he clearly has alot to offer the UK, its his human rights to stay here and plot terrorist attacks , leave him alone
another cop out, we know how the universe started and I await your additions to the three proposals I pointed to (Came from nothing, created itself, had a cause) to continue this further
Is this some sort of cliffhanger? Stephen Hawking believes that time began with the Big Bang, not after it, as you've claimed. In order for something to happen within our universe, time is a requirement. He also believes in something that he refers to as imaginary time, which runs completely differently. He's an atheist who sees no place for a creator in the universe, by the way. Wrong in the implication that there was nothing before the Big Bang. That's not what's meant by the beginning, when it's used in scientific terms. They don't agree on that AT ALL. That's utterly incorrect. I'll ask you again where you've got this from? Read up on the big bang theory, as your understanding of what most scientists believe it was is deeply flawed. How is it relevant? Infinity isn't countable by it's own definition, so the idea of Hilbert's Hotel is purely theoretical. You're arguing for the existence of a creator, which implies either an existence for eternity or an eternity of previous creators. Either would require a physical application of infinity. I already have. It could have existed in different forms forever. I've answered everything that you've asked me. And what would prevent the creator also being created? You've leaped from the creator existing prior to the creation of the universe to it being impossible for the creator to be created itself, without explaining why this would necessarily be so. You misunderstand the theory. It's currently impossible to determine what came before the big bang, so this is referred to as the start of our current universe. There are various theories about what came before that, but I don't think that I've heard one that refers to their being nothing there at all and everything suddenly being created. Not a scientific theory, in any case. By making this creator immune to all of the rules that you're applying to everything else. I've finished your quote from Hawking for you. I'm glad that you agree with him and you can now join us as an atheist!
The only issue I have here is that hawkins seems to agree with me and laughs off your suggestions (in the rest of his paper) and as I have told you many times I am not a christian and do not agree with the book of genesis Here again, from your quote, it seems hawkins agrees with me.
I'll say this before I start my response, as I don't want it to look like I'm undermining you or trying to score points or something. You're talking about Stephen Hawking. The name appears to have been mixed in with Richard Dawkins, which is understandable, as they're frequently referenced together. Hawking doesn't dispute this at all. Nobody even tries to claim what there was prior to the Big Bang, as it's impossible to know at the moment. Time, space, matter and energy all came from this singularity, which is believed to have been infinitely dense and hot (no such thing as infinity, though...). The Big Crunch theory suggests that this is a state that the universe will eventually return to again. Some scientists believe that it could then repeat the Big Bang. It's known as the Big Bounce or the cyclic model. Only in the same sense that I agree it did. No, it isn't. You've said nothing to support either creation or a creator. I already have. It was the beginning of this universe. We have absolutely no idea what existed prior to just after the Big Bang happened. It's not relevant because Hilbert's available knowledge is now outdated. He died shortly after Stephen Hawking was born, for example. It's not demonstrating what you think it is. How does it demonstrate what you claim it does? You're suggesting that the creator has to be uncreated, ie. has no beginning. How do you exist eternally without involving infinity? Explained. If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, then the creator couldn't have existed 'beforehand', as that term is an expression of time. You're just ignoring any questions about this supposed creator entirely, then claiming that it's logical. This is ridiculous. The logic or lack of it of any infinite regress would be your problem to address, by the way. Already addressed above. How do you not get that this is special pleading? You're attempting to use a set of rules to prove the existence of something that you claim doesn't conform to those rules. How is that logical? He doesn't agree with you at all! How did you come to that conclusion? "the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside." Utterly contradicts your claim of an external creator.
