Activity

Saying I can explain the origin of the universe by assuming something with certain physical properties already exists is an oxymoron, if you really cannot see that then we must leave it at that.

I have addressed this. First, we figured out the world was older than 6,000 years, then we worked back to the so-called Big Bang, now we’re trying to figure out how that happened, which is challenging our definition of the word “universe”. I know that. I’m not claiming to be able to present anything other than the next earlier step, the one that came before spacetime. Of course these leave open the question of where did that come from, just like using God as an explanation leaves that door open. We’ve covered this. You are the one who has been asked to “leave it”.

Do you know that you only commented on the summary? You keep referring to it as “the paper”. I wouldn’t expect the linguistics of the paper to answer every question. Regardless, if you are demanding that the only acceptable answer is a fully coherent and tested theory for the origins of the universe, I’ve conceded that point a long time ago. What you haven’t answered is, what does it mean that we don’t know?