[
Replying to post 72 by Bust Nak]
Lets break that down.
I see in your reply you have avoided mentioning the object called Infinite Density, an object which has to be included in order to explain where the BB originated. How (by what means) the BB came into existence
.
What are you talking about?
Infinite Density as per the generic Big Bang theory.
How can something with no beginning be originated anywhere?
Why are you avoiding the subject of the object of Infinite Density (OID)?
Right, the implication is that something without a beginning but an end, is still eternal, but lets not get bog down with that again.
If something without a beginning but with an end, then it cannot be said to be eternal.
Don't forget that you decided to assume the BB is eternal because I assumed that GOD had no beginning AND will have no end. Has always existed AND will always exist. The First Source is eternal.
BB is not part of time and space, it is the beginning of spacetime.
Therefore it is indeed and without a doubt, a part of time-space. Otherwise it is like saying that the beginning of a book is not part of the book, the beginning of a story is not part of the story. The beginning of something (in this case The Universe) is not part of that something.
The BB always existed is a ridiculous notion you have put forth, and one which I do not believe Stephan is claiming. It is more the case that you have chosen to interpret what he has said, to fit in with the ridiculous notion of your claim.
As I explained in my last post, Stephen doesn't say that the BB is eternal. That is your claim. You are the one saying that the BB is eternal.
That's not important since we are still talking about something without a beginning.
No. YOU are talking about something without a beginning, YOU are claiming the BB had no beginning. I am talking about that being a ridiculous claim.
Whether that qualify as eternal or not is irrelevant.
Why shift the goalposts? Is it 'eternal' or not?
Something without a beginning, cannot have an explanation.
The universe had a beginning. That is called the BB. Therefore something which had a beginning CAN have an explanation, other than 'its not important' which is the same as saying 'it's magic', and who wants that?
That's incoherent, something without a beginning cannot begin.
Which is why your claim that the BB had no beginning, is incoherent. The BB IS the event which IS the beginning.
And like all events, they derive from other events, and they pass, and become no more.
If that was the case then that trivially necessitate an infinite regression. You mean effect, not event.
Events are effects.
In relation to infinite regression related to the OID - which you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge as part of the generic theory of the BB - that is another subject - the theory of the universe always having existed in one form or another.
That requires expansion from the OID to something like an infinite inert field of space-time devoid of individuate matter and energy.
Problem with that is, what then allows it to return to (collapse) back into the OID state?
But like I say that is another subject.
THIS subject involves the OID existing before the BB happened, which began this universe.
Something "before" time existed is still incoherent in philosophy.
Not at all. Something can indeed exist before time. That something had to be the OID. Space-time is part of the effect of the BB which itself came from the OID
releasing the energy and matter. Philosophically thinking something existing before TIME,
is coherent and logical. 'Magical thinking' on the other hand, is not.
No, there is no before BB according the generic theory.
Are you claiming that the notion of Infinite Density is
not a generic part of the theory of the universes beginning?
How then did the idea of Infinite Density become associated with the BB theory?
The only way around that is for you to say the BB was a frozen moment suspended in no time or space and then - for reasons you would need to give, unfroze and began the motion of time and space and spewed forth its abundant energy and material creating time-space.
Only - well that wouldn't work either because the OID already holds that frozen position and the BB represents the unfrozen moment involved with that event, the event which heralded the beginning of time-space. unleashing energy and matter from the OID
Perhaps all along you have been arguing that the OID is eternal but because you don't seem to want to go there and acknowledge the OID because the OID represents an object existing before the beginning of time-space - you thought it better to conflate the event with the object the event originated from.
Is that it?
Here is another alternative - there is no space or time at all, just as Hawking and I have been telling you.
I must have missed that. There is no space, therefore, NASA and its SPACE program don't exist? But they do exist, therefore, some kind of conspiracy is going on?
There is no TIME, therefore, motion in relation to objects doesn't exist and cannot be measured using instruments supposedly designed for the purpose of measuring time?
I don't know what exactly you have in mind by that, I might be? What I am arguing what Hawking is arguing, indeed, my entire thesis here is based on what Hawking said in that article, and his book "A Brief History of Time." Is that arguing the OID is eternal?
Actually you haven't explained at all what you mean when you say the BB always existed up to the point where it stopped existing.
Nor until most recently have you inferred that the OID didn't exist. You replaced it with the BB, and stated the BB had always existed.
There is no coherency in that. Perhaps you might like to explain where the coherency is in the notion that the BB always existed, but the OID does not.
BB doesn't 'have' a beginning, BB is the moment of the beginning. That is all BB is. A single moment, from one state - the OID (inert) - to the other (release of energy and material from the OID) the BB represents a singular moment...
And hence can have no explanation, it's incoherent to as for an explanation something with no explanation, are we done?
What? How is the above statement supposed to even represent anything coherent?
The best I can interpret your statement is "It was magic, okay?? Can we drop it now??"
No sir. It is not okay.
But yep, we are done.
I am not interested in theories which involve magical thinking, simply because "there is no coherent explanation we can come up with to explain the existence of the universe without having to include the logical assumption that it was created by an eternal being, obviously able to do so."
.
