Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

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 scale.

Bare assertion.

For example how you describe gravity, which is OK gravity does not exist at the quantum smallest scale.

Bare assertion.

You have failed to present anything that would demonstrate that continuous time exists at the Quantum smallest scale.

Shifting the burden of proof.

I asked for a reference to current science and evidence that supports your claim - your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you or scientists happen to know definitively what this something was? Before it became more than what it was originallyl? And can it be tested?

You're pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance' on the basis of ancient tribal scripture 'What the Bible says' and not even the scant understanding of science. The problem here is your history of 'What the Bible says,' is all you have to offer, and dialogue always ends with you when we hit this wall. You have always rejected what can be tested in science accept what you believe, which cannot be tested. You have repeatedly 'hand waved' science on every issue discussed in this forum, therefore dialogue with you is rather fruitless.

Yes out present knowledge is limited concerning the origins of our universe, but there is absolutely no remote evidence os any sort of existence of 'absolute nothing.' The Hawking Theorem math based on Quantum Physics and Einstein's Relativity demonstrates the origin's of the universe from a singularity. Of course there are many unknowns in science, and this is the driving force of future research and discoveries.

 

[ratiocinator]

Don't quote mine

I didn't.

What existed before the BB?

If time started at the BB, then, as I said before, "before the BB" is gibberish. It's a meaningless question. What existed sricanflasksugen?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance' on the basis of ancient tribal scripture 'What the Bible says' and not even the scant understanding of science. The problem here is your history of 'What the Bible says,' is all you have to offer, and dialogue always ends with you when we hit this wall. You have always rejected what can be tested in science accept what you believe, which cannot be tested. You have repeatedly 'hand waved' science on every issue discussed in this forum, therefore dialogue with you is rather fruitless.

Yes out present knowledge is limited concerning the origins of our universe, but there is absolutely no remote evidence os any sort of existence of 'absolute nothing.' The Hawking Theorem math based on Quantum Physics and Einstein's Relativity demonstrates the origin's of the universe from a singularity. Of course there are many unknowns in science, and this is the driving force of future research and discoveries.

No, it doesn't. It is math. That is not evidence, it is math.

 

[We Never Know]

It is speculative. Do you understand that? And you are speculative. There is even the possibility that the universe is not bound by logic. Notice possibility. And I am speculative.

Its all speculative! Our science breaks down at a certain point. Past that it is all if's, possibly's, could be's, etc.... Its all speculative.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bare assertion.


Bare assertion.


Shifting the burden of proof.

I asked for a reference to current science and evidence that supports your claim - your claim, your burden of proof.

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its all speculative! Our science breaks down at a certain point. Past that it is all if's, possibly's, etc.... Its all speculative.

Including that there is no God. Or not your God, if you happen to have faith in one.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it doesn't. It is math. That is not evidence, it is math.

Your stuck in Newtonian science hundreds of years old.

There is a history here of pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance,' based on an archaic agenda.

The only reason for arguing for the 'absolute nothing' is an argument for Creation by God from the ancient tribal Biblical belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

But math is proof and evidence in one, right?

Your stuck in Newtonian science hundreds of years old.

No, I am a skeptic. That you can do math, only show you can do math, unless there is cooperating evidence. That is all.

 

[We Never Know]

I didn't.


If time started at the BB, then, as I said before, "before the BB" is gibberish. It's a meaningless question. What existed sricanflasksugen?

Yes you did. You quoted only the very first sentence in my post and completely ignored the second sentence that says "No time, no universe because there was no pre correct?"

What existed before the BB?
-No time, no universe because there was no pre correct?
.
What existed after the BB?
-Time, the universe, etc. existed post BB correct?

It wasn't then it was is straight forward with the BB theory

What wasn't-Time, the universe, etc. No pre BB
Then what was- Time, the universe etc. Post BB

 

[We Never Know]

Including that there is no God. Or not your God, if you happen to have faith in one.

Why does someone always bring up a god?
Why not a farting unicorn?
Why not a pink fairy with a magic wand?

 

[shunyadragon]

But math is proof and evidence in one, right?


No, I am a skeptic. That you can do math, only show you can do math, unless there is cooperating evidence. That is all.

There is a history with you concerning fruitless dialogue. You misuse the concept of skepticism to stonewall arguments.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science.

Is exactly what you just did. You have made a claim and failed to provide any current science to back it up.

There is NO proof in science.

I know. The 'burden of proof' is a principle about whose responsibility it is to provide sufficient warrant (justification) for their position. It doesn't necessarily refer to absolute proof. Follow the link.

At the moment you've provided nothing at all but unsupported assertions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You misuse the concept of skepticism to stonewall arguments.

So the equations in math are really independent of the math without evidence through evidence as per science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is exactly what you just did. You have made a claim and failed to provide any current science to back it up.


I know. The 'burden of proof' is a principle about whose responsibility it is to provide sufficient warrant (justification) for their position. It doesn't necessarily refer to absolute proof. Follow the link.

At the moment you've provided nothing at all but unsupported assertions.

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes you did. You quoted only the very first sentence in my post and completely ignored the second sentence...

Yes. If the very start of your argument is gibberish, then it doesn't really matter what comes next. The whole question "What existed before the BB?" is totally devoid of meaning.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

Ignoring the point and repeating yourself. Ho hum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

Burden of proof is a rule not about proof as such, but to back up a claim and not just state it.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes. If the very start of your argument is gibberish, then it doesn't really matter what comes next. The whole question "What existed before the BB?" is totally devoid of meaning.

So you quote mine my post completely ignoring the second sentence thats says..

"What existed before the BB?
-No time, no universe because there was no pre correct"

Which already addressed your quote mine.

 

[ratiocinator]

"What existed before the BB?
-No time, no universe because there was no pre correct"

Yet again, there is no possible answer to this question because it doesn't mean anything. Whatever you put as an answer is wrong. Starting your answer with "No time" immediately renders the question meaningless. You've cut the feet off your own argument and disappeared into a heap of self-contradiction.

I dunno, I tried, but if you don't actually want to learn and understand (or can't), then there's very little more to be said.