Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Origin of the Universe

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 1:44:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So I've just read the Dawkins Letters (well apart from some irrelevant gumph in the back, pretty good book by the way, better than the God delusion certainly), and the author argues that people must believe one of the following things (I am paraphrasing).

1: Something came from nothing. There was nothing, then there was the big bang
2: Something was eternal. There has always been something and at some point in happened to blow up.
3: Something was created by a pre-existing and eternally existing God.

Now it seems to me than the first option is utter nonsense. Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1.

It also seems to me that point 2, and 3 overlap. Something has always existed. This is one of the following,
1: Matter.
2: God.
3: Matter and God.

But there has always been a thing, or things, one of more of which possessing the property of generation/creation and/or transformation. Though we may date the birth of this universe back 15 billion years ago there was a thing before hand and it happened to explode. This universe is either capable of regeneration (big crunch) or is a bud, an offshoot of the multiverse. Or we have an eternal God capable of creation.

Someone will probably say if there has always been a something, with no start, no previous nothing stage, indeed no first cause we have a infinite regress and a bit of a puzzle.

To which I'd argue that either time is an illusion, or that time is a loop.

So please tell me how stupid I am.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 1:55:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like the multiverse theory, personally.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 1:57:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"the author argues that people must believe one of the following things"

He missed one:
I don't know.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Dazedinday
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 6:53:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm just going to tell anybody that lists the origin of the universe with 1, 2, 3- that is dumb. Someone must be forgetting that we're in a jar of matter made by giant super advanced race of bunnies which joy in our miserable miserable hapless lives.

Also, I also agree that number 1 is pretty dumb. But, we never know. Outside our universe, maybe creation is not a violation of physics. But there is no way our puny beings can ever know what happened. And absolutely, God is not unlikely in that scenario.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 12:08:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 6:53:42 AM, Dazedinday wrote:
I'm just going to tell anybody that lists the origin of the universe with 1, 2, 3- that is dumb. Someone must be forgetting that we're in a jar of matter made by giant super advanced race of bunnies which joy in our miserable miserable hapless lives.


That fails to create a fourth option, you fail.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 12:32:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 1:44:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So I've just read the Dawkins Letters (well apart from some irrelevant gumph in the back, pretty good book by the way, better than the God delusion certainly), and the author argues that people must believe one of the following things (I am paraphrasing).

1: Something came from nothing. There was nothing, then there was the big bang
2: Something was eternal. There has always been something and at some point in happened to blow up.
3: Something was created by a pre-existing and eternally existing God.

Now it seems to me than the first option is utter nonsense. Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1.

It also seems to me that point 2, and 3 overlap. Something has always existed. This is one of the following,
1: Matter.
2: God.
3: Matter and God.

But there has always been a thing, or things, one of more of which possessing the property of generation/creation and/or transformation. Though we may date the birth of this universe back 15 billion years ago there was a thing before hand and it happened to explode. This universe is either capable of regeneration (big crunch) or is a bud, an offshoot of the multiverse. Or we have an eternal God capable of creation.

Someone will probably say if there has always been a something, with no start, no previous nothing stage, indeed no first cause we have a infinite regress and a bit of a puzzle.

To which I'd argue that either time is an illusion, or that time is a loop.

So please tell me how stupid I am.

It is hard to say. We cannot know for sure.

Maybe it is a loop, that the universe may eventually collapse back upon itself, and that collapse will trigger another big bang (and the cycle starts over).

Maybe the big bang was just a product of the bumping of two branes (which each have their own universe on them after the bump).

Basically, we don't know what we don't know, and any reasonable person should recognize that we can only believe, and should recognize that beliefs ought be subject to change.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 5:13:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't really buy the idea of a loop because a neverending, neverbeginning loop just doesn't make sense. What loop are we on now? Number infinity. What about last time? Number infinity. We'd never reach a finitely-ordered loop.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 6:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To be honest, the Dawkins Letters (from the letters I have read so far) is pretty terrible. Some things that Robertson says, like atheists are a well-treated group in the USA borders on complete fantasy, and other things about the book really annoyed me as well (the referencing was hopeless, for example). The book is just high school essay material, and misses what is after all a pretty easy target.

