They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[skepticalbip]

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

No, as I said much earlier, you seem to have real difficulty distinguishing beliefs from knowns. Nothing is wrong with either but they are not interchangeable. There are many mutually exclusive theories. Your choosing of one that you think better supports your belief does not mean that theory is true. Someone who chooses a different theory that they think better supports their belief but contradicts the one you like does not mean that theory is true either.

Beliefs are useful in philosophical arguments. Knowns are useful in scientific investigation.

Did you lose track? We aren't talking SBBM here. This is the singularity theorem.
so.............
Are you denying the BGV?

I didn't lose track. I just continue to refuse to call a philosophical argument that is attempting to support a belief a scienctific investigation.

 

[remez]

Did you lose track? We aren't talking SBBM here. This is the singularity theorem.
so.............
Are you denying the BGV?

I didn't lose track. I just continue to refuse to call a philosophical argument that is attempting to support a belief a scienctific investigation.

Neither would I. I have pointed this fact out several times along the way.

What does that have to do with the BGV anyway?

 

[remez]

No, as I said much earlier, you seem to have real difficulty distinguishing beliefs from knowns.

I have addressed this many times. You have not. So stop playing games and give me your distinction.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, as I said much earlier, you seem to have real difficulty distinguishing beliefs from knowns.

I have addressed this many times. You have not. So stop playing games and give me your distinction.

So you have but the way you address it only demonstrates your inability to tell the difference.

The part of my post that you deleted is an illustration.

....... Nothing is wrong with either but they are not interchangeable. There are many mutually exclusive theories. Your choosing of one that you think better supports your belief does not mean that theory is true. Someone who chooses a different theory that they think better supports their belief but contradicts the one you like does not mean that theory is true either.

Beliefs are useful in philosophical arguments. Knowns are useful in scientific investigation.

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs. Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore. There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

 

[Rhea]

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

Out of curiosity, remez, what kind of scientist are you?

 

[remez]

So you have but the way you address it only demonstrates your inability to tell the difference.

That is just your arbitrary judgement. Hence why I specifically asked you for your specific distinctions. You dodged the question with this arbitrary nonsense................

...... Nothing is wrong with either but they are not interchangeable. There are many mutually exclusive theories. Your choosing of one that you think better supports your belief does not mean that theory is true. Someone who chooses a different theory that they think better supports their belief but contradicts the one you like does not mean that theory is true either.
Beliefs are useful in philosophical arguments. Knowns are useful in scientific investigation

and..................

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs. Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore. There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

............neither answers the question of how YOU distinguish belief and known. You keep protesting that my beliefs are not known.

Two problems with that...............

ONE You have not told mean what you mean by "KNOWN"....... I can only infer that you mean absolute certainty. If so.....Your skepticism is severe to the point that only mathematical and logical truths can be known.
and TWO..........
If that is your standard of rationality then you are completely inconsistent. You only apply that severity against those who oppose your beliefs and turn it off when investigating your own.

So stop dodging the question. Stop the irrational illustrations. Stop the bad reasoning that beliefs are not useful in science...etc

Flat out give me your distinction between "belief" and "knowns".
I think you are afraid to do so, because it would reveal your inconsistent reasoning.
It would expose your scientism.

I best I can guess is your epistemology is some arbitrary system (scientism mixed with arbitrary certainty) where you are always right and theists are always wrong. You simply make up the rules to your choosing. There is no consistency other than you are always right and theists are always wrong.

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs. Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore. There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

So lets analyse that with your brand of skepticism.......

That is simply your chosen belief. That is not a "known". Therefore useless. See?


Now .....
LINE by line...............
My clarification of your misjudgments...........

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs.

Dead wrong. Thus that is not a known for you then is it? Thus your conclusion is useless.

I choose all (not one) of the most reasonable theories based on that fact the other theories were by far less plausible SCIENTIFICALLY.

I did not choose the SBBM because it supported my theological beliefs. The SBBM is far more plausible than other theories that suggests the universe is eternal. That model may change but the notion of and eternal past is only living on fantasy.......your nature of the gaps reasoning.

I chose the BGV because it is by far the best singularity theorem out there. I did not make that judgement based on theology. It was based on the science.

Do they each support my theology.....absolutely. But that in no way infers it was my theology that did the choosing. Look back I never dismissed countering theories with theology. I countered them with the better science.

Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore.

I ignored nothing. If you brought up some lame theory I always addressed it and with science not theology. Did I challenge your CCC with scripture or with science? I eliminated no science with theology. You are the one living in the fantasy of conflict.

There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

As specifically as possible tell me............How you determine that to be "known"? And most definitely provide definition and distinction for your terms "belief" and"knowns". And how you judge them.

Stop dodging the question....... don't forget my question regarding the BGV.

 

[remez]

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

Out of curiosity, remez, what kind of scientist are you?

Out of curiosity, Rhea, why are you avoiding my question?

 

[skepticalbip]

That is just your arbitrary judgement. Hence why I specifically asked you for your specific distinctions. You dodged the question with this arbitrary nonsense................

and..................

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs. Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore. There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

............neither answers the question of how YOU distinguish belief and known. You keep protesting that my beliefs are not known.

Two problems with that...............

ONE You have not told mean what you mean by "KNOWN"....... I can only infer that you mean absolute certainty. If so.....Your skepticism is severe to the point that only mathematical and logical truths can be known.
and TWO..........
If that is your standard of rationality then you are completely inconsistent. You only apply that severity against those who oppose your beliefs and turn it off when investigating your own.

So stop dodging the question. Stop the irrational illustrations. Stop the bad reasoning that beliefs are not useful in science...etc

Flat out give me your distinction between "belief" and "knowns".
I think you are afraid to do so, because it would reveal your inconsistent reasoning.
It would expose your scientism.

I best I can guess is your epistemology is some arbitrary system (scientism mixed with arbitrary certainty) where you are always right and theists are always wrong. You simply make up the rules to your choosing. There is no consistency other than you are always right and theists are always wrong.

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs. Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore. There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

So lets analyse that with your brand of skepticism.......

That is simply your chosen belief. That is not a "known". Therefore useless. See?


Now .....
LINE by line...............
My clarification of your misjudgments...........

You choose one of the many theories as being true because you believe that it could support your beliefs.

Dead wrong. Thus that is not a known for you then is it? Thus your conclusion is useless.

I choose all (not one) of the most reasonable theories based on that fact the other theories were by far less plausible SCIENTIFICALLY.

I did not choose the SBBM because it supported my theological beliefs. The SBBM is far more plausible than other theories that suggests the universe is eternal. That model may change but the notion of and eternal past is only living on fantasy.......your nature of the gaps reasoning.

I chose the BGV because it is by far the best singularity theorem out there. I did not make that judgement based on theology. It was based on the science.

Do they each support my theology.....absolutely. But that in no way infers it was my theology that did the choosing. Look back I never dismissed countering theories with theology. I countered them with the better science.

Other theories that leave no possibility of your beliefs being supported you ignore.

I ignored nothing. If you brought up some lame theory I always addressed it and with science not theology. Did I challenge your CCC with scripture or with science? I eliminated no science with theology. You are the one living in the fantasy of conflict.

There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

As specifically as possible tell me............How you determine that to be "known"? And most definitely provide definition and distinction for your terms "belief" and"knowns". And how you judge them.

Stop dodging the question....... don't forget my question regarding the BGV.

We have gone over this ground several times and you continue to demonstrate that you have no clue what I write (or pretend that you didn't read it) because it is contrary to beliefs that you take as fact.

Your last question here is another excellent example. You have glommed onto BGV because you really, really believe that your interpretation of your extrapolation of what it could indicate supports your beliefs. BGV may or may not be something close to reality - there are theories that are equally supportable that present a universe where your belief in a creation could not possibly be true. The fact that there are mutually contradictory, equally supportable, models is all the evidence that any thinking person recognizes as a situation where the reality is unknown. The various models are attempts to offer ideas that can be tested to further our understanding. I have said this several times but your belief prevents you from accepting it.

