4 ms·
And it’s not much of a stretch. If we assume that an intelligent being can create both TIME and a rapidly expanding UNIVERSE, both of which we don’t fully under
by tango24 8y ago
And it’s not much of a stretch. If we assume that an intelligent being can create both TIME and a rapidly expanding UNIVERSE, both of which we don’t fully understand, is it really that “fringe” for some to believe that our perception of “time” doesn't necessarily have to start at zero?
- AstralStorm 8y agoAssuming that makes everything impossible to prove, therefore unscientific. You can assume whatever you want. It is whether you're willing to question and falsify the belief that is important. Time is a nice label we apply to certain casual sequences. Negative tone is used when describing symmetries in quantum physics or when comparing viewpoints on relativity.
- dwaltrip 8y agoIt's not stating that our perception of time doesn't start at 0. It's stating that god created the universe specifically to look like something it wasn't.
- jrs95 8y agoAlso not a stretch if you already believe he has involvement in human affairs and also goes out of his way to leave no hard evidence of his existence
- dwaltrip 8y agoSeems like a wee bit of a jump to suggest purposeful, direct deception regarding the large-scale history of the cosmos and all of life on Earth.
- jrs95 8y agoWell if you actually buy the all powerful thing, the concepts of effort or complexity don’t really apply
- dwaltrip 8y agoIt's not about effort. It's about all the pieces of the story making sense -- or failing to do so, due to being a human creation that is forced to reconcile with new understanding, especially in cosmology and biology.