How can we know... "The Universe"

[VVilliam]

How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?

[Age]

How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?

Through the ACTUALLY EVIDENCE and PROOF that EXISTS.

By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' NOR 'created', Itself.

To even imagine either was true is just ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL.

[VVilliam]

How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?

The Universe was neither 'created' nor'created', Itself.

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

[Age]

How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?

The Universe was neither 'created' nor'created', Itself.

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

LOL Are you joking here?

What, so called, ACTUAL "evidence" do 'you' see that the Universe "had a beginning"?

And, who and/or what are the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

[VVilliam]

The Universe was neither 'created' nor'created', Itself.

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

What, so called, actual evidence do you see that the Universe had a beginning?

I only refer to evidence. I do not know what you mean by adding 'actual' as it implies there are more than 1 type of "evidence" or - perhaps - that the evidence we do see, is misinterpreted by us.
The evidence do we see has to do with that which can be examined.

Putting that evidence together we see that the universe appears to have had a beginning. It is commonly referred to as "The Big Bang" but whatever it was, appears to show us a beginning point.

What do you say? That the universe has always existed?

If it has, then I would think it would always be unchanging and in a perfect state at that.

[Age]

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

What, so called, actual evidence do you see that the Universe had a beginning?

I only refer to evidence.

LOL. As said by EVERY person when 'TRYING TO' "justify" their unsupported and unsubstantiated CLAIMS.

I do not know what you mean by adding 'actual' as it implies there are more than 1 type of "evidence" or - perhaps - that the evidence we do see, is misinterpreted by us.

AND, if you NEVER ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION regards this, then you will also NEVER KNOW thee True, Right, and Correct answer.

The evidence do we see has to do with that which can be examined.

LOL This is one of many ways to 'try to' DEFLECT.

You made the CLAIM that what 'we' (whoever or whatever that 'we' is) "do see EVIDENCE that the Universe had a beginning".

I am asking you for what 'evidence' is there that 'you' do see that the Universe had a beginning?

If you do NOT provide ANY 'evidence', then this speaks VOLUMES.

So, you can either now keep 'trying to' DEFLECT, or, you can now just provide the 'evidence' that you HAVE.

Putting that evidence together we see that the universe appears to have had a beginning.

Again, who and/or what is the 'we' here? And, you better NOT have 'me' included in that 'we', because if you do, then you could NOT be any further from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Again also, "putting WHAT 'evidence' together"? There is absolutely NO use in saying, "we have evidence" but then NEVER putting that 'evidence' forward for us to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

'you', people, who FOLLOW and WORSHIP "science" act just like the EXACT SAME as those people who FOLLOW and WORSHIP "religions". For one example 'you' BOTH CLAIM that, LOL, "there was a beginning", but then when asked for (actual) 'evidence' of this, you BOTH revert back to the old saying, "it is written in the book".

LOOK, for either of you different worshiping, following, and copying peoples, if you want to CLAIM some 'thing' is true, then I suggest you have the (actual) EVIDENCE and/or PROOF that backs up and supports YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make the CLAIM/S in the FIRST PLACE.

I do this, so I wonder WHY 'you', people, will NOT?

Also, now claiming "appears" to have had a beginning is VERY DIFFERENT to your previous claim that, "What we do see is evidence that the Universe HAD a beginning.

"APPEARS TO HAVE a beginning" is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DIFFERENT from "HAD a beginning". So, saying one has "the 'evidence' for what APPEARS to be the case" is very different from saying one has "the 'evidence' for what IS the case". But a great deal of 'you', human beings, COMPLETELY MISS these subtle and subliminal MESSAGES in the words, sentences, and claims that you make and use.

Besides all of this the EVIDENCE that I SEE shows 'me' that the Universe did NOT and in fact even could NOT have had a beginning. And, in fact, this can even be PROVEN to be True, Right, and Correct.

It is commonly referred to as "The Big Bang" but whatever it was, appears to show us a beginning point.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of ANOTHER human being who is only able to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from what they have been TOLD by "other" human beings, in spoken and/or written words. These people of "religious" and of "scientific" FAITH and BELIEF just BELIEVE what they are TOLD, without ANY further investigation. This, VERY SADLY and VERY UNFORTUNATELY occurrence, was a VERY COMMON trait among the adult human being population, in the days of when this was being written.

