Who Made God?

I don't know if you care about getting this right or not, but I do know that you are going to post this again, so I'll make the attempt at getting you to fix it for next time. 0⁴⁰ is just zero, and is definitely not what you mean to communicate here. Almost certainly, what you really meant was T=10^-40 second. (Might as well add some units while we are fixing things)

You should also change the 0 to a 10. You did make the correction of making the exponent negative, but the 10 is equally important. The correct value is 10^-40 s. Since the majority of the work is your opinion about science, I don't see any reason to do that.

That would be a pretty idiotic thing to assume. I don't have the inclination to debunk every silly thing I see on the internet. I plan to attempt even less of that this year than I have in the past.

Yes, I have heard that said. But that bromide turns out to be wrong. There are stupid questions.Many questions are not true requests for information but are instead thinly veiled attempts to state some position despite having a question mark at the end. The implied statements in those questions may well be stupid. Those are not the kinds of questions your school teacher was talking about, but they are the kind of questions ICANT asks very frequently.

That is possibly correct. However, most of EvC are not physicists. In large part, folks here are reciting stuff that has been popularized. However, at least they are reciting it correctly, which is something you do only by accident.Watching you make nonsense statements and requiring several attempts to even make a meaningful statement that is at least wrong is quite humorous. We are all familiar with the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is what your own argument approximates, but we are also familiar with the holes in that argument because by now everyone sees the holes. So we also get to watch you attempt to bluster over those by simply repeating your premise.Well, you've managed to impress Phat with this technique, but it likely won't work on most other folks here.

If you review what I wrote, you will see that I did not question ICANT's beliefs, only his statements of science. Really? Is that what you or anyone else here believes? Or are you just defending some notion that nobody, including you, has put forward?

Can someone explain why this belongs in Coffee House. Did someone sneak by having an OP vetted properly?

By assumptions, some people might mean the following:The laws of science were the same back in the day.
The earth did not open up and swallow up all of the tower pieces leaving no evidence.
There was no huge flood that covered the earth 6000 years ago.
No magical force was involved.

Sigh. 10^-42 is a tiny fraction of a second later than 10^-43 which makes your sentence nonsense.

Okay, $#@#$. 10^-42 is not prior to 10^-43.Get it now? Or do you need a lecture on the number line.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you know why there is any current limit on our ability to opine on the state of the universe? If not then your speculations about the probability of doing better are just idle typing.And there is no smallest number just bigger than zero.

That means that the cited number is the smallest number that can be expressed in 128 bits using a particular computer format that you could not hope to understand. I certainly won't try to explain the format to you. There is no right number. There is no smallest possible positive number. That's why your post is not even wrong.

You are beyond any help. No one should listen to anything you say about science. I hope our discussion on this topic is sufficient to illustrate that to folks who stumble across this thread.