In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So I'm at least in agreement
with most here that the universe did have a beginning just not the
one they think occured, well if they had a clue on the how or why it
did, so far no one have ventured a guess as to how it began they only
talk about the mighty breakdown and shrink of the current model, not
how it began.
Kelly

I am not amongst those who believe the universe had a beginning. I think it is unknown at this time.
However, you are misleading when you say that nobody has ventured a guess about how the universe began. The vast majority of posters appear to be saying that if the universe began then there can be no how and no guesses would be necessary or possible.

You have claimed that a cause is necessary but have yet to provide any form of reasoning to back up that claim. You also have yet to give a reason for creating an artificial boundary in existence with "universe" on one side and "before the universe" on the other.

What do you mean by the phrase "mighty breakdown and shrink of the current model" ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a cop out nothing more, the singularity came from what?
All that does is state the universe was here it just looked different that
it does now, it doesn't talk about where it came from.
Kelly

We do not know where the singularity came from, the farest we can trace is the existence of the singularity. All we know is that our kosmos and its dimensions evolved from there.
Well?

😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not amongst those who believe the universe had a beginning. I think it is unknown at this time.
However, you are misleading when you say that nobody has ventured a guess about how the universe began. The vast majority of posters appear to be saying that [b]if the universe began then there can be no how and no guesses would be necessary or er.

What do you mean by the phrase "mighty breakdown and shrink of the current model" ?[/b]

I cannot think of anyone here that has denied everything in this universe
started in the singularity beside me. So according to that thought or
belief, all that there is now if we were to move backward in time
would have everything breaking down and shrinking into the
singularity until you only have the singularity. One of the issues I
have with that thought is it does not talk about the beginning, all it
really does is say our current state of things was at one time another
state, and start marking time once we get it there. That again does not
tell us how or why it started; all it does is say there is this process
going on now, and if we look backwards it always was going on
until we end there, the how and why that started would be the
beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
We do not know where the singularity came from, the farest we can trace is the existence of the singularity. All we know is that our kosmos and its dimensions evolved from there.
Well?

😵

Well than you have no clue about the beginning than do you?
So far all you can talk about is a process you think has been going on
until that point is reached, it again does not speak to how it started it
only says you got no where else to go, and that is the beginning point
that fits science, so science does not have thought on the beginning
than, do you think I got that right?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well than you have no clue about the beginning than do you?
So far all you can talk about is a process you think has been going on
until that point is reached, it again does not speak to how it started it
only says you got no where else to go, and that is the beginning point
that fits science, so science does not have thought on the beginning
than, do you think I got that right?
Kelly

The "beginning" is the point singularity! I never offered an opinion regarding the situation "before" the point singularity because there is no "before" -and because even if there was, that hypothetical status it would be meaningless due to the fact that the products of its process changed not the status of our kosmos as we know it.

On the other hand it is not me that "I am thinking" about a process that "I think that it took place" -we have scientific facts and evidence about this scenario. The point singularity is not a model that it is used because it fits the science; it is used because it is not contradictory to the elements of reality that are available today to us. Therefore our science proposes that the "beginning" is the point singularity due to cross-checked elements of reality, which they are depicted within the physical laws.

What are the elements of reality that they are available to you but they are not available to the scientists, on which you base your belief about the existence of a status of "beginning" other than the point singularity?
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a cop out nothing more, the singularity came from what?
All that does is state the universe was here it just looked different that
it does now, it doesn't talk about where it came from.
Kelly

…the singularity came from what?
….

What is the premise for your assumption that the singularity “came” into existence?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I cannot think of anyone here that has denied everything in this universe
started in the singularity beside me.

Well I have stated a number of times that I am not sure that there was a singularity or that there was a beginning at the big bang.

So according to that thought or belief,
Why not call it what it is - a hypothesis.

all that there is now if we were to move backward in time
would have everything breaking down and shrinking into the
singularity until you only have the singularity.
The whole 'breaking down and shrinking' think just sounds wrong because in reality it was expanding and 'building up' - we are just travelling backwards through time.

One of the issues I have with that thought is it does not talk about the beginning,
Actually it does talk about the beginning. You simply refuse to accept that it is the beginning. But to claim that nobody has mentioned the beginning is misrepresenting them.

all it really does is say our current state of things was at one time another
state, and start marking time once we get it there. That again does not
tell us how or why it started; all it does is say there is this process
going on now, and if we look backwards it always was going on
until we end there, the how and why that started would be the
beginning.
Kelly
Your real problem is that you demand that there be a cause - a why and a how. Yet you are yet to give an argument to support such a requirement. You refuse to accept the beginning that is presented to you, but your claim that it therefore has not been presented is not reasonable.
From what I can tell, black beetle, vistesd and I have claimed ignorance about the beginning. Andrew has seemed more sure that the big bang singularity was the begging. However, I for one propose a big bang singularity as one possible scenario. Thus both I and Andrew have definitely talked about a beginning.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not a problem, just show something that occured that did so without
a cause and I'll yield the point.
Kelly

Sorry I missed this one.
Firstly, lack of an example does not constitute a proof.
Secondly, the vast majority of events in the universe - all quantum level events - are not known to have a cause. Clearly lack of knowledge of the cause does not equate to no cause, but the events are statistically random, so a lack of a cause would reasonably be a possibility. However I suspect that it is logically impossible to prove that something has no cause.
But for you to claim that a cause is a requirement it is you that must make the stronger case and give an argument to that effect.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…the singularity came from what?
….

