What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Waldo]

Did 'time' exist before the big bang?

 

Or is 'time' only relevant within the context of the universe as we know it; and to extend the construct (i.e. our conceptual thoughts) of 'time' behond the context of the known universe, is perhaps flawed thinking.

 

Did time exist before the big-bang? Well, if there was no 'time' before the big bang; there was no 'before the big bang'.

 

The universe, the big bang, time, us, and our thoughts and perceptions on this matter, are all the same thing. Although, our minds like to conceptually break it all up in to bits and pieces (that's how scientists get their kicks).

[danot]

I have no objection to discussing matters with people who are happy to carry on reasoned debate, but I'll be blowed if I'll discuss anything with those who display astounding pig ignorance and are simply in it to troll and insult I'm afraid. I'm quite happy to throw ideas back and forth with most all the others on this thread though

 

Don't get disheartened Obelix, scientists much smarter than yourself have had their arguments discredited.

[Lockjaw]

I'd like them to stop telling claiming they have proof when they haven't.

 

OK, thanks for your straightforward reply.

 

Implicit within that reply is an accusation that scientists do, indeed, claim they have proof when they haven't.

 

Could you please provide us with some examples of this?

[Lockjaw]

That's my point.

 

That's why I said, 'scientists(well educated)are unable to think outside of the box'; because anything outside of the box, would conflict with the present laws of science. Therefore, scientific logic isn't being applied to 'the laws of the universe', it is being applied to human logic, which is restricted to the confines of the box.. so there is no true or false theory on the universe, there's only the accepted theory that fits inside our box.

 

Hi, again, danot.

 

I see you haven't chosen to follow the advice I offered in post 514. May I humbly suggest you try this. It will, hopefully, enable you to avoid posting nonsence like the above.

 

You may, also, wish to clarify your understanding of the term "thinking outside the box".

[danot]

OK, thanks for your straightforward reply.

 

Implicit within that reply is an accusation that scientists do, indeed, claim they have proof when they haven't.

 

Could you please provide us with some examples of this?

The universe not being contained is the only example I can offer.

[Obelix]

OK, thanks for your straightforward reply.

 

Implicit within that reply is an accusation that scientists do, indeed, claim they have proof when they haven't.

 

Could you please provide us with some examples of this?

 

See what I mean. All he's interested in is insults.

[danot]

Hi, again, danot.

 

I see you haven't chosen to follow the advice I offered in post 514. May I humbly suggest you try this. It will, hopefully, enable you to avoid posting nonsence like the above.

 

You may, also, wish to clarify your understanding of the term "thinking outside the box".

Why would you need me to clarify anything?.. you've already criticized it.

[danot]

See what I mean. All he's interested in is insults.

You're too sensitive Obelix. I wasn't insulting you, I was reassuring you. Besides, does telling someone they're wrong equate to insulting them?.. if so, you are all forgiven.

[Lockjaw]

Why would you need me to clarify anything?.. you've already criticized it.

 

You misunderstand me, Danot. I am suggesting that you make sure that you truly understand the meanings of "logic" "science / scientific method" and, now, "thinking outside the box" before you use them within your posts.

 

I am suggesting this because it will enable you to expand your understanding and play a meaningful rôle in the discussion you have started.

 

I say this because (as you will realise when and if you follow my advice) a fundamental requirement for logical debate to take place is that all protagonists are using the same definitions of the basic terms. At present that is not the case since your definitions appear to be different to everybody else's.

[danot]

You misunderstand me, Danot. I am suggesting that you make sure that you truly understand the meanings of "logic" "science / scientific method" and, now, "thinking outside the box" before you use them within your posts.

 

I am suggesting this because it will enable you to expand your understanding and play a meaningful rôle in the discussion you have started.

 

I say this because (as you will realise when and if you follow my advice) a fundamental requirement for logical debate to take place is that all protagonists are using the same definitions of the basic terms. At present that is not the case since your definitions appear to be different to everybody else's.

That's because my logic isn't restricted by the box Jack. I'm not using your deduction by default method of reasoning, it's flawed.