What do you say? That the universe has always existed?

YES. And THANK YOU VERY MUCH for a CLARIFYING QUESTION.

If it has, then I would think it would always be unchanging and in a perfect state at that.

WHY would 'you' call an 'unchanging state' a "perfect state"?

Also, WHY would you think that an ALWAYS EXISTING Universe would "always be unchanging"? And, could there even be an 'always' in an 'unchanging state'?

By the way it is also GREAT to get to SEE and HEAR those thoughts.

[VVilliam]

What, so called, actual evidence do you see that the Universe had a beginning?

I only refer to evidence.


I do not know what you mean by adding 'actual' as it implies there are more than 1 type of "evidence" or - perhaps - that the evidence we do see, is misinterpreted by us.

The evidence do we see has to do with that which can be examined.

You made the claim that what 'we' (whoever or whatever that 'we' is) "do see evidence that the Universe had a beginning".

I am asking you for what 'evidence' is there that 'you' do see that the Universe had a beginning?

Well I mentioned the "Big Bang" Theory , which is based on interpretation of evidence so far collected...

But my question is "How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?"

Your answer to that question is "Through the actually evidence and proof that exists." which is my answer as well.
But then you made the claim "By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' nor 'created', Itself."

Yet you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.

So is your head too far up your own butt that you only taste your own stuff and claim "it is good!"?

Because the rest of your comments provide evidence that this is the case.

[Age]

What, so called, actual evidence do you see that the Universe had a beginning?

I only refer to evidence.


I do not know what you mean by adding 'actual' as it implies there are more than 1 type of "evidence" or - perhaps - that the evidence we do see, is misinterpreted by us.

The evidence do we see has to do with that which can be examined.

You made the claim that what 'we' (whoever or whatever that 'we' is) "do see evidence that the Universe had a beginning".

I am asking you for what 'evidence' is there that 'you' do see that the Universe had a beginning?

Well I mentioned the "Big Bang" Theory , which is based on interpretation of evidence so far collected...

But my question is "How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?"

This last sentence here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of attempted PURE and UTTER BLATANT DEFLECTION.

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which OBVIOUSLY is just an ASSUMPTION or a GUESS about what took place. And, just as OBVIOUS is ALL 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be COMPLETELY or PARTLY WRONG. Also, you make the CLAIM now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far. Now, before 'you' 'try to' DEFLECT to FAR AWAY, my question WAS and STILL REMAINS, 'What 'evidence' are you referring to, EXACTLY.

See, what you are SHOWING and REVEALING here is that you do NOT EVEN KNOW what the 'evidence', supposedly, IS. You are just CLAIMING there is 'evidence'.

Once you start providing thee 'evidence', then 'we', readers, can start LOOKING AT and SEEING if that, supposed and alleged, "evidence" actually aligns with what you and others have CONCLUDED from 'it'.

Also, as to YOUR QUESTION above here,"How can we know if the universe was created or that it created itself?", I have ALREADY PROVIDED the following response to it;

Through the ACTUALLY EVIDENCE and PROOF that EXISTS.

By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' NOR 'created', Itself.

To even imagine either was true is just ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL.

Your answer to that question is "Through the actually evidence and proof that exists." which is my answer as well.
But then you made the claim "By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' nor 'created', Itself."

Yet you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.

LOL NO one has asked for ANY. Therefore, NO one has shown ANY interest AT ALL in the 'evidence'.

And what makes this even far more humorous is I have EVEN ASKED YOU for the 'evidence', which you CLAIM exists, but you have FAILED ABSOLUTELY in providing ABSOLUTELY ANY.

So is your head too far up your own butt that you only taste your own stuff and claim "it is good!"?

Because the rest of your comments provide evidence that this is the case.

You can INTERPRET ANY 'thing' ANY way you like. This has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on 'me', NOR ABSOLUTELY ANY EFFECT on what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

By the way, you just CLAIMED that you have PROOF that the Universe 'began'. So, WHERE, EXACTLY, is this PROOF?