What is the premise for your assumption that the singularity “came” into existence?[/b]

I don't believe it was ever "came", any more than I think there was
ever a "t-0", and I am a little suprised you had to ask. I'm trying to
find out what the believers in those two things believe, after all it is
your beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
The "beginning" is the point singularity! I never offered an opinion regarding the situation "before" the point singularity because there is no "before" -and because even if there was, that hypothetical status it would be meaningless due to the fact that the products of its process changed not the status of our kosmos as we know it.

On the other hand ...[text shortened]... out the existence of a status of "beginning" other than the point singularity?
😵

Yea, I know there was no before, yet it had a beginning, and before it
there was...'nothing'???? It is used because it fits your views on the
reality you want to have in place, there is no evidence showing that
it ever was, if you think that is true I suggest you start up a
conversation with some of the other posters in this debate who also
disagree with you.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I have stated a number of times that I am not sure that there was a singularity or that there was a beginning at the big bang.

[b] So according to that thought or belief,
Why not call it what it is - a hypothesis.

all that there is now if we were to move backward in time
would have everything breaking down and shrinking into the
sing y as one possible scenario. Thus both I and Andrew have definitely talked about a beginning.

Well I have stated a number of times that I am not sure that there was a singularity or that there was a beginning at the big bang."

[/b]Yes, and I think you are an honest man for saying so too, and I am
not trying to be insulting or misleading, I honestly believe that.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I have stated a number of times that I am not sure that there was a singularity or that there was a beginning at the big bang.

[b] So according to that thought or belief,
Why not call it what it is - a hypothesis.

all that there is now if we were to move backward in time
would have everything breaking down and shrinking into the
sing y as one possible scenario. Thus both I and Andrew have definitely talked about a beginning.

"The whole 'breaking down and shrinking' think just sounds wrong because in reality it was expanding and 'building up' - we are just travelling backwards through time.""


[/b]Okay, so if we go backwards in time, the universe gets larger and
all the parts don't break down into something other than what they
are now, they don't revert to the basic building blocks? You think we
are travelling backwards in time? I didn't see any of this coming, or
I do not understand your point which I think is more likely.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I have stated a number of times that I am not sure that there was a singularity or that there was a beginning at the big bang.

[b] So according to that thought or belief,
Why not call it what it is - a hypothesis.

all that there is now if we were to move backward in time
would have everything breaking down and shrinking into the
sing y as one possible scenario. Thus both I and Andrew have definitely talked about a beginning.

"Actually it does talk about the beginning. You simply refuse to accept that it is the beginning. But to claim that nobody has mentioned the beginning is misrepresenting them. "

[/b]No, I'm not misrepresnting them, they say it starts here with the whole
process in place and functioning. The only difference between then and
now is the shape of the universe according to that train of thought,
and it does not address the how or why it occured. That this the
beginning, not a ready made process with all its pieces intact already
moving towards an end.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, I know there was no before, yet it had a beginning, and before it
there was...'nothing'???? It is used because it fits your views on the
reality you want to have in place, there is no evidence showing that
it ever was, if you think that is true I suggest you start up a
conversation with some of the other posters in this debate who also
disagree with you.
Kelly

If you know that there were not another status "before" the point singularity, then the case is closed because at last you appear to agree that it all started with the point singularity. Mind you, the point singularity is not "nothing" as you atempt to pose it.
And, since the spacetime evolved from the point singularity, your speculation about the existence of another spacetime dimension from which the point singularity evolved is for the time being out of order because there are no available elements of reality directing us to that approach.

OK! You believe that "god" (Your god, that is) "created" the point singularity because you found this "apocalypse" written in Your Scripture; this is fine with me, you are free to believe whatever you want, but this theologic approach has not the slightest scientific or philosophic value, and of course your very first question "In the beginning God or nothing" is a pseudodilemma😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so if we go backwards in time, the universe gets larger and
all the parts don't break down into something other than what they
are now, they don't revert to the basic build f this coming, or
I do not understand your point which I think is more likely.
Kelly

My point was that the words don't fit. If you spend two years building a house, would you say that as we look back over the last two years we see the house 'breaking down' and 'shrinking'? I am not really objecting at all, I was just pointing out that the word usage confused me the first time round.