Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-16-2018 12:26 AM
283 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,326 Year: 15,149/29,783 Month: 1,093/1,502 Week: 91/492 Day: 5/49 Hour: 5/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 196 of 687 (521553)
08-27-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by cavediver
08-27-2009 4:28 PM


Re: Re:Math
cavediver,

This is a difficult concept for me to accept. On one hand I will agree that math in a sense has always existed, example h20 has 2 h and 1 0 to form a molecule of water, but this idea would also infer that there is an coherent intelligence behind the way the universe operates. On the other hand I would have to disagree because chemical reactions do not require there to be a mathematical understanding to symbolically represent them to man or anything else. On the hand where I disagree I will also have to say that math is purely a tool that is used by MAN to calculate and communicate information to MAN. So I think it is better understood to say that chemical reactions have always existed however man USES math to understand those chemical reactions. Hence a tool was created, "MATH" to better understand and account for information but also to communicate that information to people who can understand the "math"...

In short, it is an argument to say math has always existed, this concept is not a fact.

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 4:28 PM cavediver has not yet responded

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


Message 197 of 687 (521557)
08-27-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rahvin
08-27-2009 6:00 PM


Re: Information please
Rahvin,

I am not sure that he doesn't understand the analogy. I think he is just trying to get through to you his perspective and chooses to argue rather than communicate, directly(hence i disagree and the like), that he disagrees.

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2009 6:00 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

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


Message 198 of 687 (521576)
08-28-2009 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by lyx2no
08-27-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

All that Birds before plants stuff is later.

I guess you are too busy with school to read posts. Because I covered that Here

I have heaven and earth first.
Then man,
Then plants,
Then animals, and fowls
Then woman,

So no I don't get plants and animals mixed up.

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 195 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 8:59 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

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


Message 199 of 687 (521583)
08-28-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by lyx2no
08-27-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
cavediver writes:

so every point in space and time, past present and future, can equally be regarded as the point and moment of creation.

What I mean by creation here is "divine" creation - I'm not talking about the origin of the time dimension (T=0), which most would point to as a moment of creation. If I construct a ruler, I don't bring it into existence at the 0cm mark, I just make the whole ruler. If i asked, which point on the ruler is the point of creation, you would reply "huh?". Same here. T=0 is as much a point of creation of the Universe, as the 0cm mark on a ruler is its point of creation. Make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 8:59 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 8:23 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 227 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:37 PM cavediver has responded

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


Message 200 of 687 (521601)
08-28-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
08-27-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Re:really really
ICANT writes:

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.


wait, what? ...the creation myth was written to explain how the world came to be (not actually the universe as such). Nobody used it to "prove" how the world was created because, well, either they believed the myth or they believed another myth...until about 100 years ago when this idea of biblical literalism surfaced and suddenly there were a bunch of people determined that the bible be affirmed as a literal account.

As for alternative theories explaining this 3k radiation - when I searched for the term, I found a creationist website as the first link and a pseudo-scientist who didn't like the big bang. That doesn't bode well for it's scientific value as a theory.

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

for the expanding universe, proof it expands is just that...proof it expands. Some people say that it therefore had a beginning that was billions of years ago (and present evidence for that - it's certainly got more going for it than an arbitrary value of 6000).

Whether space/time folds back in a "big crunch" or expands forever and ends in heat-death, I think the jury is still out. Expanding forever and not running out of energy appears to be a big "no", but that still doesn't have anything to do with the bible.

How the universe began is an awesome question, and I don't think I can accurately explain how it came to be from a non-time non-space non-place.

From what I can tell, vaccuum fluctuations exist (things that were not, suddenly are, and then suddenly are not again - this leads to phenomena such as negative energy). One such vaccuum fluctuation happened about 13 billion years ago (from our viewpoint) and exploded, resulting in...us. I guess it could happen again.

There's a lot more to it than saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and that's the difference between your story, and a working theory.

If you want to say that the bible genesis story is an analogy from some lost wise golden age, go ahead, I'd find that more believable, otherwise you're positing a 6000 year old flat earth covered with a domed heaven holding gates which keep floodwaters up there somewhere (we've been in space and not seen the doors or the floodwaters, or do you doubt that too?).

Saying that "god stretched out the heavens" is an analogy at best, unless you tell me the earth is flat and has four corners and pillars and god literally stretched out the heavens like a domed tent...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 7:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 201 of 687 (521602)
08-28-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by cavediver
08-28-2009 6:13 AM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Thanks, cavediaver, I was beating my brains out trying to figure out what I was misconstruing.

HI ICANT

I read every word you write with more un-restrainable glee then anyone's since Buzzsaw left us. And I don't start school till Monday.

You'll note while arguing with you I used the examples of potato salad before picnic tables and hot dog buns in packs of ten and hot dogs in eights. That's because you have a tendency to drag insignificant points into arguments as if they were meaningful. I figured greyseal could deal with "birds before plant" as the details of it weren't important to the point that you, by "creation story", meant the exact, naked instant of creation and not later details of the order of finding and burying acorns.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:13 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:46 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

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


Message 202 of 687 (521648)
08-28-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,

Perdition writes:

The beachball is a representative of time.

I guess therein lies my problem.

I know what a beach ball is. What it looks like. What it is made of.

Other than right now I do not know what time is.

Therefore how can a beach ball represent time when I have no idea what time is.

Maybe some of you bright fellows could fix that and then I could get the picture.

