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 12:27 AM
287 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
...
1617
18
1920
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 256 of 687 (521966)
08-31-2009 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Minnemooseus
08-30-2009 11:56 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi Moose,

Moose writes:

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.

Here I said:

ICANT writes:

My personal opinion is that the universe has always existed eternally in some form.

I have maintained this position for 60 years. That would cover my existence here at EvC.

That position requires an uncaused universe to be in existence today.

So why would I argue against my own position.

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'.

I got no problem with someone who puts forth any of the exotic possibilities for the universe beginning to exist.

Moose writes:

The prominent exception is that ICANT does seem to subscribe to a literal Noahtic flood somewhere in the past 5000 years.

What's that got to do with my position on creation?

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 255 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2009 11:56 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 5:41 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 315 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-03-2009 8:33 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 257 of 687 (521974)
08-31-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by ICANT
08-31-2009 1:10 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
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 Re: Internal Logic (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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:10 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:36 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 258 of 687 (521994)
08-31-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Straggler
08-31-2009 5:41 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

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.

Don't flatter me by trying to convince me my argument is my personal unique idea when Aristotle was the earliest I can find that held that something can not come from nothing. Therefore the universe had to be eternal.

Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Can something come from nothing?

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

Straggler writes:

Yet on the basis of this personal incredulity alone you go on to deny the observed expansion of the universe,

Actually on the authority of the Bible I declared and announced that God had cause the expansion of the universe by streaching it out. Stating that the Bible declared that over 2700 years ago.

Straggler writes:

you deny the validity of specific measurable prediction regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background,

Here You will find a discussion three proposals for the CMBR.

There are others but they are much younger, after the fact.

You will find the predictions of the group using BBT did not do a good job of predicting the temperature that would be found.

So no it is not me denying the measurements but fellows a lot smarter than me. Now you may know more than they do.

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 257 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 5:41 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 11:37 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 261 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 11:40 AM ICANT has responded

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


Message 259 of 687 (522005)
08-31-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ICANT
08-31-2009 10:36 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Straggler writes:

Which brings us back exactly to what I said in Re: Internal Logic (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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:36 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:45 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 260 of 687 (522006)
08-31-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by cavediver
08-30-2009 6:57 AM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

You haven't a 1% grasp on what we're talking about,

In the message this response was to I quoted you as saying:

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

Explain how something that is finite. Has not always existed:
(When you said always you did not qualify always. Was that a slip?)

Can exist.

Without beginning to exist.

That should bring me up to 1.25%. If not it would help a lot.

cavediver writes:

And what sort of divine inspiration is required to come up with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"??

You will have to ask Moses that question.

cavediver writes:

And you think this is some incredible revelation that is born out by science.

Well no.

I think it is an incredible revelation that science was born out of.

There are those trying to prove it happened like Moses said. And others trying to prove it happened some other way.

Look at all the benefits that resulted in-between.

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 253 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2009 6:57 AM cavediver has not yet responded

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


Message 261 of 687 (522007)
08-31-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ICANT
08-31-2009 10:36 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
icant writes:

You will find the predictions of the group using BBT did not do a good job of predicting the temperature that would be found.

From what I can gather, the BBT predicted 3.5K +- 1K

Indeed, they saw approximately that. I fail to see the issue here?

Saying that the big bang theory falls or flies based purely on the temperature estimate (which they got correct in any account) is not how it's done - you take into account many other facts which the established theory needs to take account of.

Failing ALL facts being accounted for, the one which accounts for most of them in a consistent way is generally considered "the winner" until something better comes along.

Crowing that the big bang theory didn't get an arbitrary measurement "as correct" as some other measurement when the observed measurement was within said theory's margin of error isn't that impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:36 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 12:07 PM greyseal has responded

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


Message 262 of 687 (522008)
08-31-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Straggler
08-31-2009 11:37 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi Straggler,

I will answer no more questions from you until you give me the courtesy of answering my question I have ask over and over.

Those questions are:

Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Can something come from nothing?

