MigL

Tempted to neg-rep your post CharonY, but I was laughing so hard I kept missing the down arrow and hit the up instead.

Define 'beginning'. Of what ??? Geometry is only emergent ( ? ) upon reaching Planck scale/time. Prior ( what does that mean then ? ) to that there is no time or causality ( look up Quantum foam ), so that condition could have had an infinite existence.

Sorry, typing too quick ( at work ). The infinity of real numbers is a higher order of infinity than the infinity of natural numbers. IOW, there are more points between 1 and 2 than can be put into correspondence with 1,2,3,4,5, ... infinity Events can be ordered by assigning a number to them.

No. The wrong or inappropriate math breaks down. No, it can't. Time is one of the 4 dimensions of space-time. Without geometry there is no apace-time. And geometry breaks down at the Planck time ( t=10-43 sec ), or the Planck scale ( see Quantum foam ). So there is definitely a beginning of time unless you circumvent Planck scales by postulating cyclic models. Zeno's paradox ??? There is a greater infinity of points ( yes that is possible ) between the real numbers 1 and 2, than there are real numbers. It must be difficult for you to go from a distance of one meter to a distance of 2 meters, with that infinite number of steps 😃 😄 😂 .

D Trump seems to be extremely envious of B Obama receiving a Nobel. He stooped as low as begging for one and asking ( extorting ) Heads of State to nominate him. So maybe he's just jealous.

If that 'interpretation' is 'true' for you, I'm happy for you. You have found a subjective belief system that makes you content. Don't propose to force that same belief system on us/others, as that makes us discontent. And invalidates your belief system/Bible teachings.

I have no problem with the Bible; I recognize it for what it is. Soooo ... I'm not gonna do anything. But you keep bringing it up at every opportunity ( even when discussing fictitious posters who've been neg-repping you since 2018 ). What, exactly, are YOU trying ( and failing miserably ) to do ?

Ahhh, insults. The refuge of the ignorant and lazy ...

What if the flash you see in the second scenario turns out to be a real knife, and you get stabbed. Maybe both are wrong, and you shouldn't have been walking in that part of town to begin with. The accuracy of 'second guessing' in 'what if' scenarios is misleading.

We don't play here. Again, this is a science forum.

You need to log in to cast votes. If you log in, it shows up as activity. Yet Somebody hasn't had any activity since 2018. How could he/she possibly down-vote you ? You bible-thumpers can't seem to follow a logical train of thought ...

You seem to get a lot of your talking points from ancient texts, such as the Bible, and the Greek ( or Latin or Hebrew ) etymology of certain words, not realizing how, and why, the morals that led to that book, and the meanings of those words have changed over the last couple of thousand years. It's almost like you don't understand our language, and you need to use a translation manual ( the Bible and other old texts ) to understand us. Well, that manual is slightly out of date. Science is no longer a noun, that translates to 'knowledge', it is a verb, that translates to 'searching for knowledge'. The moral of the story ... if you don't understand science, don't try to convert the ideas to ones that make sense to you, instead ask, and we'll explain/clarify. ( don't be embarrassed, that problem is more common than you might think )

Sure, a lot of interesting speculation, based on tales passed down through many generations, that describe things like world-wide flooding, that may have possibly happened locally in the fertile crescent ( or maybe previous epics ), or the parting of the Red Sea and drowning of the Egyptian army, during the time of Cyrus the Great, by a tidal wave generated by the volcanic eruption at Santorini ( ? maybe you know some history but not much geography ). But that is not the history of the Bible. The history of the Bible involves the collection of fantastic stories, such as yours above, which have little to no evidence, and just as much possibility of happening, into a section labelled 'Old Testament', with a newer section based on a composite character seeking Political reform ( under the Roman Empire ) who was labelled Jesus, but does not exist in contemporary writing, and used, first by the Romans themselves, and then by the Church, to control people. Incidentally, I grew up Roman Catholic, and I don't usually contribute to the Religion section of this site. Consider yourself fortunate that I've made a temporary ( quickly tiring of it already ) exception for you ...

Your posts. But we're only interested in discussing certain aspects of the Bible that can be verified through evidence using the scientific method. As I said, we are a science site, not a Religion site. While we might discuss its historical significance such as the morality that the Bible purports to teach, how it is influenced by the times its various texts were written, and how it has evolved over time, we don't discuss concepts such as the 'soul' which cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Perhaps a Religion site might be a better fit for you, as I certainly won't go to a religious site to discuss atomic theory. And, if I did, I would not be welcomed warmly.

I gotta ask ... Given that this is a science site where we may discuss scientific aspects of Religion, and, as you have no interest in discussing science, nor do you think a scientific approach is relevant in religious discussions, WTF are you doing here ???

We call it entropy.

More importantly, why is creationism pushed as an alternative to evolution, which has ample evidence, rather than the process of abiogenesis, which we are still baffled about ? I suspect it is due to some people believing in the superiority of some, as they were 'created in ( their ) God's image', rather than we ALL evolved from lower life forms.

Thanks, but I had enough salad. Where's the meat ?

" Una mattina mi sono alzato O bella ciao, bella ciao Bella ciao ciao ciao Una mattina mi sono alzato E ho trovato l'invasor ... " Catchy tune.

I would think this is obvious, as any belief system can be likened to a religion.

I'm not sure. It could be both. Boundary conditions yes, but the path does determine where the system ends up. Consider a simple Lagrangian involving kinetic and potential energy. If we simplify it to be absent of any kinetic term, you have a test mass on a potential gradient; i.e. a falling mass. The path of the test mass down the gradient clearly indicates where it will end up; at the bottom of the potential well. And all of Newton's laws can be extracted from the Principle and this Lagrangian. A few months back, it may have been @joigus who posted a sample Lagrangian for all the various interactions that would need to be 'considered' for a Theory of Everything.

Everywhere. To us Physics ( and most other science ) guys, any ( not just Religious ) unfounded belief without evidence is extreme ( or excrement ? )

So what exactly does your so called 'theory of everything' attempt to explain ? Because, frankly, I see no predictive capabilities in any of the word salad above.

Reading, but obviously not understanding. A line in a space-time diagram, shows the time taken to traverse a certain section of space; that's why there are two axis. IOW a speed. Ok, humor me. What is it doing right now ? Maybe you shouldn't have left for the last month and a half to do some reading with your 'bag of misconceptions', but stayed to ask questions, and maybe get rid of some of that baggage.

As I hold my laptop to type this, I perceive it to be solid. And If I push against it, I don't see any part of my fingers 'entering' the laptop. Since this is the germination of a theory, should I start formulating a theory of continuous matter ? Or should I make observations, such as an electron microscope pic of individual atoms, that prove matter is 99.99% empty space ?