Helping Gauleiter88

[ttruscott]

Hello. I am new to the forum and don't know how to use it yet. I am an American male, 85 years old, retired and now living in northern California. I was raised as a Christian, but not very seriously and soon became an agnostic. Now that I am older, I am more open to the idea of some kind of life after death. I have looked at several religions, but found nothing satisfactory. I have many questions. I don't want preaching, just personal answers.

This post was stuck into another topic so I rescued the thought to give it its own weight. Good luck, Gauleiter88... ask your questions here.

[myth-one.com]

Modern physics and modern cosmology has it that time "began" ( if a tensed word like that makes sense ) with the universe. No universe, no time.

Maybe you are a skeptic of Hawking, too, but here goes anyway:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. "

How far does your skepticism of physics go?

I would love to witness a debate on time between you and Hawking. Maybe you would end up learning about the physics of time. It's quite possible that you don't QUITE understand the physics involved. It's a bit "complex". That's why professor Hawking writes so many books about it for the lay persons like ourselves. To "dumb the incredibly complicated math, physics and cosmological observations down", as it were.

But let me point out that he does not say that time began at the big bang in the quote above! He states that man should say that time began with the big bang regardless of when time started, because we cannot measure anything about events prior to the big bang.

He doesn't?
I thought so.

So if we are somehow postulating a GOD who somehow exists before "TIME".. Hawking says... "no observational consequences", and that we might as well "say that time began at the Big Bang". Those are his words right there.

And if time didn't exist BEFORE the universe was "created", there was NO TIME to exist IN. Sorry, God could not have existed BEFORE when there was NO BEFORE or AFTER or any other kind of TIME to measure.

Why should not knowing or being able to measure something be a valid proof that something never happened?

That would be the argument from ignorance, so of course the conclusion that we would have PROOF by way of not knowing is just wrong.

No reputable scientist is saying that.

[myth-one.com]

Actually, I have trouble understanding anything that's infinite.

Time: A measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues to exist.

Right, infinite time isn't measurable.

Modern physics and modern cosmology has it that time "began" ( if a tensed word like that makes sense ) with the universe. No universe, no time.

Seventeen billion is a measureable number. Did time exist 17 billion years ago, which would be before the big bang?

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. "

How far does your skepticism of physics go?

I would love to witness a debate on time between you and Hawking. Maybe you would end up learning about the physics of time. It's quite possible that you don't QUITE understand the physics involved. It's a bit "complex". That's why professor Hawking writes so many books about it for the lay persons like ourselves. To "dumb the incredibly complicated math, physics and cosmological observations down", as it were.

At least I understood what he said.

He discusses "events before the big bang", so he indicates that things happened before the big bang.

Regarding these events before the big bang, he states that they have no observational consequences.

Therefore, we might as well cut them out of the theory (theory of everything?) and say that time began at the big bang.

In summary, he says time existed before the big bang, but we will always be ignorant regarding those times, therefore lets just delete those times from existence because of our ignorance.

So if we are somehow postulating a GOD who somehow exists before "TIME".. Hawking says... "no observational consequences", and that we might as well "say that time began at the Big Bang". Those are his words right there.

He never mentioned God.

And if time didn't exist BEFORE the universe was "created", there was NO TIME to exist IN. Sorry, God could not have existed BEFORE when there was NO BEFORE or AFTER or any other kind of TIME to measure.

But you just quoted Hawking speaking about time before the big bang!!

Why should not knowing or being able to measure something be a valid proof that something never happened?

That would be the argument from ignorance, so of course the conclusion that we would have PROOF by way of not knowing is just wrong.

We agree. That is what Hawking just suggested -- as quoted by you above.

No reputable scientist is saying that.

One just did.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Link