To PAUL 1355

#5)Talking about infinite time..

Your talking about William Lane Craig against the infinity (in time) of the universe:

He stated: "The argument states that the universe could not have existed an infinite amount of time since (by nature of the infinite) an infinite amount of time can never have passed. An infinite amount of time already passed is clearly a contradiction".

But here is where he messed up; Allow me to explain

Assume we have a line extending in both directions to infinity. Place two points on that line, and measure the distance.

To measure time (or space) we can not measure it, without defining two points on the (time) line, to measure the interval. Since the line itself is infinite, we can place the points wherever we want.Yet, wherever we place the two points, the measured distance between them is always finite. This however is in no way in contradiction with the fact that the line is infinite, since wherever we place our two points, we could always place the points further apart and achieve a greater distance, which clearly shows the line is infinite.

An infinite line does by definition not have a beginning. From the fact that the line is thought to be infinite follows, that there isn't a point which is the begin of the line. So in other words, we can not have put our point there in the first place. And wherever we place our two points, the distance between them (the measure of time) is always a finite number.

Mathematician Jeffery Shallit also agrees with me, "He notes that, presuming an infinite past, an infinite amount of time having already past implies an infinite chain of events having taken place. Fine so far. Next, he tries to claim that an infinite chain of events having taken place is impossible. A person might find that hard to grasp because an infinite chain of events would take too much time - but that is exactly what was originally proposed, an infinite amount of time in the past. Craig has not shown a contradiction or impossibility in the system, he has merely displayed a cognitive prejudice".

A big bang singularity wouldn't contradict any conservation laws because it represents the foundation of the universe and thus the foundation of those laws. There is no "other side" of the singularity, to represent a starting point from which the universe issued. All we have is a universe that we can trace back to a singularity and no further. The singularity is the beginning of time itself. Questions about a cause of the universe are simply misconceived.

But if you don't like the theory in regards to a singularity, would you prefer we discussed this in terms of Quantum mechanics, string theory, and M theory next?

And just on another note I do understand these theories my minor in college was Physics. I majored in Psychology because I wanted to help my fellow Army veterans coming home from Iraq.