We were discussing the creation of time space energy matter etc, he clearly agrees with me on that, as for the dynamical laws governing the universe that is another argument
Wrong. That's utterly unproven, as we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang. You're just inserting your conclusion into the premise. How are we 'getting there'? Of this universe, yes. In what way does that imply that there's a creator, as you've suggested? Where did you get creation from? If the big bang is the beginning of all time, as you're suggesting, then there can't be a beforehand, as that's an expression of time. Even if there were a beforehand, you're still randomly inserting a creator without justification. No. You're suggesting that the big bang is the start of all time. You can't have something that happens before there's any time for it to happen in. So a German mathematician that died in the early forties of the last century was up to date with current developments, was he? Yes. Despite claims to the contrary it doesn't demonstrate that. There's no actual contradiction in it. Feel free to explain to me how it does demonstrate that, though. Are you not applying any attributes to this creator, then? The current form of this universe had a beginning, yes. We don't know what came before that, though and there's nothing to suggest that matter and energy can be created or destroyed, so the cyclic model is perfectly logical. You cannot have action without time and you clearly can't have a beforehand. No. You clearly haven't. All you're saying is that the universe had a beginning, therefore there's obviously a timeless creator with no other apparent traits. You've gone from A to Z and bypassed the entire alphabet in between, then stated that it's the only logical conclusion. Ludicrous. You avoid the question of infinite regress entirely, by failing to define the creator. This is just the cosmological argument, which has been dross for about 3,000 years. I posted a link to it a while ago, yet you failed to see the relevance, despite the fact that it's the argument that you're using! Hawking and you're wrong. I've already explained why, too. That's just drivel. You've failed to demonstrate that there's any creation happening at all, let alone a creator at work. Your argument is ludicrous. All you are saying is, "A cannot be B, because it's A". That doesn't prove the nature of either A or B, which is what you're claiming. He doesn't agree with you at all! He totally disagrees with you, so much so in fact that you had to edit out the whole point of what he was saying.
so Hawking doesnt believe that time energy matter etc started with the big bang? youre sounding ridiculous now
You didn't say that they came from the singularity, you said that they were created. There's absolutely no evidence that they were created. You're also claiming that something happened before time. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have something happening before time. Before is an expression of time. How many times do I have to say this before you'll stop repeating the same things? No, let's ignore him because his work's outdated in this field. The guests are accommodated. You clearly don't understand it. Hilbert's Hotel isn't a normal paradox, it's a veridical paradox. It seems to be contradictory, but it's not. Explain how it demonstrates that infinity isn't a physical possibility? You're making some claims merely by stating that there's a timeless creator. You don't want to define this creator because you know that as soon as you do it'll have obvious contradictions. I didn't disagree before. I've not changed my stance on anything. Matter can't be destroyed or created. Where did you get that from? You're talking about creations and things being created with no evidence, again. And again with things happening before time and inserting creation into it without demonstrating why. Nope. Clearly not. Try again. Utter gibberish. You're the one saying that something happened before time existed in your model of events! You really can't see it, can you? No. It's not creation. You're inserting your conclusion into the premise, again. I'm going to sum this up for you, as you're rambling on, going off on tangents and using arguments that you don't understand and are irrelevant. Your stance on this is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as used by William Lane Craig, a tedious American creationist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe. Do you accept that?
Kalam cosmological argument has nothing to do with it, this is just your take on it If you would answer the questions posed to you instead of going off on a tangent maybe we could wrap this up
No, there's no proof of anything being created. That's your take on it. What did I say? I don't know. You tell me. Brought into existence is another way of saying created. We don't know what existed until just after the big bang. You don't understand my point on the second part. You are saying that time was created with the big bang, so you can't also believe that something happened before it. This is obviously going straight over your head. Without time, you cannot have a before. If the first ever second was at 12.00 you can't have anything happening at 11.59. They're not. This is just another example of you quoting something from a creationist website without understanding it. Hilbert's Hotel shows not only that they are accommodated, but how they are. You clearly don't understand it. It's your initial claim. Look it up. That's not a demonstration of how Hilbert's Hotel shows that a physical infinity is impossible, is it? Just more proof that you don't understand it. Embarrassing. I'm sorry, but that's just gibberish. Could you ask that again in a more concise manner, please? You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. Another baseless claim that you fail to support. This is becoming a bit humiliating for you, isn't it? Completely untrue and another attempt to insert your conclusion into your premise. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is what you're quoting. I've answered all of your questions and showed you where you're wrong, but it's all a bit too much for you, clearly. Just stick to the wishful thinking and stop trying to claim a logical argument, Fan. You're not cut out for thinking.
Fan , you do realise you are just PNP`s plaything ? Gimp if you will......... please log in to view this image
The kCA is not what i am quoting, any similarities are unintentional. You just got another something off wikki it seems You have not answered my initial question where I posed you three scenarios re the beeginning of the universe, with th eproviso that you can add others You have either completely ignored, asked a question in response, made allegations or made a ludicrous argument that has been countered In this case I have used people suchas hawking who are not only scientists but also atheist, this has prevented you from your usual arguments and the less you have to argue the more you allege and make assumptions case closed methinks
maybe however how do you know I dont do this as I know what he will do? look at it in th ecold light of day
It definitely is case closed, Fan. You don't understand your own argument, let alone it's supporting claims. Even by your standards this is a massively embarrassing thread. Perhaps you should stick with blind faith and leave the more complex arguments to those who can actually articulate them, eh?
