Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24372)	7/5/2006 7:48:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"It said the universe reached gumball size after a trillion-trillionth of a second. That's a tiny number, but it's not the beginning. I can't say how many steps there are from this point to the beginning, but the math that describes this point is not stable so there had to be at least one step preceeding it. I have never disputed your evidence, I have only challenged you to validate your claim that it proves a beginning of time. I am perfectly comfortable with the possibility of time having a beginning or having an eternity, I simply challenged you to prove your initial claim, which btw did not start off with links to the big bang explanation. That came later in the discussion, and even later came your tiny number preceding it, and no matter how tiny you go you still have the same problem. Here is the start: You (post 24144): "There was a beginning to time, so I don't see why there won't be an end." Me (24160):Interesting. You've got proof of that beginning??? Then lots of water under that bridge since. But it has been a productive discussion up till now where you seem to be checking for back doors.