You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[westwall]

Yes I do, go and look for yourself, here's just two examples:

So RFK vaccinated his kids

No he doesn't you're lying. I'm routinely called an antisemite and a terrorism supporter and a Jew hater and rape supporter and infanticide supporter and so on, nobody ever took any interest when I reported that.

www.usmessageboard.com

Why Trump's first moves in office have been so scary. He is launching a full-scale war against modern liberalism.

Trump discriminated against blacks at his Queens housing development...but he's not racist. Trump denied Kamala Harris's ethnicity...but he's not racist. Trump is dismantling racial equality in government...but he's not racist. Trump claimed Hispanic illegals are bringing drugs, and crime...

www.usmessageboard.com

So where we differ is that I do not make baseless claims as you do.

Now, I must ask again please, explain to me how you formed the belief that you know far more than I, about cosmology, physics, metaphysics and philosophy?

Because you have never posted up an original thought.

Here's a question for you, since you claim to know so much about cosmology, without referring to anybody else's writings, what is the difference between the cosmological theory of the universes origin, and the biblical?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because you have never posted up an original thought.

What's an "original thought"?

Here's a question for you, since you claim to know so much about cosmology, without referring to anybody else's writings, what is the difference between the cosmological theory of the universes origin, and the biblical?

Not much.

 

[westwall]

What's an "original thought"?

Not much.

Expound on not much.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Expound on not much.

The OT alludes to an origin, a beginning, a supernatural cause. Cosmology used to teach an eternal unchanging universe until it was found that there's evidence of expansion. Reversing the clock alludes to an event, a beginning a "big bang". We can look at the cosmological argument and also reason that there was a supernatural event - science implies a supernatural beginning.

 

[westwall]

The OT alludes to an origin, a beginning, a supernatural cause. Cosmology used to teach an eternal unchanging universe until it was found that there's evidence of expansion. Reversing the clock alludes to an event, a beginning a "big bang". We can look at the cosmological argument and also reason that there was a supernatural event - science implies a supernatural beginning.

How does the big bang imply a supernatural beginning?

 

[westwall]

Still waiting sherlock....can't find someone else's opinion to post?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How does the big bang imply a supernatural beginning?

It's about as far back as we can predict and so plausibly could be that beginning event, but more importantly and a general point, one cannot use the laws of physics to explain the presence of the laws of physics, a thing cannot serve as it's own explanation, not a scientific explanation anyway.

Whatever led to the universe and its laws existing obviously cannot be the universe and its laws, so that leaves something other than laws, something other than determinism must have been at work.

 

[westwall]

It's about as far back as we can predict and so plausibly could be that beginning event, but more importantly and a general point, one cannot use the laws of physics to explain the presence of the laws of physics, a thing cannot serve as it's own explanation, not a scientific explanation anyway.

Whatever led to the universe and its laws existing obviously cannot be the universe and its laws, so that leaves something other than laws, something other than determinism must have been at work.

Cosmology merely presents facts. That is the nature of science. Mathematics can take us back to around 350,000 years after the big bang. Assuming current theories are correct.

There is no implication at all of some supernatural event. The theory holds that all the matter in the universe originated from a singularity.

That's it. That doesn't imply supernatural impetus at all.

The question is why did the singularity form.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Cosmology merely presents facts. That is the nature of science. Mathematics can take us back to around 350,000 years after the big bang. Assuming current theories are correct.

There is no implication at all of some supernatural event. The theory holds that all the matter in the universe originated from a singularity.

That's it. That doesn't imply supernatural impetus at all.

The question is why did the singularity form.

You raise several points.

First - We cannot attribute the existence of the natural to the natural, the presence of the universe cannot be scientifically explained, how could it when the mechanism of scientific explanation is the thing we want to scientifically explain?

Second - A singularity is not a real physical phenomenon, it arises from invalid premises, the singularities are apparent not real.

I thought you said you knew something about this subject?

 

[westwall]

You raise several points.

First - We cannot attribute the natural to the natural, the presence of the universe cannot be scientifically explained, how could it when the mechanism of scientific explanation is the thing we want to scientifically explain?

Second - A singularity is not a real physical phenomenon, it arises from invalid premises, the singularities are apparent not real.

I thought you said you knew something about this subject?

It's not? How do you know? The definition of a singularity is simply that point of infinite mass where time and space are distorted by gravity, usually associated with the final trip on the way down a black hole.

Then you claim we can't attribute the natural to the natural. How so?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's not? How do you know? The definition of a singularity is simply that point of infinite mass where time and space are distorted by gravity, usually associated with the final trip on the way down a black hole.

The conservation laws rule out infinite mass, perhaps you meant infinite density? But more importantly infinities are never accepted as meaningful predictions in science, when they do arise we try to get rid of them.

Then you claim we can't attribute the natural to the natural. How so?

Scientific explanations are always reductionist that's why. In physics we never explain something in terms of itself, if you disagree then please present such an explanation.

 

[westwall]

The conservation laws rule out infinite mass, perhaps you meant infinite density? But more importantly infinities are never accepted as meaningful predictions in science, when they do arise we try to get rid of them.

Scientific explanations are always reductionist that's why. In physics we never explain something in terms of itself, if you disagree then please present such an explanation.
[Ellison.

The conservation laws rule out infinite mass, perhaps you meant infinite density? But more importantly infinities are never accepted as meaningful predictions in science, when they do arise we try to get rid of them.

Scientific explanations are always reductionist that's why. In physics we never explain something in terms of itself, if you disagree then please present such an explanation.

Conservation of Charge is the only one that a paper has been presented for, and they had to modify conventional physics to do it. That paper was published in a German Journal, I can't remember which one.

In all other cases physicists simply throw up their hands and declare that physics breaks down in a singularity. So there is nothing that rules out singularity.

And yes, scientific enquiry is reductionist, it is based on observations and facts, not faith.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

westwall

That latest post of your is unreadable, you have your response as part of my text, if I hit "reply" its empty.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Still waiting westwall ....can't find someone else's opinion to post?

 

[westwall]

Still waiting westwall ....can't find someone else's opinion to post?

No, busy. The response is there I believe. Yes, it was always there. It's under your post.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, busy. The response is there I believe. Yes, it was always there. It's under your post.

Well I cannot reply to it because you incorrectly embedded your response text inside the quoted part of my text.

If you'd be so kind as to correct it?

 

[westwall]

Well I cannot reply to it because you incorrectly embedded your response text inside the quoted part of my text.

If you'd be so kind as to correct it?

No, the stupid forum software did that. Just post your response in a new post.

 

[ding]

it arises from invalid premises

That's not really an accurate way of saying it. It's really more about the limit of the equations as general relativity is valid.

 

[ding]

...the mechanism of scientific explanation...

What do you mean by the "mechanism of scientific explanation?"

 

[ding]

How does the big bang imply a supernatural beginning?

Intentionality.