Summations Only

Hi Panda, In what you quoted I was agreeing with you that the universe prior to the BB existed in existence or in non-existence.This is what I actually said that you are cherry picking.In Message 244I said: You totally ignored the bolded section of what I said.In Message 238 I said:

quote:

---

The universe exists today.

​

It either has either existed eternally in some form.

​

OR

​

It had a beginning to exist in non-existence.

​

I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.

​

If you have something I would be intersted in your hypothesis.

---

CS responded in Message 242 with

quote:

---

1. It had a beginning to exist in existence.
2. It emerged from a state of quasi-existence.
3. It existed eternally but for a finite amount of time.
4. Two half-verses were combined into one universe.

---

#1. Universe began to exist.
#2. Universe existed in In some manner or to some degree.
#3. Is an oxymora as something that is infinite can not be finite.
#4. Universe existed in the form of 2 - 1/2 verses.So CS did not present and alternative.You presented in Message 22:One of them is that a god existed and he began the universe's existenceYour alternative is that the universe began to exist. Why would I retract my statement I gave as comentary as I agreed with your statement.Prior to T=0 the Universe either existed in existence or in non-existence.
If it existed in non-existence then it required a beginning to exist as we live in it today.So I will restate my Axiom of truth.The universe exists today.1. It either has either existed eternally in some form.OR2. It had a beginning to exist in non-existence.I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.God Bless

OR3. A god created the beginning of the universe. See above.
It is not the same as 2.
If a god exists then it exists in existence (to use your phraseology) and therefore the universe didn't begin to exist in non-existence.

What's all this fairy-scary nonsense is doing on the page of a biologist?
That is why Stephen Gould ended up with having written so much wishy-washy nonsense on his own subjects. He had no independence. His umbilical cord to the prevailing nonsense of his day had never got severed from his poor brain.
Trillions of trillions of trillions of degrees was the temperature? The poor silly has to show how temperature is not distance travelled by objects. Next he needs to show how any distance can be travelled by an absence of objects lacking any room to travel in. Planck length is indivisible by conception and definition. No distance to travel inside the length. Contradiction. Planck is rotating in his grave listening to all this twaddle. Hawking and the rest of his quackademic buddies are not doing any science.

Sorry, such reasoning is based on the assumption that energy is an entity capable of independent physical existence. I do not see any reason to take the assumption for granted. If you define energy as the capacity to do work, there still must be those capable of working. If only bigbangist concepts could be implemented what a delight life would become for the industrialists!! No need to deal with all the dirty pesky workers. Just import pure capacity to work and all the needed jobs are done nice and clean like.

Hi Panda, And your god either created the universe out of existing material or he created it in non-existence, out of non-existing materials.Now lets examine your premise.A godCreated the universe.Did that universe have a beginning to exist or had it always existed in some form?God Bless,

There is no universe prior to that. You can't just use the word "form" in this case to mean anything you want or as some "unknown". You need to define what you mean by "in some form." Because what the evidence show is there is no "form" before the big bang. This is nonsense. It literally means nothing. Alternative to what? You haven't presented anything. You continue to use the word "universe" but a universe means 4D spacetime -- which is "existence". So how can existence exist in non-existence? That's ridiculous.Also, there is NO OTHER form for the "universe" to be in. Once there is no 4D spacetime there is NO universe.All we can do is define spacetime and the geometry of the universe as it currently is. We can also describe it at it's earliest state, until it gets too small and GR breaks down. And in the future, hopefully, unify quantum field theory and general relativity which would then explain how the universe emerges from a quantum state.Everything else you are trying to say is nothing more than a quasi-philosophical point that is basically worthless, other than I guess to help you with your confusion. You have not presented us with anything for us to give you an alternative to. Your word salads don't mean anything.As usual, you can learn this stuff properly but you'd rather remain comepletely ignorant on the subject. I don't get it, man.- Oni

*Puts gun to head ---- A single shot is heard*- Oni

How would you tell the difference? Given an object - something that "exists" - what tests would you do to determine whether it "began to exist" at some point or changed from one form to another at some point?For example, when you go to bed the grass is dry but when you get up the next morning, there's dew on the grass. How do you know whether the dew was always there and just changed form or whether it came into existence overnight?I'm looking for a real answer here, not just an assertion that something is "impossible". You're making a dichotomy between A and B and I want to know what concrete methods you use to determine that A and B are different.

Sure, it's Stephen Hawking talking about his personal ideas for what was going on in the Big Bang. Well, I'm not going to argue with that. Does it? I'm not really sure if that's a logical necessity. Yes, for the hundredth billionth time, the Big Bang does not have a T = 0 point. It does not say where the universe came from. It just says that "long, long" ago, the universe was in a quark-gluon electroweak plasma and expanded from that state to what we see now. What happened before we don't know.

The Big Bang theory does not discuss an "original Planck volume". I have nothing to say about an idea not present in the Big Bang theory.

How does the "existence outside of the universe" differ from "the universe" that "exists and expands"?Did the existence outside of the universe also either always exist or come into existence in nonexistence?Or do these two existences differ in some profound way?And how do you determine their similar or dissimilar status?Thanks. Walk in beauty.

For arguments sake, let's go with that.
Either our universe has always existed or it was created by a 'god-like' being or it began to exist due to a natural phenomenon. I do not know whether our universe has always existed or if it was created by a 'god-like' being or if it began to exist due to a natural phenomenon.

You need to educate yourself, Son, about the scriptures of your faith. The Big Bunk hypothesis has quite a bit to say about the original Planck volume. This period in the history of creation of something from nothing is called Planck epoch in your gospels, if you did not know that.

How is it based on this assumption? Independent of what? There are entities capable of performing work in the early universe. They aren't 'people who are employed' of course. But I wasn't talking about that kind of work. I was talking about, for example, a force displacing something with mass. No. That's just not it at all. Indeed, you have the whole point completely backwards.Nobody is saying that any job could be done by the mere application of workable energy. What I am saying is that in order for work to be done (be it in the context of paid employment, or of exploding a star), there must be workable energy available. And that there was more workable energy available early in the universe than there is now. And there was less space. So it would be 'hotter'.

Hi Panda, Just where would that natural phenomenon exist?God Bless,