real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:real life wrote: Was matter eternally pre-existent, timber?
That also is an absurdity, not a question.
If you think something absurd just because you don't know the answer, then there's a lot of absurdity out there, eh?
More straw and ignorance from rl. Absurd is the question's entailed implication of the indefinable "eternally", and absurd is the question's entailed implicaytion that that which we term "matter" has any meaning beyond our observable universe. That which we term matter is a consequence of the singularity from which emerged oiur observable universe, and at root is but a manifestation of energy. e=Mc², and all that.
timberlandko wrote:Time, space, matter and energy as we observe, experience and understand them are consequent to the singularity from which emerged our observable universe.
Quote:So, what proof do you have of such a 'singularity'?
The Planck Horizon and the Cosmic Background Radiation Constant permit no other conclusion. Barring further evidence to the contrary, its the best conclusion permitted by the (ever mounting) evidence.
Quote:Of what was it composed?
Raw energy, apparently.
Quote:Where did it come from?
What happened to it after our universe 'emerged from it'?
Given that both "Where" and "When" are functions of Spacetime, which as we observe, experience, and understand it, came into being with the emergence of our observable universe, your question is yet another absurdity.
timberlandko wrote:One may conjecture as one wishes, however in point of fact the only honest, adequate, realistic "answer" to your absurdity is "insufficient data at this time" - your guess is equal to the guess of anyone else inclined to hazard a guess. Personally, I'm not so inclined; as opposed to hazarding a guess, I simply, honestly admit "insufficient data at this time". Now, while I stipulate the possibility of a god or gods, I offer to that "question" precisely the same answer; "insufficient data at this time". I see nothing to differentiate any deistic concept from folkloric construct. Og, the rabbit, the cave and the bright light with scary noises that makes fire - and off we go into the realm of guesses. I'm fascinated by myth, mystery and fairytales, and have devoted much thought and study to same, but I just can't buy into them. Guesses are games.
Quote:Why can't you admit that such a singularity is a guess?
There's a vast and critically functional difference between a "guess" and a scientifically valid theory. A "guess" may be - often is - absent any evidentiary basis whatsoever. I can "guess" you're blond, or that you wear glasses, or that you have 6 fingers on one hand. From the available evidence, however, I can reasonably conclude you hsave access to an internet-connected communication device, that you frequent this website, and that you prefer to present a religio-philosophical point of view which is significantly at odds with the point of view common to the legitimate scientific and academic communities. From your manner of interaction in these discussions, I must conclude you are not stupid. That leaves me to guess whether the ignorance you persistently display through your posts would be honestly disingenuous or willfully mendacious. I suspect you are honest ... but of course, that's just a guess.
Oh, and snood - never have I mainained there be no god or gods - quite, and most specifically, the contrary. Once again, I will state I freely stipulate to the possibility there might be; while I know of nothing which would categorically preclude such a circumstance, never on these boards have I seen so much as a compelling, to say nothing of valid, argument for any religionist proposition. I am well aware of - quite familiar with, in fact - many arguments for the proposition which are well-formed, logical, and even to some greater or lesser extent somewhat compelling, though it would appear nobody presenting any religionist point of view here knows of any such arguments.