[Age]

Look "vvilliam", I suggest you make just ONE CLAIM ONLY, stand by it, AND, provide the EVIDENCE and PROOF, which backs up and supports that CLAIM.

Until then you are NOT saying ANY 'thing' of worthwhile here. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?

[Scott Mayers]

The Universe was neither 'created' nor'created', Itself.

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

LOL Are you joking here?

What, so called, ACTUAL "evidence" do 'you' see that the Universe "had a beginning"?

And, who and/or what are the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

If you want to get technical, I challenge you to prove the concept of infinity, given you presume this is somehow so intuitively true by some 'evidence' you think you have.

Set theory has to POSTULATE (ie,...'assumed' before one can argue correctly). This is an issue I think you are ignorant about and has put so much distance between you and others including myself when discussing anything with you.

So before you 'assume' you are correct in your own head, demonstrate how you can make sense of infinites BETTER than finites. "Beginnings" can be argued against but NOT without assuming "No beginnings or ends" [finites] exist. To NOT assume, you have to accept that both are possible. We have both of these as 'evident' to some degree. But BOTH have to be postulated when setting up a means to reason. And given further that many (especially here) cannot dare to attempt to negotiate how to argue in the same way, political/religious views are the number one factor that forces us to require AGREEMENT to assumptions set before any argument can be effective. And your own insistence of things as so obvious to you only makes it difficult to 'negotiate' postulates given you yourself are 'assuming' yourself as impossible to be incorrect about your interpretation about when or where assumptions are needed.

Here is a definition of infinity that is itself one of the best used but still has its contradictions:

"A set is 'infinite' if it is a set equivalent to a PROPER subset of itself."

"Equivalent" in this definition is about the count of members of a set. So if you have ANY set that has three members, for instance, all such sets are 'equivalent by cardinality'.

{boxes, Shakespeare, turnips} is (cardinally) equivalent to {X, y, z}

Normally, any 'subset' includes the whole. A "proper subset" means that it cannot include the whole but has to be something 'less' than the whole.

So Infinity is defined in a way that can be contradicted because it MEANS that...

Infinity = Infinity minus at least one.
(whole)...(proper subset)

So to assert there is no beginning, if this definition is given (as it is for set theory), you should be able to see why this too is as potentially contradictory. How can some whole be exactly its part simultaneously? Infinity without prior set theory is "undefined", like when you study highschool algebra until you get to more advanced math. And THAT is decided so that they can minimize the assumptions. You cannot evade assuming on this because it is also the same problem the distinguishes the conflict between Relativity and Quantum theories. Both are 'true' ON THEIR ASSUMPTIONS.

I'm hoping this helps you understand the problem is more complex than you seem to think. I happen to agree to NOT assuming Big Bang singularities for the fact that we cannot know what could "exist" before time since 'exist' implies time is needed. But this recognition does not mean that 'beginnings' CANNOT occur on the absolute scales, like Totality. It would just require finding terms that people AGREE to by rule of Assumptions among those arguing.


"Assume" means (and has etymological roots as such)...."as YOU, so it is with ME". Think "as- u- me"

[Age]

If that is the case then we should see evidence of that.

What we do see is evidence that it had a beginning.

LOL Are you joking here?

What, so called, ACTUAL "evidence" do 'you' see that the Universe "had a beginning"?

And, who and/or what are the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

If you want to get technical, I challenge you to prove the concept of infinity, given you presume this is somehow so intuitively true by some 'evidence' you think you have.

FINALLY. After how many years now someone has come forward to say they will CHALLENGE 'me'. THANK YOU "scott mayers".

Firstly, how could ANY 'prove' the concept of ANY 'thing', to some one "else"? Are you able to explain this?

If no, then what EXACTLY is it you EXPECT from me here now?

But if yes, then great, and will you?

Secondly, I do NOT 'presume' what you CLAIM here.