I can not observe, touch, taste, smell, hear, or even experience time.

There is no physical scientific evidence for time.

Therefore time is a concept of man.

Is my conclusion wrong?

Is time a physical thing as put forth in this discussion?

In my opinion it is imperative that we have a understanding of time in order to come to a conclusion concerning the universe and life beginning to exist.

So straighten out my thinking.

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 191 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:57 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 12:13 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 208 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 1:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10205
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 203 of 687 (521650)
08-28-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
08-27-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Internal Logic
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.

So the only difference between your acceptance of infinite eternity and uncaused "beginnings" (using your terminology and your definitions in both cases) is personal incredulity. You don't claim that eiether is any more evidenced than the other.

And on the basis of this incredulity you dipsute the highly observable and predictively evidenced theory that the universe is expanding from a prior hot dense state.

Dude that is a pretty weak position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 6:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:09 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 204 of 687 (521651)
08-28-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by lyx2no
08-28-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi lyx2n0

lyx2no writes:

I read every word you write with more un-restrainable glee then anyone's since Buzzsaw left us. And I don't start school till Monday.

I am glad my musing tickle your fancy and keep you entertained.

Apply yourself in school, learn all you can, then apply all you learn and be all you can be.

Don't waste too much time on us die hards we are too set in out ways to learn new tricks.

But maybe if I live long enough you will be able to present scientific evidence that will prove how the universe began to exist.

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 201 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 8:23 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

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


Message 205 of 687 (521657)
08-28-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Straggler
08-28-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Internal Logic
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

You don't claim that eiether is any more evidenced than the other.

So knock yourself out and explain how a uncaused universe can begin to exist under these terms.

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'

Tell me how you get 'some thing' out of 'no thing'.

Straggler writes:

And on the basis of this incredulity you dipsute the highly observable and predictively evidenced theory that the universe is expanding from a prior hot dense state.

If this wonderful theory that is shored up by hypothesis, fudge factors and more hypothesis is so great. Why are scientist looking for a theory that fixes all the problems this wonderful theory has?

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 203 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 1:27 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 206 of 687 (521659)
08-28-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ICANT
08-28-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Information please
Time is a dimension. It is that which stops everything from happening all at once. Essentially, time is a measurement of change. One could argue that if nothing changed, there would be no time. But, for the instance of this example, the everyday concept of time is good enough.

If you look at a graph and on the X axis is time, and on the y axis is something you want to measure over time, do you stop and say, I don't know what time is so this graph makes no sense to me? If so, I'm sorry for almost anyone you have interactions with.

So, imagine this graph you're looking at has at the intersection of the x and y axes "The Big Bang." That equals the "pole" of the beach ball. Now, on this graph, you draw a line representing the total volume of the universe. I starts at (0,0) "The Big Bang" and gets big very quickly (according to inflation), then levels off a bit, but still gets bigger. This line equals the fact that as you move along the surface of the beach ball, away from the pole and toward the equator, the circumference of the ball gets bigger.

If that's too hard for you to understand, then I'm sorry, but any model of the universe is going to be too hard for you to understand, so you may want to stay out of any discussion that involves a model of the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:57 PM Perdition has responded

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


Message 207 of 687 (521673)
08-28-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Perdition
08-28-2009 12:13 PM


Re: Information please
Hi perdition,

Perdition writes:

Time is a dimension.

If they are the same thing.

Is a dimension a physical thing?

OR

Is it a concept of the mind of man.

If it is a physical thing, what is it made of?

Perdition writes:

Essentially, time is a measurement of change.

Is time a physical thing to measure change with? Just how does time measure anything?

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 206 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 12:13 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 1:11 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 211 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 3:19 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 208 of 687 (521676)
08-28-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ICANT
08-28-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Information please
Thank you for your good wishes, ICANT. I enjoy school immensely and so will put everything I've got into it.

Is length a physical thing? The distance between two objects is not made of a material as one understands materials; so, why should the distance between events be made of a material as one understands materials? If one thinks of length as the distance between objects and time as the distance between events they will both map in the same way in the models. Time is not a concept of man. We merely measure it as we measure distance.

Cavediver's beach ball is also made of nothing. It's imaginary. We imagine line of latitude and longitude upon it's surface to make it easier to name points of space-time so that we can relate them. Cavedivere's model reduces all three dimensions into a single dimesion ring. Any two events on a ring have a time distance of zero between them; and the length distance between them is represented by their separation on the ring.

We are viewing the beach ball from an imaginary fourth dimension. The radii of the rings are writ in the same imaginary dimension. It is not a dimension that translates from the model into the real world. No objects can move through it. No measurements can be made through it.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:49 PM lyx2no has responded
 Message 216 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 4:46 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:53 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

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


Message 209 of 687 (521678)
08-28-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
08-28-2009 12:57 PM


Re: Information please
If they are the same thing.

Is a dimension a physical thing?

As Lyx2no said, a dimension is a measurement of a physical thing, it is not a physical thing itself. Is length a physical thing? Is Width a physical thing? Is height a physical thing? No, they're properties of physical things, much like "red" is an objective thing, but isn't necessarily a physical thing, it's a description/a property/a measurement of a physical thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 4:20 PM Perdition has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10205
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 210 of 687 (521683)
08-28-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ICANT
08-28-2009 12:09 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings?

Again - Using your terminology and your definitions. Where have we observed either?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:28 PM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
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