Predestination
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
This is what you wrote..
Stu said...
""We" do know when things happen, time happens too.
A universe or a god would need time to happen, like everything does."
science teaches us - time started after our big bang.
science does not know what happens outside our universe...
there is no scientific law which says things need time to happen even if they are outside our universe.
you have no science to say a different universe or a God would need time to happen. Its beyond science's grasp.
--
your other points are irrelevant distinctions and out of context.
I said this thread presumes the existence of God.
Whether predestination "presumes" or "necessitates" is for another thread.
Stu said...
""We" do know when things happen, time happens too.
A universe or a god would need time to happen, like everything does."
science teaches us - time started after our big bang.
science does not know what happens outside our universe...
there is no scientific law which says things need time to happen even if they are outside our universe.
you have no science to say a different universe or a God would need time to happen. Its beyond science's grasp.
--
your other points are irrelevant distinctions and out of context.
I said this thread presumes the existence of God.
Whether predestination "presumes" or "necessitates" is for another thread.
Last edited:
We therefore often hear people saying, sincerely/religiously from their heart consciously/subconsciously, "God bless you!", "God loved the world!", "God be with you!", "God bless America!", etc. without any implication/condition for excluding any non-believers or any believers of other faiths!
http://www.snopes.com/pope-francis-bad-catholics/
Last edited:
You do talk horseshit.
In science there is no "outside our universe". The Universe is everything there is and you have "no science" to assert anything can be outside of that.
Everything that exists anywhere at any time is the Universe.
Time is defined by measurement in physics and time began at big bang not after it, as once again you have wrongly asserted.
In physics time is a property and fundamental quantity of things that exist. Time is local to a thing, beginning when it does, and remaining a property of it, and is defined by other properties of the thing itself, such as motion.
Natural random radioactive decay will take exactly the same amount of time no matter if time is considered to be illusionary or only a concept. It's a process that pays exact attention to time without exception.
You cannot address any of the dynamics of the universe in science or physics without including time.
... after it had been pointed out how you said it didn't.
Back peddling and saying you're being taken out of context and stuff is irrelevant because you're cornered, offers no credibility to the bullshit you come out with.
Last edited:
Considering the amount of violent text and "teachings" that reside in religious scriptures, Sieg Heil not God bless would be more in keeping.
I can see you're trying to make religion respectable
but quite honestly it isn't. Given the fact that many people are religious, it's reasonable of you to try and be inclusive toward those who are and who are not. However in reality, the Enlightenment and the evolution of Common Law are the two principal things which do achieve that.Glossing over, excusing and handwaving away those obnoxious religious verses , is just plain wrong and no amount of "God bless" makes it right .
1.you are so full of shit. I did not back pedal... you misrepresent science.
of course there was something outside .. there was at the very least a singularity. you are now ignorantly arguing that because something is not defined by our science it does not exist.
why do you have the balls to so ignorantly mis represent science.
2. science can not currently see well into the Planck Epoch... Very little is known about this first period after the big bang.
3. Every page and every scientist I have read says time started at or after the big bang and when I researched the past the scientists who commented on times beginning said it formed after the Planck Epoch or it came out of the epoch as our fundamental laws were forming or at the end of inflation.
4. so if you are correct and I am not saying you are because you have gotten this all wrong... but if time is defined by measurement than time could not have formed til science can measure. That would therefore be after the planck epoch.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
....
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.
...
of course there was something outside .. there was at the very least a singularity. you are now ignorantly arguing that because something is not defined by our science it does not exist.
why do you have the balls to so ignorantly mis represent science.
2. science can not currently see well into the Planck Epoch... Very little is known about this first period after the big bang.
3. Every page and every scientist I have read says time started at or after the big bang and when I researched the past the scientists who commented on times beginning said it formed after the Planck Epoch or it came out of the epoch as our fundamental laws were forming or at the end of inflation.
4. so if you are correct and I am not saying you are because you have gotten this all wrong... but if time is defined by measurement than time could not have formed til science can measure. That would therefore be after the planck epoch.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
....
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.
...
Last edited:
The Universe - all of everything everywhere.
You read somewhere time came after the Plank Epoch. Plank Epoch is 10 ^43 secs after big bang.
So you've read time started after time started.
I can only suggest you keep clear of those creationist websites .
Unbelievable
Next you'll be trying to say there was no space until science discovered it.
Last edited: