Wrong to say "before" in referring to a universe collapsing, as there is no time between it and what follows next? I find that contradictory. If a universe did exist before such-and-such, then, obviously, it did exist before? The fact it collapsed simply demonstrates there is a series of perishing universes to consider here. As such, a definite temporal nexus of events does exist.
Once again, your inability to understand "spacetime" gets the better of you. If a universe were to collapse into a singularity, it's spacetime, that is to say, space and time, would colapse, and cease to exist as discrete dimensions. In fact, a singularity has no dimensions; it is a point, infinitely dense.
You have simply stated what one prominent physicist said? True, but who says that automatically makes him and you true?Certainly, you have offered some solid speculation to consider. But that's it, no hard evidence.
In fact, there is hard evidence in support of the position that time has a finite origin, in the form of cosmic background radiation analysis, and other experimental and observational data relating to the Big Bang, general relativity, and so on.
I can easily employ the same tacit against you. I can simply say I am only stating what any one of a number of eminent theologians have said.
Which has precisely zero relevance to this absurd debate over science.
If you reserve the right to doubt me, I have the same right to doubt you. Also, just as theologians have different views, so, too , do physicists. Try reading Fred Hoyle sometime.
You should certainly doubt me, but not the entire community of mainstream astrophysics,
which is what you are doing.
You admit that your concept of God is unscientific? True. Then why do you fault me , on the grounds you find my concept of God to be unscientific?
I admit no such thing. This is not meant as a personal insult, but as a request for improvement on your part: you keep continually misreading and misrepresenting my statements. At one point, you misattributed a statement by another member to myself, and interpreted it as some sort of anti-academic smear.
At the Big Bang, there was this singularity. but no "before"? This makes no sense to me. If this singularity first existed and then there was a Big Band, which is what science argues, then yes, there was something existing "before" the Big Bang.
And once again we deal with your inability to grasp the concept of spacetime. As I have said repeatedly, time itself as a dimension proceeded from the Big Bang. So in the first instance of Time, at Tau Zero, the first event, the first discrete temporal movement took place, in the expansion of the songularity, creating the possibility for more events. Prior to that, the singularity was a zero dimensional point, with no possible room to accomodate spatial objects or temporal events.
Otherwise, you would have to argue the Big Bang came from nothing. If you want to view the Big Bang as accused somehow by the singularity, then you have to admit a "before," as all cause-and-effect relationship assume a before and an after.
Actually, we don't. There are a number of observable physical processes that start from an undefined point and expand exponentially, and the Big Bang is an example of that. aevents before the Big Bang are undefined; it was the Big Bang that allowed them to occur.
One interesting fact is that the "cause" of the Big Bang is a somewhat meaningless question, goven that causality requires time. This is simply one of those apparent paradoxes of the physical universe that boggle the mind, until one acquires a certain familiarity with them. The heat death of the universe is another mind boggling prospect.
Also, you seem to be arguing that this singularity was totally static. I find that counterintuitive. All our experience demonstrates that there isn't anything that exists that doesn't' change. Even what seems self-identical is not, if studied in detail.
The singularity, by definition, is incapable of change while remaining a singularity; the only possible change requires it to expand, admitting time as a discrete dimension or space in which events can occur.
Your problem here is that you are allowing a preconceived philosophical notion of how the universe should work to prevent you from grasping how it actually does work, according to science.
We have hard evidence for what is beyond the event horizon, based on our observations?
Yes.
No.
Scientists cannot see into the event horizon at all. Hence, what they are saying is mere speculation, important as it may be. "Hard evidence, in the scientific sense, would mean they can directly observe what's inside the horizon.
Once again, we are confronted by an argument that dazzles us with its contempt for the scientific method and epistemology. Black holes generate gravity, which interacts with the rest of the universe; they emit Hawking Radiation. This provides us with solid evidence about the properties of what is inside a black hole.
Now, the inescapable reality of the event horizon is a limitation; there are things we might be able to learn if we could observe a "naked singularity." However, these are in addition to what we know now, rather than anything that might contradict it.
So you have no business pointing the finger at me. It would appear that anytime I disagree with out, you assume you are automatically right and that I am in total ignorance.
I make no such assumption, and I would deserve to be criticized if I did. If someone disagrees with me on a valid point of subjective theological opinion, I can accept that. If someone disagree with me on valid philosophical or aesthetic grounds, I can accept that. What is unacceptable is when someone lacking even the most basic understanding of the scientific method, who refuses to read even the most entry-level, accessible material, attempts to dispute a matter of settled science.
There are no shapes or objects inside the singularity? Who says?
Oh, I don't know, just about every scientist or mathematician who has ever studied the concept?
Have you looked inside one to see?
There is nothing to "look inside." Interestingly, in the case of the singularity from which the universe emerged, there would be nothing from which to look inside of it from.
There is no "spacefactor'? Well, if it is one[dimensional than there is at least that space factor to be considered.
