The Void of nothing

Originally posted by dj2becker
In order to state something as fact you need to produce reproducible evidence.

So, since you stated that God (the real entity) was eternal, you will now have to produce reproducible evidence, or with draw your statement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, since you stated that God (the real entity) was eternal, you will now have to produce reproducible evidence, or with draw your statement.

A statement of fact is unlike a statement of belief. Mine was a statement of belief and yours a statement of fact. So if you have no reproducible evidence you might as well modify your statement of fact to be a statement of belief.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A statement of fact is unlike a statement of belief. Mine was a statement of belief and yours a statement of fact. So if you have no reproducible evidence you might as well modify your statement of fact to be a statement of belief.

OK, I hereby modify it to a statement of belief. However that does not invalidate it as an example as your example was also a statement of belief.
(I don't actually believe it, but that is not a requirement for the exercise in logic).

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, I hereby modify it to a statement of belief. However that does not invalidate it as an example as your example was also a statement of belief.
(I don't actually believe it, but that is not a requirement for the exercise in logic).

The difference of course is that my statement of belief was a logical one.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid there are no good examples.

In my example you can measure beyond the end of the wood, but you aren't measuring wood anymore. This is analogous to the fact that you can talk about 20 billion years ago, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of the universe. You can measure 6 inches of wood which isn't there - but it doesn't make ...[text shortened]...
You don't see time as dependant on the universe? Well, feel free to re-write relativity.

Another way of looking at this is by using your wood, as soon as there is a piece of wood we can measure it all size, weight and so on, as soon as you tell me there was an event, we have the same abilities with reqard to that event a before, during, and after that event. You want it both ways, and it is only between your ears that the before could not happen.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Another way of looking at this is by using your wood, as soon as there is a piece of wood we can measure it all size, weight and so on, as soon as you tell me there was an event, we have the same abilities with reqard to that event a before, during, and after that event. You want it both ways, and it is only between your ears that the before could not happen.
Kelly

You seem to be re-writing relativity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You seem to be re-writing relativity.

Do you mean to say that the Theory of Relativity is infallible?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You seem to be re-writing relativity.

No, just looking at things the way they are.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that the Theory of Relativity is infallible?

Not at all. Feel free to come up with something better. It is, however, by far and away the best description of the universe we have.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, just looking at things the way they are.
Kelly

No you aren't. You are specifically looking at things the way they are not.

You are positing time existing outside of the universe, at a seperate thing. This viewpoint has no basis in physics.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Not at all. Feel free to come up with something better. It is, however, by far and away the best description of the universe we have.

Would you say the universe is an open or a closed system?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No you aren't. You are specifically looking at things the way they are not.

You are positing time existing outside of the universe, at a seperate thing. This viewpoint has [b]no basis in physics.[/b]

Before the BB doesn’t the law of physics break down, and so your point is what? That an event that you claim occurred, means nothing could happen before that event? Seems rather odd to me, you may as well say that if we have a piece a wood and we can measure length, but we cannot measure its width, just because.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Before the BB doesn’t the law of physics break down, and so your point is what? That an event that you claim occurred, means nothing could happen before that event? Seems rather odd to me, you may as well say that if we have a piece a wood and we can measure length, but we cannot measure its width, just because.
Kelly

At the singularity of the BB the laws of physics might be said to break down. To talk about 'before' it is totally meaningless.

There is nothing wrong with measuring the width of the piece of wood. You are measuring it in another dimension. We have no objections to that. But you are claiming that you can measure it using its length dimension whilst simultaneously claiming it to be another dimension. In your analogy you are saying its length beyond the end is 5cm wide which is clearly totally meaningless.

I have given a better analogy before. The surface of a sphere, say the earth, is a dimension in and of itself. A point on the surface of the sphere can be 'further south' than another point. Southness has a beginning (the south pole) and an end (the north pole) but there is no such thing as further south than the south pole.
Keep in mind that southness is along the surface of the earth so a point 1 metre 'below' the south pole along the axis of the earth is not further south than the south pole. It is in another dimension.

Actually a sphere has two dimensions but we can leave out the east and west bit for the analogy.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you say the universe is an open or a closed system?

Closed. I'm sure you are going to offer some inane drivel up though.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At the singularity of the BB the laws of physics might be said to break down. To talk about 'before' it is totally meaningless.

There is nothing wrong with measuring the width of the piece of wood. You are measuring it in another dimension. We have no objections to that. But you are claiming that you can measure it using its length dimension whilst si ...[text shortened]... ly a sphere has two dimensions but we can leave out the east and west bit for the analogy.

You saying the point before the BB is meaningless doesn't make it so.
You may as well say the singularity itself is meaningless.
Kelly