Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What was before the Big Bang?

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd love to hear the views from non-religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

Yes it's based on a misnomer, "before."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nobody knows for sure. Maybe there is to "before" The Big Bang, because The Big Bang spawned the first moment of time itself. Maybe there is some type of "before" or "prior" which is not temporally dependent, in which everything existed in a quantized state with no space-time, until symmetry spontaneously broke and produced the universe. Maybe there was a powerful being who created the universe, we just don't know.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 2:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 2:33:50 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Your mother

Sean Connery, in the lead at -$3000.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before? A timeless realm perhaps?

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

Practically the only thing Physicists working on Unified Theories can agree on is that time and space will need to be quantized, if that is the case, then where do these particles exist? In a transcendent realm that is not temporal or spatial?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before? A timeless realm perhaps?

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

Practically the only thing Physicists working on Unified Theories can agree on is that time and space will need to be quantized, if that is the case, then where do these particles exist? In a transcendent realm that is not temporal or spatial?

Who says time came into existence at ten to the negative forty third power of a second?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 6:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

You're confusing the Planck time with the origin of time. The Big Bang Theory only describes after the Planck time (t = 10^-43), however the origin of time is placed with the singularity (t = 0).
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 9:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 6:14:07 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

You're confusing the Planck time with the origin of time. The Big Bang Theory only describes after the Planck time (t = 10^-43), however the origin of time is placed with the singularity (t = 0).

No I"m not; I"m addressing the logical implications of current theory.

Theoretically, the singularity is a dimensionless and timeless point with infinite density and infinite energy, and from that state, time and space "emerged" as the singularity expanded. The emergence of space and time implies that they are not fundamental categories, but secondary, derivative features of a prior state that does not contain them. The logical implication is that space and time emerged from a prior state that necessarily transcends our four dimensional frame of reference and is not temporal or spatial. At T=0 we have a singularity, timeless and dimensionless, and it logically follows that time emerged from that timeless state at some point after T=0, postulated by current theory to be 10 to the minus 43 seconds, Planck time.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:56:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 9:51:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 6:14:07 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

You're confusing the Planck time with the origin of time. The Big Bang Theory only describes after the Planck time (t = 10^-43), however the origin of time is placed with the singularity (t = 0).

No I"m not; I"m addressing the logical implications of current theory.

Theoretically, the singularity is a dimensionless and timeless point with infinite density and infinite energy, and from that state, time and space "emerged" as the singularity expanded. The emergence of space and time implies that they are not fundamental categories, but secondary, derivative features of a prior state that does not contain them. The logical implication is that space and time emerged from a prior state that necessarily transcends our four dimensional frame of reference and is not temporal or spatial. At T=0 we have a singularity, timeless and dimensionless, and it logically follows that time emerged from that timeless state at some point after T=0, postulated by current theory to be 10 to the minus 43 seconds, Planck time.

Your own statement shows this to be nonsensical; if time did not exist before the Planck time, then the Planck time could not have occurred a duration of time into the Big Bang and the singularity would not have existed at time = 0 (since according to you, that would be the planck time). The Planck epoch is the duration of time from the singularity up until the Planck time (10^-43 seconds after the singularity); the Big Bang Theory places the origin of time and space with the singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one. Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be. However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 5:58:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before? A timeless realm perhaps?

If time started, then there was no before.

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

Relativity gets us one result, and quantum mechanics gets us the other. It is not up to you to decide that both are true.

If you justify your opinion as scientific by relying on what scientists say, you don't get to contradict them based on your own whim.

Practically the only thing Physicists working on Unified Theories can agree on is that time and space will need to be quantized,

Or relativized. We need a unified theory. We don't have it yet. Therefore, we are in doubt. We don't know. You don't get to find a place where science is stumped, and just declare that your own particular gibberish is true.

No scientist believes that the big bang---or anything else---was before time started. There is no such thing as before time.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 9:29:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is possible our universe resulted from quantum fluctuation causing big bang and another universe as a bubble with its own completely different frame of space and time than the other universe. The inflation of our space time could very well be intruding upon this mother universe.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 12:12:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before? A timeless realm perhaps?

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

Practically the only thing Physicists working on Unified Theories can agree on is that time and space will need to be quantized, if that is the case, then where do these particles exist? In a transcendent realm that is not temporal or spatial?

"The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.

Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". "
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 6:56:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 12:12:57 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before? A timeless realm perhaps?

