Origin of Creation

[OldTrees]

I think scientists would likely get stuck on b

b) Something can come from nothing

because, according to science, nothing does not exist (as in, the state of nothingness, not a vacuum)*. Going by that conclusion, what they at first thought could be 'nothing' is actually something, but when they try to figure out where that came from, they'd get into the eternal(?) loop.

*Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for C), I think: Time is more a concept referring to 'things' than a thing itself.

So of those 3 discoveries you've said they might be limited to, I'm not sure b) is really a discovery.

B was about true nothing. This is not a discovery that has happened yet. (Not sure if it could or would). It was listed as part of all the possible discoveries science could find to the question. False nothing is included in option A. Scientists have made some startling discoveries about time. Including that it does not behave as we laypeople expect.

[Furby]

If we take B to be the accepted theory right now...some 'startling event' as I was told, what, scientifically, is the best explanation at the moment for it?

[Rutarete]

If we take B to be the accepted theory right now...some 'startling event' as I was told, what, scientifically, is the best explanation at the moment for it?

Perhaps infinite regression?

[Furby]

Isn't that what me and trees were discussing lol?

[Rutarete]

Isn't that what me and trees were discussing lol?

It seems to me you two were more discussing a starting point rather than infinite regression.

[OldTrees]

Isn't that what me and trees were discussing lol?

It seems to me you two were more discussing a starting point rather than infinite regression.

That too. The model for an infinite regression is when the "starting" point is at -infinity. However it is possible for a cyclical series of events to either infinitely or finitely regress.

If we take B to be the accepted theory right now...some 'startling event' as I was told, what, scientifically, is the best explanation at the moment for it?

Science has not gotten far enough back to answer. However it is self-evident that IF (there was nothing before the beginning and then there was a beginning) THEN (somehow something came from nothing).

[Furby]

I see.

Also, I wonder if regression can become finite from infinite by using theory of convergence and divergence.

Example: Some graphs, (1/2)^2 actually do converge (actually will result in a finite number).

[OldTrees]

I see.

Also, I wonder if regression can become finite from infinite by using theory of convergence and divergence.

Example: Some graphs, (1/2)^2 actually do converge (actually will result in a finite number).

Convergence would mean we could predict what the hypothetical start point would look like, not when it was. Likewise alternating functions (sine) behave in a predictable manner that can be traced to infinity. However if the hypothetical start point is at infinity then there is no actual start point.

[Furby]

But we know there is one since -infinity means time didn't really start yet...unless you want to call 'infinity' a number instead of the concept behind it.

[OldTrees]

But we know there is one since -infinity means time didn't really start yet...unless you want to call 'infinity' a number instead of the concept behind it.

If time "starts" at infinity (the concept) then it has no start point (requires starting at a number).

[Furby]

Right.

So...I don't know where to go now with this since the math part is pretty much settled. We discussed the 'unknown' event theory, and there is of course the religious theory.

What about those who argue God using evolution?

[OldTrees]

Right.

So...I don't know where to go now with this since the math part is pretty much settled. We discussed the 'unknown' event theory, and there is of course the religious theory.

What about those who argue God using evolution?

Those that argue that God uses evolution are extremely off topic. Evolution takes place long after the origin of creation.