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

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…There was no time no singularity, THEN there was;..… (my emphasis)

The “THEN there was” implies that there was a “before” (which there wasn’t according to the main-stream big bang theory).

…This is just like the no designer
for design statement that is being offered up here, or the selection
without a selector in natural selectio ...[text shortened]... ins why giving a non-standard meaning to the word in a narrow context is logically flawed/wrong?

[/b]Like I said before either the words we use mean something or they
do not, we can look up many words and see several different meanings
to each of them, the more common are the ones we see first. I'm
content with reading any of them, when you promote one that is not
there at all, I'd say there is an issue, especially if your new use of the
word flies in the face of the most common definitions of that word.

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are I quite right, I disagree with you! There is nothing logical
about there was nothing, and then there was something (singularity)
if that is your stance we are and will remain in a state of
disagreement.

Well that is rather odd as it is an invention of yours is it not? Why would you suggest something you believe to be illogical?
I certainly never suggested it.

Nothing about sounds reasonable to me in the least, even if I give
you no time before the singularity (which is not logical)
Why is that not logical? Explain.

you still have the passage of time during the singularities existence before the Big Bang,
No you don't. The singularity only exists for one point in time, t=0.

you cannot deny that time passage too do you?
I just did.

The reason I ask this is, it points again back to the singularities unstable existence when that started since something was either acting upon it, or it was going through a process of change that caused the Big Bang.
Kelly
Many things in nature are unstable. The only thing I think that points to is the laws of physics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that is rather odd as it is an invention of yours is it not? Why would you suggest something you believe to be illogical?
I certainly never suggested it.

[b]Nothing about sounds reasonable to me in the least, even if I give
you no time before the singularity (which is not logical)
Why is that not logical? Explain.

you still have the p ny things in nature are unstable. The only thing I think that points to is the laws of physics.

[/b]I believe you do not get something from nothing, for me that is
illogical, you happen to see it another way or am I missing your
point?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that is rather odd as it is an invention of yours is it not? Why would you suggest something you believe to be illogical?
I certainly never suggested it.

[b]Nothing about sounds reasonable to me in the least, even if I give
you no time before the singularity (which is not logical)
Why is that not logical? Explain.

you still have the p ny things in nature are unstable. The only thing I think that points to is the laws of physics.

"No you don't. The singularity only exists for one point in time, t=0. "

[/b]Fine, and it came from what?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No straw man here, the issue is quite profound and you ignore it,
which is you got nothing, then everything without an explanation as
to how that came about. That isn't a straw man that is the argument.
Kelly

It is a strawman. Neither of us, and nobody in this thread from the time it started until now believes that there was a point in time when there was nothing, nor have I nor anyone on my side of the argument ever suggested the possibility. I repeat, a strawman.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a strawman. Neither of us, and nobody in this thread from the time it started until now believes that there was a point in time when there was nothing, nor have I nor anyone on my side of the argument ever suggested the possibility. I repeat, a strawman.

You have a piece of something that was under going change, and that
came from where, or it is eternal and for some odd reason this eternal
piece of something that was I suppose always under some type
of stress just at some point blew up?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about an event, the Big Bang is an event, and for
that matter so is the singularity since it was under going change
from one state to another, which resulted in the Big Bang, They are
events/processes that occurred.

No, the singularity is not an event as I have repeatedly stated. The only reason you want to call it an event is that you want to then use the definition of the word to make further claims. That is circular logic is it not? If the word can be applied then surely the properties that the word implies have already been agreed have they not? If you need the word to prove the properties then you were probably wrong to use the word.

