-->
@ebuc
I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok? Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested.
I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok?
Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested.
I accept that the laws of physics apply to our local (observable) physical universe.
Now you just have to demonstrate that they apply outside/before the universe if outside or before are even applicable words.
Unfortunately to do so you would have to be able to observe conditions outside/before the universe and humans cannot do so.
It doesn't matter if it is a logical common sense observation based on our current understanding of our local (observable) universe because logic combined with incomplete or inco6data can produce incorrect conclusions.
Take this syllogism.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to whatever came before the big bang
The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed
All energy that makes up the universe must exist eternally.
Perfectly logical but the first premise has not been demonstrated.
Your still confused. Cosmic = Universal = everywhere and everywhen.
There is no reason to think we have observed more than a small fraction of what exists
so arguments concerning what exists every where and every when are by necessity purely conjecture.
Your logic is not flawed your available information is just insufficient.
It is a structural flaw in your argument. Perhaps you should reformulate the argument to eliminate this flaw and we ccx an try again.
When you say that something exists eternally you are making a claim.
Claims require a burden of proof.
Yoir claim concerns things outside the local observable spacetime.
You cannot directly observe the unobservable so you assume that it resembles what has been observed.
This is logical and based on common sense. It is also beyond our epistemology.
I would consider it a personal favor if you stopped referring to the very humble admition that there are things we cannot be certain of and that this is one of them as egotistical behavior. That is nonsense.
We say this to each other a lot. Let me try to say it differently. If you see butterflies for the first time in a field and all of them are blue you can logically infer from your observations that all butterflies are blue. Based on only your current observations and nothing else that ou s not an illogical assumption. The problem is that you have not seen all butterflies.Huh? You have lost me again.
It's called a metaphor.
If you don't understand metaphors and I don't understand your blocks of symbols we may be in trouble.
My sentiments also, for 20 or more years. The only purpose of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe is that which humans apply to itThere is no meaning in the universe save that which is projected onto the universe by humans. I consider meaning to be something that must come from within, not without. It is up to us to choose a purpose and decide why we are here. It's a daunting prospect.
Well how else can I say it. You said the cosmos is eternal and there is no way to know.
The laws of thermodynamics may well break down in the time before the big bang.
I understand thermodynamic law we just don't know if it works outside the local observable physical universe.
If you want to have a conversation address this first. If you don't want a conversation then leave me alone. I'm good either way but I do not have to accept your claims without evidence.
This is my exact point. We have no evidence that there was a time before the big bang or even if before is even a sensical term to use.you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning any "time before big bang".