Physicist define time by atomic events such as an atomic clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element. So by this definition of time if there is no atoms or physical stuff for atomic activity, then there is no basis for defining this kind of time. So when saying “When the stuff of the universe first existed is the first moment in time” is just a statement of this kind of time. An argument achieved by just stating the definition is a Rhetoric Tautology. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.
Tautology (rhetoric) , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
This is just what Carroll did in the quote below. He has formulated an unfalsifiable argument on which he can make the “popping into existence any physical stuff” sound not so implausible. Since by this kind of time there is no atomic or energy events before the atomic or energy existed one can just we do not need to worry about how they came into existence because by this definition of time there is no time before they existed.
Carroll - “Again, I tried to explain what makes the universe different but more importantly the phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it because there’s no before the beginning, if there’s a beginning. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time. When you say it that way it doesn’t’ sound so implausible.”
Scientist are not supposed to promote unfalsifiable arguments.
If there is something else besides physical stuff that caused the physical stuff to come into existence, then I do not see any reason why this non-natural something could have sequential events so a time could be defined by it’s sequential events and this time would be related to atomic time by the time when it caused the physical stuff to come into existence.
Hinrichs Webpage http://home.roadrunner.com/~rrr33/homepage.html
What Carroll did was posit an unprovable maxim that fits a one possible model. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have an absolute beginning. It proves that it potentially may not have had an absolute beginning. Actually that's not true. The universe, by very definition of the term is defined by everything in it. So he shows that a model exists were there was something prior to the universe. But that doesn't negate cosmology, it kicks the causal can down the road. One can always asked "What caused it?", because by definition it's not uncaused. Carrolls argument is weak. That is why he had to start talking about social justice and homosexuals and such non-sense based on stereotypes of Christians. If his argument had any real teeth, he would not have to have resorted to tactics. The argument alone would suffice.
Exactly - the most logical start point for the universe is the big bang, just because cosmology cant yet fully explain how it happened doesnt change the fact that the big bang has most evidence and is most plausible etc, even if the bb was altered in some way, the start will remain the same , meaning that Our universe came into exist- its own time and space.
The Atheists may as well say they were actualy never born because that sperm and egg they were made from never had a begining .
Why bother useing the word Born, why bother having a date of birth ? since clearly its not the start is it , oh no, thats just so illogical.
Then you get the evoloutionsists whinineing about species is just a man made term forall specie s are really the same.
They are continullly trying to dumb down stuff to suit themselves , and havent even got a clue of the fires they start, worse still, ive yet to see any credible arguement for why its ok to start blurring lines and making non sense of the world .
There big bang nit pick with the kca is a fallacy for their convenience, its just a childish nit pick, made worse by the fact that they would rather support other theories such as multiverse , which wouldnt even change the start of our own universe any way.
The list is endless with them, one minute they cry about evidence is important next minute they support a no evidence at all stance ,
Atheism should have sheer lunacy in its defintion.
