Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:10 PM
249 online now:
(249 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 181 of 687 (521489)
08-27-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by hooah212002
08-27-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Re:Math
hooah212002

math is an invention of man though which is no different than how language is a invention of man.. They are just different tools for communication... They are both symbolic..

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 1:29 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 3:49 PM Sasuke has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 182 of 687 (521492)
08-27-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Sasuke
08-27-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
If you want to believe the Universe is created, that's fine by me. But if that is case, realise that just as the ball is created as a whole in an injection mould, so every point in space and time, past present and future, can equally be regarded as the point and moment of creation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 3:33 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 3:57 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 183 of 687 (521494)
08-27-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Sasuke
08-27-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Re:Math
2+2 has ALWAYS equalled 2, even before math was "invented". It is the characters used to write/articulate/explain math that was invented.

I would have to say the laws of the universe invented math, if anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 3:36 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 4:03 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 184 of 687 (521499)
08-27-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by cavediver
08-27-2009 3:46 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
cavediver,

I am not wanting to believe anything cept to find out all the different ideas out there.. I think in terms of probabilities.. I am leaning toward god because it is well easier but that does not mean I believe in god..


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:46 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 185 of 687 (521503)
08-27-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by lyx2no
08-27-2009 3:04 PM


Beach Ball Dimensions
To help get around this difficulty we reduce the space-time problem to the two spatial dimensions of the ballon's surface and one time dimension of the balloon's expansion.

Sometimes trying to help only muddies things.

In the current analogy that CaveDiver is using There is only one dimension of space and one of time (since the beach balls surface is 2 dimensional that is all we have to work with).

The space dimension is along lines of latitude and the time dimension is along lines of longitude.

In the more common beach ball analogy space has the two dimensions you describe for the surface of the ball and time is represented by a third dimension as the ball expands when pumped up.

I believe CaveDiver is, in this case, using a better analogy since the universe is understood to exist for all time and all space (all spacetime) all at "once" ("once" being a bit fuzzy here). T=0 is marked as one "pole" of the ball and the end of time as another. But the are both "frozen" and there(existing) just as much as the point in space you occupy is there while a point on the far side of the moon also is still there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 3:04 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 4:21 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 195 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 8:59 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 186 of 687 (521504)
08-27-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by hooah212002
08-27-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Re:Math
hooah212002,

I agree that chemical reactions have always occured. However, since the word math is a symbol and math its self is symbolic, "math" is an invention of man. Our math seems to be a bit off though hence the singularity issue. Eventually our math will change I THINK and so will all the text books... Keep in mind I think we are on the same page its just that there is a communication barrier and the words to explain our thoughts are lacking.


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 3:49 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 4:28 PM Sasuke has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 187 of 687 (521508)
08-27-2009 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by NosyNed
08-27-2009 4:02 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
In the more common beach ball analogy space has the two dimensions you describe for the surface of the ball

To be fair to lyx2no, he is correctly refering to the "balloon" analogy which we understand to represent space as 2d. My earth/globe/ball analogy/model is not so common as to have a "name" but I ensure I don't use a balloon to minimise the confusion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 08-27-2009 4:02 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 188 of 687 (521511)
08-27-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ICANT
08-27-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Re:really really
Hello ICANT, thanks for the welcome.

I'll skip the preamble and get down to the nitty gritty.

The fact is the BBT theory is man's attempt to explain how God created the heaven and the earth as declared in Genesis 1:1.

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

The BBT explains the facts like the cosmic background, red-shifted and blue-shifted stars and galaxies and much more besides.

It is not trying to explain how the universe began to exist.

Weeellll...I'm not a cosmologist, so I'll have to pass on that one. I think it explains what happened right after it began to exist (once the whole time/space shenanigans got started) - as has been said, the "before" when speaking of time? I can't answer that. A competent cosmologist can do better.

Fact 1 the universe exists.

speculation on the nature of reality aside, that's a given

Fact 2 expansion of the universe proves the universe is not infinite in all directions. If it was infinite into the past everything would have expended all energy and the universe would be dark, cold, and dead. It does declare it to be infinite going forward.

woah there Nellie. expansion of the universe proves the universe is expanding. Nothing more. The age of the universe can be estimated based on a number of factors, but it's not quite that easy.

