In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

…the great fuzzy of no idea begins
and people just SAY there was nothing BEFORE that.
….(my emphasis)

Which “people just SAY” that? 😛 -answer, certainly not us!
We are not claiming there WAS a “BEFORE that” because we don’t think there was.
-you are just repeating this same strawman argument over and over again -can you just get this straight once and for all -we claim there was NO “before” the singularity that came before the big bang -get it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... mpossible or at least shown to be unlikely render the use of a dichotomy argument invalid.

…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.
…..

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…the great fuzzy of no idea begins
and people just SAY there was nothing BEFORE that.
….(my emphasis)

Which “people just SAY” that? 😛 -answer, certainly not us!
We are not claiming there WAS a “BEFORE that” because we don’t think there was.
-you are just repeating this same strawman argument over and over again -can you just get this ...[text shortened]... d for all -we claim there was NO “before” the singularity that came before the big bang -get it?[/b]

"We are not claiming there WAS a “BEFORE that” because we don’t think there was."

So there was what "nothing" before that, or that thing which there is no
evidence for has always been around, making it eternal?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"We are not claiming there WAS a “BEFORE that” because we don’t think there was."

So there was what "nothing" before that, or that thing which there is no
evidence for has always been around, making it eternal?
Kelly

I realize that the nature of our lives makes time an intuitive concept for which we find it hard to imaging an end or beginning, and it is abundantly clear that you can't seem to even begin to conceive of the possibility of a beginning to time, but nevertheless that is what is being proposed. Until you understand this fundamental aspect of the argument, you will get nowhere and just keep repeating the 'what was before that?' mantra.
The hypothesis is that there exists a point in time for which there are no points in time prior to it. There are currently no known laws of physics that make such a scenario impossible.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"We are not claiming there WAS a “BEFORE that” because we don’t think there was."

So there was what "nothing" before that, or that thing which there is no
evidence for has always been around, making it eternal?
Kelly

…So there was what "nothing" BEFORE that,
….(my emphasis)

How can there be "nothing" BEFORE that if there is no “BEFORE that”?

You just haven’t clasped the concept of there being a ‘beginning of time’ -logically there cannot be any “before” a ‘beginning of time’ (that is just a teratology) thus there cannot be “nothing” nor “something” “before” a ‘beginning of time’ because there was no such “before”.

Therefore, IF there is a beginning of time, that doesn’t imply that everything came from “nothing” because at no point in time was there “nothing” and there was no “nothing” “before” that beginning of time because there was no such “before” (because if there was such a “before” , then that wouldn’t have been the “beginning” of time! )

Therefore, an implication of there being a beginning of time (and the universe) would NOT be that the universe came from “nothing” and I haven’t heard anyone claim that it did that understood this.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So there was what "nothing" BEFORE that,
….(my emphasis)

How can there be "nothing" BEFORE that if there is no “BEFORE that”?

You just haven’t clasped the concept of there being a ‘beginning of time’ -logically there cannot be any “before” a ‘beginning of time’ (that is just a teratology) thus there cannot be “nothing” nor “something” ...[text shortened]... verse came from “nothing” and I haven’t heard anyone claim that it did that understood this.[/b]

So you don't Believe in Eternity?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that the nature of our lives makes time an intuitive concept for which we find it hard to imaging an end or beginning, and it is abundantly clear that you can't seem to even begin to conceive of the possibility of a beginning to time, but nevertheless that is what is being proposed. Until you understand this fundamental aspect of the argument, y ...[text shortened]... ior to it. There are currently no known laws of physics that make such a scenario impossible.

A beginning of time requires a cause you have one?

A beginning of anything requires a cause, that is what I'm asking for.
All you have is a process where you want to start the marking of time
at this place and reject anything before it. I'm rejecting the notion you
can have a beginning springing from nothing, which is again what you
are suggesting. There are no laws of physics to cover such a scenario
so can we conclude that scenario never happened, something outside
of the known universe had to have caused it?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So there was what "nothing" BEFORE that,
….(my emphasis)

How can there be "nothing" BEFORE that if there is no “BEFORE that”?

You just haven’t clasped the concept of there being a ‘beginning of time’ -logically there cannot be any “before” a ‘beginning of time’ (that is just a teratology) thus there cannot be “nothing” nor “something” ...[text shortened]... verse came from “nothing” and I haven’t heard anyone claim that it did that understood this.[/b]

double post

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So there was what "nothing" BEFORE that,
….(my emphasis)

How can there be "nothing" BEFORE that if there is no “BEFORE that”?

