"According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." Thus matter and energy originated the same time as time and space. Which would be as tiny a fraction as you can come up with past t=0. Note it says "origin of matter and energy" which is not the same thing as "matter and energy." It could have taken hundreds of millions of years for matter and energy to actually form, but the origin would have been at t=0.
When the laws of physics do not apply, the concepts that we're familiar with break down and we'd have a tough time visualizing things. Without space, you can't have much spatial recognition, can you? etc.
No. Again you are addressing content. Dude, I could care less what you think you believe. That's your business. I'm merely focusing on your dogmatic, unreflective style -- that which maintains no matter what content you happen to be entertaining at the moment.
I can relate to this. But it this swings me all the way to the beginning. If mass and energy was created by singularity; then this singularity could be a product if God. Even in your link it says they don't know what created the singularity, nor do they know what was in singularity. This is all theoretical and definitely not empirical evidence. It's just a logical bandaide.
I think you missed this part, sport: "You're free to go now." My questions were very pertinent to your comment. That you can't see that becomes more apparent with each successive post. Again, more bad faith (you're either retarded or are playing dumb) neither speaks well for your position.
I like Denny's link he provided.... I didn't realize that the same writers of the "Big Bang" were as poetic as the Biblical writers! Such faith, such romance, such love! I can imagine the day Denny debates them after salvation.... I can see it now. Denny: GOD exists! Atheist: There is no evidence that proves God exists! Denny: There is no evidence that the singularity exists!
Yeah, I must admit I don't know what you are trying to say now. Here is my context: Three people discussing a theoretical event. What that event is, it's conditions, etc., do not bear causally on our current conditions -- the ones maintaining right now as we share our thoughts. That there wasn't space, that our physical laws were not applicable has nothing to do with what we are currently doing (using concepts, enjoying the laws of physics and chemistry, etc.). The idea I was attempting to convey is that right here and now, our concepts (which I assert are animal concepts determined by the very nature of our physical bodies interacting in a physical environment), may still be limiting our ability to do justice to such extreme and problematic endeavors as the beginning of the universe or the ultimate nature of space time. In other words, there's no guarantee they'll match (and actually, very little reason to think they even should). So speaking of a lack of spacial recognition at the time of the event itself leaves me with, WTF are you even talking about. No one, as far as I know, believes we actually transport ourselves to that moment and thus are subject to the conditions at that moment .. simply in order to discuss it.
Genesis/Beginning is arguably the most talked about and studied science and theology on this planet. Just because you don't get it; doesn't mean it's not worth debating.
Hey there, junior. You might want to figure out how to use that complicated "quote" feature on these boards before attempting to call somebody retarded. But I like you. You're comical. You're to religious discussions as jlprk is to basketball discussions. Completely irrelevant, nonsensical, and an insignificant shtick.
Don't make me laugh. Arguably? Why pretend? Argue it. I'd love to see you prove (to use your term) that these two topics are the most talked about matters in either science or theology. In fact I don't think you can come close. But I am open to proof and persuasion. That is what you ask of the assertions of others is it not? This would hold for anyone. Ignorance on a subject does not determine its value as a topic. Thus it should probably have been presented as a general statement. There's nothing I don't get about the conversation so far except where I have asked for clarification. And I have not asked for any clarification about the "beginnings." Rather I asked Denny about his misplaced concreteness --that is pretending that the circumstances present at the big bang maintain today during those times when we merely discuss the matter. Read the citation again. Maybe you just skimmed it.
Oh look, the boy's employed a diminutive term. Golly, I sure feel put in my place. What a retarded thing for you to say. I'm managing the quotes, thanks, but you've not managed to reply to either of the two questions put to you. Too bad there's not a button for understanding, eh? You like me? Well, I never claimed you lacked good taste.
Wise decision. Mags is mistaken, just as he was in believing he knew that the B&W characterization was a result of his religious convictions. But what can you say to him? He just knows what he knows.
You keep posting this rule you made up. So I get to use my godlike powers too. I posit that matter can be created from nothing every...(hmm, age of universe is 13B years...) 20 billion years. Next problem? There might be a psychic force, or a dimension through which such communication travels. That requires some undiscovered science, but not the authority of a God, or religion.