Now, I will provide A ' concept of the word 'infinite' '. A quick search and A definition for the word 'infinite' is; limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Now, I am NOT sure how I could PROVE the 'concept of infinity', but this is ONE ' concept of the word 'infinite' '.

So, if you are now able to conceptualize this definition of the word 'infinite' with and in relation to the word 'infinity', then we could move along. However, if you can NOT, then we will just be STUCK here.

Would you like to SEE if 'we', 'you' and 'I', worked together, if we could come up with an agreed upon and accepted view/concept of what 'infinity' would look like in relation to the Universe, Itself?

If yes, then GREAT. Let us do this.

However, if no, then you will, once again, remain STUCK here.

If you would like to SEE if we BOTH TOGETHER could come up with an agreed upon and accepted workable concept of the word 'infinity' here now, then would you like me to start or would you prefer to? Either way is of absolutely NO concern to me.

By the way and also, when you stated;

given you presume this is somehow so intuitively true by some 'evidence' you think you have.

this comes across, well to me anyway, as though you believe that I could NOT POSSIBLY have some 'evidence'.

Now, if this is the case, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE carrying on. This is because of the OBVIOUS FACT that while you are BELIEVING THIS, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could be SHOWN to you, which would SHOW otherwise.

So, your Honesty is NEEDED here now. Do you BELIEVE that there is NO 'evidence' at all for an infinite Universe, or, are you OPEN to the FACT that there just might be?

See, if you can NOT even accept a FACT is True, then there is NO hope of coming to a RESOLVED CONCLUSION.

Set theory has to POSTULATE (ie,...'assumed' before one can argue correctly). This is an issue I think you are ignorant about and has put so much distance between you and others including myself when discussing anything with you.

WHAT EVIDENCE and/or PROOF is THERE that an "assumption" is NEEDED before one could 'argue' correctly?

What does the word 'argue' here even mean to you?

Also, I have ABSOLUTELY NO CARE NOR INTEREST AT ALL in 'theories'. 'Theories' do NOT LOOK AT and what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth IS. They only just LOOK AT what is ASSUMED and/or GUESSED to be true. 'Theories' can ALWAYS be WRONG, or FALSIFIED. So, so called, "set theory" is of NO importance NOR of ANY concern to me here.

So before you 'assume' you are correct in your own head, demonstrate how you can make sense of infinites BETTER than finites.

LISTEN, and SEE if you can HEAR THIS;

I am NOT 'assuming' I am correct in my own head. That is YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE that I am doing this. And, like ALL ASSUMPTIONS, your assumption here OBVIOUSLY means you COULD BE COMPLETELY, or partly, WRONG. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?

Also, unlike 'you', human beings, here who are basing your CLAIMS on 'evidence', I am basing my CLAIMS on ACTUAL PROOF, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT be WRONG, and which I could and would PROVIDE, when ASKED FOR.

I will repeat this AGAIN. I am NOT here, in this forum, to PROVE ANY thing, anyway. So, I only EXPRESS what is been SORT OUT and/or what has been SHOWN CURIOSITY ABOUT in regards to my CLAIMS. I am here more so to learn how to communicate with 'you', human beings, more effectively so that I could EVENTUALLY SHOW and PROVE what I will be SAYING, and CLAIMING, is True.

"Beginnings" can be argued against but NOT without assuming "No beginnings or ends" [finites] exist.

This is my WHOLE POINT, WHY would you even want to 'argue' over some 'thing', which you still do NOT YET EVEN KNOW if 'it' is True, Right, and Correct or NOT?

I will ONCE AGAIN 'suggest', INSTEAD of ASSUMING that there ARE or ARE NOT ANY 'beginnings' or 'ends', WHY NOT just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Now, if 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, have LOST the ABILITY to do this, then that is VERY SAD INDICTMENT on the way adult human beings bring up and raise the young of the species.

SEE, ALL of 'you', human beings, HAD the ABILITY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' HOW THEY ACTUALLY ARE. But sadly, throughout your childhoods you get taught to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' NOT how they ACTUALLY ARE, but how they are EXPECTED or are ASSUMED and/or BELIEVED to be. You are and were taught to ASSUME how the Universe IS and works, but NEVER taught how to just LOOK AT It and SEE It for how It ACTUALLY IS and for how It ACTUALLY WORKS.

