Dear Sir;

A merry chritmas to you and yours and the best wishes for the new year.

Recall that within this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.32.html

- You had made the statement that critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God, a statement which I consider at odds with critical thinking itself.

Nonetheless you may recall that within that thread you had made made statements which I have traditionally contested with many scientists over and over again. Basically these statements are to the effect that -

(x) time and space were created by or at the moment of the big bang and  -

(y) the physical singularity existing prior to the big bang could be self-existent - or in your own words - "could simply be the default state of universe-like objects."

I feel that (x) contradicts (y) lamentably, and I am also severely at odds with the fundamental presupposition contained in each of (x) and (y) as separate statements. I did indicate in that thread that I would open a new thread to discuss these, and you did indicate your acceptance of that proposition.

So here goes.

Premise 1

If time was created by or at the moment of the big bang, then it is not possible to speak about a period "prior to " or "before" the big bang. Accordingly it is not possible to speak of anything existing prior to that instant - and this includes the pre-bang singularity that you spoke about.

Premise 2

Physical things exist in space and time. You stated that the pre bang singularity was physical. You then stated that there was no space or time at the point of the existence of the pre-bang singularity. How is it possible for a physical thing or state to exist without space and time.

Premises 1 & 2 evince the contradiction between (x) and (y).

Premise 3 - the problem with statement (x)

The problem with statement (x) is that if space was created by the big bang, please tell me what space is expanding into?

Premsie 4 - the problem with statement (y)

The problem with statement (y) is that it presumes a physical singularity to be self-existent. Aside from the fact that you have yet to properly articulate what that singularity is, the fundamental problem is that it is an illogicality to define any physical thing as self-existent because physical things are changeable whereas self-existence connotes immutability.

Conclusion: Your belief, and the assertion of the scientific community that time and space were ignited by or at the moment of the big bang, is insupportable, and delivers more contradictions than answers.

Caveats & Personal Definitions:

I state it clearly that i subscribe to the idea of the occurence of the initial expansion that is called the big bang. What I dispute herein is the averrment that time and space were thereby created.

I see time as an intangible constant that cannot be created. The experience of time may however differ from place to place and from state to state. This is my view of time.

I see space as the infinite continuum of void into which things may be endlessly interpolated. This is different from the space which is merely an energized bubble in which our universe exists. This energized bubble, is in my view interpolated in the infinite continuum of void into which things may be interpolated. This space is not creatable in my view. It is self-existent. This is my view of space.

This is pretty heady stuff. However, i do sympathise with your well-thought disagreements. I especially recall how you once pointed out (and did so here) the problem of what was preexisting for space-time continuum.

Nevertheless, i do not think scientists will readily hear out your points because they need a starting point to lay their theories oc the cosmos. So far the Big Bang fulfills this purpose nicely.

Subscribing. Discussion should be fun.

The big TOE(The Theory Of Everything). Please, you guys should listen to this this guy's theory and see if you can integrate some of his points into this discuss. I find the talk show interesting because it treats some of the themes(like time) that are in this discuss. Here is the link, http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/player/player.html

Just click on the play button and have a good listen.

Binaural beats on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=binaural+beats&aq=0
See if you can launch yourselves out of your body with these beats. I have not tried them on myself yet.

@Deepsight
Still waiting to hear from you!

Deep Sight:


(x) time and space were created by or at the moment of the big bang and  -

(y) the physical singularity existing prior to the big bang could be self-existent - or in your own words - "could simply be the default state of universe-like objects."

The Big Bang Theory does not say premise (x). The Big Bang Theory is a description of the state of the Universe at the given point in time and space(i.e. singularity). As I stated in your other thread

============================================================================================================================
It is also important for us not to forget the principals behind the Big Bang. Namely that it requires that the physical laws (specifically the conservation of Matter/Energy) hold. Since we are both fine with references to Wikipedia here it is as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Underlying_assumptions

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Thus it is clear that the Big Bang does not imply that nothing existed prior to singularity because that would violate the very principals it is based upon.
============================================================================================================================

The conservation of energy/matter and scientific laws dependent upon it require that time and space exist as the laws would loose its meaning otherwise. The state of singularity with respect to the current state of the Universe is effectively time/space point zero. However, the point designated "zero" is arbitrary in that we have no reason to believe there was no temporal/spatial points before singularity for the reasons shown above. It will take more information/study of situations like the primordial Universe and pre-expansion state before we can begin to postulate what the state of the Universe was like before the singularity. Hence, the construction of the Large Hadron Collider.

Deep Sight:

Dear Sir;
A merry chritmas to you and yours and the best wishes for the new year.

Thank you, I wish you the same.

Deep Sight:

Recall that within this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.32.html
- You had made the statement that critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God, a statement which I consider at odds with critical thinking itself.

Ok.

Deep Sight:

Nonetheless you may recall that within that thread you had made made statements which I have traditionally contested with many scientists over and over again. Basically these statements are to the effect that -

(x) time and space were created by or at the moment of the big bang and  -

I prefer to say commenced.

Deep Sight:

(y) the physical singularity existing prior to the big bang could be self-existent - or in your own words - "could simply be the default state of universe-like objects."

Ok.

Deep Sight:

I feel that (x) contradicts (y) lamentably, and I am also severely at odds with the fundamental presupposition contained in each of (x) and (y) as separate statements. I did indicate in that thread that I would open a new thread to discuss these, and you did indicate your acceptance of that proposition.

So here goes.

Premise 1

If time was created by or at the moment of the big bang, then it is not possible to speak about a period "prior to " or "before" the big bang. Accordingly it is not possible to speak of anything existing prior to that instant - and this includes the pre-bang singularity that you spoke about.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that time commenced with the expansion of the universe. I have not referred to any time prior to the the singularity.

Deep Sight:

Premise 2

Physical things exist in space and time. You stated that the pre bang singularity was physical. You then stated that there was no space or time at the point of the existence of the pre-bang singularity. How is it possible for a physical thing or state to exist without space and time.

Physical objects within the universe exist within space and time but, does this also apply to the entire universe? To say it does means that one refers to another space and time outside this universe for which we currently have no evidence of. This was why I said it may just be that universe-like objects may just exist.

Deep Sight:

Premises 1 & 2 evince the contradiction between (x) and (y).

Premise 3 - the problem with statement (x)

The problem with statement (x) is that if space was created by the big bang, please tell me what space is expanding into?

That is an interesting question but, we do not even have enough information to know if that is even an appropriate question.

Deep Sight:

Premsie 4 - the problem with statement (y)

The problem with statement (y) is that it presumes a physical singularity to be self-existent. Aside from the fact that you have yet to properly articulate what that singularity is, the fundamental problem is that it is an illogicality to define any physical thing as self-existent because physical things are changeable whereas self-existence connotes immutability.

What objects are self existent? The God that you claim as being a self existent mind that changes simply cannot be self existent because this mind changes. So again, what objects are self-existent?

Deep Sight:

Conclusion: Your belief, and the assertion of the scientific community that time and space were ignited by or at the moment of the big bang, is insupportable, and delivers more contradictions than answers.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how the big bang theory is contradictory. Also, could you please present your idea that explains the cosmological discoveries?

