Let data show
the quantum world is odd

But does that mean
what can't be seen
has to come from God?

😮‍💨

Originally posted by Mindship
So, Tac, what say ye
regarding nonlocality?
For sake of rhyme
I'll say no time
is when things happen
instantly.

It does, you know
Let data show
the quantum world is odd

But does that mean
what can't be seen
has to come from God?

😮‍💨

Oh boy... 😑

This was all well and good on a vs thread, but I think the rhyming game will be quite difficult to do on a topic like this...

If you're asking why the universes creation had to be done by God and not something else, I've talked about the reasoning behind that already.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying that perhaps there are two different versions of time and it simply switched between the two? Do you have evidence to support this idea?

No, you're mistaking speculation for logical belief. My invisible plant example shows how absurd this is. By your line of rational, the simple act of having scientists look into something as a possibility is grounds for considering that possibility logical. So if I get a ton of well known scientists to look into the invisible plant theory, then that becomes the more logical conclusion to hold, is that right?

no... maybe i'm not wording this right

'time' as we know it only exists along with 'space.' the two go hand in hand as the dimensions of our universe, so at the point of singularity our concept of time breaks down and things operate on the quantum level. scientists don't really know everything about this early part of history. basically, shit gets complicated son.

but that doesnt really mean that this state was eternal or ever lasting. it just means we can only trace our current model of time back to this point where time seems to break down. maybe prior to this point, another universe like ours existed, expanded and collapsed back in on itself just like scientists believe ours is going to do. maybe not. the point is, time as we measure it could have existed prior to singularity if space as we measure it had existed prior to singularity. this model just doesn't seem to work during singularity itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If you're asking why the universes creation had to be done by God and not something else, I've talked about the reasoning behind that already.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no... maybe i'm not wording this right

'time' as we know it only exists along with 'space.' the two go hand in hand as the dimensions of our universe, so at the point of singularity our concept of time breaks down and things operate on the quantum level. scientists don't really know everything about this early part of history. basically, shit gets complicated son.

but that doesnt really mean that this state was eternal or ever lasting. it just means we can only trace our current model of time back to this point where time seems to break down. maybe prior to this point, another universe like ours existed, expanded and collapsed back in on itself just like scientists believe ours is going to do. maybe not. the point is, time as we measure it could have existed prior to singularity if space as we measure it had existed prior to singularity. this model just doesn't seem to work during singularity itself.

I don't know what to tell you. According to what I have read and the quotes I gave you as well as others they are saying time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I can't debate with you over something like this. I'm not a cosmologist. All I can go on is what the experts are saying.

If you have a theory you think better explains what was before the Big Bang you should take it up with them, not me. Though, and no offense intended, I honestly doubt you are more learned on the subject than they are.

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, I was curious about your take on quantum phenomena, since something like entanglement manifests instantaneously, which means no time is involved. Indeed, nonlocality (at least as I understand it) means that neither space nor time exist in the quantum realm.

I'm not a cosmologist, I can't debate quantum phenomena with you. All I can go on is the experts.

jesus fondled lil boys like the pope

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what to tell you. According to what I have read and the quotes I gave you as well as others they are saying time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I can't debate with you over something like this. I'm not a cosmologist. All I can go on is what the experts are saying.

If you have a theory you think better explains what was before the Big Bang you should take it up with them, not me. Though, and no offense intended, I honestly doubt you are more learned on the subject than they are.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you listed a couple quotes that talk about how the big bang was the beginning of time and the physical universe. that doesn't contradict what i'm saying. why don't you read up on where stephen hawking stands regarding the question of what came before the big bang and how it can be explained naturally, since you cited his stance as an expert opinion.

I thought you were saying that the Big Bang was just a switch to how time works or something. Which is not what they are are saying.

nope, i'm saying that time in our universe is not necessarily the only time to exist/have existed, though our version was presumably created in the big bang. other universes presumably would've had their own 'big bangs' and their own creation of time and space.

also that the period prior to the big bang (singularity) was not necessarily eternal just because 'time' and 'space' as we know it did not exist. things operate differently on the quantum level, in many ways that often seem to defy common sense. if you take the idea that 'time was created in the big bang,' then i can honestly see how the argument you are making is a common sense argument. if singularity had no time, then it was eternal. but the 'experts' don't agree with that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not a cosmologist, I can't debate quantum phenomena with you. All I can go on is the experts.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Sigh... this is getting old. You all continuously accuse me of committing fallacies yet cannot point out which ones or where.

I'd say what/how created our universe is up for debate. True, we can't know for 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't look at what we do know and make the most logical choice with what is presented to us. Which is what I'm doing with this argument.

I'm not saying it HAS to be true, either. I'm saying it's the most logical explanation. No one can say for sure what is absolutely true and what isn't, even our most trusted scientific beliefs may be refuted in a few years.

All science is a study and testing process to conclude what is or isnt true. It would be absurd to believe that tommorrow, for example, that if Earths gravity remains unmolested that you wouldn't fall down towards the floor if you were to jump from a height..

Thats not gonna change tommorrow. No amount of prayer or imagination will hake it happen.

Science says so. It understands enough to make suppositions based on previous tested outcomes, unlike the guys who wrote those texts. It understands stuff well enough to make the computers that you're typing on now... thats a hell of a lot more reliable proof than 2000 years of broken promises and lies.

Creationists are making HUGE claims backed by zero evidence.
(When there should have been after all this time....)

Science is at least based by reliable tested means.
So im with Science here.

I also think its a needless and ill advised leap in logic that if the universe had a beginning (which is debatable) that whatever caused that beginning had a consciousness (even more debatable) was any being known to mankind til this day in any religion.