I see no reason to continue this if you continue to refuse to acknowledge that your questions have been answered because the answer demonstrates that you find it impossible to distinguish belief from known.

I'll simplify... If you are lost in the forest with five other people and each points in a different direction as the way out. Does your picking of one of them mean that you know the way out or is it that you believe that could possibly be the way?

 

[Rhea]

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

Out of curiosity, remez, what kind of scientist are you?

Out of curiosity, Rhea, why are you avoiding my question?

I didn’t find it interesting enough to spend time while I was traveling (ironically, to do SCIENCE at one of my company’s off site factories) and had only a phone to browse the web. Sorry, but it didn’t make the keyboardless cut.

 

[remez]

BGV may or may not be something close to reality - there are theories that are equally supportable that present a universe where your belief in a creation could not possibly be true. The fact that there are mutually contradictory, equally supportable, models is all the evidence that any thinking person recognizes as a situation where the reality is unknown and the various models are attempts to offer ideas that can be tested to further our understanding.

This is my point. The BGV is not a model. It is a theorem. Name another viable theorem. NAME ONE.

Again I think you are mixing up a beginning with the search for a natural cause of the beginning. There are plenty of models seeking a natural cause. There are also some models trying to avoid the theorem by seeking an "uncaused" cause. No kidding. But they are not denying a beginning.

Now back to your unviable cosmological others…………

The fact that there are mutually contradictory, equally supportable, models is all the evidence that any thinking person recognizes as a situation where the reality is unknown and the various models are attempts to offer ideas that can be tested to further our understanding.

Equally supportable…..not a chance. Where is your reasoning for that?

Your eternal cosmological models are discarded because of the science not theology. There is no viable model that can generate and eternal past. I have shown you that with science. Their failures only further supports the paradigm of the SBBM. So by all means keep searching.
So…….
To hold out hope (your belief) for an eternal universe is like holding out hope that you'll invent a perpetual motion machine and defeat the 2nd LoT.

I have said this several times but your belief prevents you from accepting it.

Yes you have. But you have done so based solely on my theology. Yet I have repeatedly shown you that my very reasonable belief that the universe had a beginning is not based on theology it is based on science. In my case here it is my theology that is based on the science not the other way around.

So I'm asking you to tell me why I'm wrong.

And all I get is the unexplained and unsupported reasoning…………

There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

You don’t know that you only belief that. You believe the BGV is wrong?
So………..Again….

As specifically as possible tell me............How you determine that to be "known"? And most definitely provide definition and distinction for your terms "belief" and"knowns". And how you judge them.

Stop dodging the question....... don't forget my question regarding the BGV.

 

[remez]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

Out of curiosity, remez, what kind of scientist are you?

Out of curiosity, Rhea, why are you avoiding my question?

I didn’t find it interesting enough to spend time while I was traveling (ironically, to do SCIENCE at one of my company’s off site factories) and had only a phone to browse the web. Sorry, but it didn’t make the keyboardless cut.

Still waiting.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is my point. The BGV is not a model. It is a theorem. Name another viable theorem. NAME ONE.

Again I think you are mixing up a beginning with the search for a natural cause of the beginning. There are plenty of models seeking a natural cause. There are also some models trying to avoid the theorem by seeking an "uncaused" cause. No kidding. But they are not denying a beginning.

Now back to your unviable cosmological others…………

Equally supportable…..not a chance. Where is your reasoning for that?

Your eternal cosmological models are discarded because of the science not theology. There is no viable model that can generate and eternal past. I have shown you that with science. Their failures only further supports the paradigm of the SBBM. So by all means keep searching.
So…….
To hold out hope (your belief) for an eternal universe is like holding out hope that you'll invent a perpetual motion machine and defeat the 2nd LoT.

I have said this several times but your belief prevents you from accepting it.

Yes you have. But you have done so based solely on my theology. Yet I have repeatedly shown you that my very reasonable belief that the universe had a beginning is not based on theology it is based on science. In my case here it is my theology that is based on the science not the other way around.