Fact 3 If the universe is not infinite in all directions it had to begin to exist.

now here I'm not competent enough to say, and despite your protestations, neither are you. It's a question which is far more complicated than you think it is (your inability to properly comprehend what is meant by the expansion of at least a three-dimensional space-time matrix along a fourth "axis" of time shows us that - and no, it's rather complicated and I don't get it all either, but I can see where your understanding is not so far along - the assumption that the universe is describable perfectly by a three-dimensional object within said universe is wrong - it's a three-dimensional (at least) object within a four-dimensinal (at least) topology oft called hyperspace...I think...)

that and besides, if the universe were or were not infinite right now, I don't think that proves it does or does not have a beginning.

Fact 4 The book you don't like says God created the heaven and the earth.

I never said I didn't like it, and yes it does. I don't agree with the notion...

Fact 4a Science has no evidence and says nothing of how the universe began to exist. Why do you think everyone wants to say it "just is"? This would come under metaphysics. Which is the only thing Science can put forth as to how the universe began to exist, which carries no more weight than me saying God created the heaven and the earth.

Well now, we're back to "god of the gaps". This "fact" is lame at best - we have lots of evidence which has all been summed up (at least a large portion of it) in the BBT. It's not just an idea, it's got evidence behind it (get what a "theory" is right, kthxplz).

Fact 5 That same book predicted that the universe was expanding over 2700 years ago.

Forgive me, but I don't think it does, or has never been shown to.

Fact 6 The CMBR confirms that prediction.

er, you could be right about the CBR and expansion of the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, but again - it's not confirming anything in the bible.

Fact 7 Since it was stretched out the observations that the universe is lumpy confirms that stretching.

...er...and? Quite apart from me not understanding at all how you got to that fact, it doesn't prove anything, and you haven't proved it.

anyway, if you want to know why science proves the account of Genesis wrong, you'll have to accept that it posits an earth at the centre of the universe which is only 6000 years old. Otherwise you're stuck in an awkward position between literalists, YEC's, OEC's and science which I'm having trouble understanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 2:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 7:56 PM greyseal has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 189 of 687 (521512)
08-27-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Sasuke
08-27-2009 4:03 PM


Re: Re:Math
Our math seems to be a bit off though hence the singularity issue.

That is because our maths is not yet at the level of the Universe's maths. But we're getting closer...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 4:03 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 9:10 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 190 of 687 (521531)
08-27-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by cavediver
08-27-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

There is only the surface of the ball. T=0 is a point on the surface of the ball.

You lost me there I guess it was you rolling your eyes.

I thought the only thing we know that exists at T=O was math that did not work. Because there is a singularity there.

How can that point be on the beach ball when that point is all that there is?

I love the Wikipedia diagram. The first time I saw it I thought it was the most beautiful picture of God streaching out the universe. More beautiful than anything I had ever imagined.

But I don't understand how it represents space expanding in every direction at the same time.

It does represent space expanding directionally away from something and if I remember correctly that something is an instanton.

Regardless of how big or small the universe is at T=10-43 if space begins to expand between every quark, How can it expand as anything other than a sphere?

If everything is contained in that little universe at T=10-43, How can there be a surface as there is no outside?

If everything at T=10-43 was 1 quark thick how can we have a universe?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:11 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:57 PM ICANT has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 191 of 687 (521535)
08-27-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ICANT
08-27-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Information please
The beachball is a representative of time. So, the singularity is the pole of the ball, as it were. Each infinitely small strip around that pole is a snapshot of the universe at a particular moment in time. We are currently in a thin slice around that pole, closer to the equator where the universe (that strip of ball) is larger than it was in previous moment of time. The singularity is on the ball because it is the "starting point" of the universe, and as such, must be represented on a timeline of the universe, no?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 5:41 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2009 6:00 PM Perdition has not yet responded
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM Perdition has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 192 of 687 (521536)
08-27-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Information please
The beachball is a representative of time. So, the singularity is the pole of the ball, as it were. Each infinitely small strip around that pole is a snapshot of the universe at a particular moment in time. We are currently in a thin slice around that pole, closer to the equator where the universe (that strip of ball) is larger than it was in previous moment of time. The singularity is on the ball because it is the "starting point" of the universe, and as such, must be represented on a timeline of the universe, no?

You feel free to bash your head against the wall; maybe you'll make it through this time.

My head still hurts from last time - that Wall of Ignorance is thick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:57 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 9:40 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 193 of 687 (521540)
08-27-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
08-27-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Ignoring the difficulties of modern cosmology and the scientific meanings of tems for one moment - Can you explain to me how "eternal with no beginning" existence is superior in terms of observed phenomenon to an "uncaused beginning"?

