|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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. 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. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024