Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Are you trying to say "T>0" (zero, not the letter capital "O")? Are you trying to say "T<10^-43"?I think I get the gist of your question. I think you're asking how if we don't know about the period between T>0 and T<10^-43, then how do we know that time really exists?Some physicists ask the same question, speculating perhaps that it's really just an illusion, a derivative property of the inherent nature of the universe. But I don't think that kind of speculation is what you were referring to.If you accept that the universe is temporal today, then if you accept that it was temporal yesterday and so forth, then of course it was temporal right back to what we can actually observe, all the way back to at least T=10^-32, and perhaps even to T=10^-43 depending upon how much credibility you're willing to grant current models.So was the universe temporal for, say, T<10^-32? This is where what we know based upon factual observation begins to blend into speculation and the "We don't knows" begin to accumulate. The question becomes, does the claim that the universe was non-temporal before T=10^-32 have any substantial evidence for or against it. My guess is that it would certainly represent a significant change not hinted at in the data, but it feels like there's a lot of subtlety in the question, and probably Cavediver or Son Goku need to comment.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Punctuation.

Your logic escapes me. We've been over and over this ground before, so I don't think anything has changed that would enable you to accept this. Since it's very likely that your logic escapes almost everyone else, too, there's no danger of your view promulgating. We're just going to have to leave you as a lone island of not accepting that there's no contradiction in assuming there was there was a period in the universe priot to T=10^-43 or that there was no time prior to T=0. You have a problem with the BBUH? I thought that stood for the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis. You have a problem with your own hypothesis? After T=10^-43 there is no problem with thermodynamic laws, and prior to T=10^-43 we don't really know very much. Maybe the thermodynamic laws hold, maybe not. Whatever the case, most cosmologists believe that studying this period will reveal new physics, and what the implications are for the thermodynamic laws is anybody's guess. You're confused on a couple points. First, the issues you're raising come from YEC creationists, not ID creationists.Second, creationist claims of "We don't know" are akin to standing in the rain while claiming not to know if it is raining. In other words, they're in effect saying, "If we ignore all the cosmological evidence gathered over the past century, we can say that we don't really know whether or not the universe once existed in a hot, dense state about 13.7 billion years ago." Why? Were you thinking of calling us Nazis?--Percy