Purely in terms of your own internal logic why is one more plausible to you than the other?

Since I am giving my opinion on creation I guess that would be in order.

Eternal existence. Never having to begin to exist.

I can accept that.

Uncaused existence. Beginning to exist where 'no thing' exists.

I can not accept that.

You ask why?

If there is no existence there is 'no thing'

'No thing' is something you have never been able to get you head wrapped around.

'No thing' means exactly that.

There is 'no space'

There is 'no time'

There is 'no gravity'

There is 'no energy'

There is 'no mass'

There is 'no vacuum'

There is 'no quarks'

There is 'no imaginary time'

There is 'no instantons'

There is 'no branes to fluctuate'

There is 'no place for any of this to exist'

Are you beginning to get the idea? There is 'no thing' period.

You want me to believe that out of 'no thing' came 'everything'.

You believe that if you choose to do so.

That is one pill I can't bring myself to swallow.

Can I believe the universe has always existed in some form? Sure.

Can I believe the universe began to exist? Sure

Can I believe the universe began to exist without a cause? Nope.

I hope this clears it up for you as to what my opinion is on the creation of the universe.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2009 3:22 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 194 of 687 (521548)
08-27-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by greyseal
08-27-2009 4:28 PM


Re:really really
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

So why was it around so long without anybody using it to explain how the universe was created. It was around for well over 3000 years before anyone attempted to use it to prove how the universe was created.

greyseal writes:

The BBT explains the facts like the cosmic background, red-shifted and blue-shifted stars and galaxies and much more besides.

I know the CMBR is supposed to be the best support for the BB. But there is a lot of other things in the universe and one of them is said to produce the 3K radiation and it is not the bang. It is Hydrogen.

Everything is not as neat as a lot of people like to put forth.

greyseal writes:

woah there Nellie. expansion of the universe proves the universe is expanding. Nothing more. The age of the universe can be estimated based on a number of factors, but it's not quite that easy.

Are you saying the universe can expand forever and not run out of energy and die a cold death?

greyseal writes:

we have lots of evidence which has all been summed up (at least a large portion of it) in the BBT. It's not just an idea, it's got evidence behind it (get what a "theory" is right, kthxplz).

Sure we have. Read this thread and report back all the evidence you read about how the universe began to exist.

I find "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

I also find Straggler's "it just is".

One is in the field of religion and the other is in the field of metaphysics.

greyseal writes:

er, you could be right about the CBR and expansion of the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, but again - it's not confirming anything in the bible.

The CMBR confirms the universe is expanding.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

God said He spread out the heavens and commanded everything in them.
Looks like God claimed to cause expansion. Thus CMBR confirms that expansion.

greyseal writes:

...er...and? Quite apart from me not understanding at all how you got to that fact, it doesn't prove anything, and you haven't proved it.

The universe is very lumpy. That is the reason inflation is necessary to shore up the BBT. The BBT predicts a smooth universe because the space expands between objects.

If it was streached then there would be places that was empty, and stuff lumped together in other places. That is what is observed.

greyseal writes:

Otherwise you're stuck in an awkward position between literalists, YEC's, OEC's

I am the literalist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 4:28 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2635 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 195 of 687 (521552)
08-27-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by NosyNed
08-27-2009 4:02 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi Ned

Thank you, but the only part of cavediver's model I have a bit of trouble with is when cavediver combines it with the statement "so every point in space and time, past present and future, can equally be regarded as the point and moment of creation." I get that all lines of longitude are equally spatial centers where creation began, but I can't quite manage any point being equally T=0. I'm one of those points and I'm under the impression, maybe wrongly, that temporally I'm 13.7 billion years away from T=0. Or maybe I misinterpreted the statement. It's been known to happen. I'd invite an explanation, but kidnapping ICANT's thread wouldn't be nice. But if I'm right that time is increasing from left to right in the ball model, I like the added benefit of the slope of the cone being able to represent rate of expansion.

ICANT! Read flatland by A. Square (Edwin Abbot) already.

Hello greyseal

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

ICANT's got you on this one. Gen. 1:1 only mentions the interval 0≺t≺td: the instant the Universe came into existence. The BBT doesn't touch it. That's his story and he's sticking with it. All that Birds before plants stuff is later.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 08-27-2009 4:02 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:19 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:13 AM lyx2no has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018