|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The interval from 1939 until 2009 as measured by time based on the rotation of the earth taking 24 hours to complete a revolution and the earth taking 365 1/4 days to circle the sun constituting 1 year means that the interval was 70 years. Time is a concept of man which he uses to try to explain existence in an eternal existence. OK. If there was no man, if there was no Sun, if there was no Earth orbiting the Sun - Would other components of the universe still move, change etc. etc. Would time not still exist?
Are you saying time is physical. If it is what is it made of? Is gravity physical? What is gravity "made of"? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
From past conversations with ICANT I am under the impression that he considers time specifically to be simply mans measurement of the Earth going round the Sun. etc. etc. He seems to think it has no meaning that is seperate from us as God's creations or whatever. Hopefully he can clarify his exact position.
Is "time" not a symbolical word created by MAN that is defined by man? Regardless of mans existence the universe has evolved. That requires "time" in some sense. You really need to realise that reading posts of others talking to ICANT involves a history that you are generally unaware of. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What is gravity made of? No one knows. Since it is not physical it must be something man constructed. So gravity is a physical force that isn't physical. Hmmmm.
If there was no observer there would only be eternal existence. Would things change? In my opinion they would exist as they have existed for eternity past eternally into the future. How pointlessly poetic. In the absence of humanity would things move? You cannot have motion (i.e. change) without time. Are you saying that time is a purely human construct with no physical basis independent from us? Or not?
Is time physical? It is as physical as length is.
Now would you like to answer my questions? Would you like to answer mine? As per Message 237. Your entire EvC campaign for years has been based on your objection to the universe having an uncaused "beginning" on the basis of such a thing never having been observed. Yet, even ignoring your various misapprehensions of modern cosmology, it turns out that your stated alternative has no more observational basis than the thing you are relentlessly railing against. Even by the internal logic of your own misinformed argument you are applying selective logic to get the result that is philosophically desirable to you. And in doing so you are denying reams of evidence regarding the evolution of the universe. Evidence that has little to do with T=0 or any of your other conflations and distractions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: My personal opinion is that the universe has always existed eternally in some form. ICANT writes: I have argued and continue to argue that and uncaused beginning to exist can not take place. If something begins to exist that means it did not exist before beginning to exist. For that to happen 'some thing' must come from 'no thing'. Which brings us back exactly to what I said in Message 237. Even if we completely disregard your relentless misapprehensions regarding modern physics your whole position is founded on evidentially baseless personal philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. You agree that neither "eternal infinity" nor "something from nothing" are observed phenomenon (again I use your terms and your definitions). So on what basis are you claiming that one is superior to the other? You have no basis other than personal incredulity. Yet on the basis of this personal incredulity alone you go on to 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Which brings us back exactly to what I said in Message 237. Even if we completely disregard your relentless misapprehensions regarding modern physics your whole position is founded on evidentially baseless personal philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. You agree that neither "eternal infinity" nor "something from nothing" are observed phenomenon (again I use your terms and your definitions). So on what basis are you claiming that one is superior to the other? You have no basis other than personal incredulity. I notice that you don't actually dispute this. You have decided what it is you want the conclusion to be and then desperately sought round for anything that you think is consistent with this predefined conclusion. Classic back to front creationist methodology. Do you accept that the universe is currently expanding?Do you accept the age of the universe as in the region of 13-15 billion years old? Do you deny these conclusions, conclusions derived from evidence, based on your philosophical preference for an "infinite eternal" universe? So no it is not me denying the measurements but fellows a lot smarter than me. Now you may know more than they do. Ah I see. If people agree with your baseless personal bias then they are smart. But if many many many many more physicists disagree with you they are simply deluded and in denial. Why do you think the position in your link is not widely held? Is it a scientific/atheist conspiracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I will answer no more questions from you until you give me the courtesy of answering my question I have ask over and over. The answer to your questions is basically "I don't know". In addition others have repeatedly wasted their time attempting to provide you with better answers than I could ever give you anyway. But all of this is a distraction from the internal flaws in your position. Internal flaws which have nothing whatsoever to do with modern physics.
I will answer no more questions from you until you give me the courtesy of answering my question I have ask over and over. You don't really need to answer any more questions. We have established beyond all doubt that your whole position is founded on evidentially baseless personal philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. As per Message 237. You have decided what it is you want the conclusion to be and then desperately sought round for anything that you think is consistent with this predefined conclusion. Classic back to front creationist methodology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It looks like you guys are getting tripped up on whether or not time and space are "physical." Could you clarify what you mean by this? I have no idea what ICANT means by "physical". This is what he says about gravity:
ICANT writes: What is gravity made of? No one knows. Since it is not physical it must be something man constructed. By the broadest of definitions I suppose that by "physical" I mean materially detectable by empirical methods of investigation. But all of this is a distraction, a relentless distraction that ICANT has frustrated EvC members with for years, from the internal flaws in his position which have nothing really to do with his misapprehensions of modern physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What has the physicality of time got to do with "ICANT'S position in the creation debate"? We have established that in ICANT world there are two possibilities (still using your definitions and terminology).