To NOT assume, you have to accept that both are possible.

Is this just ANOTHER ASSUMPTIONS of yours ONLY here? BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DO NOT do what you CLAIM here I do.

If ANY one wants to Truly CHALLENGE 'me', then we will SEE IF can SAY what I want to EXPRESS without AN ASSUMPTION at all.

You have LOST ME when you said, "I HAVE TO ACCEPT that BOTH are possible", and when you said, "We have BOTH of these as 'evident' to some degree."

What is the word BOTH in relation to EXACTLY?

LOOK it is this SIMPLE. I can SHOW what I want to, without HAVING TO 'ASSUME' ANY thing which you ASSUME that I HAVE TO.

I do this by SHOWING what ACTUALLY EXISTS along EACH step of the way, and just keep moving along. This is done without ANY ASSUMING AT ALL along the way.

But BOTH have to be postulated when setting up a means to reason.

This is YOUR ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTION, ALONE. Understood?

And, if you BELIEVE what you are saying here is TRUE, then this is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of what happens to a human being when they BELIEVE some 'thing' is TRUE. That is; they are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED to ANY 'thing' other against or contrary than to what 'it' IS that they ALREADY BELIEVE.

And given further that many (especially here) cannot dare to attempt to negotiate how to argue in the same way, political/religious views are the number one factor that forces us to require AGREEMENT to assumptions set before any argument can be effective.

WHY would you even BOTHER to 'argue' if you are just going to ASSUME what is TRUE, in the beginning?

I will ONCE AGAIN suggest that 'in the beginning' neither ASSUME nor BELIEVE ANY 'thing' and just remain COMPLETELY OPEN. This way it is then POSSIBLE to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Here is AN IDEA, how about just 'TRYING IT' and just SEE what ACTUALLY HAPPENS? Is this REALLY to much to ASK FOR?

And your own insistence of things as so obvious to you only makes it difficult to 'negotiate' postulates given you yourself are 'assuming' yourself as impossible to be incorrect about your interpretation about when or where assumptions are needed.

How about we take out ALL of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here and let us LOOK AT this AGAIN.

Just MAYBE I am NOT 'ASSUMING' ANY 'thing' AT ALL because I ALREADY HAVE thee ACTUAL PROVE NEEDED. Could this, in the WHOLE of the Universe, JUST BE A POSSIBILITY, to you?

Here is a definition of infinity that is itself one of the best used but still has its contradictions:

What are the words "best used" here in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

"A set is 'infinite' if it is a set equivalent to a PROPER subset of itself."

This thread is ABOUT 'the Universe', so here is a SUGGESTION, How about we LOOK AT the word 'infinite' in RELATION TO 'the Universe', Itself, instead of to some 'set', WITHIN the Universe. What do you think about this idea?

"Equivalent" in this definition is about the count of members of a set. So if you have ANY set that has three members, for instance, all such sets are 'equivalent by cardinality'.

Or, we can do this YOUR WAY, and just ADD layer upon layer of COMPLETE and UTTER UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY.

We WERE talking about 'the Universe', which to describe 100% ACCURATELY is about one of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'things' in Life to do. However, 'you', adult human beings, hitherto to the days of when this is being written, seem, for lack of better wording, "hell-bent" on making what is ESSENTIALLY Truly SIMPLE and EASY, COMPLEX and HARD.

{boxes, Shakespeare, turnips} is (cardinally) equivalent to {X, y, z}

IF you REALLY WANT to discover or learn, and UNDERSTAND, IF the Universe is finite or infinite, then ALL you REALLY NEED to do is just START with what you KNOW EXISTS, and keep moving along.

Now, if ANY one wants to LEARN HOW to ACTUALLY DO THIS, then just let me KNOW and I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to be of assistance.

Normally, any 'subset' includes the whole. A "proper subset" means that it cannot include the whole but has to be something 'less' than the whole.

When I talk about the Universe, which is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT, then I refer to the WHOLE.

So Infinity is defined in a way that can be contradicted because it MEANS that...

