Says the voice of reason.<quoted text> Well we have nothing to go on to even approach a model for t=0 and prior. So you can come up with whatever name you like but it won't be any more useful than calling it "God" until we have a way of probing that kind of event.
<quoted text>Nice that you came to the middle more. That's where openmindedness thrives.
I don't save much on my computer at all; no links but I think it was on the Intelligent Design thread; you remember that one?
Anyway, I'm not totally convinced he knows physics any better than I know chemistry but even if he is the genius he seems, his problem is that he is stuck inside of models (mostly mathematical models), and models are contrained by arbitrary parameters due to the limit of our senses and instruments. When he debates he takes these arbitrary models and uses them like they were some source of absolute knowledge or that reality is absolutely described by these models when we haven't the slightest clue how close they are to true reality. Just because a model cannot accomodate an "outside" doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm not arguing that there is or isn't an outside, only that everything we know today could become obsolete and even meaningless if we ever discover enough to create a big enough paradigm shift. We can't limit ourselves to models. Reality is what it is not what we make it.
Now sing me a lullaby.:)