Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

No, if the math breaks down then it doesn't tell us anything.

No, if the math breaks down then it doesn't produce anything.ABE:As you say in Message 81:

quote:

---

The math does not work and can tell us nothing and there is nothing else we have to tell us what was there.

---

So it's not even telling us that there is a "blank sheet".So this statement is also wrong:

quote:

---

So yes the Big Bang theory says there was no thing at T=0.

---

It does not tell us about what was there, not even that it was no thing.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

I've explained this to you numerous times but you refuse to acknowledge understanding of anything that contradicts your argument.#3 is false because it has false implications. "Beginning to exist" implies a point in time where the Universe does not exist.According to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe exist at all points in time. There is no point in time for the Universe to begin to exist from.The catch is that the amount of time in the past direction is finite.

Because nothing can't exist.

That's one way to describe time, but that is not the concept of time that the Big Bang Theory uses.Time is the 4th dimension of the Universe - which as a whole is referred to as spacetime.Do you know what a manifold is in physics? The Universe is a 4-Dimensional manifold and time is one of those dimensions.It is independent of, and is not determined by, Earth's rotation. Because that's not what time is in physics. I've done neither of those things. "Beginning to exist" is a nonsensical phrase.Existence is implicit to beginning, and to have a beginning implies existing.You basically saying "to begin to begin", which would be better phrased as just "to begin".You should remove "beginning to exist" from your argument.

Because, to exist is to be. If there is not existence, then there is no being. For there to "be non existence" is self-contradicting.

This is not true. And "beginning to exist" is a nonsensical phrase that should be removed from your argument, as I've already explained.If the Big Bang Theory requires the Universe to have a beginning to exist, then there would be a point in time where the Universe did not exist. The Big Bang says the opposite of that: The Universe has existed at all points in time. Both of them.1. While the Universe has not always existed, it has existed at all points in time. Your misunderstanding is that there is a point in time where the Universe does not exist.2. You misunderstand what is meant by a "beginning" by conflating it with the nonsensical "beginning to exist".Remember what Hawking said:

quote:

---

Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,

---

Since time, itself, began at the Big Bang, then there can be no point in time where the Universe does not exist.

Depends on the context...ICANT's argument is that the Big Bang Theory says this and the ramifications are that.But he's wrong about both what it says and what it means.My argument is in the context of what the Big Bang Theory says and is not just assuming that it correct.I'm leaving it open as conjecture, but I'm not allowing for that conjecture to be misrepresented.Your points stand, but that isn't what I was trying to say..Heh, I was more worried about someone taking me out of context and nitpicking me saying that "nothing cannot exist" (because obviously there are some things that cannot exist), but I didn't think I'd need a caveat for every description of what the BBT says to explain that I'm not representing it as The Truth^TM.

Well, just like it would be for the Capital "D" dimensions, if they're allowed to be 'outside' of the universe then you're not talking about the UNIverse anymore (because that includes everything). You'd be talking about some kind of sub-verse to the Universe.That's just not what the Big Bang Theory is describing.

Sure, if we want to talk about branes or strings or whatever and not be discussing the BBT anymore.But the argument I'm refuting is specifically about what the BBT says and means, so I've been limiting my replies to that.

I'm referring to real time that is not determined by the rotation of the Earth.I've explained this already in Message 145: My point doesn't rely on imaginary time so you can stop bringing it up to me.

I've gotten your point all along.You haven't been understanding my rebuttle.You are the one who has non-existence in a state of being from which existence emerges.You're the one asking why there cannot be non-existence.That you're now realizing that it is impossible is leading you into contradicting yourself. Right, so since the Universe exists then there cannot be non-existence.
That is what you were questioning so perhaps you may now see an answer.

Wrong.First off, nothing I've been talking about has to do with imaginary time. So we can just completely drop that from our conversation. That is the classical non-relativistic scalar quantity concept of time.That is not what I am talking about. That is not what the Big Bang Theory talks about, which is based on General Relativity.I'll just quote wiki:

quote:

---

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.

​

The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".

​

By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.Source

---

I've been trying. Do you know what a manifold is in physics?

quote:

---

The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics because it allows more complicated structures to be described and understood in terms of the relatively well-understood properties of Euclidean space.Source

---

quote:

---

General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

​

...

​

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light.
Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.source

---

Do you accept the fact that General Relativity uses a different concept of time than the one you use that is based upon the rotation of the earth relative to the sun?

At what point in time did the universe not exist? And how do you know?