rl wrote:Of course, one of the problems of assigning 'first cause' to a singularity which had 'amassed all mass and energy' is that it wouldn't be first.
No, it would be a singularity, best described as a phenomon (even though neither directly observed nor directly observable) without locus, dimension, form, mass, energy or antecedant in any frame of reference available to our present level of knowledge and understanding. Within, congruent to, consistent with, observable and describable through our sphere of reference, there was no "There" as we understand "There" prior to then, there was no "When" as we understand "When" prior to then, there was no "What" as we understand "What" prior to then, there was no "How" as we understand "How" prior to then, there was no "Why" as we understand "Why" prior to then, there was no "Then" as we understand "Then" prior to then, there was no time, space, matter, mass, or energy, as currently we understand them, prior to the singularity foundational of our observeable universe, foundational of our present sphere of reference - the very concepts depend from our present sphere of reference, which came into being with the emergence of the singularity and the concommitant subsequent developments which gave rise to the universe we observe, setting the conditions which bound our sphere of reference. There was nothing we understand prior to then. Read that statement carefully - it does not in any way entail there was nothing prior to then, just nothing we can understand within our current frame of reference. Not nothing, not something, for both are concepts dependent upon sphere of reference, but other than that encompassed by our current level of understanding within our current sphere of reference.
Quote:Something ( mass and energy) apparently existed prior.
Nonsense - an unwarranted assumption, without basis in evidence. See the above.
Quote:Where did the mass and energy come from?
Mass, energy, space and time as we experience them came into being as we experience them with the emergence of and consequent developments from the singularity. See the above.
Quote:Yet another is: Since it wasn't amassed and had to be so, it must have occupied space, therefore the idea that the BB event generated or created the dimensions of space is false.
And then : Since it wasn't amassed and had to be so, it must have taken some time to do so, therefore the idea that the BB event generated or created the dimension of time is false.
Nonsense, patently absurd, illogical, at once evidenceless and contraindicated by all available evidence, nought but arrogant projection of preference, formed in ignorance. See the above.
Quote:Sorry I'm such a doubter. It annoys some folks but I appreciate your patience.
It is not so much that you doubt, but rather that it is evidence-based, logically developed, demonstrable, accepted science which you obstinately continue to dispute in terms of the unevidenced, assumptionally developed, undemonstrable, deistic construct you endorse without doubt. What is most irritating to folks who dispute your proposition is the manner and practice by which you present your proposition; despite all evidence to the contrary and the existence of no evidence supportive of your proposition, you persist in maintaining that you have a proposition worthy of consideration. You have no proposition in and of fact and evidence, you offer mere assumption, assumption which betrays ignorance of and/or wanton, willful disregard for that which is known and understood, assumption founded soley upon that which you imagine, that which you prefer to be, assumption wholly dependent upon authority derived exclusively through internal self reference and assertion embodied within a particular mythopaeia among any number of mythopaeias of neither more nor less foundation, in opposition to that which is observed and understood to be as it is observed and understood, that which is observed and understood within the bounds of multiple, independently derived, consistently repeatable, consistently cross-corroborative, consistently non-contradictory, consistently mutually confirmational science. You display neither legitimate interest in nor desire to explore and understand the unknown, your evident fear and denial of the unkown is demonstrated in that you postulate a magical wall invented, constructed, imagined, wished specifically to shield your world from the unknown.
Again, what you offer is not argument, it is ignorance, fear, and superstition. Once more, demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith, particularly the specific religious faith you appear to endorse, be differentiable from superstition.
I hope you too are having a good day - things here are great. Well, except perhaps that the grass insists on trying to get ahead of my ability to trim and mow
