Metsfanmax wrote:Quoting from my copy of Carroll and Ostlie's "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" (which is the most commonly used senior undergraduate/graduate astrophysics textbook),
"Our current physical theories break down at times earlier than [the Planck time], and in fact the very notion of space and time as separate concepts dissolves before the Planck time. A quantum theory of gravity capable of describing this convoluted arena in which space and time have lost their familiar, separate identities has yet to be invented. After the Planck time, spacetime began to take on a more coherent structure as greater portions of it became causally connected. Exactly how time itself emerged from the Big Bang is a question to be pondered by physicists and philosophers alike."
So now you're saying that modern science says that the universe was in an acausal state in the planck time. This after arguing vehemently that we couldn't go from the acausal to the causal and this is why my theory was so flawed.
You couldn't make this stuff up
Just to make it crystal clear to you Mets - I have not claimed "there is definitely no God because there was definitely no causality", I am simply saying "there was not definitely causality, therefore there is not definitely a God because without definite causality there is no necessity for there to be a cause" (and I admit I did word earlier posts badly in some places, but this was a function of the thought experiment having to start from close to the theist position of ontological "proof", and this is why I was getting annoyed by your constant addition of "maybe this or that" - I can allow any possibilities you like into that argument and it holds - because none of them prove anything for sure and therefore do not provide a necessity for anything)
Perhaps if instead of jumping in to argue for the conclusion I was aiming to work towards through small, logical and easily understandable steps, if you'd allowed the theists to actually engage with the experiment you would have seen this. But you took it upon yourself to jump right to the end and ignore the purpose and struture of it, and then proclaim how you were right and I was wrong when in fact we were aiming for roughly the same idea, and then that I should engage when you were the one who blocked off my route to engagement.