Thread
:
Scientific American
View Single Post
#
12
S888Wheel
Posts: n/a
Scientific American
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t
"Powell" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote
Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).
"not existed"... please define existence?
That which exists.
Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?
As in existing.
The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.
You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it
?
You would be correct in that assumption.
I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.
It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).
Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.
Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been wasting my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer. You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?
Reply With Quote
Scientific American