Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone that sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself and feel the walls... become sand beneath your feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQvGyokze54 is there anybody listening?
I was not question your statement because of my belief in God. I was question your statement because hawking and other top scientists state that time started after the big bang. Please provide a link to back up your statement singularity - time equals zero. I will be surprised to read and I will have to adjust my understanding. I have no religious dog in that hunt. regarding God. this is where you logic flies out your vacuum. Science has no idea what existed behind the big bang. its not a tiny Gap to fit God in. God would fit in nicely to the Creator of the big bang or universe role. Face it Stu your atheism is unscientific. My belief is faith just like yours.
I must be reasonable then. And I don't necessarily subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm. I submit that what time presents to our senses is a symultaneous manifestation of imagination. Time is more of a static holograph. We move through it's changes as we adhere to our imaginative belief systems which serve but to deny reality. Reality offers a constant, never changing perfection. Learning and change are antithetical to its domain. As such, what imagination offers is all that is antithetical to reality...including the concept that creatures evolve through change. Change is a function of mind. A mind constantly changing what it thinks about itself appears to evolve. This includes the evolution of species. When mind decides it's had enough fun and games, it will be game over. Change will be gone, and what was always there will appear. Christ is really the way it was, is and always will be. Everything else is a concept...or a symbol of a concept. Christ!
That is the agnostic viewpoint. It makes for a good metaphor. People who are cocksure about their conclusions usually just have a need to win. Older non-Americans are annoyed by it Americans don't know another way to behave and haven't reconciled with the viewpoint that there will always be more questions than answers. The truth is a liquid not a sold.
I don't think asking yourself irrelvent questions about whether radio waves existed before "we" discovered them is going to explain much. If it does though, why don't you ask yourself did virtual particles which come into existence from nothing exist before "we" discovered them? You are going to need more than imagination and assertion and denial to show how virtual particles don't exist, and how they don't come into existence from nothing. You will need to produce at least some of the quality of substantial evidence available to everyone which shows how they do, to show why they don't. Good luck with that.
First then, you tell me why this is not what you understand to be meant by the words Singularity and Big Band. If you apply the science of general relativity and look backwards through the universe, you will come to a finite point in time where you cannot look back any further. At that point the universe and everything including space-time according to BB cosmology was compressed into zero volume with infinite density. At that point, time is 0 or zero . That's the singularity. At the most miniscule fraction of a second after that extreme point of singularity the universe expanded. It's at that time - the tiniest fraction of a second after t=0 or time = zero singularity- that the standard model of particle physics and general relativity start to apply. That is Big Bang. So you have a Big Bang singularity and a Big Bang phase where the universe expands. That is Big Bang cosmology. You've mentioned what " hawking and other top scientists state " but you don't seem to take any notice of what they say. Hawking-Penrose describe a type of singularity of a kind to make deducible certain basic postulates. The most straight forward Big Bang cosmological model has a causal singularity. It is where time = 0 or time = zero. Zero size or 0 size if you prefer. No spatial dimensions. They are all at 0. There is infinite density and infinite temperature at that singularity and time = 0. Where exactly in that do you not agree that at the Big Bang singularity, time does not = 0 or zero? Without science you would have no idea about Big Bangs and no real confirmable testable notion of how the world, or how the universe is, up to the tiniest fraction of a second after it came into existence. So without science again you try for one weird reason and another to either fit your imaginary God friend into a billionth of a second gap between the Big Bang singularity and the Big Bang phase which now sounds ridiculous to even most theologians. Or faced with that you fancifully pretend It can contradictorily jump to a time where ludicrously there is none. As far as God and delusional belief goes there is no logic. That's why your comments about religion and the non religious are confused, garbled and illogical. Face it jem.
But Aristotle had never met Einstein; so the steady stream of time was immutable. Plato, on the other hand, understood the eternal moment.
" If it does though, why don't you ask yourself did virtual particles which come into existence from nothing exist before "we" discovered them? I wouldn't ask myself something so silly as to wonder did virtual particles come into existence from nothing...then, now, and in the future... Is something could exist, the potential always precedes that existing something, which means something cannot come from nothing...as potential to exist is not nothing.
I noticed your lack of a link stu. Let me explain. If time started after the big bang. The that time after the big bank might be time = zero. The big bang happened then time happened. Therefore logically the singularity would not be time = zero. I know you love to spew shit. I know you are smart but I have never seen you provide support for your statements. I just though you might like to provide some support now. Like I said I do not have a dog in the hunt. I just would have to rearrange my understanding if you actually had some support for your argument.
The standard Big Bang model includes a singularity where t=0. Look it up yourself it's easy enough. All events need time to start in otherwise they haven't started. Time does not start after something has started in time. You don't have zero time after time would already have had to have started. I can't believe this would need explaining to a supposed adult. The Big Bang expansion happened in time. It meets the standards of classical physics and general relativity. The singularity does not and it is where t=0 or time = 0 or time = zero or no time . There is nothing logical in your confused ideas about time happening before time happens. The singularity where t=0 and then looking back from now, a tiny fraction of time up to the singularity, the start/expansion of the universe is the standard cosmological model. This is like talking to 2 year olds, without the comprehension a 2 year old would have. So far there is someone who doesn't want virtual particles to come from nothing so invents himself a "potential" to pretend that they don't. Then there is someone else who thinks Americans are so cocksure of their conclusions he is able to cocksure conclude without any counter argument, that the words 'nowhere' and 'nothing' means the where or how of virtual particles appearing from nothing has not been discovered, even though the where and how virtual particles come into existence has been discovered. ...and then there is always jem, who doesn't appear to have the capacity to comprehend the most simplest t=0 concepts but at the same time says t might = 0. And this is all because of what... quantum mechanics shows how cosmic nothing can produce a universe. But instead of that one should realize, the childish superstitions of an imaginary God thing have to come first, defended by all possible absurdity. â¦.but at least you know something jem, even if it is only how to be crude sheesh.