Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 57 of 308 (517422)
07-31-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RevCrossHugger
07-31-2009 1:42 PM


Nonsense.
or thought I did !
And herein lies the problem, you have not been answering anyones questions. You've been reiterating your premise; i.e.,
Hunter writes;
quote:
You have evidence that things can exist "outisde" of time? Can things exist north of the northpole too?
[RCH responds:]
Ha ha! I have an answer for you. First a couple of cosmologists and theoretical scientists have proposed a way for a universe to pinch off this one but that violates my dependence on the BB to describe temporal events! The answer is (drum roll please?); The KCA being a valid cosmological argument relies of deductive reasoning.If the argument is logically sound the argument demands that a 'cause' for the universe to begin to exist. It follows that this cause is atemporal ie outside time if not before time (for reasons given that is not an accurate statement). So the only logical and rational choice we have is that the cause is atemporal and therefore outside time.
Twice this 'answer' assumes its own correctness without support.
quote:
The KCA being a valid cosmological argument relies of deductive reasoning.
Until such time as you have established your premise entails the conclusion KCA can not be defined as valid. And that is one of the arguments; but not the one Hunter asked you about.
quote:
If the argument is logically sound the argument demands that a 'cause' for the universe to begin to exist.
suffers pretty much the same problem. Whether the argument is logically sound is in question; but not the one Hunter asked you about.
quote:
It follows that this cause is atemporal ie outside time if not before time (for reasons given that is not an accurate statement).
It follows from what? Nothing that you've said in the last few sentences. You seem to be confusing Ā⇒Ā with Ā⇒B. Though is does move (erroniously) toward Hunter's question. The problem is, it's not an answer. It's your premise.
The question is: Do you have evidence of "out of time" being real rather then just words that can be put in a row?
In Message 31 I read:
quote:
While it may sound grossly counter intuitive to say that cause and effect does not require time, it is an accurate claim. Physicists do not look at time in the same way as most laypeople. In reality an egg should break as easily as it ”un-breaks’. Physical processes at the microscopic level are thought to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric, which means that the theoretical statements which describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. So cause and effect is not time dependent. With all due respect I don’t think you have supported your rebuttal very well.
What's wrong with this as an answer?
Do you think physicists haven't noticed that time only moves in one direction in reality? Doesn't that give you a clue that you might be misunderstanding something?
Have you heard the tail about engineers once having pronounced that bumble bees, as designed, couldn't fly? Actually the engineers were pretty sure that bumble bees could fly. They used that insight to conclude that their model didn't apply to bumble bees.
"Use the insight, Luke. Use the insight."
Quantum fluctuation (to get out of a universe that begins to exist) is not a validated theory. If the higgs boson is found at the LHC he may have a point, however until that happens the BB is the only theory with empirical evidence.
This is blubbering. Quantum fluctuations are observable fact. The Casimir effect is a direct result. If two plates are spaced closer together then the wave length of a virtual particle that particle can not be expressed between the plates. Those particles that "materialize" outside the plates causes a diffusion pressure that can be measured. The discovery or non-discovery of the Higgs has nothing to do with it.
I think it goes without saying that erroneous information can't be considered an answer to anyones questions.
To be fair to you, your English isn't too good so I might be misinterpreting much of what you're trying to say. I'd like to apologize if that is the case. We're all comrades together, right?
Another false premise BTW.
RCH in post 51 writes:
What do you want evdience for? Please be specific.
Most of us don't believe you have any evidence so it's kind of hard for us to tell you what that evidence should be. But as you have claimed to have evidence you should be able to let us in on it. I am, however, of he impression that you don't understand what the parameters of evidence entail, so will, in a spirit of chumminess, do what I can to assist you where I can.
AbE: Just wanted to add this, which any high school student could tell you:
RCH writes:
BTW and for 'Ya Alls' info; Time according to BB cosmology came into existence nanoseconds after T-0.
By the time nanoceconds had passed by all the interesting bits about the big bang were ancient history. So you're wrong again fail!
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 1:42 PM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-01-2009 7:50 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 80 of 308 (517532)
08-01-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RevCrossHugger
08-01-2009 7:43 AM


More Blubbering
You are entirely correct. No one knows if these particles are 'real' and we await the repair of the LHC* to verify the theory by finding the God particle, the higgs boson, among other 'lesser verifiers'. ("The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France" for the director and other members benefit).
It is know that virtual particles are "real". They have measurable effects. And again, they are know to be real now and Higgs and the LHC has nothing to do with it. Your spouting nonsense.
In either case, you need to learn to distinguish between insult and statement of fact. It matters not to me whether you respond to my posts or not, but are you saying you'll ignore reality if it isn't spoon fed you as you like it?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-01-2009 7:43 AM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-01-2009 11:12 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 86 of 308 (517539)
08-01-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RevCrossHugger
08-01-2009 11:09 AM


No Response Required
The cause being independent of time ie atemoral or eternal if you wish did not begin to exist so solves the problem of infinite regression.
How do you not see that the above reasoning also relieves the the problem of cause?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-01-2009 11:09 AM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2009 11:33 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 110 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-02-2009 4:21 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 89 of 308 (517547)
08-01-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by cavediver
08-01-2009 11:33 AM


Re: No Response Required because the KCA is dead
Thank you cavediver. I was one Plank distance away from invoking your post but didn't want to besmirch your name by associating it with such a pissy sort as myself.
Love your answers to NN.
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct a pronoun.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2009 11:33 AM cavediver has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 119 of 308 (517804)
08-02-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by RevCrossHugger
08-02-2009 3:13 PM


It's Working, You're Not
Your expectation of what is supposed to happen is getting in your way of seeing what is happening. You're expecting to see the post you are responding to to appear in the reply box. It doesn't. You get an empty reply box just as you do when you press the Gen Reply button. If you scroll down the screen you will see the post that you are replying to from which you can drag and drop the relevant quotes. This method avoids the clutter from lazy people who automatically copy the entire post until there are a score of nested replies.
Good observational skills are crucial to discovery.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by RevCrossHugger, posted 08-02-2009 3:13 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 214 of 308 (518193)
08-04-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
08-04-2009 1:13 PM


An Indication of Learning
I truly have no concept of what eternity (forever) is if that be the case.
Now maybe you can get somewhere. The Universe has existed for all times; aka, forever. Forever started 13.7 billion years ago.
"Prior to that" is a contradiction because "prior" is a reference to time. There was no time.
let us say we have an effect, when did the cause occur: before it or after it? If we are speaking about the creation of the Universe, which is synonymous with the creation of time, there was no before. That leaves two possibilities: the cause happened after the effect; or, the creation of the Universe was not an effect.
ICANT, in post 134, writes:
I am sorry that I am such a pain in the...But I am still trying to learn and that is kinda rough at 70.
If you don't mind my saying so, no, you're not trying to learn. You're trying to find pieces that you can wedge into a rigid framework. Many of the pieces are nothing but phrases that can be repeated as needed to shore up a belief; pieces an opponent might be hesitant to contradict because he's not arrogant enough to believe he has a functional understanding of what the phrase references; i.e., imaginary time. What are the implications of imaginary time, ICANT? I, myself, don't have a clue, but I know when someone is trading in magic beans.
And your being 70 has nothing to do with it. Over the course of the last year I have tutored over 30 of my peers (10-18, (take a guess how defensive an 18 y.o. is with a 14 y.o. tutor. (I have a 12 y.o. (girl cousin) English Composition tutor.)) in five different subjects. I see and battle exactly the same pattern of fixity with them that I see in you. finding the key to demolishing their framework is a reward in itself, but the true reasons I tutor is so that my own magic beans will be exposed when I find I can't explain how it fits into the argument on a more basic level.
Abandon your notions and start over.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 1:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 232 of 308 (518262)
08-04-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
08-04-2009 5:15 PM