You just haven’t clasped the concept of there being a ‘beginning of time’ -logically there cannot be any “before” a ‘beginning of time’ (that is just a teratology) thus there cannot be “nothing” nor “something” ...[text shortened]... verse came from “nothing” and I haven’t heard anyone claim that it did that understood this.[/b]

If there was "no before that" we have what, nothing? You have some
other way to state that? As long as there is something and a process
taking place we move to the beginning of that process, you have a
thing called the singularity that was supposed to be active, it was made
up of various parts with space between them, they were seated in
something else somewhere; therefore, it wasn't the beginning because
its parts had to have started at some point don't you think?

The thing it was sitting in since it wasn't part of the singularity has a
history too I imagine, we have theories on what that was, and what it
was made of?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there was "no before that" we have what, nothing? You have some
other way to state that? As long as there is something and a process
taking place we move to the beginning of that process, you have a
thing called the singularity that was supposed to be active, it was made
up of various parts with space between them, they were seated in
something else ...[text shortened]...
history too I imagine, we have theories on what that was, and what it
was made of?
Kelly

God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that the nature of our lives makes time an intuitive concept for which we find it hard to imaging an end or beginning, and it is abundantly clear that you can't seem to even begin to conceive of the possibility of a beginning to time, but nevertheless that is what is being proposed. Until you understand this fundamental aspect of the argument, y ...[text shortened]... ior to it. There are currently no known laws of physics that make such a scenario impossible.

The reason I keep coming to it, because that is what you are
describing a non-event that doesn't have time or effect. You want to
avoid using the word nothing, yet that is the wall you have created
when you address or better said avoid addressing before the
singularity.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A beginning of time requires a cause you have one?

Why does it? Give me a good reason, don't just state it as apparent fact when it isn't.

A beginning of anything requires a cause, that is what I'm asking for.
You first have to show the claim is valid. Simply repeating the claim doesn't cut it.

All you have is a process where you want to start the marking of time
at this place and reject anything before it.
You still don't get it. We do not reject anything before it, we propose that there is no before it.

I'm rejecting the notion you can have a beginning springing from nothing, which is again what you are suggesting.
No, it is again not what I am suggesting.

There are no laws of physics to cover such a scenario so can we conclude that scenario never happened,
Er, what sort of logic is that? One cannot conclude that something never happened just because there are no laws of physics covering it. It simply doesn't follow.

something outside of the known universe had to have caused it?
Kelly
Not necessarily. We have no good reason to believe a cause is necessary and certainly no hard evidence. Further, I am not convinced that something outside the 'known universe' should be declared outside the universe.

You still haven't addressed the eternal universe scenario that I suggested earlier, so do you agree with me that your original dichotomy is invalid?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why does it? Give me a good reason, don't just state it as apparent fact when it isn't.

[b]A beginning of anything requires a cause, that is what I'm asking for.
You first have to show the claim is valid. Simply repeating the claim doesn't cut it.

All you have is a process where you want to start the marking of time
at this place and reject I suggested earlier, so do you agree with me that your original dichotomy is invalid?

[/b]Explain to me how anything occurs or starts that does not have a
cause. I'm accepting you don't think there was a before, you can get
that how...because there was nothing to get or some other reason?


I believe I have addressed everything you have brought forward, if I
missed it I ask you to restate your scenario so I can address it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why does it? Give me a good reason, don't just state it as apparent fact when it isn't.

[b]A beginning of anything requires a cause, that is what I'm asking for.
You first have to show the claim is valid. Simply repeating the claim doesn't cut it.

All you have is a process where you want to start the marking of time
at this place and reject I suggested earlier, so do you agree with me that your original dichotomy is invalid?

[/b]You believe the universe to be eternal, define for me what you mean
by eternal because I think we are at odds on how we define that term.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Explain to me how anything occurs or starts that does not have a
cause.

Well presumably, if there is no cause, there is also no 'how'. I certainly do not know that everything that occurs or starts has a cause. The currently known laws of physics certainly do not require it nor even hint at it. The vast majority of events in the known universe have no known cause and appear to be totally random. I fully realize that that does not rule out a cause but it does indicate that the 'cause requirement' is far from self evident.
Now can you explain to my why everything that occurs or starts requires a cause? It is you that is making the more specific claim.

I'm accepting you don't think there was a before, you can get
that how...because there was nothing to get or some other reason?
I am not very sure what your question is here. Can you rephrase it? If you are asking "why is time finite" then my answer is: I don't know, nor do I know if it is, however as long as it is theoretically possible that it is, your argument remains invalid.

I believe I have addressed everything you have brought forward, if I
missed it I ask you to restate your scenario so I can address it.
Kelly
I suggested that it is possible that time is infinite and the universe is eternal. You have not given any argument to rule out such a scenario, so do you agree that your original dichotomy is invalid? (as it assumes the eternal universe is not an option).