Summations Only

When you stop ignoring the evidence for expansion perhaps you can be taken seriously.

Now you're just cheating so you can insist that your's are the only two. Funny how I knew that was going to happen #1 is an alternative to beginning to exist from non-existence, and it doesn't have to be in some form if it begins to exist.#2 is neither existence, nor non-existence as it is quasi-existence. That whole "some form or manner" bullshit isn't flying. You've added to your claim to try to maintain it. That's not you hearing out any alternatives.Look, you can try to challenge your belief to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Or, as you're doing, you can just dig your heels in and do everything you can to hold up your preconceived notion. Just realize that you're lying when you say:

quote:

---

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

---

You're not interested at all. You just want people to lob you softballs for you to swing at. And if they ain't slow enough, then you'll just twist them into something you can hit. That's dishonest, ICANT, to both us and yourself. Sure, but perhaps the Universe itself is oxymoronic. This remains an alternative to your 2 scenarios. But the Universe did not exist. Half-versus existed and they are not a form of the Universe. You're just adding that to it to maintain your position.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I'm not talking about an entire universe. I gave a specific example: dew on the grass. How would you determine whether the water previously existed "in some form" or whether it didn't previously exist at all?Either way, you still exist and all of the apparatus that you might need still exists. The question is, How can you tell whether something changed form or just began to exist?

I'm talking about heat, not the universe 'popping' out from pure nothing. Do you care to address what I actually said? There doesn't seem any point addressing 'universe from nothing' type theories until we agree what the early universe was like (ie hot and dense). If we disagree on that, it stands to reason we won't agree on whatever might have preceded it.Can you show me any reason to doubt that the early universe was much hotter and denser than it is now?

Actually that's exactly what I was thought in university. It's standard physics, see Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics", 3rd edition or V.I. Arnold's "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics", 2nd edition.It's also the case in the Big Bang model see Kolb and Turner "The Early Universe". The Big Bang theory does not say everything was compressed into a Planck volume (see Kolb and Turner).

Hi ringo, The dew forms on the grass that is cooler than the air which has water vapor in it at what is called the dew point.If you would like to see how it works take two glasses and fill one with ice then add water. Fill the other glass with water and dry the outside of both glasses.
Place them on a table in a draft free area and leave undisturbed for 15 minutes.You will notice that the outside of the glass that has ice in the water will be wet on the outside. while the glass with water will not be wet outside.The water in the air is in a gas form and when it cools to the dew point water droplets form on the glass.So in answer to your question the dew on the grass and the water on the glass was in a gas form and changed into a liquid form by the heat being taken out of the air causing condensation.God Bless,

Hi CS, Was the two 1/2 verses you are talking about made of atoms?If that is true then the universe that would come to be was existing in some form as it existed in the form of the two 1/2 verses.God Bless,

The question was: How would you tell the difference between something that changed form and something that instantaneously came into existence?

Hi ringo, Simply by preforming the experiment.God Bless,

No. And atoms didn't even begin to exist until some time after the Big Bang.

What result would you expect if the "something" changed form? What result would you expect if the "something" instantaneously came into existence?

Hi Mod, So you have heat popping into existence in non-existence.How would you propose for that to take place?What mechanism would produce the heat?Remember we are talking about these things beginning to exist in non-existence.God Bless,

Hi ringo, Exactly what the experiment shows. I would expect both glasses to be wet as well as the table floor and everything else in the room.Now if you want to talk about the universe beginning to exist by coming into existence instantly when there was non-existence I would expect nothing because I would not be there to see it. It is impossible for existence to begin to exist.It either exists or it does not exist.If you can ever get your mind wraped around what non-existence is then you will begin to understand your problem, as well as the problem of the universe having a beginning to exist without someplace to exist.Non-existence:
Webster: Definition of NONEXISTENCE
: absence of existence : the negation of beingFree dictionary: 1. The condition of not existing.My definition: The absence of the existence of any thing, including a place or dimension for any thing to exist.God Bless,

Why? How do you know that something coming into existence spontaneously wouldn't congregate on the colder glass? It isn't "my problem". I'm not taking a position at all. I'm trying to make sense of yours.As far as I know, nobody is suggesting that the universe came from, "The absence of the existence of any thing, including a place or dimension for any thing to exist." What science is telling us, as I understand it, is that we have no way of telling whether there was anything "before" the Big Bang because there as no "before" the Big Bang - i.e. there was no time.Your claim that, "It is impossible for existence to begin to exist," is nonsensical because there's no way to test it.Edited by ringo, : Punk chewation.

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

Hi Omnivorous,

Omnivorous writes:

​

What does the word "universe" mean to you?

All that exists in what we call the universe. I have been told by cavediver and others there is nothing outside of the universe.

​

But I do believe that there is existence outside of the universe in which the universe exists and expands.

​

God Bless,

​

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?

---

I know you've been busy with many replies, but I'd appreciate a response to my earlier post, quoted above.Thanks.