There is no space inside a zero dimensional point. "Says who?" you might ask, to which the answer is, "Geometry."
Something exists that has no matter, energy,or events in it?
The singularity from which the Universe emerged contained essentially infinite density, and all of the potential energy of the Universe, so that when it erupted, the Big Bang was quite dramatic. However, as a singularity, there is no kinetic energy, no matter (which requires physical dimensions, and thus, physical space for quarks, atoms, molecules and so on to occupy), and no time (since you have no spacetime outside of a zero dimensional point).
That sure is counterintuitive. To me, that means there isn't anything there at all, it does not exist.
This is because you don't even begin to grasp the concept of space time, of a singularity, and so on.
Process is not a scientific concept of God? Again, we have been through this already. I find it curious you stress that so much about process, claim your model is, then turn around and admit that God is not a scientific question, that it is all a matter of theological speculation. Hence, again, you appear to be contradicting yourself.
Theology is a matter of subjective faith, but where that faith requires us to ignore objective scientific data, it is unsupportable and warrants criticism. You yourself have been rather eager to dish out such criticism to young Earth creationists elsewhere, yet seem rather unwilling to take it when it pertains to the inability of your interpretation of Process to relate to our knowledge of cosmology and the origins of the Universe.
The universe has a finite or absolute beginning and therefore cannot be assumed to exist eternally? Who it is eternal? I sure didn't.
What I said was that since God is eternally creative, there has been a series of uniquely different universes, ad infinitum into the past and also into the future. Here, it is important to bear in mind Whitehead's point that our current universe seems to be based on electromagnetic forces,
Which is a ludicrous statement utterly ignoring the vital role played by gravitation, the electroweak force, the structure of spacetime itself, et cetera.
whereas there is no metaphysical reason what others based on wholly different principles could not have existed. even know what science is? Another unfounded personal attack?
There is no metaphysical reason to reject the existence of other universes. However, we cannot say that they exist and our universe exists in the same temporal dimension, as that would be entirely wrong. Time, as we know it, a factor of spacetime, has a beginning.
You believe in the Incarnating and that proves New Age material is all junk?
I believe in the Incarnation, although this is only indirectly why I reject the New Age; some new age quasi-Christians accept a belief in the Incarnation.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Yu believe New Age material is a big heresy simply because your church said so?
It is the settled opinion of most traditional Christians that the New Age movement is greatly misguided.
OK< but who says your church is correct? Charges of heresy in no way mean the heretic is incorrect or correct. It seems to be a case here that you assume your church has absolutely inerrant judgment in these matters, so that if anything varies, even in the slightest, what you church teaches, it is junk. You call it heresy, I call it religious prejudice.
Galatians 1:8 directs us to anathematize those who preach aother Gospel; the great many respectable Christian churches, my own included, that reject the New Age, can justify their rejection scripturally on the basis of Galatians 1:8 and other related ecclesiologocal verses.
The premise that the Church can reject heresy is what allowed early Church Fathers to reject Gnosticism, Arianism and other gross perversions of the apostolic faith. The moral relativist, pluralist, PC contemporary approach that regards this as somehow "prejudicial" is simply ignoring the very clear directions given to us on this subject by our Lord regarding "wolves in sheep's clothing," by St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter and other Apostles.
Furthermore, you need to credit the fact that process is a long way from New Age people, is a respectable academic discipline. So you are comparing apples to oranges here, to start with.
I will give Process that much credit.
Because everything initially existed in an undifferentiated unity, there was no "before" to the universe?
Yes.
That does not make sense.
It does if you understand spacetime.
If there was an undifferentiated unity, then there was a "before" a time when the universe did not exist.
Imagine spacetime as a four dimensional hypercone, or even a three dimensional cone, terminating in a point. The singularity is the point at the end. In proposing a "before time," you are postulating a one dimensional line proceeding from the point of that cone, or indeed, a point that is not an absolute zero dimensional point, but rather, a three dimensional surface. This does not align with how physics understands the concept.
Now, interestingly, even if there were some hypothetical one dimensional line projecting from the point, it would be impossible to say whether it was time or space; events would remain undefined; it could not be "both/and" owing to a lack of dimension. One could only measure distance from the point or foculi, or from another abstract point along the line, but this would simply be "distance."
Furthermore, the notion that creation is an outpouring of some undifferentiated entity is fundamental to the proto-process mystical thinkers, such as Eckhart, Dionysius.
So now you regard St. (psuedo) Dionysius the Aeropagite as "proto-process?" You had previously bashed him as a classical theist.
Colloquial phrases, like "the basic fiber of reality," do not belong here?
Where used in a misleading manner that provides no edification, they have no place in a sober, intellectual discussion.
Another one of your unfunded and uncalled-for personal attacks. I suppose you are next gong to claim that neither does anybody else in process.
I have as yet no reason to make such a claim. I would assume given Process's pedigree with relativity, that I could find several Process thinkers who can explain process in light of the Big Bang without regarding on an impossible, unscientific definition of time.
