Skip to main content

Reply to "The Beginning?"

CB, your pseudo-philosophical babble is less comprehensible than Carroll's Jabberwocky:
 
" ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe."
 
But lets examine it any way
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

The big bang cannot be considered intrinsic to the fact that the universe does exist because it cannot be demonstrated nor falsified by the scientific method.

 

Wrong.  Cosmic inflation is proven by repeated scientific observation and confirmed by quantum mathematical models and the predictions drawn from these models and later observed. 

 

Lets consider. Premise 1. the universe exists and embodied.

 

Without a doubt.

 

Premise 2. A singularity existed before the big bang and embodied only by a rule that has a rule which explains that rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explains that rule and so on to infinity.  Therefore the universe exists and is equal to the singularity which exists by a rule.

 

Scientists do not know exactly what existed or the characteristics of it before the Planck time (10 to the -43 power seconds after cosmic inflation began.)  Quantum mathematics are unable to model this time period.  To call it a singularity is most likely an erroneous statement.

 

Please state the rule that embodies this erroneously stated singularity, and the next rule, and the next rule...  Unless these rules can be stated any following premise that includes a reference to these rules can be summarily dismissed.

 

Premise 3. God exists and embodied by a rule which is explained by a rule which has a rule which explaines that rule that has a rule which explains that rule and so on into infinity.

 

There is no substantial evidence that God exists.  Therefore, this is an erroneous premise, and any following premise that includes God can be summarily dismissed.

 

(premises summarily dismissed.)

 

Conclusion: No message is intrinsic that we can prove.

 

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur to your thesis, therefore your thesis is unproven and your conclusion is meaningless.

 


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×