The cause of the universe (if that even makes sense) is a question with no forthcoming answer. I certainly don't have a clue, but would obviously suspect a non-personal cause.
Dazedinday
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 6:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 12:08:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/16/2011 6:53:42 AM, Dazedinday wrote:
I'm just going to tell anybody that lists the origin of the universe with 1, 2, 3- that is dumb. Someone must be forgetting that we're in a jar of matter made by giant super advanced race of bunnies which joy in our miserable miserable hapless lives.


That fails to create a fourth option, you fail.
No, no, no 'you phail.'
Allow me to explain. You surmised that one was from nothing, one was with God, and one was with God and Matter? Then you left a simple option out that something not god and matter created us and this very universe.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 6:36:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 6:11:39 PM, Dazedinday wrote:
At 1/16/2011 12:08:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/16/2011 6:53:42 AM, Dazedinday wrote:
I'm just going to tell anybody that lists the origin of the universe with 1, 2, 3- that is dumb. Someone must be forgetting that we're in a jar of matter made by giant super advanced race of bunnies which joy in our miserable miserable hapless lives.


That fails to create a fourth option, you fail.
No, no, no 'you phail.'
Allow me to explain. You surmised that one was from nothing, one was with God, and one was with God and Matter? Then you left a simple option out that something not god and matter created us and this very universe.

Yea how silly of me, so embarrased. <facepalm>
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 6:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Someone will probably say if there has always been a something, with no start, no previous nothing stage, indeed no first cause we have a infinite regress and a bit of a puzzle.

To which I'd argue that either time is an illusion, or that time is a loop.

So please tell me how stupid I am.:

Philosophically it would seem to make sense that at least something is eternal, because as you pointed out, P1 seems to be logically absurd. What we do know, based on observation, is that the universe (time/space/matter) had a beginning.

We could automatically assume God (God in this case being a generic term for the unknown First Cause).

But simply because this universe had a beginning does not mean that God is automatically invoked as de facto or default position in the absence of a clear answer. Indeed, the "God did it" approach is just as bereft of answers as an extreme atheistic position.

For all we know, the creation of this universe was borne out of the death throes of another universe (or dimension) which had a completely different set of physical laws. The multiverse theory is plausible, but it too remains as vacuous as God for the time being. The point is, it is at least a conceivable possibility.

That might seem like we're delaying the ultimate First Cause with an infinite series of regressions... and maybe we are. BUT the reality is that we simply do not know. We can speculate all day long, but at the end of the day, it's all conjecture. All of it. We can only know what know for certain. And at this point, all we know is that this universe had a beginning. We don't know how that all came to be.

We don't know how we got here. That's the only certainty here, and that is the most honest answer.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think linear causality works on earth. That's why we use it. There is no reason for linear causality to work when time is relative and bends and stuff.

The question is also bunk on comprehensive grounds. What does "origin" mean? When we say Origin, we mean like "from Kansas" or "Because he was bitten by a radioactive spider". But of course, the Universe can have no similar back story, so there isn't a satisfactory answer to the question.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:32:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 1:57:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"the author argues that people must believe one of the following things"

He missed one:
I don't know.

this.
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:41:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/16/2011 6:07:17 PM, unitedandy wrote:
To be honest, the Dawkins Letters (from the letters I have read so far) is pretty terrible. Some things that Robertson says, like atheists are a well-treated group in the USA borders on complete fantasy, and other things about the book really annoyed me as well (the referencing was hopeless, for example). The book is just high school essay material, and misses what is after all a pretty easy target.