So I'm asking you to tell me why I'm wrong.

And all I get is the unexplained and unsupported reasoning…………

There are no knowns here, only your beliefs that you mistakenly believe are knowns.

You don’t know that you only belief that. You believe the BGV is wrong?
So………..Again….

As specifically as possible tell me............How you determine that to be "known"? And most definitely provide definition and distinction for your terms "belief" and"knowns". And how you judge them.

Stop dodging the question....... don't forget my question regarding the BGV.

I answered your question regarding the BGV several times. You just didn't like my answer. BVG is just one of several ideas offered. There are other ideas out there. None of them are known to be true but all of them are possibilities.

You didn't answer my question:

I'll simplify... If you are lost in the forest with five other people and each points in a different direction as the way out. Does your picking of one of them mean that you know the way out or is it that you believe that could possibly be the way?

But to again answer your question about how we arrive at knowns - if you were lost but you finally managed to find your way out of that forest then, and only then, you will know which direction was the right path.

 

[remez]

I answered your question regarding the BGV several times. You just didn't like my answer. BVG is just one of several ideas offered. There are other ideas out there. None of them are known to be true but all of them are possibilities.

No you have not. You have yet to even name the parameter. All you have demonstrated is that you do not know the difference between a singularity theorem and a cosmological model. KNOW surprise.

I'll simplify... If you are lost in the forest with five other people and each points in a different direction as the way out. Does your picking of one of them mean that you know the way out or is it that you believe that could possibly be the way?

Of course not. But you’re fooling yourself if think that silly question is analogous to my assertion that the SBBM is the most plausible cosmogonic model.

 

[skepticalbip]

I answered your question regarding the BGV several times. You just didn't like my answer. BVG is just one of several ideas offered. There are other ideas out there. None of them are known to be true but all of them are possibilities.

No you have not. You have yet to even name the parameter. All you have demonstrated is that you do not know the difference between a singularity theorem and a cosmological model. KNOW surprise.

WTF. You want me to explain BGV to you? I thought you believed you already knew what it is. It s a mathematical theorem that mathematically demonstrates a **beginning. However the question is if the assumptions made to set up the mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe. It is the same problem with Penrose's CCC cosmological mathematical theorem that mathematically demonstrates that the universe is eternal and cyclic. Like the BGV the question is if the assumptions made to set up the CCC mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe. Both are mathematically sound but can't both be representative with respect to the real universe. In fact, the case is that it is quite possible that neither may be describing the real universe. It depends on whether the assumptions made in setting up the math actually represent the universe.

I'll simplify... If you are lost in the forest with five other people and each points in a different direction as the way out. Does your picking of one of them mean that you know the way out or is it that you believe that could possibly be the way?

Of course not. But you’re fooling yourself if think that silly question is analogous to my assertion that the SBBM is the most plausible cosmogonic model.

I haven't said that the Big Bang Model wasn't the most accepted. What you are arguing is extrapolations that are added to that model to extend it well beyond what the BBM describes. There are various extrapolations but you insist that the ones that you think could support your BELIEFS are knowns and ignore all the others. All the additional extrapolations added to the BBM are simply mathematical modeling to be tested. They are not knowns just as the different directions suggested to get out of that forest are ideas or guesses not knowns.

** Beginning is the lay understanding of 'singularity'. In math the term, singularity does not mean beginning. It means that the mathematical equation only yields infinities. When used in physics, singularity means that the physical (mathematical) model can no longer describe events because our current physics no longer apply.

 

[Rhea]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

Indeed. Beginning with assumptions can only lead to what could be if the assumptions are true. Could be and if does not lead to knowns.

Remez, very general assumptions are the difference between Newton and Einstein. They are the difference between accounting for everything and not accounting for everything. Your author even acknowledges this in his interview.

So what kind of scientist are you, again?

 

[remez]

You want me to explain BGV to you? I thought you believed you already knew what it is.

No, I don't need you to explain it to me. I want you to back up your claim that the assumptionS render the theorem a useless match to reality. Do you even know what the theorem assumes?