Deep Sight:

Caveats & Personal Definitions:

I state it clearly that i subscribe to the idea of the occurence of the initial expansion that is called the big bang. What I dispute herein is the averrment that time and space were thereby created.

I see time as an intangible constant that cannot be created. The experience of time may however differ from place to place and from state to state. This is my view of time.

I see space as the infinite continuum of void into which things may be endlessly interpolated. This is different from the space which is merely an energized bubble in which our universe exists. This energized bubble, is in my view interpolated in the infinite continuum of void into which things may be interpolated. This space is not creatable in my view. It is self-existent. This is my view of space.

I really do not understand what you're saying because, time is not a constant but a unit of measurement. So I don't get what you mean when you refer to it as an intangible constant.
So according to you, space is infinite and the universe exists in an energized bubble with its own space. But, how do you know this?

I believe that Deepsight is referring to "real time" or the layman's time. By "real time" I mean the eternal time, the phenomenon onto which events happen; the time that every body intuitively knows but very hard to define, very hard to capture with words.

But when science talks about time, they talk about duration of events or measurement of events. Thus "scientific time" is different from "real time." Scientific time can be measured; it depends on the event or the speed of events; and hence it is not constant. It speeds up or reduces in speed depending on how fast the object or system in question travels.

The problem is that science uses the same words that the layman uses; but science gives these words a different meaning. People encounter problems when they fail to realize that the scientific definition of certain words is different from the layman's or ordinary everyday definition of the same word. Scientific time is different from "real time" or the layman's time; just like scientific work is different from the lay mans conception of work.

Scientifically, time (scientific time) is a fundamental part of the structure or state of the universe. One can ague that the time(scientific time) in our universe started with the big bang; but this does not mean that time(in general or "real time" started with the big band. It is also very scientific to expect that before the big bang, before the scientific time was born that there was another time frame.

But the "real time", ordinary time or the lay man's times exists beside the universe, and unaffected by the big bang, it stands by itself. It stands still, and cannot be measured because it is eternal. This time existed before the entire creation came into being and will continue if all creation ceases to exist. This time is not physical and hence cannot be grasped by science; but every man senses it.   

Viewed from the perspective of "real time", the big bang is just an event and not really the birth or beginning of anything new. At best, the big bang can be described as the birth or beginning of our present universe. This universe will eventually colapse, decay, and remodel for another big bang. Each big bang is a beginning or a particular universe not the birth of any components of the universe. The same components exist and eternally passes through the cycles of birth(big bang) and decay.

justcool:

I believe that Deepsight is referring to "real time" or the layman's time. By "real time" I mean the eternal time, the phenomenon onto which events happen; the time that every body intuitively knows but very hard to define, very hard to capture with words.

But when science talks about time, they talk about duration of events or measurement of events. Thus "scientific time" is different from "real time." Scientific time can be measured; it depends on the event or the speed of events; and hence it is not constant. It speeds up or reduces in speed depending on how fast the object or system in question travels.

The problem is that science uses the same words that the layman uses; but science gives these words a different meaning. People encounter problems when they fail to realize that the scientific definition of certain words is different from the layman's or ordinary everyday definition of the same word. Scientific time is different from "real time" or the layman's time; just like scientific work is different from the lay mans conception of work.

Scientifically, time (scientific time) is a fundamental part of the structure or state of the universe. One can ague that the time(scientific time) in our universe started with the big bang; but this does not mean that time(in general or "real time" started with the big band. It is also very scientific to expect that before the big bang, before the scientific time was born that there was another time frame.

It may be a reasonable conjecture but I don't think it's scientific to say that there is some other time-frame we can refer to.

justcool:

But the "real time", ordinary time or the lay man's times exists beside the universe, and unaffected by the big bang, it stands by itself. It stands still, and cannot be measured because it is eternal. This time existed before the entire creation came into being and will continue if all creation ceases to exist. This time is not physical and hence cannot be grasped by science; but every man senses it.   

Viewed from the perspective of "real time", the big bang is just an event and not really the birth or beginning of anything new. At best, the big bang can be described as the birth or beginning of our present universe. This universe will eventually colapse, decay, and remodel for another big bang. Each big bang is a beginning or a particular universe not the birth of any components of the universe. The same components exist and eternally passes through the cycles of birth(big bang) and decay.

I can understand if one says time as we perceive it can in some circumstances be considered a bit abstract or illusory.
From what you've said, you assume that an infinite quantity exists outside the universe. How do you know? I ask because we don't even know if there is an "outside" of the universe.
Do you agree with the cyclical universe you mentioned above?

@thehomer

Thanks for addressing my post; I will deal with the observations that you made accordingly.

thehomer:

It may be a reasonable conjecture but I don't think it's scientific to say that there is some other time-frame we can refer to.

It is a very scientific speculation, and a speculation based on scientific principles. The only problem is that it can only remain a theory that can not be proven because we(including our science) are limited to this particular universe that we live in. Therefore anything beyond this universe is beyond us and science; even if such a thing is physical, it is still beyond science because science is limited to our present universe.

But many eminent scientists have speculated it, even Stephen Hawkings. Read:

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[40] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.[41][42][43] This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.[44][45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Read "The Beginning of Time": http://web.archive.org/web/20071228050500/http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Time before the Big Bang or time outside our universe remains an open speculation in science. A speculation which cannot be scientifically discredited.

It is left for the individual to go beyond our present limitation of science(what science has proven at the moment) or remain within this limitation in his/her thinking.

thehomer:

I can understand if one says time as we perceive it can in some circumstances be considered a bit abstract or illusory.

Yes. "time as we perceive it" or "real time, layman's ordinary perception of time," which existed before science was born, can be considered abstract or illusory but not "scientific time" or "time as science perceives it". Scientific time is not an illusion, neither is it abstract as such. Rather, it is a physical quantity that can be measured, speed up or delayed.  Science does not deal with the abstract.

thehomer:

From what you've said, you assume that an infinite quantity exists outside the universe. How do you know? I ask because we don't even know if there is an "outside" of the universe.

Quite simple. The Universe, (including its cyclic motion of big bang and colapse) are only events. An event cannot occur without time; all events occur within time; and the time that was born during the big bang cannot be the time in-which the event(the big bang) that give birth to it occurred. It is simply illogical to state that an event occurred without time. Its like saying that an object exists without being in existence.

Every event is like motion; motion is always in respect to another object. You cannot say that an object that exists all by itself is in motion. How can it be? Motion already implies "in reference to another object." Likewise, you cant say that an event occurred without time or in isolation of time.  Here I'm talking about "outside time," not the time born during the event, because the time born during the event(big bang) is part of the event(big bang) itself.

thehomer:

Do you agree with the cyclical universe you mentioned above?

Yes I do.

Thanks.

justcool:

@thehomer

Thanks for addressing my post; I will deal with the observations that you made accordingly.

It is a very scientific speculation, and a speculation based on scientific principles. The only problem is that it can only remain a theory that can not be proven because we(including our science) are limited to this particular universe that we live in. Therefore anything beyond this universe is beyond us and science; even if such a thing is physical, it is still beyond science because science is limited to our present universe.

But many eminent scientists have speculated it, even Stephen Hawkings. Read:

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[40] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.[41][42][43] This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.[44][45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Read "The Beginning of Time" by Stephen Hawking.http://web.archive.org/web/20071228050500/http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Time before the Big Bang or time outside our universe remains an open speculation in science. A speculation which cannot be scientifically discredited.

It is left for the individual to go beyond our present limitation of science(what science has proven at the moment) or remain within this limitation in his/her thinking.

Like I said, all you have is a conjecture until you have sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Can you propose a method by which we may be able to test this conjecture or aspects of it?

justcool:

Yes. "time as we perceive it" or "real time, layman's ordinary perception of time," which existed before science was born, can be considered abstract or illusory but not "scientific time" or "time as science perceives it". Scientific time is not an illusion, neither is it abstract as such. Rather, it is a physical quantity that can be measured, speed up or delayed. Science does not deal with the abstract.

I already stated that I could understand such a reference to time being illusory, but when we are speaking about the universe and cosmology, we are not speaking about human perceptions, but about something measurable.

justcool:

Quite simple. The Universe, (including its cyclic motion of big bang and colapse) are only events. An event cannot occur without time; all events occur within time; and the time that was born during the big bang cannot be the time in-which the event(the big bang) that give birth to it occurred. It is simply illogical to state that an event occurred without time. Its like saying that an object exists without being in existence.

You are making a serious leap here. We do not know that the universe undergoes cyclical events

justcool:

Every event is like motion; motion is always in respect to another object. You cannot say that an object that exists all by itself is in motion. How can it be? Motion already implies "in reference to another object." Likewise, you cant say that an event occurred without time or in isolation of time. Here I'm talking about "outside time," not the time born during the event, because the time born during the event(big bang) is part of the event(big bang) itself.

We do not have access to any other time-line or other objects to make this claim of an alternate time.

justcool:

Yes I do.

Do you believe in the Christian God? If so, how does he fit into this model?

justcool:

Thanks.

You're welcome.

In addition to what I wrote above.

I will give an analogy(I know, as usual, thehomer will call it a bad analogy ) Imagine a can in a windowless car, a car in motion. To this man, his environment(inside the car) is motionless; the object dangling on the rear view mirror may appear to be the only motion in the car. This motion is in reference to the rest of the car(inside the car) which appears stationary.  But once he looks out of the window he will realise that the entire car is in motion. This motion is in-reference to the street our side which appears stationary. Then if he opens himself further, or widen his outlook, he will realise that the street is a part of the earth, which is in motion. This motion is in reference to the sun and the solar system which appears stationary. Then the further he goes, he will realise that even the entire solar system is in motion in reference to other stars and etc. There is no end to this.

The movement of the object dangling from the rear view mirror inside a car represents the time within our present universe. The movement of the car represents time in the non physical plane directly above the physical plane(for those who believe in the non-physical). The movement of the earth represents the time in a higher plane(lets just say ethereal plane), and the movement of the solarsystem represents the time in the plane above the ethereal. It goes on till we arrive at the spiritual planes; each movement in my analogy represents the time frame in a different plane of creation.

Observing the time in the universe or the time that started with the big bang is like observing the motion of an object dangling on the rear view mirror of a car. As long as you remain locked inside this universe of a car or as long as you are limited to your physical perceptions, that's the only time you can perceive; but the more you widen your view the more you see.

Just as the motion of an object dangling inside a car is different from the motion of the car itself, which inturn is different from the motion of the earth, the solar system and etc; time very in all planes of creation.

The time-frame, or perception of time in the spiritual plane is different of that of the ethereal, which in turn is different from that of the astral, and likewise the astral time frame is different from the physical time.

Before the physical time frame came into being, the astral time frame existed, and before that the ethereal time frame existed, and etc. Before the whole creation(From the primordial spiritual to the physical) came into being, time exsisted. This time is eternal; it stands still and it has no measure; this is the real time.

What we perceive in creation as time is only a measurement of events, or the speed of events in the particular plane of creation concerned.

Time exists only with God, it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. It does not elapse. It simply is.

Thanks

@thehomer,
I just saw your last post. I will treat it later when time permits me. I have to go for now.

justcool:

In addition to what I wrote above.

I will give an analogy(I know, as usual, thehomer will call it a bad analogy ) Imagine a can in a windowless car, a car in motion. To this man, his environment(inside the car) is motionless; the object dangling on the rear view mirror may appear to be the only motion in the car. This motion is in reference to the rest of the car(inside the car) which appears stationary.  But once he looks out of the window he will realise that the entire car is in motion. This motion is in-reference to the street our side which appears stationary. Then if he opens himself further, or widen his outlook, he will realise that the street is a part of the earth, which is in motion. This motion is in reference to the sun and the solar system which appears stationary. Then the further he goes, he will realise that even the entire solar system is in motion in reference to other stars and etc. There is no end to this.

The movement of the object dangling from the rear view mirror inside a car represents the time within our present universe. The movement of the car represents time in the non physical plane directly above the physical plane(for those who believe in the non-physical). The movement of the earth represents the time in a higher plane(lets just say ethereal plane), and the movement of the solarsystem represents the time in the plane above the ethereal. It goes on till we arrive at the spiritual planes; each movement in my analogy represents the time frame in a different plane of creation.

You know me too well it seems.

justcool:

Observing the time in the universe or the time that started with the big bang is like observing the motion of an object dangling on the rear view mirror of a car. As long as you remain locked inside this universe of a car or as long as you are limited to your physical perceptions, that's the only time you can perceive; but the more you widen your view the more you see.

Just as the motion of an object dangling inside a car is different from the motion of the car itself, which inturn is different from the motion of the earth, the solar system and etc; time very in all planes of creation.

The time-frame, or perception of time in the spiritual plane is different of that of the ethereal, which in turn is different from that of the astral, and likewise the astral time frame is different from the physical time.

Before the physical time frame came into being, the astral time frame existed, and before that the ethereal time frame existed, and etc. Before the whole creation(From the primordial spiritual to the physical) came into being, time exsisted. This time is eternal; it stands still and it has no measure; this is the real time.

What we perceive in creation as time is only a measurement of events, or the speed of events in the particular plane of creation concerned.

Time exists only with God, it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. It does not elapse. It simply is.

Thanks

If the man has no other input of the external environment, then how does he know he is moving (ignoring the recoil pushing him back in his seat)?

And I really do not accept your proposals of astral frame, spiritual frame, ethereal frame etc. Unless you have some evidence for this.
When you say time does not elapse, what do you mean?

justcool:

@thehomer,
I just saw your last post. I will treat it later when time permits me. I have to go for now.

Ok then

, subscribing

Dear Mr. Homer;

Really I hope you understand that you have not addressed the suppositions that I set out to you. I am all too familiar with your one-line riposte style which gives nothing in terms of value for that which it receives: and i am of the view that such an approach will serve us for nothing regarding the posers that this thread seeks to address. For this reason I am of the view that it will not serve us rich to begin to exchange witty and extensive ripostes on the subject at hand and thereby become lost in a labyrinth of definitions, suppositions and extensive averrments.

For this reason I propose to ignore any temptation to extensive discourse: perhaps almost be as brief as you are yourself in your general responses: and this with one intent and one intent only: namely to deliberately and forcefully restrict the discourse to the very specifics of the lamentable contradictions that I did set out in the OP. And in this regard let me say as follows concerning your responses -

thehomer:


I prefer to say commenced.

This says exactly nothing: and addresses in no degree the problem raised - for you will recall that you demanded from me what timeline i would base the existence of anything outside this universe on: accordingly you yourself cannot posit the existence of anything without shewing a timeline therefore and thereof - and I state to you most simply that since you say time had not "commenced" prior to the big bang, then you cannot evince the existence of anything  prior to the bang - and this includes your contradictory pre-bang singularity.

Indeed, the very words "pre" and "prior" and "before" are all prohibited to you in this respect: since there is no timeline to evince a concept of before and after, given that in your words, "time had not commenced."

Not quite. What I'm saying is that time commenced with the expansion of the universe. I have not referred to any time prior to the the singularity.

Do not be disingenious. You have repeatedly referred to the the existence of a singularity "PRIOR" to the big bang. Where is your timeline for its existence?

Physical objects within the universe exist within space and time but, does this also apply to the entire universe? To say it does means that one refers to another space and time outside this universe for which we currently have no evidence of. This was why I said it may just be that universe-like objects may just exist.

Respectfully: gibberish. For the universe is a physical thing. This is the worst form of special pleading.

That is an interesting question but, we do not even have enough information to know if that is even an appropriate question.

Respectfully: escapist. The question is simple. Space is stated to be expanding. INTO WHAT IS IT EXPANDING? ? ?

Querrying the propriety of the question is escapist, cowardly, and most unbecoming of you: for you know that the question is very simply and concisely stated.

What objects are self existent? The God that you claim as being a self existent mind that changes simply cannot be self existent because this mind changes. So again, what objects are self-existent?

I never said that God changes.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how the big bang theory is contradictory. Also, could you please present your idea that explains the cosmological discoveries?

I already did. Your first question is addressed in my OP and your second question in my Post #2 on this thread.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Dear Mr. Homer;

Really I hope you understand that you have not addressed the suppositions that I set out to you. I am all too familiar with your one-line riposte style which gives nothing in terms of value for that which it receives: and i am of the view that such an approach will serve us for nothing regarding the posers that this thread seeks to address. For this reason I am of the view that it will not serve us rich to begin to exchange witty and extensive ripostes on the subject at hand and thereby become lost in a labyrinth of definitions, suppositions and extensive averrments.

I thought I had. I prefer concise posts due to the ease in following and I hope, understanding them.

Deep Sight:

For this reason I propose to ignore any temptation to extensive discourse: perhaps almost be as brief as you are yourself in your general responses: and this with one intent and one intent only: namely to deliberately and forcefully restrict the discourse to the very specifics of the lamentable contradictions that I did set out in the OP. And in this regard let me say as follows concerning your responses -

Good.

Deep Sight:

This says exactly nothing: and addresses in no degree the problem raised - for you will recall that you demanded from me what timeline i would base the existence of anything outside this universe on: accordingly you yourself cannot posit the existence of anything without shewing a timeline therefore and thereof - and I state to you most simply that since you say time had not "commenced" prior to the big bang, then you cannot evince the existence of anything  prior to the bang - and this includes your contradictory pre-bang singularity.

By saying commenced, that is to indicate that I have not assumed a mind deciding to create.

Deep Sight:

Indeed, the very words "pre" and "prior" and "before" are all prohibited to you in this respect: since there is no timeline to evince a concept of before and after, given that in your words, "time had not commenced."

Do not be disingenious. You have repeatedly referred to the the existence of a singularity "PRIOR" to the big bang. Where is your timeline for its existence?

You're using the singularity and the Big Bang interchangeably, I am not.

Deep Sight:

Respectfully: gibberish. For the universe is a physical thing. This is the worst form of special pleading.

Which part is the special pleading? You may need to understand that while the universe is physical, it is not like other physical objects that we do know about which is why I introduced the concept of the universe-like object.

Deep Sight:

Respectfully: escapist. The question is simple. Space is stated to be expanding. INTO WHAT IS IT EXPANDING? ? ?

Querrying the propriety of the question is escapist, cowardly, and most unbecoming of you: for you know that the question is very simply and concisely stated.

The fact that the statement is simply stated does not mean it is actually an appropriate or meaningful question. e.g based on what we know about the geography of the earth, do you think a question such as "What is north of the north pole?" a meaningful question?
Contrast this to the fact that we have no information outside this universe, we even lack information about what the furthest reaches of the universe currently look like, we're not even sure of the shape of the universe whether it is open or closed etc, then how do we know that asking about what is outside of the universe is a meaningful question?
If you feel you have enough information to answer this, then please go ahead.
It is one thing to know that one doesn't know and another to not know that one doesn't know.

Deep Sight:

I never said that God changes.

You considered this God as a disembodied mind. This mind had to change from what it was before the singularity to what it was from the singularity onwards.

Deep Sight:

I already did. Your first question is addressed in my OP and your second question in my Post #2 on this thread.

I still did not notice the contradiction. The y part in the OP was just me not cosmologists and the x part, you attempted to address with the same question you raised above.

Deep Sight:

Thanks.

You're welcome.

thehomer:

Like I said, all you have is a conjecture until you have sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Can you propose a method by which we may be able to test this conjecture or aspects of it?

I have already answered this question. It remains a speculation which may never be verified, scientifically, because you cannot put the universe in a test tube and experiment on it or test it.

If one wants to experience or verify the timeframe outside the physical, one has to drop one's physical perceptions and employ the organs of his/her subtler bodies. This is not science because science is confined with the physical.

thehomer:

I already stated that I could understand such a reference to time being illusory, but when we are speaking about the universe and cosmology, we are not speaking about human perceptions, but about something measurable.

OK you are right to a very limited extent. When science is speaking about the universe and cosmology, it is speaking about something measurable; it is also human perception. Science remains confined to human perception, and cannever go above it. Science actually is human perception; it is a physical or intellectual perception of the physical world.

thehomer:

You are making a serious leap here. We do not know that the universe undergoes cyclical events

Like the theory of evolution, its based on the interpretation of evidence, the theory itself cannot be replicated in a lab, or tested in a lab. Like I said earlier, you cannot put the universe in a test tube to experiment on it. As long as the speculation does not violet any scientific laws, it cannot be discredited. Like I said a earlier its left to the individual to accept it or not.

thehomer:

We do not have access to any other time-line or other objects to make this claim of an alternate time.

Physically we do not; but I maintained that the non-physical cannot be investigated with the physical. One has employ his/her non-physical organs; this is not science.

thehomer:

Do you believe in the Christian God?

I do not just believe in the existence of God, I am convinced in His existence. But I do not know what you mean by "Christian God." If by "Christian" you mean the Christian religion, then I have this to say: God is not bound or confined to any religion. God is God. He is not a christian, neither is He a Muslim nor a Hindu.

All religious orientations or persuasions are only perceptions or a view of God, and not God Himself. But I am not here to judge these persuasions; I only offer my humble perceptions, on certain issues, where they are needed or asked for.

thehomer:
If so, how does he fit into this model?.

Behind every process, every law, stands the Will of God. He is the power that drives all the laws of creation, including the physical manifestation of these laws.

In order not to derail this fine thread, I will stop here. If you really want to know my views towards God and where He fits into the cyclic phases of the universe, then open another thread and we can discuss just that.

Thanks

thehomer:


By saying commenced, that is to indicate that I have not assumed a mind deciding to create.

This frankly has nothing to do with a mind of any sort deciding to create anything. I doubt that you would have seen me make any such reference in this thread as yet. The contradiction I set out to you was simple, and you continue to evade and side-step it, as obvious as it remains -

1. You state, and have stated again here that time commenced at the moment of the big bang

2. You state that prior to the big bang all that existed was a singularity

3. You state that the singularity was physical.

Q: How could that singularity, being physical, exist without time?

Are physical things known to exist outside of, or without time?

Simple. Address that.

You're using the singularity and the Big Bang interchangeably, I am not.

No I am not. From where did you derive such a queer idea? The big bang refers to the expansion - that is clear. What I have said, and what i still repeat is that YOU averred that PRIOR to the expansion, there was a singularity. If time had not "commenced' prior to the expansion, then please produce your timeline for the existence of that singularity! Simple!

In the same way as you demand of me a timeline for things outside this universe no?

Produce your timeline for that singularity, simple.

If you cannot do this; then you perforce concede and accept that time already existed: and could not be said to be produced or commenced by or at the moment of the big bang.

Which part is the special pleading? You may need to understand that while the universe is physical, it is not like other physical objects that we do know about which is why I introduced the concept of the universe-like object.

You are really a funny chap. You accede that physical things exist in time and space. You accede that the universe is physical. And you wish to run away from showing in what time and space the universe itself must exist. Come on. I wish this to be a serious discourse and I am not prepared to countenance such blatant escapism.

The fact that the statement is simply stated does not mean it is actually an appropriate or meaningful question. e.g based on what we know about the geography of the earth, do you think a question such as "What is north of the north pole?" a meaningful question?
Contrast this to the fact that we have no information outside this universe, we even lack information about what the furthest reaches of the universe currently look like, we're not even sure of the shape of the universe whether it is open or closed etc, then how do we know that asking about what is outside of the universe is a meaningful question?

This remains nothing but further escapism. The fact is indeed that we are aware that the universe is expanding. This certain knowledge makes the question as to what it is expanding into a very apt and necessary question.

Unless of course you believe in magic, and you believe that things may just expand when there is nothing and no space or void to expand into.

If you reflect on that sir: you will recognise how unseemly and illogical your approach in this regard is.

The fact is that YOUR science has affirmed that the universe is expanding. Thus the question i posed logically follows as an apt question: into WHAT is it expanding.

It is painfully obvious that you only resile from this question for the obvious fact that it shows that space (as i defined it in post #2) pre-existed the big bang. Otherwise there would be nothing to expand into. Simple.

You considered this God as a disembodied mind. This mind had to change from what it was before the singularity to what it was from the singularity onwards.

No - it did not have to change. My position is that creation is nothing but the eternal outward radiation of the God-factor. As such there is no "change" involved for the God-factor itself. It simply remains what it ever is and ever will be.

I still did not notice the contradiction. The y part in the OP was just me not cosmologists and the x part, you attempted to address with the same question you raised above.

The contradiction is simple and obvious -

- If time commenced at the moment of the big bang, in what timeline was the singularity existing prior to that expansion?

- If space was created by the big bang into what is space expanding.

These are simple posers, please do not let it become obvious that your insupportable "scientific" presumptions are just the same as the blind dogma of the religionist.

@ Justcool -

I thank you for your very insightful surmise, which I agree with almost completely.

I would only like us to note very carefully that the so-called "scientific" definition of time does not exist at all - or more precisely, time as defined by teh scientist does not exist, and I am most careful when i state this.

Just stop a moment and ask yourself - the "time" that supposedly "commences" and supposedly "moves" - supposedly proceeding in a forward manner - just where has this time ever been observed - and so observed to "move"?

The reality is that it is events that occur, it is objects that move, objects cover distance - these things happen. Time, by itself, is not observed by anybody to move anywhere - rather events occur, things happen, objects move within the constant that is time.

To be succint about this point - the tardy and lazy thinker may look at a watch or a clock, a timepiece - and conclude that that is evidence of time "moving." He does not realize that the only thing that is moving is the tick-tock of the time piece. It keeps ticking endlessly, and for all we care it may tick and tick and tick. That is an event occurring - the thing that the time-piece is supposed to measure is not itself observed by anybody because it is intangible and cannot be seen. IT SIMPLY REMAINS THERE. A PERMANENT CONSTANT.

Nothing [i]happens to it: rather things happen within it.

If time were in fact what scientists make it out to be, then people would be able to move freely in either direction in time - forwards or backwards as they choose - for time would be a fabric within which people and objects may freely move in any direction.

However calm thinking should reveal that we only proceed forwards for one reason: namely that it is events that are occuring, succeeding one another - and not time that is "moving" - not time that is a fabric of a sort.

When time "passes" - we should realize that what has really happened is that it is we, and objects about us that have moved within the constant that is time. And you cannot return to where you have moved from for the simple reason that the constant is intangible: and as such there is nowhere to return to.

justcool:

I have already answered this question. It remains a speculation which may never be verified, scientifically, because you cannot put the universe in a test tube and experiment on it or test it.

If one wants to experience or verify the timeframe outside the physical, one has to drop one's physical perceptions and employ the organs of his/her subtler bodies. This is not science because science is confined with the physical.

I generally avoid such appeals to mysticism.

justcool:

OK you are right to a very limited extent. When science is speaking about the universe and cosmology, it is speaking about something measurable; it is also human perception. Science remains confined to human perception, and cannever go above it. Science actually is human perception; it is a physical or intellectual perception of the physical world.

Like the theory of evolution, its based on the interpretation of evidence, the theory itself cannot be replicated in a lab, or tested in a lab. Like I said earlier, you cannot put the universe in a test tube to experiment on it. As long as the speculation does not violet any scientific laws, it cannot be discredited. Like I said a earlier its left to the individual to accept it or not.

Sorry but the comparison of your proposal to the theory of evolution is not apt because, we do not have evidence that the universe previously contracted prior to this observed expansion while we do have lots of evidence supporting evolution.

justcool:

Physically we do not; but I maintained that the non-physical cannot be investigated with the physical. One has employ his/her non-physical organs; this is not science.

Non-physical organs such as?

justcool:

I do not just believe in the existence of God, I am convinced in His existence. But I do not know what you mean by "Christian God." If by "Christian" you mean the Christian religion, then I have this to say: God is not bound or confined to any religion. God is God. He is not a christian, neither is He a Muslim nor a Hindu.

All religious orientations or persuasions are only perceptions or a view of God, and not God Himself. But I am not here to judge these persuasions; I only offer my humble perceptions, on certain issues, where they are needed or asked for.

Was Jesus the Son of God?

justcool:

Behind every process, every law, stands the Will of God. He is the power that drives all the laws of creation, including the physical manifestation of these laws.

In order not to derail this fine thread, I will stop here. If you really want to know my views towards God and where He fits into the cyclic phases of the universe, then open another thread and we can discuss just that.

Thanks

It seems you're begging the question because, we've not agreed on this God yet you assume him already and attribute to him everything. I may just open this new thread.

Deep Sight:

This frankly has nothing to do with a mind of any sort deciding to create anything. I doubt that you would have seen me make any such reference in this thread as yet. The contradiction I set out to you was simple, and you continue to evade and side-step it, as obvious as it remains -

1. You state, and have stated again here that time commenced at the moment of the big bang

2. You state that prior to the big bang all that existed was a singularity

3. You state that the singularity was physical.

Q: How could that singularity, being physical, exist without time?

Are physical things known to exist outside of, or without time?

Simple. Address that.

I already addressed this with my proposal of a universe-like object. And, comparing objects and events within the universe to the entire universe especially when it comes to a condition such as the singularity is simply inappropriate. This is an example of a part to whole comparison flaw especially given our current knowledge of the universe.

Deep Sight:

No I am not. From where did you derive such a queer idea? The big bang refers to the expansion - that is clear. What I have said, and what i still repeat is that YOU averred that PRIOR to the expansion, there was a singularity. If time had not "commenced' prior to the expansion, then please produce your timeline for the existence of that singularity! Simple!

I've addressed this see above.

Deep Sight:

In the same way as you demand of me a timeline for things outside this universe no?

Produce your timeline for that singularity, simple.

It's not the same because you are proposing a causal mechanism which requires a time-line for it to be meaningful I am not.

Deep Sight:

If you cannot do this; then you perforce concede and accept that time already existed: and could not be said to be produced or commenced by or at the moment of the big bang.

You are really a funny chap. You accede that physical things exist in time and space. You accede that the universe is physical. And you wish to run away from showing in what time and space the universe itself must exist. Come on. I wish this to be a serious discourse and I am not prepared to countenance such blatant escapism.

It's getting tiresome presenting the same concept over and over again.

Deep Sight:

This remains nothing but further escapism. The fact is indeed that we are aware that the universe is expanding. This certain knowledge makes the question as to what it is expanding into a very apt and necessary question.
Unless of course you believe in magic, and you believe that things may just expand when there is nothing and no space or void to expand into.
If you reflect on that sir: you will recognise how unseemly and illogical your approach in this regard is.
The fact is that YOUR science has affirmed that the universe is expanding. Thus the question i posed logically follows as an apt question: into WHAT is it expanding.
It is painfully obvious that you only resile from this question for the obvious fact that it shows that space (as i defined it in post #2) pre-existed the big bang. Otherwise there would be nothing to expand into. Simple.

You really need to try to understand various concepts. Consider this, my proposal is that universe-like objects may just exist, justcool made a proposal of the universe undergoing cyclical changes of expansion and contraction, there is also a proposal chaotic inflation. All these proposals may be wrong but, if one were to consider that one of these among others were to be correct, then the answers one gets would be different. So, we do not have enough information to answer such a question.

Deep Sight:

No - it did not have to change. My position is that creation is nothing but the eternal outward radiation of the God-factor. As such there is no "change" involved for the God-factor itself. It simply remains what it ever is and ever will be.

What does the phrase in bold mean? Is the God-factor God? And, "outward radiation" of the God-factor does not change this God-factor?

Deep Sight:

The contradiction is simple and obvious -

- If time commenced at the moment of the big bang, in what timeline was the singularity existing prior to that expansion?

I've addressed this above and in previous posts. If you do not agree with my conjecture, that is fine. But, you're yet to point out the contradiction if one agrees with the conjecture. Remember that not all physical properties are bound with time e.g the kelvin is not bound by time.

Deep Sight:

- If space was created by the big bang into what is space expanding.

I've addressed this question above.

Deep Sight:

These are simple posers, please do not let it become obvious that your insupportable "scientific" presumptions are just the same as the blind dogma of the religionist.

Which ones are blind dogma?

Deep Sight:

@ Justcool -

I thank you for your very insightful surmise, which I agree with almost completely.

I would only like us to note very carefully that the so-called "scientific" definition of time does not exist at all - or more precisely, time as defined by teh scientist does not exist, and I am most careful when i state this.

Just stop a moment and ask yourself - the "time" that supposedly "commences" and supposedly "moves" - supposedly proceeding in a forward manner - just where has this time ever been observed - and so observed to "move"?

You're now confusing linguistic uses of time for the scientific use.

Deep Sight:

The reality is that it is events that occur, it is objects that move, objects cover distance - these things happen. Time, by itself, is not observed by anybody to move anywhere - rather events occur, things happen, objects move within the constant that is time.

To be succint about this point - the tardy and lazy thinker may look at a watch or a clock, a timepiece - and conclude that that is evidence of time "moving." He does not realize that the only thing that is moving is the tick-tock of the time piece. It keeps ticking endlessly, and for all we care it may tick and tick and tick. That is an event occurring - the thing that the time-piece is supposed to measure is not itself observed by anybody because it is intangible and cannot be seen. IT SIMPLY REMAINS THERE. A PERMANENT CONSTANT.

I already addressed this. Time is a unit not a constant.

Deep Sight:

Nothing [i]happens to it: rather things happen within it.

If time were in fact what scientists make it out to be, then people would be able to move freely in either direction in time - forwards or backwards as they choose - for time would be a fabric within which people and objects may freely move in any direction.

Of course. Just as people can choose to cool their bodies to -300 Kelvin.

Deep Sight:

However calm thinking should reveal that we only proceed forwards for one reason: namely that it is events that are occuring, succeeding one another - and not time that is "moving" - not time that is a fabric of a sort.

When time "passes" - we should realize that what has really happened is that it is we, and objects about us that have moved within the constant that is time. And you cannot return to where you have moved from for the simple reason that the constant is intangible: and as such there is nowhere to return to.

I have to ask what you mean when you use the word constant because this is quite different from the general understanding of the word. Constants are generally arrived at by measurements and calculations.

Deep Sight:

@ Justcool -

I thank you for your very insightful surmise, which I agree with almost completely.

I would only like us to note very carefully that the so-called "scientific" definition of time does not exist at all - or more precisely, time as defined by teh scientist does not exist, and I am most careful when i state this.

Just stop a moment and ask yourself - the "time" that supposedly "commences" and supposedly "moves" - supposedly proceeding in a forward manner - just where has this time ever been observed - and so observed to "move"?

The reality is that it is events that occur, it is objects that move, objects cover distance - these things happen. Time, by itself, is not observed by anybody to move anywhere - rather events occur, things happen, objects move within the constant that is time.

To be succint about this point - the tardy and lazy thinker may look at a watch or a clock, a timepiece - and conclude that that is evidence of time "moving." He does not realize that the only thing that is moving is the tick-tock of the time piece. It keeps ticking endlessly, and for all we care it may tick and tick and tick. That is an event occurring - the thing that the time-piece is supposed to measure is not itself observed by anybody because it is intangible and cannot be seen. IT SIMPLY REMAINS THERE. A PERMANENT CONSTANT.

Nothing [i]happens to it: rather things happen within it.

If time were in fact what scientists make it out to be, then people would be able to move freely in either direction in time - forwards or backwards as they choose - for time would be a fabric within which people and objects may freely move in any direction.

However calm thinking should reveal that we only proceed forwards for one reason: namely that it is events that are occuring, succeeding one another - and not time that is "moving" - not time that is a fabric of a sort.

When time "passes" - we should realize that what has really happened is that it is we, and objects about us that have moved within the constant that is time. And you cannot return to where you have moved from for the simple reason that the constant is intangible: and as such there is nowhere to return to.

Very true. The bottom line is that what science calls “time” or what I called “scientific time” in my earlier post is not the same "time" that everybody intuitively knows of. This time is what I called the “lay mans time.”

Science just borrowed that term “time” just as it borrowed other ordinary terms like “work” and gives it another meaning. This is why some people struggle with certain scientific terms; some students find it difficult to understand scientific “work” because they keep trying to marry it to or reconcile it to “ordinary work.”

Scientific time is just a measurement of intervals between events or duration of events, this measurement. Thus in science, in the absence of events or objects time does not and cannot exist. So in reality it is the measurement of the movement or the occurrence of the event that science refers to as “time”. This is what commenced with the big bang.

It maybe an overstatement to say that this scientific “time” does not exist; I will rather say that it does not exist as time; it is simply a dimension of motion. Scientific time is a measurement; it is a physical quantity.

In order to understand the universe, science uses the model of time as a conveyor belt on which all events stands. This model is just for understanding and not really a reality. This model gives the impression that time or the fabric of space can be bent just as a conveyor belt can be bent; so that one can travel to the past. This is a wrong conclusion be cause the conveyor belt is just a model; in reality the universe cannot be bent. And in reality there is nothing like the fabric of the universe; the universe does not lie on a flat bendable fabric. You can never go to the future because the movement or occurrence of events which we call the future has not happened. 

The real time stands still, all events happen within time. Time actually is not a physical thing. Every human being intuitively knows or senses this real time, which is very hard to define with words.

But some people have wrapped science around their heads, like a thick blanket it covers all their perception. They refuse to see the difference between scientific terms and ordinary terms. Eminent scientists do not make this mistake; most of them actually believe in the existence of the beyond. Any body that chooses to see beyond the physical most be honest enough to admit that this is his choice which he cannot blame on science.

Thanks

thehomer:

I generally avoid such appeals to mysticism.


Sorry but the comparison of your proposal to the theory of evolution is not apt because, we do not have evidence that the universe previously contracted prior to this observed expansion while we do have lots of evidence supporting evolution.


Non-physical organs such as?


Was Jesus the Son of God?


It seems you're begging the question because, we've not agreed on this God yet you assume him already and attribute to him everything. I may just open this new thread.

@thehomer
Answering your questions above will derail this fine thread. Raise these questions when you open the new thread and I will exhaustively treat them.

Thanks

Really I had severally contemplated responding further on this thread, but was absolutely disillusioned. My disillusionment arose from the realization that there will never come a time that thehomer will recognize the contradictions that i point out. Perhaps the terms that we use are simply chasms apart.

However, some of the contradictions are so unbelievably simple, obvious, and self-evident, that I just cannot resist pointing them out again, in some vain and surely mis-placed hope that mr. homer would see that which even the blind would surely see.

thehomer:

I already addressed this with my proposal of a universe-like object.

You say "universe-like objects may just exist as the default state of existence."

How is this possible sir?

You are therewith stating physical things to be self-existent. How can you substantiate this claim sir?

And, comparing objects and events within the universe to the entire universe especially when it comes to a condition such as the singularity is simply inappropriate. This is an example of a part to whole comparison flaw especially given our current knowledge of the universe.

This is really a very nice way to escape the need to answer a clear question regarding physical things. Because we are not speaking of a factor such as motion within the universe for example. We are speaking of the very implicit nature of that which is physical. Thus you are being entirely disingenious and deliberately and fraudulently so. For when I ask -

Can anything physical exist without time or outside of a construct of time? -

The clear answer should be "no," - especially as you have acknowledged that yourself by demanding from me a timeline for things outside the universe! You could not make such a demand if you did not accept that anything material must have a timeline. You thus absolutely cannot argue that the "whole" universe is "exempt" from a requirement from a timeline! Indeed, this is directly contrary to everything you yourself have said.

To make it clear again: you state that the singularity was physical. I ask you under what timeline it existed - and then you state that that is a part-to-whole flaw. Jesus Christ, I am yet to come across a more dumb-founding escapist attempt.

Because i do not even speak of a part or whole. I speak of the singularity. If it was physical, then it could not exist without or outside any time.

And if this is the case, then following your own logic, no singularity existed.

Besides this, even under your part-to-whole argument you cannot conceivably claim that a part of a thing must exist in time, but that the whole thing itself exists without or outside time. That is an impossible logical reverse and is quite simply the height of absurdity because given that the "whole" is physical, it must naturally also have a context in which it exists.

Your argument is just plain logically warped - for the explicit reason that the question is begged - in what does the whole exist? ? ?

Thus if you state that your cells exist within your body, we must naturally wonder what your body exists in. It exists in the atmosphere of the earth - and this by analogy forms its own environment. What is the "environment" for the universe. In what "environment" does it exist? I hope you catch my drift.

It's not the same because you are proposing a causal mechanism which requires a time-line for it to be meaningful I am not.

Don't make me laugh. Son, go and revise this statement before i respond to it. FYI, science does not propound a causeless universe. It states that it is still investigating the cause. Science is not as voodoo-istically inclined as you are - as to suggest that motion may magicallyy occur without a trigger. You well know the laws of motion: i set them out to you in a previous thread - and the point was made abundantly clear.

Your suggestion of causelessness is eminently and irredeemably unscientific.

It's getting tiresome presenting the same concept over and over again.

It is already tiresome responding to illogical voodoo-istic pseudo-science which does not scratch the surface of any logic or research whatsoever.

Pseudo-science which appeals to magic and voodoo, such as motion without a triggering factor, self-existent physical things, and physical things existing outside time! Your suggestions are worse than the most fabulous tribal myths and religious dogma!

You really need to try to understand various concepts. Consider this, my proposal is that universe-like objects may just exist, justcool made a proposal of the universe undergoing cyclical changes of expansion and contraction, there is also a proposal chaotic inflation. All these proposals may be wrong but, if one were to consider that one of these among others were to be correct, then the answers one gets would be different. So, we do not have enough information to answer such a question.

I am certain that not even you can derive any sense from this above.

What does the phrase in bold mean? Is the God-factor God?

Yes. I state it that way to make you recognise that I am not referring to Santa Claus.

And, "outward radiation" of the God-factor does not change this God-factor?

No it doesn't because the outward radiation is intrinsic to the nature of the eternal light which is God.

Let us use a simple though limited analogy. Let us imagine a fire. Can the fire exist without emitting light?

Does the fact that it emits light change the fire?

I hope that is simple enough for you to grasp.

I've addressed this above and in previous posts. If you do not agree with my conjecture, that is fine. But, you're yet to point out the contradiction if one agrees with the conjecture.

I laugh. I did not point out contradictions? Such as your space created by or at the moment of the big bang, which is contradictorily expaning into some already existent space? That is not a contradiction? Such as your singularity which is physical and yet exists outside time - notwithstanding that you go about demanding a timeline for everything? That is not a contradiction? Like your "parts" of the universe which need to exist within time, but were all contained in a singularity that existed without time? That is not a contradiction? Friend, ALL of these are starkly IMPOSSIBLE logical reverses.

Remember that not all physical properties are bound with time e.g the kelvin is not bound by time.

The Kelvin is a unit of measurement of temperature. Stop being preposterous.

Which ones are blind dogma?

O, such as your magical "just-existing" universe-like objects, no?

A small question to prickle your mind.

Is a unit of measurement of something the same as the thing being measured itself?

Is a unit of measurement of temperature, the same as the thing whose temperature is being measured.

Is a unit of measurement of time the same as time itself.

Deep Sight:

Really I had severally contemplated responding further on this thread, but was absolutely disillusioned. My disillusionment arose from the realization that there will never come a time that thehomer will recognize the contradictions that i point out. Perhaps the terms that we use are simply chasms apart.

However, some of the contradictions are so unbelievably simple, obvious, and self-evident, that I just cannot resist pointing them out again, in some vain and surely mis-placed hope that mr. homer would see that which even the blind would surely see.

What you're calling contradictions are simply due to your failure to understand the required concepts.

Deep Sight:

You say "universe-like objects may just exist as the default state of existence."
How is this possible sir?

I said existence may be the default state of universe-like objects.
It can be considered when one realizes that matter and energy are and have been converted and are being converted into each other. Plus, the fact that the energy of the universe seems to be reducing as the dimensions increase. From this, one may conclude that all the energy and matter within the universe had always been present.

Deep Sight:

You are therewith stating physical things to be self-existent. How can you substantiate this claim sir?

You introduced this concept of self existence and defined into its properties which frankly make little sense to me.

Deep Sight:

This is really a very nice way to escape the need to answer a clear question regarding physical things. Because we are not speaking of a factor such as motion within the universe for example. We are speaking of the very implicit nature of that which is physical. Thus you are being entirely disingenious and deliberately and fraudulently so. For when I ask -

Can anything physical exist without time or outside of a construct of time? -

The clear answer should be "no," - especially as you have acknowledged that yourself by demanding from me a timeline for things outside the universe! You could not make such a demand if you did not accept that anything material must have a timeline. You thus absolutely cannot argue that the "whole" universe is "exempt" from a requirement from a timeline! Indeed, this is directly contrary to everything you yourself have said.

To make it clear again: you state that the singularity was physical. I ask you under what timeline it existed - and then you state that that is a part-to-whole flaw. Jesus Christ, I am yet to come across a more dumb-founding escapist attempt.

You are dumbfounded due to your inability to grasp the concept that time as we know it and as one of the dimensions of this universe proceeded within the universe.
You also need to grasp that if you are proposing a causal mechanism for the universe, the entire concept of causality requires time. Please look it up. It requires events preceding others. You propose this as being outside the universe.

Deep Sight:

Because i do not even speak of a part or whole. I speak of the singularity. If it was physical, then it could not exist without or outside any time.
And if this is the case, then following your own logic, no singularity existed.
Besides this, even under your part-to-whole argument you cannot conceivably claim that a part of a thing must exist in time, but that the whole thing itself exists without or outside time. That is an impossible logical reverse and is quite simply the height of absurdity because given that the "whole" is physical, it must naturally also have a context in which it exists.

Your argument is just plain logically warped - for the explicit reason that the question is begged - in what does the whole exist? ? ?

This is plainly your difficulty in grasping concepts rearing its head again. Time is a part of this universe and commenced within it. We do not know if there are other universes, neither do we know that a concept such as "outside the universe" is coherent.

Deep Sight:

Thus if you state that your cells exist within your body, we must naturally wonder what your body exists in. It exists in the atmosphere of the earth - and this by analogy forms its own environment. What is the "environment" for the universe. In what "environment" does it exist? I hope you catch my drift.

Your cells make up your body. Does the fact that the brain cells dwell in fluid mean that the entire body must dwell in a fluid?

Deep Sight:

Don't make me laugh. Son, go and revise this statement before i respond to it. FYI, science does not propound a causeless universe. It states that it is still investigating the cause. Science is not as voodoo-istically inclined as you are - as to suggest that motion may magicallyy occur without a trigger. You well know the laws of motion: i set them out to you in a previous thread - and the point was made abundantly clear.

Oooh I'm now proposing voodoo?
And you've come in with the laws of motion after you've been corrected on its application? Please go back there and read my reply.

Deep Sight:

Your suggestion of causelessness is eminently and irredeemably unscientific.

And your proposal of a disembodied mind is scientific? Besides, how is my proposal unscientific when we do know that the energy content of the universe is still the same and not mysteriously increasing or decreasing.

Have you heard of the concept of a random string of numbers? Does the previous number determine the next?

Deep Sight:

It is already tiresome responding to illogical voodoo-istic pseudo-science which does not scratch the surface of any logic or research whatsoever.

Pseudo-science which appeals to magic and voodoo, such as motion without a triggering factor, self-existent physical things, and physical things existing outside time! Your suggestions are worse than the most fabulous tribal myths and religious dogma!

Just say you do not understand rather than labeling what you do not understand as voodoo. If you do not understand, you can ask for help. All you're doing is confusing your proposals with mine and demonstrating your inability to grasp concepts as presented.

Deep Sight:

I am certain that not even you can derive any sense from this above.

There you go. I posted it because it makes a lot of sense. There are other proposals about how the universe came into existence. Asking a question which if one of them were true would make the question you ask meaningless and pointless.

Deep Sight:

Yes. I state it that way to make you recognise that I am not referring to Santa Claus.
No it doesn't because the outward radiation is intrinsic to the nature of the eternal light which is God.

Oh so the God's nature is to "radiate outwards"? What does it mean to "radiate outwards"? (I'm ignoring your "eternal light" phrase).

Deep Sight:

Let us use a simple though limited analogy. Let us imagine a fire. Can the fire exist without emitting light?
Does the fact that it emits light change the fire?
I hope that is simple enough for you to grasp.

Fire? Do you know what a fire is? Fire is an oxidative reaction involving a material, via combustion releasing light, heat and the products of the reaction. We call it fire because we see the light not that we see the light because it is a fire. What part of this analogy refers to the God-factor?

Deep Sight:

I laugh. I did not point out contradictions? Such as your space created by or at the moment of the big bang, which is contradictorily expaning into some already existent space? That is not a contradiction?

I never answered this due to the lack of adequate information.

Deep Sight:

Such as your singularity which is physical and yet exists outside time - notwithstanding that you go about demanding a timeline for everything? That is not a contradiction?

I simply request time-for proposals of causality because the concept of causality requires a time-line.

Deep Sight:

Like your "parts" of the universe which need to exist within time, but were all contained in a singularity that existed without time? That is not a contradiction? Friend, ALL of these are starkly IMPOSSIBLE logical reverses.

How is this a contradiction? You need to familiarize yourself with the fallacy of composition. I've included the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

So, what are the contradictions again?

Deep Sight:

The Kelvin is a unit of measurement of temperature. Stop being preposterous.

But it's physical. Does that mean it's bound with time?

Deep Sight:

O, such as your magical "just-existing" universe-like objects, no?

<sigh> It's not dogma. It's just a proposal that I'm making which may or may not be true. If there was evidence demonstrating that it was not true, I would discard it.

Deep Sight:

A small question to prickle your mind.

Is a unit of measurement of something the same as the thing being measured itself?

Is a unit of measurement of temperature, the same as the thing whose temperature is being measured.

Is a unit of measurement of time the same as time itself.

What is measured is the object. With the aid of the units, one can compare objects and events.