Quote from stu:
jem,
Your approach to thinking this seems to be by departmentalizing. Our universe here, that one there, another over there. Multiverses, inside, outside, this way, that way. Did you ever imagine where all those things would be? Guess what jem, in the Universe. The description Multiverses includes our owm. Ours doesn't sit "outside" some others. They are all 'in' the one. The consensus is, there is no other "somewhere". You are the one who cannot grasp any of this.
Because you express the notion God sits in another "somewhere", lording it over all possible universes and so deep seated does that seem to be, you would not even be able to start to really comprehend what is generally or specifically being proved or suggested in physics. But that does not deter you from spouting off "what physics and science knows" as per some kind of dysfunctional godcosmo-jem-knowledge-facts.
You completely mixed up the point, as usual, about the 'given'. Just for a laugh go look back over the last few posts and the sequence of what was said between us, when YOU brought up big bang. What you don't obviously see is, debating Calvinism with a 'given' is not a basis for debating around big bangs and physics with that same given. Don't be an ass jem.
You say you want it proved there was nothing before or prior to the big bang. Let me ask you , just what does nothing mean to you? Is it no time, and/or no space, or no matter in space? However, were all those not in effect, wouldn't that mean nothing to you, or would you still imagine the Big Fairy God Daddy stood there? If it does mean that, then we are not debating nothing are we!!. It's just that 'given' again, but in the wrong discussion, as there are no givens within the nothing of a no-things context.
You want time proved not an illusion, then read Newton and Einstein without inserting an extra 'given' into your understanding of them. Newton managed it and he was a devout believer.
In "our" (though it does not appear to be your) current understandings of physics, then it's Einstein. Time - as the measured interval between change from the position of the observer - is a reasonable definition. Einstein proves it within physics . We wouldn't be using computers this way were it not so.
I suggest you don't go there! Get to grips with -time- first before you attempt THE given which is - Gilbert.
seriously though jem, you don't want to make that silly mistake do you? Gilbert is proxy+1 for whatever God is claimed to be. Talk of Gilbert will inevitably mean you're demonstrating God presenting the absurdity of God . That's a big fat nasty duuuuh!
---------
How can you waste your time writing such crap stu.
You write such distroted and misquoted crap. You are a fricken troll.
1. I spoke about time being an illusion. You keep harping on old physics. Why don't you address quantum physics?
2. You disgust me with your misquotes about what I said regarding God, Calvinism and given.
You made the assertion about nothing exisiting outside of space time.
STU's quote.
the "big bang" is a singularity event. Space/time is said to have occurred after that event No-thing exists outside Space/time. No-thing is not some-thing.
I asked you to prove it. You can not so you go off on a childish rant misrepresenting what I said.
Get a life.