Re: The Bottom Line
I have been told the BBT starts at T=10-43 and explains pretty well how everything happned up till now. Well it turns out that inflation which is necessry to fix a lot of problems with the BBT is not an accepted theory yet. It is accepted that it is necessary. Ok lets say I swallow the BBT theory with all its problems.
The Big Bang did not start at T=10-43. That is merely our first glimpse into it. If an event happens at x.5/32 sec, and I have a movie camera that has a frame rate of 32 fps that doesn't mean the event started to happen when my first frame captured it.
Furthermore, that doesn't mean that we can't make some guesses prior to that. It is not likely that Eric idol played Arthur Ashe in death match mahjong during that time*. If you agree, then I hope that you can extend that to if one knows the physics well enough there are all kinds of things that can be eliminated as possibilities. Eliminate enough possibilities and you start being able to form a few, sketchy possibilities. Sketchy possibilities aren't much maybe, but it's more then pure speculation. One of the possibilities is that the Big Bang started at T=0. Just a guess?
Ok lets say I swallow the BBT theory with all its problems.
This is another place you keep running off even though you've been told you're running off. Inflation is a refinement of the BBT, not a patch. Say I'm working on the car. I develop an hypothesis that I'm having a spark problem in #3. I pull the plug and find that the side electrode is welded to the center electrode. Upon close examination I find that the occlusion is the end of a small, throttle spring that had broken off and was sucked into the cylinder. I now replace the spring and clear the plug. I didn't patch up an hypothesis with problems; I added a new insight.
And since I keep copies of everything it may be useful in the future.
Keeping it for the future would only be useful if you understood it. But every word said to you goes through an ICANT filter and gains a meaning that the presenter could never guess would be attributed to their words. And you'll still be saying the Big Bang started at T=10-43, and that inflation is a patch on a flawed theory come fall. Then you'll say something self depreciating to coax out yet another explanation for the ICANT filters.
Finally, let me return to this. You seem to have ignored it first time round.
lyx writes:
let us say we have an effect, when did the cause occur: before it or after it? If we are speaking about the creation of the Universe, which is synonymous with the creation of time, there was no before. That leaves two possibilities: the cause happened after the effect; or, the creation of the Universe was not an effect.
*Ridiculousness precludes one from mistaking the example as a point for discussion. Were I to give an example such as "The rate of inflation at T=10-36 limits negative, gravitation partial pressures to be expressed to T=10-57." you'd be demanding proof of that bit of nonsense. Don't allow the ridiculousness of an example blind you to the point.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 261 of 308 (518421)
08-06-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by ICANT
08-05-2009 10:07 PM


Trivial Footing
I think I am on solid footing so far, but now I will mess up.
You're on trivial footing so far. This isn't trivial to cavediver or Son Goku because they understand what it means. To you they are magic beans.
If everything in the universe is expanding from that point that existed at that ultra-dense, ultra-hot state:
Wouldn't that mean the universe is a sphere?
No. The Universe is not expanding from a point: Every point is expanding.
Wouldn't that also mean that point would be the center of the universe?
There is no "that point": All points in the Universe are expanding in the same way.
If that is the case I don't see how that beach ball has anything to do with representing the universe.
That is not the case so we are much relieved.
The problem lies in you're insistence on viewing the beach ball as a 3D object in a 3D universe. It is not the beach ball per se, it is only the surface. A beach ball is used because its extremely thin wall relative to its great size make it easy to visualize as only a surface. There is not only not an outside, there is also not an inside. Toward or away from the center is not a dimension in the model. It doesn't exist.
The problem is that a 3D volume in a 4D Universe does not have a center. As it is exceedingly difficult for 3D people who only recognize three dimensions of direction to imagine how a finite volume can be center-less. If we accept the 2D surface as an analog to our 3D and have our third dimension free as an analog to the fourth dimension, we can easily visualize how our finite 2D surface is center-less as we can loop the surface through our analog fourth dimension.
I don't see how there can be a surface of the universe, when everything is the universe.
There is not a "surface of the Universe". The 3D Universe that is familiar to us IS the surface of the unfamiliar 4D Universe.