According to Big Bang Theory, there was indeed a before. Time came into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the theory is that time is a macroscopic effect that occurred at 10-43 seconds into the Big bang, so according to current theory there was in fact a "before" that occurred prior to the creation of time.

Practically the only thing Physicists working on Unified Theories can agree on is that time and space will need to be quantized, if that is the case, then where do these particles exist? In a transcendent realm that is not temporal or spatial?

"The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.

Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". "

= a transcendent realm that is not temporal = a timeless realm
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:37:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from non-religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

Maybe nothing, maybe something. Maybe there wasn't a before.

Basically I don't know
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:40:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

False. Most physicists reject this principle, due to popular indeterminisitc views of quantum mechanics. This principle is not scientific, but is philosophical. I am able to quote many top physicists who reject this principle, you show me one that says it's necessary, and I'll be impressed.


Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

Then the singularity existed "prior" to the expansion of the singularity. The singularity would be the timeless/ spaceless cause.


However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:49:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

Basically, to admit that the singularity = timeless, is to admit it didn't need a cause, because only temporal things need causes according to cosmological arguments. Thus, your argument kind of kills the cosmological argument for God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:54:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

If what you are saying is true, then the singularity existed eternally but non-temporally (like you believe is true for God). However, if this is true, then there is no need to include a God into anything of this. The singularity would be all that would be necessary, or required, for the universe in a temporal form to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:58:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

Asking "what caused the singularity" would be pointless, because the singularity = timeless, and only things that are temporal require a cause according to advocates of the KCA. If we could ask "what caused the singularity", even though it's timeless, we could ask then, then using the same logic, "what caused God?" and it would make just as much sense. It makes no sense, because if God exists, he is non-temporal. However, once you admit the singularity is non-temporal, all rational questioning of it's origin becomes non-existent as well.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:40:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

False. Most physicists reject this principle, due to popular indeterminisitc views of quantum mechanics. This principle is not scientific, but is philosophical. I am able to quote many top physicists who reject this principle, you show me one that says it's necessary, and I'll be impressed.

More nonsense, in practice it's the overriding presupposition of science , almost by definition. Perhaps you heard talk about "cause and effect" associated with science, causality is kind of a big thing in scince, trust me on that.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

Then the singularity existed "prior" to the expansion of the singularity. The singularity would be the timeless/ spaceless cause.

Very good, so my initial contention that is being challenged here is that there could have been a prior to the Big Bang, and perhaps it was a timeless realm.

Thanks for your support.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:38:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:49:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 3:07:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:46:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:33:52 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:48:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:29:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Time started at the big bang, supposedly, so the question is based on a false premise.

If time started at a certain point, then what came before?

Why do you assume anything came before?

I thought that since we are talking about the Big Bang and Cosmological theory, maybe it would be a good idea to remain within a scientific frame of reference. I just assumed that staying within the domain of science by accepting the scientific presupposition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and making the requisite inquiries would yield a greater degree of intelligibility, you know, because that is what science does. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles to dismiss such inquiries in favor of a completely faith based belief that there were no initial conditions from which time emerged.

The principle of sufficient reason is more of a philosophical presupposition than a scientific one.

Nonsense, it"s the foundational presupposition of science.

Insofar as you accept that there is a cause of the Big Bang, without a theory of quantum gravity it is pointless (from a scientific frame of reference) to make claims about what that cause may be.

No kidding, it's probably a good thing that I didn't speculate as to what that cause might be then. But of course that isn"t relevant, the point is that inflation requires a set of initial conditions, it necessarily involves some scalar field with a very large density. According to theory, the singularity did not contain the dimension of time, neither did the Planck Epoch, time came into being as the singularity expanded, so there necessarily had to be a "prior" to the emergence of time in current Big Bang theory.

However, if time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of before the Big Bang is meaningless since the question assumes a chronological order of events before a chronological order of events is possible.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, an aspect that is defined as what our clocks measure, and can be extrapolated back well beyond 13.7 billion years ago to logically order events prior to the Big Bang. The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be Einstein"s spacetime component of the fabric of the universe, and you are equivocating between the two. You are postulating an absolute moment when time came into existence, but Relativity Theory the idea of time as a universal constant in which there can even be such an absolute moment. The General Theory predicts the universe began with a singularity, a realm in which spatial and temporal dimensions don"t exist (which is why it"s called a singularity), and it states that time came into being as the primordial singularity expanded, but it"s theoretical framework doesn"t apply until after the Big Bang. We need to turn to quantum physics to build a theoretical framework for understanding the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and quantum physics utilizes the epistemological construct of time, which postulates a time prior to the Big Bang and the emergence of Einstein"s spacetime. We don"t have a theory that describes what the universe was like below the Planck scale, but all of the theories being worked on postulate that time and space emerge from a deeper reality that does not contain them, all of them necessarily postulate a prior set of initial conditions that gives rise to the emergence of spacetime.

