Subj : The universe
To   : DAVE OLDRIDGE
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Tue Dec 12 2000 07:15 pm

> TH> Nobody seems to care to comment (not that they need to) on my Zen stories 
I
> TH> posted, perhaps
> TH> the bicker-mongers are still only interested in bickering (as has been
> TH> evidenced recently). So, I
> TH> thought I'd dig up an older topic that might be looked at afresh.
> 
> TH> I'm not quite sure why people find it so meaningless to speak of "before"
> TH> the big bang. By the
> 
> It's mathematically in the same category as "north" of the north pole.  
> As Hawking points out, you can normalize the whole picture by treating 
> time (as we measure it) as an imaginary quantity (in the mathematical 
> sense).  The singularity at t=0 then simply becomes a point on a 
> hypersurface, special largely because of the coordinate system used (but also 

> because the universe expands from it). 


The issue is not as simple as mathematics. That doesn't really answer much.


> TH> very fact that they say the universe had a *beginning*, it introduces the
> TH> question of "before" the
> TH> big bang, because there was SOMETHING before it which gave it existencem,
> TH> whether it be a
> TH> quantum fluctuation, God, moldy cheese, or whatever. They seem to assume
> TH> that the only
> TH> temporal reality in existence is the one that was created along with our
> TH> space.
> 
> This is a failure to understand the math.  There is no need for there 
> to be a t=-1 any more than there is a need for a REAL solution to X^2+1=0


This is a failure to understand the proper scope of the issue.


> TH> Even science rejects that. For one, many a scientist theorize that there
> TH> are MANY different
> TH> expanses of space-time that were created in many big bangs. These 
universes
> TH> are seemingly
> TH> separate from ours. Even though these different universes (if they even
> TH> exist) might not explain
> TH> the origin of our own, the concept of other temporal frames of reference
> TH> outside THIS space-time
> TH> continuum is a valid one.
> 
> TH> So if our universe had a beginning, then something had to come before it 
to
> TH> initiate the action
> TH> which made the universe. Now perhaps that primordial temporal context 
might
> 
> Perhaps, but not necessarily.  Something may will produce it from 
> altogether outside and be effecting it now as well as at the beginning (and I 

> did not misspell the verb back there).


Yes, necessarily. By definition. A thing cannot create itself, therefore
something had to exist in 
order to cause the universe's creation. I don't understand how your outside
source comment 
disagrees with that.


> TH> not operate the
> TH> same way that ours does. Maybe it's even non-linear. But it seems awful
> TH> contradictory for a
> TH> person to speak of a created universe yet deny any discussion as to what
> TH> brought it into
> TH> existence BEFORE it existed.
> 
> Gen 1
> In the beginning the God is creating the world.  Present tense!


I don't know why you're bringing the Bible into this. It's not necessary.
At least quote it properly 
if you do.

And even with that misquote, you prove my point - God existed before the
universe and brought 
it into being.


> TH> What do you think about that?
> 
> See above.  This is the case throughout the entire Bible!  Compare 
> also:


Not at all. I don't know where you get that from.


> Before Abraham was, I AM.


You're taking bits and pieces and sloppily putting them together. The Bible
argument you 
offered isn't quite coherent yet.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.