[
Replying to post 55 by Bust Nak]
That wasn't what I was asking. What I was asking you was 'why does BB that does not have a beginning still need no explanation when the question of what was before the BB is still accepted as part of the generic theory of the BB?'
Because something that does not have a beginning gas no explanation.
However, something which comes
before something claimed not to have a beginning, means that the claim is faulty.
See? If something doesn't have a beginning, then there should be
nothing existing BEFORE it. If there is, (as the generic theory of the BB maintains there is) then the BB had a beginning.
Science and theology actually.
Perhaps you can stick to science in relation to your assertions? Your claim is that the BB has existed forever (as in a timeless state) up until the moment time began, when the theory itself says that the BB was an event which didn't exist until it happened and from that moment time began.
But that's not what the theory says.
Really? How odd. Should I take your word for it or would you like to show me?
But what you propose IS the magical thinking, so how exactly is it moving away from magical thinking?
No. What I propose is
logical thinking.
Of course. Except in that science simply places that aside as unanswerable, whereas the atheist claims it as the answer. Atheism assumes one and rejects the other, whereas non atheist-based science does not.
That it is unanswerable is the answer though. These two stances are just two sides of the same coin.
No they are not. There are atheists who are regarded as 'strong atheists' who go so far as to claim GOD does not exist. That is another coin altogether.
The reason I linked you to Stephen's paper was to show you that even as an atheist scientist he does not claim the BB always existed. At least I could not find any such claim therein - perhaps you did and I missed it?
"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."
Right away one - with amazing powers of observation - can see in this sentence that Stephen contradicts himself.
The events before the BB (which Stephen isn't denying didn't exist) did indeed have one major
observable consequence. The consequence was the BB itself.
From our perspective, the BB is the event which allowed for the state of the universe we currently observe.
BEFORE the BB happened as an event, there was another event, which is in the form of an OBJECT which is referred to as "INFINITE DENSITY" and this object didn't just magically appear...although this is what Stephen (and others such as yourself) have decided to believe. That this physical
object 'magically' appeared.
Stephen (and others such as yourself) do not want to talk about it other than in 'magical' terms because talking about it tends to beg the question as to how this object happened to become this object. In that, one has to contemplate the logical probability that it was created, which any atheist worth his/her position has to avoid contemplating in any serious way lest they be mistaken for being theists.
Thus, as I said - the whole theory Stephen endorses is the science of atheism, rather than the science of - well just science. Science without the assumption either way.
Real science.
Exact Science.
Not distracted by atheistic bias 'science'.
So claiming that time began at the event of the BB may fit in with the advent of the universe and consciousness within the universe examining the universe from that perspective, but
excluding the object of INFINITE DENSITY by placing it outside of time only implies that anything outside of time didn't
exist before time, but of course it did exist before time.
Thus the BB is the event heralding in the beginning of time and space, but
not the beginning of
existence, because INFINITE DENSITY existed, and it existed as a physical OBJECT.
Thus, when Stephen (and others such as yourself) state;
"one may as well cut events before the Big Bang out of the theory," he is doing so in order not to have to think about that, not because the events did not happen. And the reason he (and others such as yourself) do this is because the
logical implication is to have to consider someone(s) may have been involved in creating the object which
allowed for the BB event to
happen.
Stephen (and others such as yourself) justifies cutting out contemplating this by saying;
Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
So he is not saying (as you claim) that the BB always existed. He is clearly saying that event before that DID happen, but there is no way to measure those events, because - and these are now my words - the BB coming into existence effectively veiled those events, shielding them from us being able to define them in
scientific terms.
However, in
philosophical terms, one can indeed contemplate possible and logical explanations. No one is arguing that those
philosophical terms are unable to be verified through scientific measurements, but that is here nor there.
Philosophically speaking, the existence of the object of INFINITE DENSITY is still of
necessary interest. Claiming they are NOT of necessary interest merely because there is no way to scientifically measure them, is fallacy. Erroneous. Balderdash.
And finally;
When Stephen (and others such as yourself) compare their theory in relation to the particular theology described below;
This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."
a number of liberties are taken which imply that the BB Theory is an
atheist invention - specifically created to argue against the particular creation theory exampled above.
However, the truth of the matter (at least as far as I can tell - otseng can jump in here if he wishes) is that as far as theories go, the BB theory (without the addition of atheist interpretations of that theory) is far
better an explanation than the theory of GOD and creation which Stephen (and others such as yourself) use an an example and specifically focus upon.
The
specific focus gives unwarranted license to those arguing against that
particular idea of GOD and creation, in that somehow they have effectively
disproved GOD and creation through their atheistic bent regarding the BB theory, and it providing good practical evidence, so that
particular idea of GOD and creation can be put to rest.
In doing so, they conflate
all ideas of GOD and creation with just this particular one, and prematurely pat one another on the back in congratulations for a job well done.
But a half-pie job, is not a job well done, No, not at all.
.
