I guess he will have to clarify his claim then. But you agree that both scientists in the links are saying that going back there was nothing and then the universe came into being?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I guess he will have to clarify his claim then. But you agree that both scientists in the links are saying that going back there was nothing and then the universe came into being?That could be the case in general but that is not what he(? ) is saying in the most recent posts. He seems to me to be talking about the plank time after the big bang.
It has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',I guess we could if you think it might be relevant to the question of God's existence. I'll await your argument but my initial position is that it isn't relevant.
Your turn
The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.thatIt has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',
'In the beginning', 'In the olden days when...', 'Long long ago before......'.
That's what you would like to think, and yes it is a very childish story.The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.
Well of course you are free to think whatever you want.That's what you would like to think, and yes it is a very childish story.
Great, we agree. How is this analogous to the discussion we are having in this thread?thatIt has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',
'In the beginning', 'In the olden days when...', 'Long long ago before......'.
You are discussing fantasy so one fantasy is as good as any other, what shade of red was red riding hoods cape? what breed of pigs were the three little pigs?Great, we agree. How is this analogous to the discussion we are having in this thread?
Not sure you are understanding the discussion we are having. Without begging the question Once is positing that the apparent (she would say actual) fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is some evidence that a god exists. She believes it is Yaweh but is not necessarily making that argument here. So I guess I still don't see how your fairy tale comment helps us in any way.You are discussing fantasy so one fantasy is as good as any other, what shade of red was red riding hoods cape? what breed of pigs were the three little pigs?
I understand exactly what you are doing, you are trying to discuss a fantasy with someone who has been raised to think that it's not fantasy, how do you think the discussion will end?Not sure you are understanding the discussion we are having.
Unless she can back up what she is claiming both you and she are wasting your time discussing it.Without begging the question Once is positing that the apparent (she would say actual) fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is some evidence that a god exists.
Because both Yaweh, 'Little Red Riding hood' and all the other tales told are figments of someone's imagination.She believes it is Yaweh but is not necessarily making that argument here. So I guess I still don't see how your fairy tale comment helps us in any way.
Please highlight where it says "the first second of the universe" or anything approximating that.Yes it does.
No, you are confusing the concepts of before and after. You said natural laws did not exist in the first second of the universe. I replied saying you were wrong, specifically clarifying that the first second after the big bang would put us in the leptin era, which is well understood. I further clarified that the natural laws could take us all the way back to one Planck second, which I even told you was on the order of 1e-42, which you acknowledged. You've doubled down on your one second after the big bang claim, but now seem to be trying to conflate after the big bang with before the big bang, even though the two are opposite by definition.Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.
Right, because anything that existed prior to the big bang is outside our time line and has no causal relationship to us. We can make no meaningful statement about what came before because for our time line, there was no before. Please note the qualifier there, "for our timeline"Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.
No, hawking, for example, says there was no before, and quite possibly, no singularity, but rather an initial state unbounded in both space and time. The word "then" implies a before, which, at least for our timeline, did not exist. It's like saying, "there's nothing in the box" when everyone else is telling you there is no box.I guess he will have to clarify his claim then. But you agree that both scientists in the links are saying that going back there was nothing and then the universe came into being?
Because there is no space, matter, energy or time to govern.
One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it.
The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.
This refers to before the big bang. You continue to imagine what I am saying rather than reading it.Again, this says nothing about the conditions during the first second of the universe. Keep trying - or maybe realize the first rule when you've found you've dug yourself into a hole.
Sorry I went back and read this and the mistake was mine. I thought you were arguing that we can't know there was nothing prior to the first moments of the universe.Please highlight where it says "the first second of the universe" or anything approximating that.
I stand corrected.No, you are confusing the concepts of before and after. You said natural laws did not exist in the first second of the universe. I replied saying you were wrong, specifically clarifying that the first second after the big bang would put us in the leptin era, which is well understood. I further clarified that the natural laws could take us all the way back to one Planck second, which I even told you was on the order of 1e-42, which you acknowledged. You've doubled down on your one second after the big bang claim, but now seem to be trying to conflate after the big bang with before the big bang, even though the two are opposite by definition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?