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

Have a nice evening,

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 259 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 11:37 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 12:04 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 263 of 687 (522010)
08-31-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by ICANT
08-31-2009 11:45 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
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 Re: Internal Logic (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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 264 of 687 (522013)
08-31-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by greyseal
08-31-2009 11:40 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi greseal,

greyseal writes:

Crowing that the big bang theory didn't get an arbitrary measurement "as correct" as some other measurement when the observed measurement was within said theory's margin of error isn't that impressive.

Straggler was putting forth that I out of my ignorance was putting forth that the Cmbr was wrong.

There are three theories of what produced the CMBR discussed in that paper with one being superior to the other two. The superior one was not the one based on the BBT.

All I am pointing out is that scientist have questioned the source of the CMBR.

There are others but they were not before the CMBR was discovered.

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 261 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 11:40 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 4:38 PM ICANT has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 265 of 687 (522014)
08-31-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler
08-30-2009 7:13 AM


Re: Information please
quote:
quote:
Is time physical?

It is as physical as length is.

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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2009 7:13 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 12:16 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:27 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 266 of 687 (522018)
08-31-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Information please
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 12:08 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 267 of 687 (522026)
08-31-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Information please
Hi kbertsche,

kbertsche writes:

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?

Physical= anything that is made out of particles or waves.

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 265 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 12:08 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 2:37 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 272 by lyx2no, posted 08-31-2009 3:32 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 268 of 687 (522031)
08-31-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
08-31-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Information please
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:27 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:07 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 269 of 687 (522035)
08-31-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ICANT
08-28-2009 6:50 PM


Re: Information please
What determines how the scoreboard clock can measure the duration of the game.

Are you asking about the units we have created to determine the interval of time? In that case, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years are all units human minds have created to keep track of the passage of time. It's the same as inches, feet, kilometers, yards, etc are units we have created to keep track of distance. But, don't for a minute think that if we had never conceived of the words "Kilometer" or "inch" that everything would exist at one point because distance is just a concept of the human mind. Distance (length, width, height) exists whether we are there to cut it up into chunks and measure it or not. Similarly, whether we make up the words "seconds" or "days" or not, thngs will happen sequentially and not all at once because time exists independently of the units we have created to count it.

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.

I'm not saying that universe can't exist without time, I'm merely saying that the universe that actually exists (or at least the one we are inhabitants of), exists with time as one of its dimensions, and since dimensions are what define a universe, the dimensions come into existence at the same time the universe does.

For example. I could build a box out of wood that is 2'x3'x4'. Now, when does the length of the box come into existence? It comes into existence at the time I actually have a box. Before that, there was no box to have a length, but as soon as it became a ox, poff, the was the length of the box in existence. It's not some sleight of hand philosophizing, it's tautologies and definitions. If you have a box, it will have a length by definition for as long as it is a box. If you have a universe like ours, it will have time by definition, for as long as it's a universe like ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 6:50 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:01 PM Perdition has responded

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


Message 270 of 687 (522036)
08-31-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
08-28-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Information please
You're making assumptions and stating them as necessary when they're anything but.

If the universe began to exist it has a reason to exist.

Not necessarily. No matter how you define reason, this is not a necessity. Something can exist for no reason at all, especially if it is the first something.

If the universe began to exist, why didn't it begin to exist earlier?

Because there is no earlier. If time is a property of the universe, then there is no "before" and there is no "earlier" because both terms are dependent on time to have any meaning.

Is the universe infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

You're saying this as if the two options are mutually exclusive. Why couldn't something that is infinite in all directions begin to exist? Why couldn't it {poof} into existence as being infinite?

But, if you mean what do I think, then I think the Universe is finite but unbounded and it began to exist at the beginning of time (which is about 13.7 billion years ago).

Is it still a tautology when science says the universe is infinite into the future?

Yes. An eternal existence will never cease to exist. This is a tautology. It's like saying a red ball will never cease to reflect red light when light is shined on it. Well, considering the definition of eternal is never ending, saying something that's eternal will never end is pretty redundant, don't you think?

Since the universe exists science posits that there is an eternal existence, as it is infinite into the future.

Eternal implies infinite into the future and the past. Science is positing the possibility that the universe will continue forever in some state, but that it had a starting point. It's very much like the mathematical concept of a ray. It has a point at one end and extends into infinity in one direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 7:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
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