It s a mathematical theorem that mathematically demonstrates a **beginning.

That concludes a beginning.

Now please explain how the CCC model is attempting to avoid this theorem. And why?
B/c therein lies the problem......yes problem.

Can you tell me how it works? Can you tell me why it is reasonable? I'm prepared to discuss those responses. These are issues that will allow us the rightfully determine who is being more reasonable here. The problems with this model are commonly known. Lets discuss it. The science matters to me.

However the question is if the assumptions made to set up the mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe.

Just the mere possibility does not render your skepticism here reasonable. You are playing a game of wild speculation to gain support for your epistemology. You need to give me reason to doubt the math other than its a possible mismatch for reality.

Again we're right back here at epistemology. I operate from a reasonable doubt position and I have reason to doubt you. You seem (because you will not tell us) to assert that if any proposition has an alternative then that proposition is not known.......And therefore classified a belief.........and therefore ignorant. That is such a lazy epistemic system...... your opponent is ignorant because you can fantasize. No reasoning required.

With that kind of epistemology we can not trust gravity. Do you go that far? Is NASA ignorant? Where is your line for knowledge..... personal experience only....... like your pathfinder?

So again......................specifically here...........
Name the assumptions (of the BGV) and give me your reasons why I should doubt they match reality.
Like...............
Assumption A does not match reality because.................
Assumption B does not match reality because..................

Example..... the Miller-Urey experiment did not match reality because the atmospheric conditions in the experiment could not reasonably match reality as to the levels of oxygen.

So
Give me a reason to doubt the math
or
A reason as to why the assumption does not reflect reality.

It is the same problem with Penrose's CCC cosmological mathematical theorem that mathematically demonstrates that the universe is eternal and cyclic. Like the BGV the question is if the assumptions made to set up the CCC mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe.

Its statements like that where you seem to mix up the singularity theorem and a cosmological model. Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges.
and.......
The CCC does NOT demonstrate that at all.......it ASSERTS (fantasizes) that. The question to be asked ....as I did above........ is it a reasonable assertion?

But again....... simply mentioning something is possible does not make it reasonable nor does it render that which is reasonable..... unreasonable. Make your case.

In fact, the case is that it is quite possible that neither may be describing the real universe. It depends on whether the assumptions made in setting up the math actually represent the universe.

THEN MAKE THAT CASE. That is what I'm still waiting for.

Simply saying that it might does not make your case.
So specifically again.....................
Name the assumption/s of the BGV that do not match reality.
Good luck!

There are various extrapolations but you insist that the ones that you think could support your BELIEFS are knowns and ignore all the others.

So stereotypical............. just like the OP.
I HAVE IGNORED NOTHING......bring on your other interpretations and I'll will show you where they are unreasonable.

Seriously you claim my defense is one of ignorance. Yet repeatedly I have provided science and/or good reason to be SKEPTICAL of the other alternatives. Have I ever simply dismissed anything offered here without reason? Stop arguing against a stereotype and deal with me.

** Beginning is the lay understanding of 'singularity'. In math the term, singularity does not mean beginning. It means that the mathematical equation only yields infinities. When used in physics, singularity means that the physical (mathematical) model can no longer describe events because our current physics no longer apply.

Therein is the importance of the BGV and logic. Granted The SBBM scientifically leads to a singularity. Logically that is as far as the science can go. If nature began right there how could science go any further? But just because the science ends there (technically begins there) does not mean reason ends there.

Does life exist on earth?
Yes.
Did life always exist on earth?
No.
Then logically life had a beginning.
Even though there are so many competing theories as to how.....life began to exist.

 

[remez]

Remez, very general assumptions are the difference between Newton and Einstein. They are the difference between accounting for everything and not accounting for everything. Your author even acknowledges this in his interview.

Nice try....really.......but this was the question....................

“under very general assumptions,”


Should not be glossed over...

Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

...NOT what you thought it meant. You see.....you are misreading the context and therefore the intent of that phrase. That phrase represented the strength of the theorem. Research it.

