Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[viole]

no....I would be willing to assume.....
physics had a beginning

Beginning is a physical concept. It requires time, for instance.

So, your assumption is circular.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Beginning is a physical concept. It requires time, for instance.

So, your assumption is circular.

Ciao

- viole

time had to begin.
happens to be simultaneous to that...bang..

btw, time is a measure...not a force or substance.

 

[viole]

Is it a mystery of the Atheists, like the Christians have a mystery they call it Trinity?
Regards

It is a mystery for the physicist. Not necessarily for the atheist. There are a few physicists who believe in God or gods.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

time had to begin.
happens to be simultaneous to that...bang..

btw, time is a measure...not a force or substance.

At what time did it begin?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

At what time did it begin?

Ciao

- viole

You need two items for time....
distance.....and movement.
time is a quotient.
a number on a chalkboard.
never anything more

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you still going on about this stupid claim that atheists reject the Big Bang?

Sorry but Lemaitre never stated that God was involved in his primeval atom theory (1927).

And second, Lemaitre wasn't the only contributor to the Big Bang theory. In fact, Lemaitre's theory wasn't the complete theory to the Big Bang, other contributors, physicists like Alexnder Friedman (his Friedman's equation was the governing equation to the expanding universe in 1922), Einstein (his general relativity provide the framework to the Big Bang), and George Gamow (who made th BB theory that it is today with the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, in the late 40s) - all have parts to play with the Big Bang cosmology. Other than these 4 scientists, a number of others, all played their roles, and they include Hubble, Alpher and Herman.

Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis is what Lemaitre have left out. Nucleosynthesis is a theory on how energy transformed into subatomic particles, and these subatomic particles transformed into atomic particles (nuclei, protons and neutrons), and the binding of electron to the nuclei that formed into the lightest elements - hydrogen.

It is Gamow, not Lemaitre, who show how MATTERS (and far more comprehensively) formed after the Big Bang.

I have brought up these other scientists before, but clearly you have ignore it, and made the Big Bang into a game of atheists versus theists, and not about all the scientists who contributed to the science behind the Big Bang.

Lemaitre had only his small part in a lot larger theory. Most of the current theory of the Big Bang, actually derived from Gamow's work than Lemaitre.

I am not denying Lemaitre's achievement with his ground-breaking theory, but it is the achievement for science, not the achievement for theism or for religion or for God.

Stop making the Big Bang about your pathetic (and petty) theist-versus-atheist argument, Guy.

It was still known for years before science thought of it. The proof of that is teh OT. Just saying.

 

[Robert.Evans]

At what time did it begin?

Ciao

- viole

about quarter past three

 

[Robert.Evans]

Magic, miracles and superstitions fall more in the realm of religions than of science.

Science tried to acquire knowledge about nature (as well as man-made stuff, like phones, computers, cars, etc), and try to verify if that knowledge are true or false through evidences or through tests.

Science doesn't try to explain magic, miracles, superstitions, god(s), spirits, etc. These are gibberish of religion, not science.

science is more into atom b-mbs i suppose

 

[viole]

You need two items for time....
distance.....and movement.
time is a quotient.
a number on a chalkboard.
never anything more

Define movement.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

about quarter past three

Actually.....at the formation of a secondary point....infinity is simultaneous.
and with all that all at once......
bang!

so....it's more like....
a moment after TWO!

 

[Thief]

Define movement.

Ciao

- viole

really?

 

[viole]

really?

Yes. Really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

a pronouncement.....I AM!....in a situation such as the 'beginning'...
a snap of the fingers....so to speak....

Wow, impressive. An actual magic trick. He should have said "hocus pocus" instead of Sam I Am.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

...which came first...big bang existence or big bang pre-existence?

Doesn't the prefix "pre" sort of answer this question for you?
.

Arr...you miss the point....why do you think Legion did not respond?

