Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't have issue one on if you have in your beliefs about the
[b]…how did you arrive at the conclusion that you can NOT have BOTH the singularity AND the space it is in!!!!?
...
Kelly?[/b]
beginning both space and the singularity, I ask what the space was
made of, and so on...what else was not part of the the singularity?
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo let me get this straight; you are now saying you CAN have BOTH the singularity AND the space in it? Then your previous argument appears to have no basis -there are no demonstrated logical inconsistencies here with the singularity hypothesis.
I don't have issue one on if you have in your beliefs about the
beginning both space and the singularity, I ask what the space was
made of, and so on...what else was not part of the the singularity?
Kelly
Have you got anything to add to that?
…I ask what the space was
made of
...
space is a dimension: not really mush more one can say about it!
…I ask what the space was
made of
...
Space is a dimension: not really mush more I can say about that!
What kind of answer are you hoping for?
…what else was not part of the singularity?
….
Just time and space -so?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm looking at what your saying, I don't believe there was a so called
So let me get this straight; you are now saying you CAN have BOTH the singularity AND the space in it? Then your previous argument appears to have no basis -there are no demonstrated logical inconsistencies here with the singularity hypothesis.
Have you got anything to add to that?
[b]…I ask what the space was
made of
...
space is a d ...[text shortened]... oping for?
…what else was not part of the singularity?
….
Just time and space -so?[/b]
'singularity' as the cause of all things. I'm saying everytime I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…I don't believe there was a so called
I'm looking at what your saying, I don't believe there was a so called
'singularity' as the cause of all things. I'm saying everytime I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
Kelly
'singularity' as the cause of all things.
….
That doesn’t surprise me -I see a pattern here.
…I'm saying every time I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
...
What things have been changing a little?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have some time this weekend, I'll put something together for you.
[b]…I don't believe there was a so called
'singularity' as the cause of all things.
….
That doesn’t surprise me -I see a pattern here.
…I'm saying every time I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
...
What things have been changing a little?[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo God is the cause of all things.
[b]…I don't believe there was a so called
'singularity' as the cause of all things.
….
That doesn’t surprise me -I see a pattern here.
…I'm saying every time I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
...
What things have been changing a little?[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayI would like to know whether after the various discussions in this thread you now agree that your original argument for the thread is invalid?
I'm looking at what your saying, I don't believe there was a so called
'singularity' as the cause of all things. I'm saying everytime I start
asking you about it things have been changing a little.
Kelly
I see two main flaws with your original argument:
1. The 'something from nothing' is not considered an option by anyone as far as I know and is thus either a misunderstanding of other peoples position or simply a strawman.
2. The dichotomy you set up of 'something from nothing' or 'God did it' is invalid because we have presented other valid alternatives which until proven impossible or at least shown to be unlikely render the use of a dichotomy argument invalid.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou have not presented one thing that has to do with the "beginning"
That’s obviously what he believes which is why he refutes any science that shows otherwise.
within science, you start with the singularity and go from there and
so far there are a lot of questions about that.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe beginning so far with respect to God, has God being forever here
I would like to know whether after the various discussions in this thread you now agree that your original argument for the thread is invalid?
I see two main flaws with your original argument:
1. The 'something from nothing' is not considered an option by anyone as far as I know and is thus either a misunderstanding of other peoples position or simply a mpossible or at least shown to be unlikely render the use of a dichotomy argument invalid.
the cause of all things, all other discussions has so far as near as I
can tell start with everything being in a different form, but that does
not talk about the beginning as I pointed out to you before. So all
anyone has really done claiming is science has said that all matter
was in energy form and before that...the great fuzzy of no idea begins
and people just say there was nothing before that. Not exactly a clear
clue about the beginning only that the logic of it breaks down there.
There are more issues too, but I'll try to get to them later.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you have not really followed the alternative possibilitites. Let me summarize them for you again:
The beginning so far with respect to God, has God being forever here
the cause of all things, all other discussions has so far as near as I
can tell start with everything being in a different form, but that does
not talk about the beginning as I pointed out to you before. So all
anyone has really done claiming is science has said that all matter
was in ...[text shortened]... f it breaks down there.
There are more issues too, but I'll try to get to them later.
Kelly
1. The universe started with a singularity at the big bang. Time is a dimension of the universe and therefore there is no such thing as 'before' the big bang singularity.
2. The universe is older than the big bang and had a beginning prior to that which we know nothing about at present, but would have the same 'no before' property as in 1.
3. The universe is eternal.
I realize that you don't fully understand many of the concepts involved especially dimensions and square circles, but you certainly have not fully refuted the above possibilities. So, could you answer my question as to whether you agree with me that the key argument you started the thread off with remains invalid?
I must also point out that your suggested scenario of a timeline that precedes space has far more problems from a scientific point of view as space and time are so intricately linked that they cannot be separated without fundamentally changing the definition of 'time'. It would be equivalent to claiming that one of the three spacial dimensions continues so far in one direction that he other two get left behind (and do not exist).
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You have not presented one thing that has to do with the "beginning"
You have not presented one thing that has to do with the "beginning"
within science, you start with the singularity and go from there and
so far there are a lot of questions about that.
Kelly
within science,
….
So the singularity that was the beginning of our known universe does not have anything to do with its beginning? 😛
…you start with the singularity and go from there and
so far there are a lot of questions about that.
…..
You have asked some questions about that and I have answered all of them to the best of my ability (despite not being an expert) and so far you have failed to show any contradictions in the scientific view (nor my view) regarding this singularity -so what is the problem you are having with this singularity?