So again............
What were the assumptions that were presupposed by the theorem? (kind of a trick question) And why is that a problem?

You are reading a scientific paper and trying to critique it semantically. The issue is you do not have the semantics lined up with the science.

and further.......
That was not an interview.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, I don't need you to explain it to me. I want you to back up your claim that the assumptionS render the theorem a useless match to reality. Do you even know what the theorem assumes?

That concludes a beginning.

Now please explain how the CCC model is attempting to avoid this theorem. And why?
B/c therein lies the problem......yes problem.

Can you tell me how it works? Can you tell me why it is reasonable? I'm prepared to discuss those responses. These are issues that will allow us the rightfully determine who is being more reasonable here. The problems with this model are commonly known. Lets discuss it. The science matters to me.

However the question is if the assumptions made to set up the mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe.

Just the mere possibility does not render your skepticism here reasonable. You are playing a game of wild speculation to gain support for your epistemology. You need to give me reason to doubt the math other than its a possible mismatch for reality.

Again we're right back here at epistemology. I operate from a reasonable doubt position and I have reason to doubt you. You seem (because you will not tell us) to assert that if any proposition has an alternative then that proposition is not known.......And therefore classified a belief.........and therefore ignorant. That is such a lazy epistemic system...... your opponent is ignorant because you can fantasize. No reasoning required.

With that kind of epistemology we can not trust gravity. Do you go that far? Is NASA ignorant? Where is your line for knowledge..... personal experience only....... like your pathfinder?

So again......................specifically here...........
Name the assumptions (of the BGV) and give me your reasons why I should doubt they match reality.
Like...............
Assumption A does not match reality because.................
Assumption B does not match reality because..................

Example..... the Miller-Urey experiment did not match reality because the atmospheric conditions in the experiment could not reasonably match reality as to the levels of oxygen.

So
Give me a reason to doubt the math
or
A reason as to why the assumption does not reflect reality.

It is the same problem with Penrose's CCC cosmological mathematical theorem that mathematically demonstrates that the universe is eternal and cyclic. Like the BGV the question is if the assumptions made to set up the CCC mathematical argument actually apply to the real universe.

Its statements like that where you seem to mix up the singularity theorem and a cosmological model. Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges.
and.......
The CCC does NOT demonstrate that at all.......it ASSERTS (fantasizes) that. The question to be asked ....as I did above........ is it a reasonable assertion?

But again....... simply mentioning something is possible does not make it reasonable nor does it render that which is reasonable..... unreasonable. Make your case.

In fact, the case is that it is quite possible that neither may be describing the real universe. It depends on whether the assumptions made in setting up the math actually represent the universe.

THEN MAKE THAT CASE. That is what I'm still waiting for.

Simply saying that it might does not make your case.
So specifically again.....................
Name the assumption/s of the BGV that do not match reality.
Good luck!

There are various extrapolations but you insist that the ones that you think could support your BELIEFS are knowns and ignore all the others.

So stereotypical............. just like the OP.
I HAVE IGNORED NOTHING......bring on your other interpretations and I'll will show you where they are unreasonable.

Seriously you claim my defense is one of ignorance. Yet repeatedly I have provided science and/or good reason to be SKEPTICAL of the other alternatives. Have I ever simply dismissed anything offered here without reason? Stop arguing against a stereotype and deal with me.

** Beginning is the lay understanding of 'singularity'. In math the term, singularity does not mean beginning. It means that the mathematical equation only yields infinities. When used in physics, singularity means that the physical (mathematical) model can no longer describe events because our current physics no longer apply.

Therein is the importance of the BGV and logic. Granted The SBBM scientifically leads to a singularity. Logically that is as far as the science can go. If nature began right there how could science go any further? But just because the science ends there (technically begins there) does not mean reason ends there.

Does life exist on earth?
Yes.
Did life always exist on earth?
No.
Then logically life had a beginning.
Even though there are so many competing theories as to how.....life began to exist.

