Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand you. Why are you not answering this question clearly? You keep writing long paragraphs which are far from clear or understandable.
It includes all the time that the universe has a part of what more
could it have?
Kelly
If you are wondering where I am going with this, it is as follows:
You talk about the universe as if it is a subset of some greater entity and some longer time-frame.
I want to know what it is about the subset you call the universe that creates the boundaries. ie how do you know where the universe subset begins? You claim that all events have causes in a continuous chain and you extend that chain out beyond the beginning of the universe yet you do not extend the universe. So what marks the boundary?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI got that from you, the universe being a subset of something
I don't understand you. Why are you not answering this question clearly? You keep writing long paragraphs which are far from clear or understandable.
If you are wondering where I am going with this, it is as follows:
You talk about the universe as if it is a subset of some greater entity and some longer time-frame.
I want to know what it is about the ...[text shortened]... d the beginning of the universe yet you do not extend the universe. So what marks the boundary?
greater when you brought into the picture another dimension
or someplace where the singularity came from. Now if I am
the one confused as to your views please correct me, I’m not
trying to be confusing here. Looking at the beginning we have
two choices that I see, everything was always here or not, and
as soon as we pick a side the justification comes in, along with
all the issues either side has.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry -misprint:
[b]…So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
…
I think therefore I am -so my mind exists.
As for my implicit assumption that my physical body (and the physical world) isn’t just an illusion -if it is in some sense an “illusion” then this “illusion” must exist and that would just merely mean we would have to redefine what we by “physical”.[/b]
“…redefine what we by “physical"
Should have been:
“…redefine what we mean by “physical"
Originally posted by KellyJayAs far as I know it was you that suggested another dimension not me. It is also you that brought up the concept of the universe being part of something greater. I am just trying to identify why you choose not to include the something greater in the universe.
I got that from you, the universe being a subset of something
greater when you brought into the picture another dimension
or someplace where the singularity came from. Now if I am
the one confused as to your views please correct me,
I’m not trying to be confusing here. Looking at the beginning we have
two choices that I see, everything was always here or not, and
as soon as we pick a side the justification comes in, along with
all the issues either side has.
Kelly
Which is why I do not pick a side. I see no reason why I should pick a side without any evidence either way. You on the other hand were arguing that a certain scenario was impossible (something from nothing) and that therefore your preferred scenario was the only one left (God did it). And that was after already assuming one of the sides that you mention above ie that there was a beginning.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what do you know about each? I have asked this a number of times already and you continue to evade the question. You claim to know something about the universe that makes it required endless causal chains and that something apparently doesn't apply to God. What is that something?
It is a matter of what I know about each, I don't need to know all
there is to know about a gold fish to know it is quite different than
the big toe on my left foot.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know. I do not know whether the universe had a beginning, I do not know whether, if it did have a beginning, a cause existed or was necessary, nor if that cause existed what it was. I do agree however that we can dismiss 'nothing' as a cause, but I don't think that really achieves anything.
Well please tell me what caused the universe that makes sense to
you? My point again that we can dismiss nothing, and now we can
move on to the something that did do it.
Kelly[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I have picked a side, because the Big Bang avoids the one point it is
As far as I know it was you that suggested another dimension not me. It is also you that brought up the concept of the universe being part of something greater. I am just trying to identify why you choose not to include the something greater in the universe.
[b]I’m not trying to be confusing here. Looking at the beginning we have
two choices that I ...[text shortened]... as after already assuming one of the sides that you mention above ie that there was a beginning.
supposed to answer in my opinion which is where did everything come
from!
Outside of God I have only seen non-answwers to the question about
where everything came from. I have seen where the processes and
all things started at the Big Bang, but what was left out of the answer
was where the singularity came from. All I ever get when that was
discussed was, it is a non-logical guestion or some rot like that! I
asked why the singularity blew up into the Big Bang if people wanted
to say that time didn't start until then, when the singularity produced
the Big Bang, if all we can really say about that was there were
some 'changes' going on within the singularity to cause it to
move from one state into another that made the Big Bang occur? How
long it was that process, how long was it in that state, those requires
time, and since time was supposedly not occuring while that was going
on? What happened before that, that put it into such a state let alone,
where the darn thing came from in the first place, which is still same
question about the beginning of all things!
So really the discussion on the singularity is just a way to avoid the
topic of the beginning, since it is mythical creation of someone's
thought moving us off what we see around us on to something that
may not have even been real at all anyway. If people again want to
leave God out of the discussion because they believe people made
Him up to cover the unknown in our knowledge, the same is true of
the singurity if that is the only basis for rejection.
You think you will see in your life time evidence about the beginning of
all things, really!? What is it you are looking for in the way of evidence,
what type of thing do you think valid to tell us this is true or that?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe average angular momentum of an electron around an atom is determined mainly from its average distance from the nucleus and the total positive charge of the nucleus (as determined by the number of protons). This indirectly determines its likely limits in speed giving it a kind of fussy ‘speed limit’ of sorts.
so what is it then?
Why do these little particles just spin so goddam fast without them ever flying out of their orbits?
Originally posted by twhiteheadFair enough, but you run into a different set of issues with a
I do not know. I do not know whether the universe had a beginning, I do not know whether, if it did have a beginning, a cause existed or was necessary, nor if that cause existed what it was. I do agree however that we can dismiss 'nothing' as a cause, but I don't think that really achieves anything.
universe that always was, because people are dating it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayPeople are dating it from the big bang.
Fair enough, but you run into a different set of issues with a
universe that always was, because people are dating it.
Kelly
Lets say, for the sake of argument, the big bang wasn’t the beginning of the universe as we know it because there was a ‘before’ the big bang; then people ‘dating’ the universe would be simply dating the era of the universe with the beginning of that era simply defined as the moment of the last universal big bang and then the issues with people dating the universe would be………..?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou than believe all matter in the universe is eternal, and you are
People are dating it from the big bang.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, the big bang wasn’t the beginning of the universe as we know it because there was a ‘before’ the big bang; then people ‘dating’ the universe would be simply dating the era of the universe with the beginning of that era simply defined as the moment of the last universal big bang and then the issues with people dating the universe would be………..?
dating the eternal and coming up with something else. I would then
wonder about what else could cause the dates to be wrong.
Kelly