--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's > > > > > > declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. > > > > > > > > > > Judy > > > > > Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe > > > > > had a beginning, actually. > > > > > > > > > > I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing > > > > > my mind. Although the universe in its present form is > > > > > thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, > > > > > the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been > > > > > contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity > > > > > that existed before the big bang. > > > > > > > > It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably > > > > thinking of Time as a backdrop "within which" the Big Bang > > > > happened. e.g. "the inconceivable density of the singularity that > > > > existed before the big bang". > > > > > > > > But there is no "before the Big bang". Time itself emerged (is > > > > that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I > > > > understand it. > > > > > > Yup, that's what they say. > > > > Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! > > > > PaliGap, > > > 1.> But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say "This is the way I > understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present > > method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'". > > But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for > > not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to > > ask "what's north (on the globe) of the north pole?"> > > According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his > mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying > it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines > that there is no need for a God. > > IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a > quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human > beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. >
Don't understand your point John. What's anything got to do with his being quadraplegic?
