Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒ Time and Beginning to Exist ⇒

Summations Only

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 6 of 302 (641937)
11-24-2011 5:20 AM 		Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 4:42 AM

Please keep this thread free of you particular god.
​
This is a science thread and as such does not 'align' with you idea of a god.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 4:42 AM IamJoseph has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 5:56 AM Larni has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(2)
Message 65 of 302 (642299)
11-27-2011 11:29 AM 		Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
11-27-2011 1:08 AM

Re: Reply to PaulK
Only read the thread about logical fallacies, suggested by Designtheorist if you want to learn how someone's tries to wriggle out of the fact they are guilty of committing said logical fallacies.
​
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 1:08 AM Chuck77 has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 85 of 302 (642395)
11-28-2011 12:54 PM 		Reply to: Message 84 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:38 PM

Re: Reply to PaulK
You also needed to point out how PaulK stupidly ruled out the IPU as an a priori assumption.
​
What an idiot, that PaulK.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:38 PM designtheorist has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 112 of 302 (642463)
11-29-2011 4:25 AM 		Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM

Re: Reply to PaulK
Try reworking your argument while explicitly acknowledging the possibility of a Designer/Creator acting from a "temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension)" to the big bang.
​
How can you have a 'prior' that is in a different time dimension?
​
Can you be 'longer' than something in the 'width' dimension? You are mixing up your dimensions, here.
​
What you seem to be saying is that there is a point in time dimension 'a' (our time dimension) that is the lowestes value of time but that in some other time dimesion (time dimension 'b' or god time) there is a point that comes before the lowest value of time (in time dimension 'a').
​
But this is not the lowest value of time in time dimesion 'b' (because there was a cause in time dimension 'b' [by god] (who already exists in that time dimension).
​
It is the cause in time dimension 'b' that cause the effect in time dimension 'a' (some how) .
​
So for you god to work, i.e. be the cause of our time dimension in this (our) time dimesion ('a') you add another time dimesion 'b' that is separate yet interacting with time dimension 'a' (our time dimesion).
​
So you start off with an a priori assumption (god caused our time dimension) and add another dimension (time dimension 'b') as a bizarre ad hoc statement to allow you god to exist, to cause ours.
​
You sir, are a genius.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:42 PM Larni has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 127 of 302 (642521)
11-29-2011 3:16 PM 		Reply to: Message 123 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:14 PM

Re: Reply to PaulK
Show me my error.
​
I did in Message 112.
​
I'm surprised you missed it.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:14 PM designtheorist has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 155 of 302 (642605)
11-30-2011 5:12 AM 		Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
11-30-2011 3:43 AM

The more the merrier
YOUR argument requires the existence of an immaterial realm, and it would be strengthened if you could give a good reason to think that one exists. Apparently you can't.
​
I'll go one better. I posit a third time dimension with an even bigger god than Designtheorist's.
​
This god (who may or may not be His Noodlyness [but I refuse to be drawn on that point]) exists in an immaterial realm (from the perspective of Designtheorist's god) and as a separate time dimension it can be seen as 'prior' to Designtheorist's immaterial realm.
​
I'm sorry, PaulK but as you have ruled out both immaterial realms existances I take this to mean that you do hold to the unexamined, implicit and false premise which Designtheorist identified earlier.
​
So you see you are wrong x2.
​
Hang on, maybe there is another timeless immaterial dimension!
​
Wrong x3
​
Etc......
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:43 AM PaulK has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 183 of 302 (642672)
11-30-2011 1:27 PM 		Reply to: Message 162 by designtheorist
11-30-2011 10:10 AM

Re: Reply to PaulK #153
That's so stupid.
​
Refusing to admit the possibility of an unevidenced imaginary realm is in no way circular reasoning.
​
Yahweh being real because it says so in the bible and that must be correct because Yahweh 'inspired' it and Yahweh is always true because it says so in the bible which is 'inpsired' by Yahweh, ad nauseam: is circular reasoning.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 10:10 AM designtheorist has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024