10-43 seconds
Imagine that you are at a funny car race and have really crappy seats where the good seats cut off your view to the start line. What you see is the cars bursting out from behind the bleachers already doing 30 mph. You also get to see it cross the finish line 3.879 seconds later going 318.406 mph. For the part of the race you saw you measured the acceleration as a constant 109.06 fps2.
  • At what time did the race become visible to you?
  • Does that value have any significance to the race?
  • Or is it just an artifact of your crappy seats?
10-43 seconds is the time that the Universe came out from behind Plank's bleachers. It is trivial. Repeating it over and over will not deepen ones understanding of the Universe any more then will knowing the color of ones cat. Knowing why there is a 10-43 second limit is not trivial.

And now I'll return to this. You seem to have ignored it first two times round.
lyx writes:
let us say we have an effect, when did the cause occur: before it or after it? If we are speaking about the creation of the Universe, which is synonymous with the creation of time, there was no before. That leaves two possibilities: the cause happened after the effect; or, the creation of the Universe was not an effect.
Do you accept or rebut this argument?
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2009 10:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 1:22 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 270 of 308 (518461)
08-06-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by ICANT
08-06-2009 1:22 AM


Re: Trivial Footing
Are you absolutly 100% sure there was no before?
Am I 100% sure of what, exactly: that the standard BB model has time beginning along with the Universe? Yeah, I am.
My evidence would be that physicist would pretty much now what there own model says, and they say so. So yeah, I am.
Is the BBT also an accurate description of the Universe? That I can't be so sure of. But I'm pinning the BBT's "No T<0." against "Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.", which you're defending. It's not a fair fight. The BBT is an extremely closely examined construct where careful observation and strict maths force certain conclusions. Cause Theory is a vague construct where 11 poorly defined words are lined up in a row. What, exactly, is meant by "begins to exist" and "cause for its existence"? The other words seem to be ok.
Are you absolutly, 100% sure there was cause?

