(May 15, 2013 at 7:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: but it'd be nice if you could at least follow the logic of your own posts, and maybe actually provide us with some evidence as to your bold assertion about evolution... which you have, a week later, failed to do.I'm sorry as I don't have enough time to write in several topics at the same time, it will be in another thread.
Quote:If you went to this point then you must have accepted 2 things:Quote:Do you accept the first part that events had a start?Perhaps. See, I'm not going to make this easy on you, nor am I completely disavowed of the notion that the universe is metastable and has existed in one form or another eternally. I'll accept your premise here for the sake of argument, though, because this isn't the point where you go completely off the fucking rails. That'll come later, and I simply can't wait for it.
So please, continue to explain your "proof."
1- The concept of disjoint
2- The first conclusion that events had a start (we will call it t(0))
Using these 2 premises for the next stage
The universe was either nothing or static before t(0)
After t(0) i.e. t(1) the universe is dynamic not static
Dynamic is the opposite of static
Using the disjoint concept again, u(0) & u(1) are mutually exclusive
without something else to correct the equation
u(0)+G=u(1) i.e. G must change u(0) to u(1)
Which means that G started the first event by either creating the universe from nothing or changing it from something static to the dynamic universe we know now.