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 11:17 PM
259 online now:
(259 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
...
1415
16
1718
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 226 of 687 (521746)
08-28-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by cavediver
08-28-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

Can you honestly read this and not see the gaping hole in your understanding? How can you say "time did not exist until after the universe began to exist." What does the word "after" mean in this context?

What does my understand have to do with what my position is?

My position is that you got to have both for the universe to exist.
I think you would agree with that.

Now the sticky part. The universe can't exist without time. Time can't exist with the universe.

You tell me how both can begin to exist without Metaphysics being brought into play.

I have continually ask in this thread for the scientific evidence of facts that prove how the universe began to exist.

None has been presented so far.

If your answer is still "We don't know" I can accept that.

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 220 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:04 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by cavediver, posted 08-29-2009 6:19 AM ICANT has responded

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


Message 227 of 687 (521749)
08-28-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by cavediver
08-28-2009 6:13 AM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
cavediver,

cavediver writes:

I'm not talking about the origin of the time dimension (T=0), which most would point to as a moment of creation.

Would our undertanding of time not change if string theory is theorized? I think so...

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:13 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by cavediver, posted 08-29-2009 6:33 AM Sasuke has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 228 of 687 (521750)
08-28-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
08-28-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT,

ICANT writes:

experience time

Entropy, change, and decomposition are physical properties of time. Time measures these qualities and as such that is the major issue with T=0. You can experience all three of these properties via experience or death. If you are an old man you should be well aware of the affect of time. When was the last time you had a physical? I still think you are aware of these variables but you just like to argue.


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 9:05 PM Sasuke has responded

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


Message 229 of 687 (521751)
08-28-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by lyx2no
08-28-2009 1:05 PM


Re: Information please
lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:


The distance between two objects is not made of a material as one understands materials

What about the very fabric of space?

Edited by Sasuke, : add - clarity


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 1:05 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

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


Message 230 of 687 (521753)
08-28-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Perdition
08-28-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Information please
Perdition,

I missunderstood your point at first. Bump this msg.

Edited by Sasuke, : mistake


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 PM Perdition has not yet responded

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


Message 231 of 687 (521754)
08-28-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Sasuke
08-28-2009 8:50 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Sasuke,

Sasuke writes:

If you are an old man you should be well aware of the affect of time/

At 70 I am well aware of the effects of the passing of time.

But I have never experienced time.

I can only experience now.

If I fall asleep it is now. When I wake up it is now. For some reason it is always now.

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 228 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:50 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 9:11 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 232 of 687 (521756)
08-28-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ICANT
08-28-2009 9:05 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT,

however your memories of your wife, your kids, lost loved ones, and so on should def remind you of change, entropy, death, all properties of this symbolic meaning "time".

------

ICANT,

ICANT writes:

At 70 I am well aware of the effects of the passing of time.

But I have never experienced time.

This is contradictory in nature. Are you mad?

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 9:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 9:37 PM Sasuke has responded

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


Message 233 of 687 (521761)
08-28-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Sasuke
08-28-2009 9:11 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Sasuke,

Sasuke writes:

however your memories of your wife, your kids, lost loved ones, and so on should def remind you of change, entropy, death, all properties of this symbolic meaning "time".

Well all I have to do to remember my wife of 52 years is get up and walk about 20'.

But really all those things you talk about is the effects of passing time, which is a lot of now's, or should I just say existence, as that is what it is.

ABE No thrilled to exist.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : answer missed question


"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 232 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 9:11 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 9:46 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 234 of 687 (521762)
08-28-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ICANT
08-28-2009 9:37 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT,

ICANT writes:

But really all those things you talk about is the effects of passing time, which is a lot of now's, or should I just say existence, as that is what it is.

How is passing existence in the now? why has your body changed? how are you 70?

I will agree with you that the word "time" is an invention of man. However the concept of TIME is the best "model" if there is such a thing that conceptually is a better understanding of things that were and are, esp from a measurement perspective.

Edited by Sasuke, : word change..

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 9:37 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 10:53 AM Sasuke has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 235 of 687 (521776)
08-29-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
08-28-2009 6:10 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT writes:

I prefer time exists.
The universe exists.
Space exists.
The earth exists. Whether there is life on it or not.

