danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Have a look for the "double slit" experiment..Cheers, will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Where did I say that?Apologies it was Truman who asked me:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Where did I say that?I'm the one saying it.. you're disagreeing with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 I'm the one saying it.. you're disagreeing with it. Cobblers. You are ascribing things to me which simply are not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Cobblers. You are ascribing things to me which simply are not true.Such as what?.. what have I unfairly accused you of saying or believing?. I may be mistaken but- are you or are you not questioning my argument that: "the logic used by scientists to determine whether the universe was created, or merely came into being from nothing, is deeply flawed"?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Nobody can prove there was anything before the big bang. Nobody can prove there wasn't anything before the big bang. I believe the notions of "nothing" and "before" are beyond human understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Nobody can prove there was anything before the big bang. Nobody can prove there wasn't anything before the big bang. I believe the notions of "nothing" and "before" are beyond human understanding. So do I, That's why I find the unsupported scientific presumptions which conceited scientists are using to support their arrogant claims that the universe most probably wasn't created, but rather just sprang into existence, deeply flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 we lack the conceptual tools to understand this area fully. Both 'classical' and 'quantum' relationships only came into being after the event. Before or beyond that is impossible to describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 So do I, That's why I find the unsupported scientific presumptions which conceited scientists are using to support their arrogant claims that the universe most probably wasn't created, but rather just sprang into existence, deeply flawed You are making the same error again - that is not what science says at all. Science does NOT postulate a first cause becase as has been explained to you before by many people, to do so results in a logical paradox. There is no conceit there either - that's just a weasel word you are pulling out to try and bolster your argument - ad hominem is another of the logical fallacies that should be avoided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYTOT Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Yes!, I've considered that..but that raises the question- what created the cycle? Was it Raleigh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.