Originally posted by twhitehead
The thought experiment is logically flawed in that you assume a timeline external to 'existence'. If everything got sucked up, then at the point that time itself gets sucked up, time ceases to flow and thus the point you seem to think exists where nothing exists can never actually exist as time never reaches there.
I know the language just doesn't do jus ...[text shortened]... back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.
Of course you are trying hard to get back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.WHITEY
You can fool some but not me matey. At face value the contention of S from Nothing (IE answer B) is a pretty remarkable claim and by all logic we understand nothing should come from nothing. So the onus was on you, not me to show how and why S could come from N.
I note with interest how your approach to this thread has been to firstly try to sabotage the thought experiment (thereby delaying having to answer it) and secondly to declare a false victory from the other thread.
If you had so soundly "thoroughly" trounced me as you claim then it should have been no problem for you to have just waltzed in and answered B straight away and been able to show why B was the most rational and reasonable answer in contrast to A. The fact you have not done this is very interesting when contrasted with your claim of a "thorough" refutation of my argument.
So , I ask again , what reasons and rationale can you give us for choosing B and not A? I say A is the most likely and logical outcome (and it appears I am not alone) . Can you give us all a reasoned argument to choose B?
and remember...make it a "thorough" one! (LOL)