 

[Pudding]

So, science follows an idea. Is an idea a thing physical?
If yes; then please quote from a text book of science.
Regards

Definition for idea:
1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
2. the aim or purpose.

Is idea a physical thing? It maybe if you can prove it. Nonetheless i've never claims it is.
I ask you questions, why then you reply by asking me other questions which i've no idea why you ask them?

 

[Pudding]

Ok fine..let us start again and see if we can get in sync this time.

Here are a few observations to start the ball rolling....please read these statements and quote the ones you disagree with and provide your explanation as to why?. If you digress from these instructions and start introducing subject matter that I consider not properly addressing my comments or are not relevant, I will ignore them.

I'll be appreciate if you can answer my questions that which post of yours have your explanation which can answer my previous questions (which my questions is regarding the validity of your claims) instead for you to ask me why i disagree with you. I see that you keeps avoid to answer my questions and digress into other things which i've no idea why you do so.

I say the universe exists.

I can accept this claims as correct.

I further say that there was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance.

A. What is your evidence which prove that universe must have no beginning if it's not subject to disappearance?

If the universe is not subject to disappearance...it follows that is must have always existed.

Always existed can be interpret as it have always existed since it begin to exists, or that it is always existed in a sense that it have no beginning or end.
Being not subject to disappearance doesn't mean it can't have a beginning, or it must have no beginning.

B. What is your evidence which prove that if universe is not subject to disappearance then it must have no beginning? (note that question B is the same question as question A which the questions is regarding the circular reasoning i mention below)

I further say that the real can not become unreal and unreal can not become real.

There never was a beginning to the real because the real is not subject to becoming unreal.

Therefore the universe, being real, can not in all eternity have come from unreal...

a. You make a claims/assumption that "there was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance" .
b. You then say "If the universe is not subject to disappearance...it follows that is must have always existed" which you say it support your conclusion that it have no beginning.

1. There was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance.
2. Because/if the universe is not subject to disappearance, then it must have no beginning (aka one version of always existed).

Isn't it a circular reasoning if you "use 1 to prove 2 correct" and "use 2 to prove 1 correct", when 1 and 2 are both just unsubstantiated assumptions?

And the previous conversation:

Infinite eternal existence is all there ever was, is, or will be...why?....because it could not be any other way!!! Ask all your life...there is no other logical conclusion...

Why do you think your or others' theory of "Infinite eternal existence is all there ever was" is credible?
Why is it the most logical conclusion?
Why it could not be any other way?
Have you already proves that your theory to be 100% correct? Can you present your proof and explain it?
Have you already proves that every other theory which contradict with your theory to be 100% false? Can you present your proof and explain it?

You claims that "Infinite eternal existence is all there ever was, is, or will be", the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims is true and your conclusion is logical, not on me to prove there is no other logical conclusion.

As to your other questions...this has already been explained. Read it and point out that which you don't understand....

Which posts answer questions (1) - (5) ?
(1) Why do you think the theory of "Infinite eternal existence is all there ever was" is credible?
(2) Why is it the most logical theory out of every theory?
(3) Why it could not be any other way?
(4) Have you already proves that your theory to be 100% correct? Can you present your proof and explain it?
(5) Have you already proves that every other theory which contradict with your theory to be 100% false? Can you present your proof and explain it?

infinity and eternity are concepts abstracted from absolute reality....tell me how infinite space can be confined to a circumscribed finite volume...tell me how eternity can be confined to a finite segment of time with a beginning and an end?

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claims that "universe is infinity and eternity, not finite and temporal(have beginning and end)" is correct.
And you ask me to prove why your claims is wrong, without first proving your claims is correct?

[Iow, Cosmic absolute existence is infinite and eternal and couldn't be any other way...if you think otherwise...explain your understanding...

And which posts have present the evidence to support this claims that it's 100% factually correct?

