beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Event B cannot preceed itself as that would be paradoxical.

But it was your conclusion. You appear to be confusing even yourself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you understand why I say that the beginning of time must be an event that occurred outside the confines of time as we know it?

No

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Is this science at all? Or is it outside the domain of science? Is it possible ever to get an answer of this question, of these kinds of questions?

It is within the domain of science until proven otherwise. In other words the fact that we currently do not know, does not rule out the possibility of knowing.
It might be as you suggest, that we can never know, but that is not a known fact.

I think - here is where science ends and religion can take place.
Whats religion got to do with it? Religion doesn't answer the question either. Religion at best is the belief that some entity which does have the answer can be trusted to give it to us, at worst it is somebodies made up answer that we foolishly believe to be the answer. Neither of those has been proven to be a particularly reliable way of finding out facts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it was your conclusion. You appear to be confusing even yourself.

This was what I said........


If we say that nothing can happen outside of time or there is no such thing as a timeless state then its the same as saying that event B has to occur before event B can occur --which is of course a logical paradox


.....why is that not consistent with my other remarks? I don't think event B can precede event B any more than you do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No

Why not? If the beginning of time is an event then it must have logically not occurred in time.

The only way out of this is to say that event B is not an event as such.

If so what exactly is the beginning of time? What do we mean if we say that time has a beginning?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This was what I said........

If we say that nothing can happen outside of time or there is no such thing as a timeless state then its the same as saying that event B has to occur before event B can occur --which is of course a logical paradox

.....why is that not consistent with my other remarks? I don't think event B can precede event B any more than you do.

You clearly misunderstood my question.

I am asking how you drew this conclusion:
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.

If I read it right you are saying that event B must have occurred prior to event B.

Originally posted by knightmeister
“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.----hammy------------

Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless state? Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in" . However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur ou ...[text shortened]... it not? But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.

… Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless STATE? ..…

1, when did this “STATE” exist?

2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.

… Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in". .…

Correct -I thought you were saying the exact opposite?

…However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur outside of time or without time. ….

Correct -and I still claim that.

… Everything for you has to occur at a "point in time" does it not? …

Except space and time itself -yes.

…But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.. …

Given the fact that what you refer to as “event B” is the beginning of time -yes -that is what I have been saying all the long.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why not? If the beginning of time is an event then it must have logically not occurred in time.

The only way out of this is to say that event B is not an event as such.

If so what exactly is the beginning of time? What do we mean if we say that time has a beginning?

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to define what you mean by 'event'. If you mean 'a variation in the energy or matter content at a specific point in space over time', then the beginning of the universe was not an event. If you are using it more loosely as in 'the point in spacetime that we are talking about' then your argument fails.
So lets just say that it was not an event. What now?

Originally posted by knightmeister
.................but there certainly was no fraction of a Planks time after the big bang. -either way, the universe had a “beginning”.

-------hammy--------------

And did this beginning occur at a point in time?

… And did this beginning occur at a point in time?..…

When you say “beginning” are you referring to the beginning of time or the beginning of the universe?

-if you mean the beginning of time then because, as you yourself said, “Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in". ” , it did not began at a point in some other kind of time -it just began.

-if you mean the beginning of the universe then when you refer to “a point in time” are you referring to an existence of a “point in time” in this universe or are you referring to an existence of a “point in time” outside this universe?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless STATE? ..…

1, when did this “STATE” exist?

2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.

… Time itself must exist without the ne ...[text shortened]... to as “event B” is the beginning of time -yes -that is what I have been saying all the long.

2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.-----------hammy-----

But it was you was it not who claimed that to talk about what came before the universe had no meaning because nothing can exist outside of time.

But if time can exist (or begin) without needing any time in which to do this then your argument is flawed.

Are you now saying that only some things need a point in time to exist in and others can exist (or begin) without any need of time?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… And did this beginning occur at a point in time?..…

When you say “beginning” are you referring to the beginning of time or the beginning of the universe?

-if you mean the beginning of time then because, as you yourself said, “Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in". ” , it did not began at a point in some other ...[text shortened]... this universe or are you referring to an existence of a “point in time” outside this universe?[/b]

I am using your logic here not mine. I don't think time is needed for anything NOR do I think it exists in reality.

It's you that has always seemed obseesed with time as a way of disputing any posiiton I put forward. You seemed to be saying that nothing can exist or occurr unless it occurs at a point in time , are you going back on this now?

Originally posted by knightmeister
2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.-----------hammy-----

But it was you was it not who claimed that to talk about what came before the universe had no meaning because nothing can exist outside of time.

But if time can exist (or b ...[text shortened]... hings need a point in time to exist in and others can exist (or begin) without any need of time?

… Are you NOW saying that only some things need a point in time to exist in and others can exist (or begin) without any need of time?..…

What do you mean by am I “NOW” saying this? -I have made it clear in some of my past posts going all the way back for the last few weeks that time and space itself are exceptions (and the only exceptions) to the rule that all things need time and space to exist in or, indeed, to begin in.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am using your logic here not mine. I don't think time is needed for anything NOR do I think it exists in reality.

It's you that has always seemed obseesed with time as a way of disputing any posiiton I put forward. You seemed to be saying that nothing can exist or occurr unless it occurs at a point in time , are you going back on this now?

no

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is why I have repeatedly asked you to define what you mean by 'event'. If you mean 'a variation in the energy or matter content at a specific point in space over time', then the beginning of the universe was not an event. If you are using it more loosely as in 'the point in spacetime that we are talking about' then your argument fails.
So lets just say that it was not an event. What now?

Ok , so what else could the beginning of time be? (and why do many scientists seem to refer to the Big bang as an event , are they wrong?)

The way the Big Bnag is described (all that release of energy and rapid expansion , heat etc) one could certainly be forgiven for thinking that it was an event.

It was certainly quite an eventful non- event (LOL).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
no

Ok , in your view , nothing can exist or occur unless it occurs at a point in time right?

So how did time come to exist then? How did the beginning of time itself occur? Your logic dictates that there could not have been any pre-existing time in which the beginning of time could occur.

Do you have any thoughts on this?