• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We Never Know said:
According to @Polymath257 we know 15 bya it didn't exist then 13 5 bya it did exist.

It wasn't then it was.
Click to expand...

It is more than that the time 15 bya did not exist. It isn't just that the universe didn't exist then. It is that 'then' didn't exist.

if this model is correct (and it is by far the best we have), then 15 bya simply didn't exist at all.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Polymath257 said:
It is more than that the time 15 bya did not exist. It isn't just that the universe didn't exist then. It is that 'then' didn't exist.

if this model is correct (and it is by far the best we have), then 15 bya simply didn't exist at all.
Click to expand...

Right. It wasn't then it was..it poofed
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Polymath257 said:
I am saying that the BB model is the best model we have. But we also know that it does not include quantum gravity, which may affect the conclusion. I have been consistent in this. I have tried to be clear that the BB model is the one that I was using in such discussion.
Click to expand...

Then we don't know if there was a pre.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We Never Know said:
It wasn't then it was is straight forward.

What wasn't-Time, the universe, etc.

Then what was -time, the universe etc.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you're implicitly using temporal language ("It wasn't then it was") to refer to the start of time. There was never a time at which it wasn't, so using 'then' doesn't make sense.

I looks as if you just can't free yourself from the intuitive Newtonian view of time (which we know to be wrong).
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
ratiocinator said:
The problem is that you're implicitly using temporal language ("It wasn't then it was") to refer to the start of time. There was never a time at which it wasn't, so using 'then' doesn't make sense.

I looks as if you just can't free yourself from the intuitive Newtonian view of time (which we know to be wrong).
Click to expand...

Then it was is past tense... i.e. after the BB which is where you say time, the universe, ect all came from.

So its like this....

What wasn't-Time, the universe, etc.

Then what was- Time, the universe etc.

It wasn't then it was. It all poofed
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
ratiocinator said:
Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself about what is physical and continue to repeat the assertion about continua disappearing at the "Quantum smallest scale" which isn't current physics (tested theory).
Click to expand...

No, sorry you cannot understand plan simple English.
ratiocinator said:
What I said. Continuous space and time appear in current quantum theory.
Click to expand...

Appear in the theory does not mean it it exists at the Quantum smallest scale. Like gravity it does NOT exist at the smallest Quantum scal.
ratiocinator said:
So you keep asserting but you can't point to a current tested theory that backs it up. Quantisation of space and time is currently hypothetical.
Click to expand...

So keep asserting your contorted view and cannot understand plan English.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
joelr said:
This doesn't answer the question in any way, shape or form?
Astronauts are not cosmologists or astro-physicists. They have been......to the moon. Yes outer space is not hospitable to life. Life evolved on our planet, not in space.

But, I'm not sure how you missed this, life most likely happens on planets at a certain length from the sun and other conditions that make it probable. Space doesn't have those conditions. No one ever expects life to form in space?
The point is there are billions of stars in this galaxy, each with planets. Billions of OTHER galaxies with billions more stars each and each having planets.
Like Earth there are probably thousands or millions of planets that could produce life. The astronauts and every one else know how harsh space is. And gas giants and planets close and far from the sun. But the size of the universe and the countless galaxies with so many stars, each having planets makes it pretty likely there are other planets like Earth, many of them.

The quote isn't saying life should only happen on Earth? It doesn't imply that and scientists and astronauts all agree there is probably life all around the universe.
Click to expand...
I realize at this point many of you are set in your beliefs and believe in evolution of any kind. Whether on earth or maybe somewhere else in the universe. Have a good day.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
shunyadragon said:
No, sorry you cannot understand plan simple English.


Appear in the theory does not mean it it exists at the Quantum smallest scale. Like gravity it does NOT exist at the smallest Quantum scal.


So keep asserting your contorted view and cannot understand plan English.
Click to expand...
all clearly not understood. Have a good day, hope the weather as it evolves is good in your area.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Or is an infinite regress or circular. If you want to play philosophy, then learn that there are more options.
Click to expand...

I do not believe infinite regress or circular? applies here. Our phtsical existence is potentially boundless, infinite and/or eternal. Most likely simply boundless.

Is it possible to do infinite regress?

www.cambridge.org

IS AN INFINITE TEMPORAL REGRESS OF EVENTS POSSIBLE? | Think | Cambridge Core

IS AN INFINITE TEMPORAL REGRESS OF EVENTS POSSIBLE? - Volume 11 Issue 31
www.cambridge.org www.cambridge.org

Therefore, the violation of metaphysical necessity is necessarily related to the assumption of an infinite temporal regress of events. Hence, an infinite temporal regress of events is metaphysically impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top