Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Ben Dhyan]

So you have turned a false dichotomy into a strawman..?

Things do not look good for your "argument"....

What false dichotomy.....please explain?

What strawman.....please explain?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What false dichotomy.....please explain?

What strawman.....please explain?

The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know what happened prior to the big bang. It could have been another universe. It could have been "nothingness" it could have been an infinite number of different possibilities and your assertion that it must have come from nothing is unfounded.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What on earth has a meditative experience of non-duality got to do with the OP?

Your comment I responded to was not the about the OP.....it was about Big Bang and the implication I may be suggesting a 'God done it' explanation....the 'there was never a beginning to this cosmic process' explanation I gave as my position can't apprehended by the thing mind....only a mind free from conceptualizations....

 

[outhouse]

I'd say a big bang is probable, rather than factual.

The expansion of our universe is factual, we have tested the residual effects from said origins, as well as witness the current expansion.

Maybe im using a wee bit of liberty there, but even the pope says the BB was factual

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are claiming that scientific inquiry is incomplete, so it's conclusions are suspect.

You are claiming that scientific inquiry is faith-based, so its conclusions are suspect.

These are two different arguments about the nature of scientific inquiry, but both show a lack of understanding of what scientific inquiry is (plus logical fallacies, but let's not consider those yet).

Could you define the term "scientific inquiry" first? What do you think scientific inquiry is? How do you think it works? Maybe these arguments would be less circular and more productive if you started with a definition. So what is it to you?

My comment was relevant to what David M had said....

I do not have time to waste on a discussion on the scientific method...I understand and accept it..

If you want to believe in a 'something from nothing' beginning of the cosmos....I'm fine by that....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We do not need to know the initial cause of an event to establish how an event happened after it starts. If a window is broken then its broken, you don't need to know what caused the breakage to establish that it is broken and how the class shattered and fell.

We have evidence of the Big Bang being the correct explanation for the development of the universe as it appears now. Whether the cause was Branes, a cyclical crunch/expansion or any of the other possible causes that is not relevant to the fact that we have good evidence of what happened from the Planck Time onwards.

Fine David.....we must agree to disagree at this point....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We know the universe factually expanded. So a big bang is factual.


Sorry you have no leg to stand on here.

Wow....your scientific explanation is so very comprehensive and persuasive.....but at the end of the day falls short....thanks for trying....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know what happened prior to the big bang. It could have been another universe. It could have been "nothingness" it could have been an infinite number of different possibilities and your assertion that it must have come from nothing is unfounded.

I know BB science simply does not know what happened prior to the big bang.....that's my point.....one huge gaping hole that needs some data. A hole I suggest, when filled, will show a eternal infinite universe....or if you like...a universe of 'universes'... But I do not know if Mestemia agrees with your position....

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I do not have time to waste on a discussion on the scientific method...I understand and accept it.

If you were to provide your take on what the scientific method is and how it works, it may save you some time in the long run. Everyone will at least understand your views.

My claim that you don't understand the scientific method still stands, based in the evidence of your claims on this thread. If you're cool with that, fine.

If you want to believe in a 'something from nothing' beginning of the cosmos....I'm fine by that....

There are many mathematical models that account for the observations we have made so far. Most of them suggest a singularity.

I cannot speak for your beliefs because you are not telling me exactly what you believe. Maybe you should.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I know BB science simply does not know what happened prior to the big bang.....that's my point.....one huge gaping hole that needs some data. A hole I suggest, when filled, will show a eternal infinite universe....or if you like...a universe of 'universes'... But I do not know if Mestemia agrees with your position....

This exact line of thinking is what propagated the mutliverse theory.

 

[Sapiens]

0 = (+1) + (-1)

see ... two somethings, all from nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you were to provide your take on what the scientific method is and how it works, it may save you some time in the long run. Everyone will at least understand your views.

My claim that you don't understand the scientific method still stands, based in the evidence of your claims on this thread. If you're cool with that, fine.



There are many mathematical models that account for the observations we have made so far. Most of them suggest a singularity.

I cannot speak for your beliefs because you are not telling me exactly what you believe. Maybe you should.

I say what i mean and mean what I say...if you don't understand what I'm saying....it prob because you lack the prerequisite understanding....so don't wast my time with the scientific method strawman.....

I don't do beliefs.....I do understanding....and there's the rub, you apparently do belief...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

0 = (+1) + (-1)

see ... two somethings, all from nothing.

True....but mathematics is merely a finite mind's conceptualization....and in this case, there is no nothing in existence....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This exact line of thinking is what propagated the mutliverse theory.

And there is some physicists who are producing peer reviewed papers that suggest an infinite and eternal universe.....

 

[Sapiens]

True....but mathematics is merely a finite mind's conceptualization....and in this case, there is no nothing in existence....

Math is representative, could be lots of things, e.g., matter and antimatter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Math is representative, could be lots of things, e.g., matter and antimatter.

An electron and its antiparticle, the positron, annihilate each other to produce energy in the form of gamma rays....but no nothing.... I repeat, there is no actual nothing in the universe...

 

[Sapiens]

If you're looking for nothingness ... try the logic of your augments. Yes, an electron and its antiparticle, the positron, annihilate each other to produce energy, exactly the same energy that went into producing them from nothingness ... zero sum game.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you're looking for nothingness ... try the logic of your augments. Yes, an electron and its antiparticle, the positron, annihilate each other to produce energy, exactly the same energy that went into producing them from nothingness ... zero sum game.

Not so fast buster.. ..do you think the 'vacuum' of space is empty? No.....the omnipresent ocean's zpe density is infinite....matter and antimatter are popping in and out of existence all the time......the zpe is an infinite energy source...

 

[Sapiens]

Not so fast buster.. ..do you think the 'vacuum' of space is empty? No.....the omnipresent ocean's zpe density is infinite....matter and antimatter are popping in and out of existence all the time......the zpe is an infinite energy source...

You are, of course, out of convenience to yourself addressing irrelevancies to distract from the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about ... par for the course, of course.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are, of course, out of convenience to yourself addressing irrelevancies to distract from the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about ... par for the course, of course.

I beg your pardon...what exactly is it that you do not understand? The Cosmos is full of energy....there is nowhere devoid of the zpe...no emptiness...no void...no nothing.....did you not imply that real things can come from nothing?