Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 100,896
- 81,311
False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.The proof is in the evidence.![]()
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.The proof is in the evidence.![]()
The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time. What EVIDENCE do you have that says they don't?False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.
Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time.
None of that is EVIDENCE.Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.
What he describes is a possible explanation for the evidence.
There is still much work to do to rule out other explanations.
So this is stuck at the philosophical stage.
I didn't even attempt to describe any evidence.None of that is EVIDENCE.
What's your evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time?I didn't even attempt to describ3 any ecid3nc3.
I said what you are calling evidence is not good evidence, as it can very easily be explained in other ways.
Much work to be done. Like multiverse theory. Though multiversity theory is much more roclbust, mathematically.
This hypothesis comes with little to no such rigor.
It could be true. But I would keep the champagne on ice.
Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.What's your evidence?
You have no evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time. None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.
But I don't have time for your time wasting trolling today.
Maybe later.
It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.
He doesn't need to. All that matters to me is he testified to the evidence which proves the laws of nature existed before space and time.It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.
See the link I posted in which he is harangued at by a Christian trying to credit their god. He just doesn't buy it!