The cause of the universe (if that even makes sense) is a question with no forthcoming answer. I certainly don't have a clue, but would obviously suspect a non-personal cause.

You need to read the God delusion first, the Dawkins Letters are a rebuttal to that. The biggest weakness of the Dawkins Letters is simply that the author is rebutting a less intelligent (or at least less wise) person.

That said, the few arguments that Robertson does put forward for the existence of a God are hopelessly naive. He does however do his job of ripping the God Delusion apart and exposing Dawkins as a poor philosopher.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:53:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Though, what little credibility I might possess leads me to reject your rejection of the first possibility: "Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1."

I think your main impetus for discounting 1 so quickly is more of a semantic quibble than an actual problem with the theory--specifically, a beef with "something from nothing", when strange fluctuations or spontaneous generation of elementary particles as a result of the interaction of some kind of forces counts as "something". I think you should evaluate the spontaneous generation theory in terms of its plausibility as an explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's compatible with the assertion of some that the theory demonstrates that something can, in fact, come from "nothing".
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:57:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:53:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though, what little credibility I might possess leads me to reject your rejection of the first possibility: "Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1."

I think your main impetus for discounting 1 so quickly is more of a semantic quibble than an actual problem with the theory--specifically, a beef with "something from nothing", when strange fluctuations or spontaneous generation of elementary particles as a result of the interaction of some kind of forces counts as "something". I think you should evaluate the spontaneous generation theory in terms of its plausibility as an explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's compatible with the assertion of some that the theory demonstrates that something can, in fact, come from "nothing".

You have misread the OP.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 9:00:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:57:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:53:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though, what little credibility I might possess leads me to reject your rejection of the first possibility: "Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1."

I think your main impetus for discounting 1 so quickly is more of a semantic quibble than an actual problem with the theory--specifically, a beef with "something from nothing", when strange fluctuations or spontaneous generation of elementary particles as a result of the interaction of some kind of forces counts as "something". I think you should evaluate the spontaneous generation theory in terms of its plausibility as an explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's compatible with the assertion of some that the theory demonstrates that something can, in fact, come from "nothing".

You have misread the OP.

Possible. There is a great deal of vicodin currently in my system, making the likelihood of a misunderstanding a lot larger than it would be under ordinary circumstances. Would you care to explain my alleged misreading?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 9:04:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 9:00:52 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:57:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:53:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though, what little credibility I might possess leads me to reject your rejection of the first possibility: "Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1."

I think your main impetus for discounting 1 so quickly is more of a semantic quibble than an actual problem with the theory--specifically, a beef with "something from nothing", when strange fluctuations or spontaneous generation of elementary particles as a result of the interaction of some kind of forces counts as "something". I think you should evaluate the spontaneous generation theory in terms of its plausibility as an explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's compatible with the assertion of some that the theory demonstrates that something can, in fact, come from "nothing".

You have misread the OP.

Possible. There is a great deal of vicodin currently in my system, making the likelihood of a misunderstanding a lot larger than it would be under ordinary circumstances. Would you care to explain my alleged misreading?

Okay so I googled the spontaneous generation theory and just came up with the crap that Aristotle believed in. But anyway...

There is a theory that the universe could generate itself from quantum fluctuations right?
I do not understand what this means in any way, shape or form. My knowledge of such a thing is akin to Godsands on evolution.

However it seems to me that this is NOT a theory of something, from nothing. It is not creation ex nihilo. Therefore it is not that I discredit it, simply that it does not belong in option 1.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 9:09:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 9:04:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/17/2011 9:00:52 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:57:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:53:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though, what little credibility I might possess leads me to reject your rejection of the first possibility: "Though I am sure that someone argues that the universe can spring from nebulous quantum shenanigans in the void, this is still something. I am going to discount 1."

