IamJoseph writes:
The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.
Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word osmosis to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important.
IamJoseph writes:
When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended;..
Maybe it’s because your word salads were so ridiculously stupid and not understandable at all with the result that nobody even gave them a second thought.
IamJoseph writes:
instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'.
Those words were used because, we don’t know.
IamJoseph writes:
What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct -.
Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not.
IamJoseph writes:
there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws.
Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did.
IamJoseph writes:
Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action.
Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows.
IamJoseph writes:
Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.
It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory.
IamJoseph writes:
"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.
No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang.
IamJoseph writes:
The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?
I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang.
IamJoseph writes:
Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter,..
Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example.
IamJoseph writes:
.namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force.
No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all.
IamJoseph writes:
It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.
No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific.
IamJoseph writes:
Then it is not the first or a singular entity.
Why?
IamJoseph writes:
No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation.
Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite entity in our finite universe. It’s called energy.
IamJoseph writes:
You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it.
My argument surely is not breaking down.
IamJoseph writes:
This can be seen with religionists too, BTW!
Religionists don’t have arguments. They’ve got faith. What you are trying to do now, disguised as word salads.
IamJoseph writes:
I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time.
Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal.
IamJoseph writes:
The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action.
Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else?
IamJoseph writes:
Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!
Yes. The Big Bang is one example.
IamJoseph writes:
If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.
The science of physics.
IamJoseph writes:
The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.
Word salad again. Your basicargument, if you can call it that, is: because my parrott didn’t exist at a stage, it doesn’t exist now. Even if it sits on my shoulder now.
IamJoseph writes:
What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples?
All of the above.
IamJoseph writes:
These are works which are driven by laws, not nature.
You still haven’t read all those posts trying to inform you of what scientific laws are, have you? Word salads won’t hide your ignorance.
IamJoseph writes:
Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God.
No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists.
IamJoseph writes:
Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.
We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear.
IamJoseph writes:
Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.
Who said that no laws may or may not have applied?
IamJoseph writes:
Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action;
We know it can.
IamJoseph writes:
..you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this?....
Empirical evidence works very well on me.
IamJoseph writes:
You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply!
As I said earlier: maybe you don’t understand people who don’t use word salads.
IamJoseph writes:
Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away.
No, all scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact, until someone can provide an alternative that not only explains everything covered in the theory, but also more. Scientific theories are regarded as scientific facts by the scientific community.
IamJoseph writes:
I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong.
Publish it in a scientific journal. You will become very famous and very rich. You can’t do it on a forum like this.
IamJoseph writes:
Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action.
Lots of people have. The fact that you don’t see it, reflects on your cognitive dissonance. Not on the other posters here.
IamJoseph writes:
Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning.
It certainly does. It means I don’t know.
IamJoseph writes:
We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action.
Where has anybody said this?
IamJoseph writes:
This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit.
Easy. See if you can convince scientists who actually know more about the subject you do. Follow the scientific method. Word salads won’t work on them. Data would. That means empirical evidence for your point.
I am the last person to answer that question. I only have the most basic understanding of "string theory". Maybe Cavediver will see this and be better able to answer.
you will get more than an earful of opinions on anything you have to say or wonder about.
™ Version 4.2
(1)