All of that equals eternal existence.

so because time exists, it is eternal.

That isn't logical, and you're not being consistent - first you were adamant it was a property of the mind, now you've changed tack and are asserting things that don't make sense.

Sorry, my point still stands, and unless you've got something constructive or useful to say it's pointless me to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 6:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 236 of 687 (521784)
08-29-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by ICANT
08-28-2009 7:29 PM


Re: Information please
You tell me how both can begin to exist without Metaphysics being brought into play.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but even if the Universe is only finitely extendable into the past, it still never "began" to exist. You are fixated on arguing against this strawman notion of having nothing then having something. But this is impossible, for to be able to speak of this ordering (nothing then something) you require something, namely a framework for this ordering. This contradicts your assumption and thus makes your arguments meaningless. There has never been nothing, there has always been something, even if that something is only finitely extendable into the past.

I appreciate that many cannot get their heads around this far-from-obvious fact, and admit that they are out of their depth.

Your problem is that because you do not understand, you assume it is incorrect, and proceed to ignore this as you have been doing for the past two+ years.

The universe can't exist without time.

Well, I wouldn't agrre with that, but I guess I can agree to the sentiment for the purposes of this thread.

I have continually ask in this thread for the scientific evidence of facts that prove how the universe began to exist.

Well, given that the Universe never began to exist, you'll be waiting a while. T=0 is a point where the Universe changed form, grew out of some background, was born out of some collision within higher dimensional space, or is just possibly a finite limit to existence in that direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 7:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 10:06 AM cavediver has responded

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


Message 237 of 687 (521785)
08-29-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
08-28-2009 3:28 PM


Re: Internal Logic
If I have to I will claim that faith in an eternal infinity is a lot easier that faith that 'some thing' came from 'no thing'.

Again I will go along with your definitions and terminology in order to examine your internal logic. Given that you seem to agree that neither "eternal infinity" nor "something from nothing" are observed phenomenon on what basis are you claiming that one is superior to the other?

You have no basis other than personal incredulity.

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

Tell me how you get something "eternal and infinite" with no beginning in the sense that you have described?

You deny the observed expansion of the universe, you deny the validity of specific measurable prediction regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background, you deny reams of physical evidence - All because you have an evidentially baseless philosophical disposition towards "eternal infinity" over "something from nothing".

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:28 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 238 of 687 (521787)
08-29-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Sasuke
08-28-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Would our undertanding of time not change if string theory is theorized?

More or less. Much depends on what you mean by string theory, as there are various ways of viewing its implications, and it has changed noticably in the past fifteen years as M-theory has come to dominate. The biggest changes will come as we begin to understand what lies behind M-theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:37 PM Sasuke has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 239 of 687 (521797)
08-29-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
08-28-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Information please
That was not the question. And is not an answer but a question.

You are correct, it was, in fact, a rhetorical question designed to point you into the wind, as it were.

I stated time is a concept of a man. I came to that conclusion because, as I said I can not observe, touch, taste, smell, hear, or even experience time.

[rhetoric] So, you don't experience time, ey? Then if I say wait a minute I can instantly pop out or wait 17 years and you'd not notice any difference? I somehow doubt the sincerity of your position; have you thought it out at all? [/retoric]

So what part of time do you measure distance with?

You're going to have to convince me that you're not being intentionally perverse on this one.

If time is a property of the universe, time did not exist until after the universe began to exist. That makes things kinda messy.

Tensile strength is a property of steel: I have in my hand a steel, toe nail clipper. Where does the tensile strength begin: Just outside the body of the clipper; at the body of the clipper; or some short distance into the body of the clipper? Not messy at all.

But no time is not important to me as I live in a universe that exists in an eternal now. It has a thing we call time that is a concept in the mind of man. A tool invented by man to measure intervals and duration by a system that is based on the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun.

Important to you is not a standard of regard. My toe nail clippers are likely of little interest to you and yet retain their tensile strength.

Man is the only creature that carries a watch or is concerned with time.

Don't feed your dog on time and an see if he doesn't experience time.

So let's see, Now you got a universe that can not exist without time, and you got time that can not exist with a universe. We are back to circular reasoning.