Infinity = Infinity minus at least one.
(whole)...(proper subset)

THEREFORE, there WAS ABSOLUTELY NO USE AT ALL to even BEGIN LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT 'infinity' in the WAY that you WANT TO LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT INFINITY here.

If there is A CONTRADICTION, which YOU, "yourself", have CREATED but can NOT EVEN RESOLVE, then BEST, I SUGGEST, 'you' just MOVING ON COMPLETELY.

So to assert there is no beginning, if this definition is given (as it is for set theory), you should be able to see why this too is as potentially contradictory.

YOU ARE JOKING HERE, RIGHT?

You provide some muddled up and completely mixed up version and definition for one word, and then SUGGEST that I "should be able to SEE what you do". LOL.

What I have ACTUALLY OBSERVED and can ACTUALLY SEE is a COMPLETELY UNIFORMED and VERIFIED CRYSTAL CLEAR VISION, with ONE CONTRADICTION NOR CONFLICT AT ALL.

And, I suggest that if you can NOT YET SEE 'this', then you STILL have some more LEARNING to do.

How can some whole be exactly its part simultaneously?

Do you KNOW what would actually help YOUR BELIEFS and, so called, "arguments" here?

If you PROVIDED some examples, then that would help SHOW what you are TRYING TO say or suggest here.

Has ANY one EVER said that the WHOLE is EXACTLY its part, simultaneously?

IF ANY one HAS, then I SUGGEST 'you' take this up with "them". Okay?

Infinity without prior set theory is "undefined", like when you study highschool algebra until you get to more advanced math.

I do NOT even UNDERSTAND kindergarten "algebra" (if there is even such a thing), let alone high school algebra or high school ANY 'thing'. IN FACT I would NOT even KNOW what 'algebra' itself is, without LOOKING 'it' up.

But, one does NOT even HAVE TO GO to high school, primary school, kindergarten, or even pre-school to LEARN and UNDERSTAND WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by you?

Maths is NOT even needed to UNDERSTAND the Universe, Itself.

Some understanding of one of the countless languages used by 'you', human beings, is ALL that is NEEDED to LEARN and UNDERSTAND about thee Universe, Itself.

And THAT is decided so that they can minimize the assumptions. You cannot evade assuming on this because it is also the same problem the distinguishes the conflict between Relativity and Quantum theories. Both are 'true' ON THEIR ASSUMPTIONS.

LOL But there is NOT even an ACTUAL 'conflict' between the two.

There is ONLY A CONFLICT because of the WRONG and DISTORTED MISINTERPRETATIONS 'you', human beings, MAKE and SEE.

I'm hoping this helps you understand the problem is more complex than you seem to think.

1. There is NO ACTUAL 'problem' in Life, other than the 'problems' that 'you', human beings, literally, make up and construct.

2. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'complex' in Life, other than the 'complexity' that 'you', human beings, literally, make up and construct.

Take out these FALSE BELIEFS that you HAVE, and then you will FIND 'things' become FAR MORE SIMPLER and EASIER for 'you' ALL.

[/q
I happen to agree to NOT assuming Big Bang singularities for the fact that we cannot know what could "exist" before time since 'exist' implies time is needed.

BUT LOL 'you' are ASSUMING that there was even A BEGINNING to begin with.

WHEN will 'you', adult human beings, STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what COULD BE true, and START LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY True?

But this recognition does not mean that 'beginnings' CANNOT occur on the absolute scales, like Totality.

WHY do you use the words "absolute scales" now as though this is NOT what is being referred to when DISCUSSING TOPICS about the Universe, Itself?

It would just require finding terms that people AGREE to by rule of Assumptions among those arguing.

LOL ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG ASSUMPTION.

I suggest when you STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and especially STOP MAKING these obviously LUDICROUS ASSUMPTIONS like this one IS, then you could START have REAL and True 'logically reasoned' DISCUSSIONS.

Now, IF you want to SEE if I can back up and support MY CLAIMS here, then let us PROCEED.

But you appear to ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here, correct?

If I am correct here, then tell 'us' what that Truth IS, and then PROVE it.