I think your main impetus for discounting 1 so quickly is more of a semantic quibble than an actual problem with the theory--specifically, a beef with "something from nothing", when strange fluctuations or spontaneous generation of elementary particles as a result of the interaction of some kind of forces counts as "something". I think you should evaluate the spontaneous generation theory in terms of its plausibility as an explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's compatible with the assertion of some that the theory demonstrates that something can, in fact, come from "nothing".

You have misread the OP.

Possible. There is a great deal of vicodin currently in my system, making the likelihood of a misunderstanding a lot larger than it would be under ordinary circumstances. Would you care to explain my alleged misreading?

Okay so I googled the spontaneous generation theory and just came up with the crap that Aristotle believed in. But anyway...

There is a theory that the universe could generate itself from quantum fluctuations right?

Eh, something like that. I think it has something to do with the Higgs-Boson and/or other massless particles. Unfortunately, physics is one area in which I'm terribly unlearned.

I do not understand what this means in any way, shape or form. My knowledge of such a thing is akin to Godsands on evolution.

As is mine. We should do some research on that.

However it seems to me that this is NOT a theory of something, from nothing. It is not creation ex nihilo. Therefore it is not that I discredit it, simply that it does not belong in option 1.

I suppose it would depend on what was meant by "nothing" in that instance. Prima facie, though, and giving you the terminological benefit of the doubt, it would appear that I have indeed misread your post.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:31:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose that anyone that thinks the universe had a distinct beginning (as in there was literally nothing, no quantum activity, energy potential flux, zip), would also believe that we have a distinct end.

Usually, when I think about such things, I end up transitioning to thoughts on personal death.

My belief is that even if the known universe ends, or "dies" things will continue, in either a different or new universe, much like when you die, things continue for others, even though it doesn't really matter for us (since our own consciousness has ended).

I personally can't help but think that the answer lay in QM, namely in the uncertainty principle. I find the notion that it is up to probabilities rather difficult to swallow, and that there must be something that we have not yet discovered guiding those probabilities (which will hopefully also unlock the origins of this particular universe).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:34:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is actually one of the unanswerable questions according to Buddha, though I am inclined to believe that the universe has always existed in some form or another.

It seems absurd for there to be anything at all, but I think it is just as absurd for there to have never been anything.

Nothing or something, both are strange.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:37:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
something exists.

time is an illusion..
so... something exists is quite a full answer enough! there's no need to talk of Beginnings or ends.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:39:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 11:34:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
This is actually one of the unanswerable questions according to Buddha, though I am inclined to believe that the universe has always existed in some form or another.

It seems absurd for there to be anything at all, but I think it is just as absurd for there to have never been anything.

Nothing or something, both are strange.

It is funny, you're presented with 2 different concepts which the human mind naturally doesn't like.

Absolute nothingness, or infinity.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 12:40:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 11:37:15 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
something exists.

time is an illusion..

You have an argument for that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 12:44:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, but I think he's trying to do what I do in the philosophy forum in probably like 90% of my posts.

Make some kind of pseudo-profound mystical/scientific claim, and let it stand on its own, hoping that nobody notices that it was pulled out of my @ss.

Oh shnapple, I just gave myself away.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 12:47:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 12:44:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, but I think he's trying to do what I do in the philosophy forum in probably like 90% of my posts.

Make some kind of pseudo-profound mystical/scientific claim, and let it stand on its own, hoping that nobody notices that it was pulled out of my @ss.

Oh shnapple, I just gave myself away.

Well played, sir.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:27:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been thinking, who has ever found the chicken crossing the road funny ? Also, I believe this "3: Matter and God." but I'm getting off topic here.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:27:30 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I've been thinking, who has ever found the chicken crossing the road funny ? Also, I believe this "3: Matter and God." but I'm getting off topic here.

I found it funny when I hit a chicken crossing the road.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:33:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 12:40:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/17/2011 11:37:15 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
something exists.

time is an illusion..

You have an argument for that?

How about relativity? Black holes? Quantum physics? Ringing any bells?