1) Either the universe had an uncaused "beginning" from "nothing".2) Or the universe is "infinite and eternal" Both are equally unobserved by the definitions you have supplied. Yet you reject 1) on the basis of this not having been observed and embrace 2) on the basis that it is consistent with your personal philosophical bias. Despite this never having been observed either. We really do not need to explore modern cosmological concepts to examine your position. We just need to see that you deny various observations regarding the evolution of the universe, observations that have little to do with T=0, based on your evidentially baseless philosophical bias. Your numerous misapprehensions of modern physics are a side issue and a distraction from your actual position. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
First, nothing is 'made of fields'. Fields are simply that which exists - nearly all facets of existence are the result of differing values in the fields. Then you have to qualify what you mean by space and time. The length of space and time intervals between events in space-time are defined by values in the metric field. So the fact that Andromeda is 2.2 Mlyrs away, but my front door is only 5m away is simply the difference in the respective sets of values in the metric field; much as having a hydrogen atom rather than a helium atom, or even empty space, at a point is simply the difference in values of the relevant fields. How does the expansion of the universe work in terms of the fields concept? Is there "more" of the field? Is there the same "amount" of the field just more "stretched"? Does any of this even make any sense? My ignorance is too substantial to phrase the question properly but I guess what I am asking is how the concept of a spacetime/metric field works in conjunction with expansion? What is happening to the field as expansion occurs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Again I will stick to your definitions and terminology to expose your flawed internal logic. Your numerous misapprehensions of modern physics remain a largely unnecessary distraction.
ICANT writes: The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing. So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist? OK. And this you say you base on the observation that we have never witnessed "something from nothing".
Straggler for the sake of argument writes: The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist. So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist? Now can you explain to me on what observational basis you choose one of these statements as obviously true whilst the other as obviously wrong? Do you have a vast array of examples of objects that are "eternal and infinite"? Do you have one example? Your entire argument remains an exercise in philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. We don't even need to touch on modern physics to expose this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It wasn't "lifted" from anywhere. I wrote it in response to your claim:
ICANT writes: The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing. So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist? And to make my point I wrote :
Straggler for the sake of argument writes: The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist. So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist? So by the terms and definitions you have supplied (terms and definitions that have litttle to do with modern physics) can you tell me why you accept your statement as true based on observation but my statement as false based on observation? How many eternal infinite things with no "beginning" have you observed such that you find this answer to be so much more evidenced than the one you have been repeatedly and relentlessly railing against for the past couple of years? Or is your preference simply one of philosophical bias?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How could a finite being observe anything with no beginning unless it is the universe. You cannot. How can anyone witness something come from nothing given that even the vacuum of space is "something"? We cannot. Thus both concepts as defined by you are equally unevidenced and equally unable to be evidenced.
So far as I can tell you are the only person that has put forth that the universe had an uncaused beginning. Er no. In this thread I am not putting forward anything with regard to cosmological models. I am simply exploring the internal logic of your long standing position using your definitions and your terminology. We seem to have established pretty comprehensively that your preference for "eternal infinity" over "something from nothing" is the result of philosophical bias alone. Your preference has nothing to do with any evidential basis for or against either conclusion. Now if you can get past your philosophical bias and look at the actual physical evidence you may come to realise that neither "infinite eternity" nor "something from nothing" as you have simplistically defined these terms are sufficiant answers to the problem at hand. You may come to realise that terminology like "beginning", "cause", "eternity" and "infinity" cannot apply in the way that you relentlessly, stubbornly and erroneously insist on applying them. You may come to realise that people like Cavediver, Son Goku, Onifre, Lyx2no and numerous others have genuinely tried to educate you about possible answers to counter-intuitive, common-sense-defying problems. You may come to realise that evidence rather than philosophical bias is the driving force behind such arguments.
"Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist." That statement stands true as no scientific evidence has been produced yet, and we are at 289 posts. Or I may come to realise that I am a desperate optimist and that you are a lost cause. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Time is the measurement of duration which the units we have devised declare. Time only exists as that which describes a period of duration to us. So time as you and I know it would not exist. Would existence as my pet rock perceives existence still exist? The elements of your rock would still decay at the same half life rate whether humans are there to measure that or not. So yes your pet rock would "experience" time. But what bearing does the nature of time have on your flawed and logically inconsistent position with regard to "creation"? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Just as I thought none exists. Much like the evidence for "eternal infinity" huh? Yet you are very willing to spout that conclusion as the answer to life the universe and everything. If ever you get past your philosophical bias and are willing to look at actual physical evidence and the answers this might suggest let us know.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024