[VVilliam]

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which obviously is just an assumption or a guess about what took place. And, just as obvious is all 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be completely or partly wrong. Also, you make the claim now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far.

Yes - I agree. That is specifically why I ask 'HOW can we KNOW?"

Someone claimed that the universe created itself, so I STARTED THIS THREAD so that there was a place in which the personality could SHOW the EIVDENCE so any such evidence could show US that it is the case that the universe created itself.

I myself don't KNOW how we can KNOW either way. I take it you agree with this too?

[VVilliam]

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which obviously is just an assumption or a guess about what took place. And, just as obvious is all 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be completely or partly wrong. Also, you make the claim now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far.

Yes - I agree. That is specifically why I ask 'HOW can we KNOW?"

Someone claimed that the universe created itself, so I STARTED THIS THREAD so that there was a place in which the personality could SHOW the EIVDENCE so any such evidence could show US that it is the case that the universe created itself.

I myself don't KNOW how we can KNOW either way. I take it you agree with this too?

[Age]

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which obviously is just an assumption or a guess about what took place. And, just as obvious is all 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be completely or partly wrong. Also, you make the claim now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far.

Yes - I agree. That is specifically why I ask 'HOW can we KNOW?"

HOW we can KNOW is by LOOKING AT irrefutable PROOF and NOT just AT 'interpretations'.

Someone claimed that the universe created itself,

LOL Did they?

Who was that?

And PROVIDE the PROOF, and NOT just the 'interpretation', that this was the case.

What MIGHT BE DISCOVERED and SEEN is that what 'you' 'interpreted' is ACTUALLY Wrong and Incorrect.

But until you provide THEE PROOF for YOUR CLAIM, then we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to LOOK AT and GO ON to DISCUSS.

so I STARTED THIS THREAD so that there was a place in which the personality could SHOW the EIVDENCE so any such evidence could show US that it is the case that the universe created itself.

Are you REALLY this BLIND?

MY FIRST RESPONSE to you in this thread CLEARLY STATES;

By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' NOR 'created', Itself.

So, HOW did you get "created itself" out of this?

Also, and do NOT FORGET, that it was YOU who CLAIMED that;

What we do see is evidence that 'the Universe' had a beginning.

And LET ME REMIND YOU, I asked you to PROVIDE the EVIDENCE for this. Which you have CLEARLY OBVIOUSLY have NOT DONE. And this is because the FACT IS you can NOT do this.

I myself don't KNOW how we can KNOW either way.

What part of;

Through the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF that EXISTS.

Can you NOT comprehend AND understand?

How it is ALREADY KNOWN that the Universe was NOT 'created' and did NOT have 'a beginning' IS through the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF that ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Are you REALLY SURE you do NOT KNOW how 'you', human beings, can KNOW 'things'?

PROOF makes 'things' KNOWN, FOR SURE.

I take it you agree with this too?

LOL

ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS which is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG.

How many more are you going to make before you realize you are much better of NOT making ANY assumptions AT ALL?

[VVilliam]

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which obviously is just an assumption or a guess about what took place. And, just as obvious is all 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be completely or partly wrong. Also, you make the claim now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far.

Yes - I agree. That is specifically why I ask 'how can we know?"

How we can know is by looking at irrefutable proof and not just at 'interpretations'.

Is there any example of the irrefutable proof that you or anyone is able to give to us to look at?

Someone claimed that the universe created itself,

Did they?

Yes.

so I started this thread so that there was a place in which the personality could show the evidence so any such evidence could show US that it is the case that the universe created itself.

By the way, the Universe was neither 'created' NOR 'created', Itself.

What does that mean? That it always existed?

Does it also mean that it will always exist?

I myself don't KNOW how we can KNOW either way.

How it is already known that the Universe was not 'created' and did not have 'a beginning' is through the actual evidence and proof that actually exists.

Well the universe does actually exist as something which can be experienced as reality, but how is that evidence that it has always existed? Is there something specific [yet still unmentioned], which we cannot deny as incontrovertible evidence that shows it wasn't created and did not have a beginning?