Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But time exists. So your question is pointless again.I agree with the concept of time and space being part of the geometry of the universe, so therefore if there is no time, there is no space. Agreed?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But time exists. So your question is pointless again.I agree with the concept of time and space being part of the geometry of the universe, so therefore if there is no time, there is no space. Agreed?
No. It does not. You are still trying to use the sense of time.No before means there is no time and space, yes?
If there was no before, there was no time and space, which means no existence.But time exists. So your question is pointless again.
Not if time does not exist.If there was no before, there was no time and space, which means no existence.
No, we agree that there is no before. No before means no time, no space, no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.No. It does not. You are still trying to use the sense of time.
I never mentioned Dark Matter, you did, Dark Energy I understood to be omnipresent.
For example...
Dark Energy – Philosophy of Psysics Philosophy of Physics
If dark energy is the culprit, then what is this elusive, though omnipresent entity?
Our Expanding Universe: Delving into Dark Energy
The leading theory is that dark energy is the "cosmological constant," a concept Albert Einstein created in 1917 to balance his equations to describe a universe in equilibrium. Without this cosmological constant to offset gravity, a finite universe would collapse into itself. Today, scientists think the constant may represent the energy of the vacuum of space. Instead of being "empty," this would mean space is actually exerting pressure on cosmic objects. If this idea is correct, the distribution of dark energy should be the same everywhere.
Our Expanding Universe: Delving into Dark Energy
DARK energy is everywhere – and when we say everywhere, we mean everywhere. It suffuses every corner of the cosmos, absolutely dominating everything in it.
QV is the Quantum Vacuu,m Quantum Vacuum: Negative Energy & Repulsive Gravity
Certainly you are correct in your discernment that if time does not exist, there is no time. So if there is no time, there is no existence.Not if time does not exist.
There is no outside the universe, the concept of omnipresence means everywhere.The reference to dark energy being everywhere ONLY refers to a property of our universe. We have no evidence for dark energy outside our universe.
Quantum Vacuum is a property of Quantum Existence, which is what Hawking describes as 'nothing,; no continuous time and space.
The phrase "before time" is nonsensical. It is equivalent to saying South of the South pole. That is why you are wrong.No, we agree that there is no before. No before means no time, no space, no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.
I have noticed in the past that you have a hard time understanding analogies. That indicates that you are reasoning too literally. The analogy works very well. I could try to explain it to you but we would probably get frustrated with each other. Perhaps someone else is up to the task.Good grief!
107 pages of back and forth bickering BS!
Time, space, space-time wasn't then they were.
This "what's south of the south pole is a poor analogy". It applies to earth! There is no north, south, east, west, or up and down in space.
Either it all always existed or it all just came out of nowhere, poofed into existence
Now....
1. Show me it always existed
Or
2. Show me what it came from
Until then youns are just arguing BS beliefs.
Someone humor me and fill in the blank....
Time, space, space-time, the universe all weren't, the BB happened then they all were.
It all(BB included) came from ________?
The phrase "before time" is nonsensical. It is equivalent to saying South of the South pole. That is why you are wrong.
Halfway between the moon and earth, for example... Which way is South? North? East? West?I have noticed in the past that you have a hard time understanding analogies. That indicates that you are reasoning too literally. The analogy works very well. I could try to explain it to you but we would probably get frustrated with each other. Perhaps someone else is up to the task.
Time, space, space-time, the universe all weren't, the BB happened then they all were.
It all(BB included) came from Pittsburgh.
That is a non sequitur. Ask Schrodinger about his cat.Certainly you are correct in your discernment that if time does not exist, there is no time. So if there is no time, there is no existence.
I have noticed in the past that you have a hard time understanding analogies. That indicates that you are reasoning too literally. The analogy works very well. I could try to explain it to you but we would probably get frustrated with each other. Perhaps someone else is up to the task.
Time, space, space-time, the universe all weren't, the BB happened then they all were.
It all(BB included) came from Pittsburgh.
There is no phrase "before time" in my post you quoted, I said "No before means no time".The phrase "before time" is nonsensical. It is equivalent to saying South of the South pole. That is why you are wrong.
I said "If there was no before, there was no time...."That is a non sequitur. Ask Schrodinger about his cat.
I did. It is even in your quote of my post.By the way... In case your missed it....Can you fill in the blank?
Someone humor me and fill in the blank....
Time, space, space-time, the universe all weren't, the BB happened then they all were.
It all(BB included) came from ________?
It does not need to be you have said it often enough. Or implied. Either way all I can say is that you are wrong since you will not listen to explanations of why you are wrong.There is no phrase "before time" in my post you quoted, I said "No before means no time".
Once again you are trying to use a false dichotomy. That was why I referred you to Schrodinger and his cat.I said "If there was no before, there was no time...."
You replied, "Not if time does not exist."
So it seemed to me you were agreeing with me, are you now implying you meant that if time does not exist, there was a before?