This has become absurd. You obviously have absolutely no idea what the scientific method is or how it is done. Because of this you may think that you are discussing science but you are dismissing the scientific method offered and are proselytizing. There is absolutely no difference in methodology used to develop CCC and BGV (plus several other models). They are equally valid models... they only need to be tested to determine which, if either, comes close to describing the real universe. The fact that you really like one of them is irrelevant just as it is equally irrelevant that you really don't like the other.

Your worldview is that you really, really believe that you know the final truth so glom onto what you think can support that final truth with enough hand waving. I explained how the top down worldview of theist thinking differs from the bottom up worldview needed for applying the scientific method way back in this thread and see no reason to repeat it even though you continue to demonstrate that difference. You really shouldn't try to argue scientific investigation until you first understand what it is.

This last example from your post is such a perfect example of your ignorance that it needs repeating.

Does life exist on earth?
Yes.
Did life always exist on earth?
No.
Then logically life had a beginning.
Even though there are so many competing theories as to how.....life began to exist.

You really, really believe that life having a beginning is scientific proof that the universe began. That's precious.

The various cosmological models aren't about how the universe begin but whether it began and how it either is eternal or how it began. You are taking your theological belief of the creation story as a given and it is clouding your reasoning. I can not imagine that any cosmologist would not be overjoyed if any of the models could be verified including those that would show a beginning (except possibly for Sir Fred Hoyle but he died two decades ago). On the other hand you seem to consider any model that excludes a beginning is absolutely wrong and only made to attack what you believe is ultimate truth. It sounds like you are suffering under a persecution complex.

Our current cosmological understanding is those five hikers lost in a forest with each suggesting a different direction they should go to find their way out.

 

[remez]

This has become absurd. You obviously have absolutely no idea what the scientific method .....

Based on what?
Your baseless assertions have fill several manure carts thus far.
You just throw one temper tantrum after another.

Get real....................WE WERE TALKING SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Think about it YOU made the claim. I simply asked you to provide some specific support. How does that lead to me not knowing the scientific method?

You are the one having issues with the reasoning. If that is not part of the scientific method then you are the one at fault.....because..............you made the claim.

I was very specific about a part of the scientific method. The assumptions and the givens. THAT IS A PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. You claimed that the assumptions of the BGV did not match reality. I simply asked you to SHOW me. How could you possibly call that proselytizing?

BE FAIR

 

[skepticalbip]

This has become absurd. You obviously have absolutely no idea what the scientific method .....

Based on what?
Your baseless assertions have fill several manure carts thus far.
You just throw one temper tantrum after another.

Get real....................WE WERE TALKING SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Think about it YOU made the claim. I simply asked you to provide some specific support. How does that lead to me not knowing the scientific method?

You are the one having issues with the reasoning. If that is not part of the scientific method then you are the one at fault.....because..............you made the claim.

I was very specific about a part of the scientific method. The assumptions and the givens. THAT IS A PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. You claimed that the assumptions of the BGV did not match reality. I simply asked you to SHOW me. How could you possibly call that proselytizing?

BE FAIR

You are still offering fucking red herrings. I never said the assumptions of BGV did not match reality. I said that the question is if they do in fact reflect the real universe. The same question applies to the assumptions of CCC. We can't know if the assumptions of one or either apply to the real universe until the implications of the models are tested and verified or shown that they don't.

Does Guth's inflationary universe idea reflect the real universe? It was offered to explain a specific problem in the BBM and many cosmologists have pointed out several problems with that inflationary period idea. Guth's inflationary universe idea creates some real serious problems for the BBM that did not exist before his idea offered a solution for one problem. The BGV mathematical model is offered assuming that Guth's inflationary universe idea is actual fact.

You will never get out of that forest unless you first realize that you are lost.

ETA:
The scientific method is to first realize that we don't know and then thinking of several possibilities and testing each of them to see if one of them is valid. Once verified it is added to what we know and used to try to think of possibilities to be tested to understand the next unknown.

The religious method is beginning with a firm belief that is taken as a known truth then looking for anything that could maybe support that belief while rejecting any evidence that does not.