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when someone depends upon argument "A" to defend Argument "B" and depends upon argument "B" to defend argument "A". Where does the color of a crayon begin: Just outside the body of the crayon; at the body of the crayon; or some short distance into the body of the crayon? There is no property of your argument that can turn the end of my straight, unbended crayon to meet in a circle, Buzzsaw, ICANT.

What does my understand have to do with what my position is?

If there is a correlation I have yet to discover it.

If I fall asleep it is now. When I wake up it is now. For some reason it is always now.

If you haven't noticed you're also always "here". Have you not experienced space either?


Nice Great post, lyx2no...

Thanks again, cavediver.

Hmmm...is it not?

"Materials" are simply collections of values in the quantum fields (quarks, electrons, photons, gluons, etc.) "Distance" is simply a collection of values in the metric field. The quantum fields and the metric field, in most schemes, are facets of a unfied field. So time, distance, and stuff is all the same! Cool, huh?

I'm going to have to stand by my qualifier " as one understands materials" and further qualify "one" to mean "me". My understanding of QM is often studied by seismologist. But very cool.


こんにちは sasuke

What about the very fabric of space?

My understanding of the fabric of space is that of a metaphor. As I delve into QM that is subject to change, I'm certain. But as of now, and not some eternal now, but the real now,


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 11:08 AM lyx2no has responded

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


Message 240 of 687 (521807)
08-29-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by cavediver
08-29-2009 6:19 AM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but even if the Universe is only finitely extendable into the past, it still never "began" to exist.

You don't have to convince me the universe never began to exist.

You have been totally flustrated trying to convince me it can be finite into the past and not begin to exist from 'no thing'.

I have from 10 years old believed the universe has always existed in some form. I think that was one of the first statements I posted on this web site and have posted hundreds of times.

cavediver writes:

You are fixated on arguing against this strawman notion of having nothing then having something.

That strawman as you call it is the Standard Big Bang Theory. It requires the universe have a beginning. That is the reason Christianity accepted the BBT when it was put forth.

cavediver writes:

There has never been nothing, there has always been something, even if that something is only finitely extendable into the past.

"There has never been nothing". You did not say time when there was nothing.

Then you say: "if that something is only finitely extendable into the past."

Now that don't make sense as the latter contradicts the former statement.

cavediver writes:

The universe can't exist without time.

Well, I wouldn't agrre with that, but I guess I can agree to the sentiment for the purposes of this thread.

So go along to get along. Don't rock the boat you might get a little water in the boat.

All the universe has to have to exist is existence.
That existence has to extend infinitely in all directions.
If it does not then it had to begin to exist.
If it began to exist it had to have a cause to exist.
If it did not have a cause to exist then it began to exist from 'no thing'. Which you say is impossible and I agree.

cavediver writes:

I have continually ask in this thread for the scientific evidence of facts that prove how the universe began to exist.

Well, given that the Universe never began to exist, you'll be waiting a while.

The truth of the matter is the evidence does not exist as you pointed out.

It never will exist.

I knew that before I started the thread. But there are so many here that are willing to spout their belief of their evidence that has proved the Genesis 1:1 account of creation to be false I thought I would give them a place to present said evidence.

As you can see none has been presented.

cavediver writes:

T=0 is a point where the Universe changed form, grew out of some background, was born out of some collision within higher dimensional space,

Now we move into metaphysics which levels the playing field.

I would like to read your thoughts on those things if you ever decide to come out of the closet. (closet pre-Big Bang believer)

I was reading some of the old discussions last night where you said we need a theory to replace the BBT. Also where you said when talking about the BBT you just slide right on by it into the Hartley/Hawking no boundary universe.

So, how about it care to share.

If doing so would cause irreparable harm just give me three laughs in front of idiot and I will understand.

I would like and explanation how you can say:

"T=0 is a point where the Universe changed form, grew out of some background, was born out of some collision within higher dimensional space,"

or

"is just possibly a finite limit to existence in that direction".

Without believing 'some thing' can come from 'no thing', as that is the only possibility. There is no other alternative. Or Is there?

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 236 by cavediver, posted 08-29-2009 6:19 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2009 6:57 AM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
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