Either way you slice it, the widely popular contention that there was no prior to the Big Bang is nothing but a logically unwarranted and rather dogmatic assertion that is not based on current scientific theory.

A timeless realm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just imaginative thinking and nothing more. No need to entertain every fanciful thing that pops into our heads.

Well no, not if you adhere to a faith based belief that simply dismisses the validity of scientific inquiry as a "fanciful thing", but when it comes to Cosmology I tend to prefer logic and science to unwarranted faith based assertions.

Cosmological theory postulates an initial state called a singularity which does not contain time and space, therefore the term "timeless" applies. It"s certainly OK if you want to reject that as a matter of faith, but it is unscientific to do so.

The Big Bang singularity was all of time and space at t = 0.

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

Basically, to admit that the singularity = timeless, is to admit it didn't need a cause, because only temporal things need causes according to cosmological arguments. Thus, your argument kind of kills the cosmological argument for God.

That's quite the non-sequitur...we were talking about the Big bang here, not the Cosmological Argument for God.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:45:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:54:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

If what you are saying is true,

It is.

then the singularity existed eternally but non-temporally

Well, I don't necessarily think that eternal and timeless have the same meaning, but yeah, my original point was that there was a non-temporal realm that would be an initial condition from which the Big Bang occurred.

; (like you believe is true for God).

Where did I say that?

However, if this is true, then there is no need to include a God into anything of this. The singularity would be all that would be necessary, or required, for the universe in a temporal form to exist.

OK, so I take it that you are imaginging that we are having a debate about the existence of God here?

Perhaps you should go back and read through the thread again, that isn't what it's about.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:55:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:58:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

Asking "what caused the singularity" would be pointless, because the singularity = timeless, and only things that are temporal require a cause according to advocates of the KCA. If we could ask "what caused the singularity", even though it's timeless, we could ask then, then using the same logic, "what caused God?" and it would make just as much sense. It makes no sense, because if God exists, he is non-temporal. However, once you admit the singularity is non-temporal, all rational questioning of it's origin becomes non-existent as well.

LOL, yeah, I know. this thread was a parallel thread to one titled "What was before God. I just wanted to see if the same folks that blather on about how thre can't be a timeless realm, and that something had to cause God would make lame-o arguments about the Big bang.

Fact is, science points to a transcendent realm that our four dimensional Universe is contingent upon, there is nothing illogicl or even unscientfic about believing in a deeper reality in which untimately, we live and move and have our being. I find it interesting that same people who will try to refute that, also try to defend that when we are talking about physics.

But hey, I'm glad you agree with me, thanks again for your support.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:58:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 3:55:56 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/24/2013 8:58:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2013 7:59:30 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The singularity is a function of General Relativity, which states rather explicitly the singularity is characterized as a timeless realm that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang, which was my point in the first place.

Asking "what caused the singularity" would be pointless, because the singularity = timeless, and only things that are temporal require a cause according to advocates of the KCA. If we could ask "what caused the singularity", even though it's timeless, we could ask then, then using the same logic, "what caused God?" and it would make just as much sense. It makes no sense, because if God exists, he is non-temporal. However, once you admit the singularity is non-temporal, all rational questioning of it's origin becomes non-existent as well.

LOL, yeah, I know. this thread was a parallel thread to one titled "What was before God. I just wanted to see if the same folks that blather on about how there can't be a timeless realm, and that something had to cause God, would make inverse lame-o arguments about the Big bang.

Fact is, science points to a transcendent realm that our four dimensional Universe is contingent upon, there is nothing illogical or even unscientific about believing in a deeper reality in which ultimately, we live and move and have our being. I find it interesting that the same people who will try to refute that, will also try to defend that when we are talking about physics.

But hey, I'm glad you agree with me, thanks again for your support.

Fixed spelling errors, I usually spell ckeck, sorry about that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater