What would God say if he came here and why.

[RickD]

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought....

We shall see ...

Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-s-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

Byblos, did I mention that it's good to see you back?

[Byblos]

Byblos, did I mention that it's good to see you back?

[PaulSacramento]

Science has tried to answer the issue of "creation" in the "Big Bang" by postulating the hypothesis of "multiple universes" for example and this is a hypothesis that has NO basis whatsoever on anything the is observable in the known universe.
In short, science does try at times to comment on what it can't observe.
It just ends up doing a pretty bad job about it.
A quick summary:
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BigBang.htm

In regards to Einstein for example:

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

[Byblos]

Science has tried to answer the issue of "creation" in the "Big Bang" by postulating the hypothesis of "multiple universes" for example and this is a hypothesis that has NO basis whatsoever on anything the is observable in the known universe.
In short, science does try at times to comment on what it can't observe.
It just ends up doing a pretty bad job about it.
A quick summary:
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BigBang.htm

In regards to Einstein for example:

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

There's nothing wrong with scientific theories that are non-observable or non-testable so long at they are derived from and consistent with observable data. I can state without any hesitation whatsoever that contemporary cosmological theories not only point to an ultimate, single creation, that they are highly, highly unlikely to be falsified with new data, considering the condition (singular, one single condition) that the theory rests upon.

[PaulSacramento]

Science has tried to answer the issue of "creation" in the "Big Bang" by postulating the hypothesis of "multiple universes" for example and this is a hypothesis that has NO basis whatsoever on anything the is observable in the known universe.
In short, science does try at times to comment on what it can't observe.
It just ends up doing a pretty bad job about it.
A quick summary:
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BigBang.htm

In regards to Einstein for example:

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

There's nothing wrong with scientific theories that are non-observable or non-testable so long at they are derived from and consistent with observable data. I can state without any hesitation whatsoever that contemporary cosmological theories not only point to an ultimate, single creation, that they are highly, highly unlikely to be falsified with new data, considering the condition (singular, one single condition) that the theory rests upon.

Agreed.
Personally I have no issues with the "multiple universe/realities" hypothesis, nor should any believer and I am surprised how some scientists don't see that may actually add credibility to much of the bible ( heaven and hell simply being "other universes" and such...).

[Revolutionary]

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Logic isn't rude or condescending, it would be unintelligent to believe otherwise.

Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's not a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Void and nothingness are actually synonymous, it is used in the scientific language as well.... I prefer void, but used the slash nothingness merely to appeal to how the individual mind independently chooses to see it.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-a-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

What was the state before time since you want to assert that time is finite?

If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of any periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

It is not my burden to try and prove some sort of state of nothing (well not even nothing because nothing is actually a state) where time and space never existed, science has no desire to prove such absurdity either.... Regardless of the relativistic properties of space and time, without it ?????.... Your argument is basically to argue for absolutely nothing, congratulations, you have succeeded!

Now, back to the real world!

[Byblos]

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Logic isn't rude or condescending, it would be unintelligent to believe otherwise.

Fine then stick to logic but I'm having a hard time following your version of logic which states that time is timeless. In any case, let's just quit the snide remarks and move on.

Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's not a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Void and nothingness are actually synonymous, it is used in the scientific language as well.... I prefer void, but used the slash nothingness merely to appeal to how the individual mind independently chooses to see it.

But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-a-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

What was the state before time since you want to assert that time is finite?

Nothing material.

If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of any periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

It is not my burden to try and prove some sort of state of nothing (well not even nothing because nothing is actually a state) where time and space never existed, science has no desire to prove such absurdity either.... Regardless of the relativistic properties of space and time, without it ?????.... Your argument is basically to argue for absolutely nothing, congratulations, you have succeeded!

Let me get this straight, first you champion logic then fail to demonstrate any or follow a simple example, then you assert timeless time and endless void without a hint of proof, then you claim science has no desire to prove 'absurdities' such as space-time being bound by the singularity when there is broad consensus on the subject within the scientific community, you refuse to to engage in pertinent subject matter that I'm claiming provides solid scientific evidence for an ultimate single creation, and you have the audacity to say I'm arguing from nothing?

Now, back to the real world!

Indeed. I caution you though, it would necessitate the use of logic.

[Revolutionary]

But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me in order to differentiate it from nothingness.... Then we will continue

[Byblos]

But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

Are you saying a void cannot be created in enclosed area such as a tube? You must be joking ... All those lab experiments on the rate an object falls in a vacuum irrespective of its mass must be all falsified then.

No, a bounded void can certainly be measured. The more important question, however (for you, since you asserted it), is how do you define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

[RickD]

byblos wrote:
define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

I got it!

An infinite void is the space between an atheist's ears?

[Revolutionary]

Let me explain something about the world of logic..... You don't define infinity, infinity does not contain the finite tangible points by which we give everything else definition.... When it lacks these defining points, that's when we know it's infinite.

All fields of science and logic do not place the burden on proving infinity for very obvious reasons, they place the burden on proving a finite point which shows that it is not.
This is how infinity operates in the world of science and logic!

So, where are these finite points?

[Revolutionary]

Shifting the obvious burden of proof does not prove anything but avoidance!

[Revolutionary]

But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

Are you saying a void cannot be created in enclosed area such as a tube? You must be joking ... All those lab experiments on the rate an object falls in a vacuum irrespective of its mass must be all falsified then.

No, a bounded void can certainly be measured. The more important question, however (for you, since you asserted it), is how do you define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

We're not talking about a vacuum in a tube, we're talking about space.... Is space contained in a tube? That's your response, really?
Removing obvious contextual value from a discussion points to further avoidance!

[Revolutionary]

Word games and avoidance tactics might work for a little while, but it's only a matter of time before you find yourself digging a massive hole for yourself.... In a discussion of infinity, that's a big hole!

Let's share knowledge rather than try and stifle it!

[Byblos]

Once again I ask you to please confine your replies to single posts. It is very difficult to reply to them otherwise.

But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

Are you saying a void cannot be created in enclosed area such as a tube? You must be joking ... All those lab experiments on the rate an object falls in a vacuum irrespective of its mass must be all falsified then.

No, a bounded void can certainly be measured. The more important question, however (for you, since you asserted it), is how do you define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

We're not talking about a vacuum in a tube, we're talking about space.... Is space contained in a tube? That's your response, really?

Rev, please follow me for a second. There is no controversy in the scientific community, irrespective of one's theological views, that space-time is a product of the singularity. Whether or not that singularity is unique or there is an infinite singularities is another matter. What is for certain in nearly all the cosmological models is that our universe is geodesically incomplete, i.e. it had a beginning. Space-time is a product of this universe and therefore is bound by it, it cannot be infinite. There might be other, perhaps even infinite (some claim, but it can be shown otherwise) universes each with their own space-time fields. But in our universe, our space-time is finite and that's a matter of fact.

Removing obvious contextual value from a discussion points to further avoidance!

Huh? Please elaborate as I have no clue what you're talking about. I have been nothing but clear and precise about everything I've stated and am always ready to back up everything I state with reason and science. Can you claim that you've done the same? I don't think so. If anything, that comment may very well be a self-reflection.

Word games and avoidance tactics might work for a little while, but it's only a matter of time before you find yourself digging a massive hole for yourself.... In a discussion of infinity, that's a big hole!

The only hole I'm looking down into is the one you're trying to dig yourself out of, unsuccessfully might I add.

Let's share knowledge rather than try and stifle it!

And finally a point we can agree on.