No, burden of proof is on you to prove your claims of "Cosmic absolute existence is infinite and eternal and couldn't be any other way" is correct, not on me to prove why your claims is correct or wrong.
If you give no evidence to support your claims, then your claims remains unsubstantiated by you. Why do i have to prove your unsubstantiated claims is correct/wrong? I don't have to.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'll be appreciate if you can answer my questions that which post of yours have your explanation which can answer my previous questions (which my questions is regarding the validity of your claims) instead for you to ask me why i disagree with you. I see that you keeps avoid to answer my questions and digress into other things which i've no idea why you do so.


I can accept this claims as correct.


A. What is your evidence which prove that universe must have no beginning if it's not subject to disappearance?


Always existed can be interpret as it have always existed since it begin to exists, or that it is always existed in a sense that it have no beginning or end.
Being not subject to disappearance doesn't mean it can't have a beginning, or it must have no beginning.

B. What is your evidence which prove that if universe is not subject to disappearance then it must have no beginning? (note that question B is the same question as question A which the questions is regarding the circular reasoning i mention below)


a. You make a claims/assumption that "there was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance" .
b. You then say "If the universe is not subject to disappearance...it follows that is must have always existed" which you say it support your conclusion that it have no beginning.

1. There was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance.
2. Because/if the universe is not subject to disappearance, then it must have no beginning (aka one version of always existed).

Isn't it a circular reasoning if you "use 1 to prove 2 correct" and "use 2 to prove 1 correct", when 1 and 2 are both just unsubstantiated assumptions?

And the previous conversation:

You claims that "Infinite eternal existence is all there ever was, is, or will be", the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims is true and your conclusion is logical, not on me to prove there is no other logical conclusion.




The burden of proof is on you to prove your claims that "universe is infinity and eternity, not finite and temporal(have beginning and end)" is correct.
And you ask me to prove why your claims is wrong, without first proving your claims is correct?


No, burden of proof is on you to prove your claims of "Cosmic absolute existence is infinite and eternal and couldn't be any other way" is correct, not on me to prove why your claims is correct or wrong.
If you give no evidence to support your claims, then your claims remains unsubstantiated by you. Why do i have to prove your unsubstantiated claims is correct/wrong? I don't have to.

tl:dr .....you didn't understand what was said to you....you must learn to not ramble hither thither and be concise and relevant in your writing....try again.....

 

[paarsurrey]

Definition for idea:
1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
2. the aim or purpose.

Is idea a physical thing? It maybe if you can prove it. Nonetheless i've never claims it is.
I ask you questions, why then you reply by asking me other questions which i've no idea why you ask them?

One may like to read my post #206 in another thread.
Regards

 

[Pudding]

tl:dr .....you didn't understand what was said to you....you must learn to not ramble hither thither and be concise and relevant in your writing....try again.....

I see, when you cannot answer my questions/response, in order to dismiss/ignore what i've been said/ask to you, it's very convenient for you to just saying "you didn't understand what was said to you" without explaining the details what is being misunderstood.
If you really think this type of argument can helps you to strengthen your unsubstantiated claims or refute what others have ask you so you can avoiding answer others' response, then i can't see there is any credibility/validity in your claims, not even to say your claims is unsubstantiated to begin with.

I'll not try again since you've no intention to answer my questions which require you to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims.What you're doing, is making many unsubstantiated claims, when i ask you to provide evidence to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims, if you cannot answer or because of some unknown reason, then you reply by saying that i don't understand what you've said.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I see, when you cannot answer my questions/response, in order to dismiss/ignore what i've been said/ask to you, it's very convenient for you to just saying "you didn't understand what was said to you" without explaining the details what is being misunderstood.
If you really think this type of argument can helps you to strengthen your claims or refute what others have ask you so you can avoiding answer others' response, then i can't see there is any credibility/validity in your claims, not even to say your claims is unsubstantiated to begin with.

Look....the universe is eternal...there is no beginning... If you think there is....show me how it started....what caused the big bang?