Referencing Message 262:
Why is there no inside?
Because that is what makes the model useful. It frees up that dimension so we can pretend it is a different dimension that is hard for us to imagine. It is a part of the model, not the Universe.
This is one of my biggest problems.
If I was to take a cake mix and mix it up ready to bake.
I then add a can of yeast to the dough.
I then add 2 cups of rasins to the mixture.
I take a sphere of glass and put the mixture in it and begin to bake
It would not be long before the glass would break but the cake would keep getting bigger until it was done.
The rasins would be at the same place they were in the beginning.
But they would be much further apart.
You could cut the cake open and you would have rasins all the way through the cake spaced at all different kinds of distances.
The raisin cake is a different model. It is a 3D model used to explain how the galaxies move apart in three dimensions. In this model one is supposed to ignore the surface. Loop the surface of this model back upon itself in a fourth dimension and you've got it. If you find it difficult, as most folks do, to imagine looping in 4D try using a beach ball model where one dimension is freed up for use elsewhere by ignoring it.
A sysnthesis of the analogous bits of the two models would be the goal. Mixing the real world parts that one is supposed to ignore is not useful. You're doing the latter.
. pea sized universe .
Get this out of your head too. Your minds eye is viewing the pea from the outside. The pea is measured from the Universe just as one measures the the 13.7 billion light year size from the Universe. One would not have noticed edges to the Universe half a pea away. The edges loop back into themselves in the fourth dimension. just as they do now. And because the universe is expanding faster then light travels across it one doesn't see the looping.
Is there any direction that the Hubble Space Telescope can look in and not see 10 to 20 billion light years out into space?
No. The real Universe is viewed in 3D. It is the beach ball model that is viewed in 2D.
Is there any direction it could look and not see stars?
Down.
Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 1:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 11:27 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 308 (518555)
08-06-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ICANT
08-06-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Trivial Footing
So, out of 300 nicely chosen words you found one of them: down.
Oh well.
Would that be toward earth?
Yes.
In the 96 minute orbit around the earth the Hubble is able to take pictures from a 360 view from the earth. Correct me if this is wrong.
Is there anywhere in that 360 view that the Hubble Space Telescope can not see 10 to 20 billion light years away?
If the Hubble was rotated from that plane to view 90 to it's left or right would it still be able to see 10 to 20 billion light year away.
And this was well answered in the sentence before "down". To whit:
ICANT writes:
Is there any direction that the Hubble Space Telescope can look in and not see 10 to 20 billion light years out into space?
lyx writes:
No. The real Universe is viewed in 3D. It is the beach ball model that is viewed in 2D.
Not that "down" doesn't also answer the question.
You pulled four words out of my post before the one under discussion. Was the rest a waste of time? I guess you've confirmed my statement about your not trying to learn. There's always that.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 11:27 AM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 296 of 308 (518667)
08-07-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
08-07-2009 12:09 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi ICANT
The Universe does not have a 3D shape such as a cone or a tube or a sphere. The representations one sees of the Universe are limited to 2D, and seen from the outside, the 3rd. As 1D of the 2D will usually represent time rather then distance it cannot be describing a shape as you know it. One is not meant to infer that the shape of the model is the shape of the Universe. If you see a pie chart of products sold by Taco Bell would you take from it that tacos are fat, round backed triangles and burritos are thin, round backed triangles?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2009 12:09 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by cavediver, posted 08-07-2009 7:44 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 298 of 308 (518749)
08-07-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by cavediver
08-07-2009 7:44 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
True, though each model does represent the global geometry/topology of the Universe.
Well that's the way I've been saying it since I was 10 when I read Peter Pollywog Cosmic Explorer and I'm too set in my ways to change it now. Am I wrong to say we can't fit a raisin cake into a beach ball the size of a pea in 10-43 seconds?
Were I to modify the statement to "One is not meant to infer that the shape of the model is the simple, 3D shape of the Universe." would that make it less . I'm not sure how to phrase it exactly . Ok! I understand . or think I understand that the maths can describe a shape; i.e., r2 + ro2 - 2ror sinθ sinθo cos(φ-φo) = R2 describes a 3D sphere, but when you are talking about global geometry/topology of the Universe not all three dimensions of the representation are necessarily spatial. So if I limit my statement to the three spatial, or simple, dimensions do I remove the possibility of it being interpreted to mean more then is meant? Or am I babbling?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by cavediver, posted 08-07-2009 7:44 AM cavediver has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 302 of 308 (518791)
08-08-2009 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
08-08-2009 2:06 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
A woman walks up to a gas station and says to the attendant, "I've stopped about three miles up the road and can't get going again. Can you pick me up and bring me into your garage?" And the attendant says to her, "No you're not, you're right across my counter. The garage is right through that door: You can walk just fine."
Do you see what happened there? The lady was talking with a precision that should have been more then adequate for the situation, but neglected to take into account that she might be talking to someone too stupid to not be a pseudo-pedantic ass.
You see, when Steven Hawking said that all the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever but that it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, he was talking with a precision that should have been more then adequate for the situation, but neglected to take into account that he might be talking to you.
Were SH talking about the KCA he'd very likely tighten up his usage of the words "existed", "forever", and "beginning", because the precise meaning of these words becomes very important when talking about "existed", "forever", and "beginning".
Edited by Admin, : Fix punctuation and grammar.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2009 2:06 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 08-08-2009 9:58 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024