With respect to natural selection having no selector you have some
thing actually making choices on selections, or do you have a process
which is life playing out where some live and some die without
anyone actually making selections?
Kelly
I am sure we have had this discussion before, or was it someone else?
Is a kitchen sieve a selector? If I pour flour through a kitchen sieve, is selection taking place? Would it still be selection if flour poured through a sieve without me holding the handle? Human beings are not necessary for selections, neither is intelligence or even intent. Animals can select, machines can select, processes can select.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Life after death works just fine, since our lives here end in our physical
death and the life afterward continues on spiritually.
Kelly

But that does that entity reproduce? It is not alive at all.
Yes I am perfectly aware that the word 'life' has various meanings including the one used in religions - but that is so, because it was used out of context by religions - and the meaning changed! That is language. Your response is a clear admission that there is physical life and spiritual life and the word can mean either depending on context.. There are designs by designers and there are designs without designers, the word can mean either depending on context.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said before either the words we use mean something or they
do not, we can look up many words and see several different meanings
to each of them, the more common are the ones we see first. I'm
content with reading any of them, when you promote one that is not
there at all, I'd say there is an issue, especially if your new use of the
word flies in the face of the most common definitions of that word.

Kelly

Well maybe you should do some research into what dictionaries really are. They do not create language, they merely reflect its usage. If a word is used sufficiently often in a given context then it should go in a dictionary with that meaning. I believe Andrew has already given you references to show that the meaning in question is in use and thus you should really be complaining to your dictionary writers for not being up to date.
In addition, as long as I define a word, I am free to use any word to mean anything anywhere. I do think it is wise to avoid doing so for political or religious reasons. I object to atheists referring to the universe as God, and scientologists, implying that their is science in their religions, and terms like 'creation science'. But I do not fail to understand them, or try to make claims about their beliefs based on their choice of word, I merely think that they are attempting to be misunderstood to their advantage.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe you do not get something from nothing, for me that is
illogical, you happen to see it another way or am I missing your
point?
Kelly

I have said it over and over and over in this thread. If time begins at t=0 then that is not equivalent to getting something from nothing. Both you and knightmeister either can't or won't see the difference, and the thing that made me think that in knightmeister case it was a won't was the way he avoided any questions that highlighted his error.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine, and it came from what?
Kelly

It didn't come from anything. But that is not, I repeat not, equivalent to "it came from nothing". It did not come. Something can only 'come' if there is time in which to 'come' and there was no time before the singularity - there was no 'before' - there is no 'was' - there isn't even a 'nothing'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have a piece of something that was under going change, and that
came from where, or it is eternal and for some odd reason this eternal
piece of something that was I suppose always under some type
of stress just at some point blew up?
Kelly

The hypothesis is that time starts from t=0. At t=0 the universe is a singularity. From t=0 onwards, the universe expands to the point it is at today. It was never static over time.
I think the problem is you either cannot conceive of a finite time line. But inability to understand does not amount to an argument against.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The hypothesis is that time starts from t=0. At t=0 the universe is a singularity. From t=0 onwards, the universe expands to the point it is at today. It was never static over time.
I think the problem is you either cannot conceive of a finite time line. But inability to understand does not amount to an argument against.

I think the problem is you either cannot conceive of a finite time line. But inability to understand does not amount to an argument against.
---------------------whitey----------------------

Interestingly , I feel the same way when trying to explain God's omniscience and free will. The fact that some cannot conceive how it's possible does not make it wrong.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Interestingly , I feel the same way when trying to explain God's omniscience and free will. The fact that some cannot conceive how it's possible does not make it wrong.

Quite true. But the situations are not identical.
In this thread you claim to have a logical argument based on physics and logic that time cannot be finite. For you to support such a claim, you must be able to understand the subject matter as well as explain your argument.
Regarding free will and omniscience it is again you making the claim and so you should be able to explain it. What is more, I tried my best to find out what your explanation of free will was, but you kept changing your stance, or denying obvious logical truths.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, the singularity is not an event as I have repeatedly stated. The only reason you want to call it an event is that you want to then use the definition of the word to make further claims. That is circular logic is it not? If the word can be applied then surely the properties that the word implies have already been agreed have they not? If you need the w ...[text shortened]... r is intelligence or even intent. Animals can select, machines can select, processes can select.

You are sticking your head in the ground here over this. The event
was at one point there was no singularity then there was, that is
an event. The singularity itself is an item in flux, it was in one state
then the big bang occurs and its no longer in that state. You may
want to say there wasn't an event there, but you are ignoring this
so you can go on your merry way without taking that into account.
Because you hide that 'event' from your logic you than go on as if
your 'beliefs' about the beginning are completely logical when in fact
they are, NOT.
Kelly