|
Author
|
Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
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 replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
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 replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
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 seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 279 of 687 (522071)
08-31-2009 10:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
08-31-2009 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: Information please
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: 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" Straggler's addition of: "the universe had an uncaused "beginning" from "nothing". Is impossible as something can not come from nothing, and is not even a consideration. ICANT'S position is that the universe has always existed in some form. OR The universe began to exist and has a cause for that existence.
Message 8 I said:
ICANT writes: So I have a universe that is infinite or a universe that began to exist. Message 24 I said in response to your "just is":
ICANT writes: Hi Straggler,
Here You state:
quote:
OK. The universe quite possibly "just is".
Which would mean the universe was an uncaused existence. Or that the universe was infinite. But science says the universe can not be infinite and us be here. So who is going on about an uncaused cause.
Message 54 I said:
ICANT writes: "It just is", makes the universe infinite. That is the Steady state theory. Hoyle and Einstein held this theory to be correct. Because of the discovery of expansion Einstein began a search of how God created the universe. If expansion is true the universe did not exist and began to exist.
Message 93 I asked you this question:
ICANT writes: If the universe "just is" that means it exists and never had a begining to exist. So my question to you has been and is, Is the universe infinite (has always existed eternally) or did it begin to exist?
Message 123 I asked you this question:
ICANT writes: Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed? OR Did the universe begin to exist? Message 165 I asked you the question:
ICANT writes: Is the universe infinite in all directions? OR Did the universe begin to exist? Message 193 I stated:
ICANT writes: Can I believe the universe began to exist? Sure Can I believe the universe began to exist without a cause? Nope.
Message 212 You got heavy on your uncaused agenda and I made this statement in response:
ICANT writes: Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings? I didn't claim anything. 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'.
Message 258 I asked you:
ICANT writes: 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?
Message 262 I ask you:
ICANT writes: 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?
So you push your uncaused "beginning" from "nothing" all you want just remember it is "YOUR" uncaused idea not mine. Again the ICANT position is that the universe is infinite in all directions. OR The universe began to exist. I will add. 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? 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 268 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 2:37 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 280 of 687 (522072)
08-31-2009 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 269 by Perdition
08-31-2009 3:05 PM
|
|
Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: Are you asking about the units we have created to determine the interval of time? I was asking what determines the duration of those units of measure. I answered the question. It is determined by a single rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. If you disagree please state disagreement.
Perdition writes: 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. You say they come into existence at the same time the universe does. Are you saying the universe begins to exist?
Perdition writes: 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. What if there was no material of any kind to build that box out of, then what?
Perdition writes: If you have a universe like ours, it will have time by definition, for as long as it's a universe like ours. "If you have a universe" That brings us to the question. Is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist? Message 270
Perdition writes: 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 was the first something it would be eternal. But if expansion is true such a universe as that would be cold, dark and dead.
Perdition writes: 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. You didn't like the question asked that way. Well how about I change it to: Why did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago.
Perdition writes: 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? Good question. But if something that did not exist began to exist then it is not infinite in all directions, only forward from the beginning to exist.
Perdition writes: Science is positing the possibility that the universe will continue forever in some state, but that it had a starting point. Are you saying the universe began to exist? Message 271
Perdition writes: That's right. Physical things have length. Why is that? Because length is a property of being physical. I thought length, width, and height was units of measure that someone came up with so we could determine the size of physical things. Also volume so we could figure out how much a container could hold.
Perdition writes: Another property is time. Physical things have time (called duration). It's a property of being physical, it's part of the definition of physical. Time. The units man has decided to use to tell us the duration of a baseball game, football game, day, week, month and year. So you are saying time and length are physical. Are they made 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 269 by Perdition, posted 08-31-2009 3:05 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 281 of 687 (522074)
08-31-2009 11:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by lyx2no
08-31-2009 3:32 PM
|
|
Re: Information please
Hi lyx2no,
lyx2no writes: The Universe is finite yet unbounded. Is that the Standard Big Bang Theory?
lyx2no writes: That’s not all you are pointing out. You are implying that the scientists have come to the wrong interpretation of their own words and work. The three groups never agreed although 2 concluded the universe was not expanding. There are still scientist today who question the CMBR. 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 272 by lyx2no, posted 08-31-2009 3:32 PM | | lyx2no has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 282 of 687 (522075)
09-01-2009 12:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 273 by greyseal
08-31-2009 4:38 PM
|
|
Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes: You are apparently somehow of the opinion that because you've found a paper that apparently has a better answer for that one single fact, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory. That's pretty ignorant.
I always thought being ignorant was accepting whatever you was told. Without making sure it was correct before you accepted it. So no there are a lot of other reasons I choose not to accept the BBT as fact. You can find a few of them Here Nobody will talk about them except to say they have all been solved. With a little investigation that story line fails. Besides the BBT requires the universe to begin to exist. There has been a lot of time spent trying to prove how this happened. Hawking claimed to have proved that God was not necessary when the Hartly Hawking no boundary universe hypothesis was presented. 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 273 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 4:38 PM | | greyseal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 283 by greyseal, posted 09-01-2009 3:33 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 286 of 687 (522236)
09-02-2009 12:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 285 by Perdition
09-01-2009 10:48 AM
|
|
Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: That's the length of time we have decided to call a "year" but even if the earth and sun exploded in a grand fashion, time would plod on with nary a blink. Existence would continue. Time: Who/what would count time? But more importantly what would determine how long a second would be, a day, week, month, year? There would only exist now.
Perdition writes: Sort of, the universe has existed for all of time, re forever...but ofrever is only 13.7 billion years long so far. So are you are saying the universe began to exist 13.7 BYA? If so: Do you have any idea how it began to exist? Remember the BBT starts after the universe exists.
Perdition writes: Not necessarily. Unless you can constrain "eternal" to mean 13.7 billion years and counting. In normal usage, this is not what it means, so I guess I have to disagree with you here. You are not disagreeing with me. You are just answering the question I asked. Just in a round about way. I think You have already said the universe began to exist. Here you say the universe is not eternal.
Perdition writes: That's the current projection for what will happen to this universe a long time in the future. We're just not to that point yet. But if the universe was infinite in all directions it would have already reached that condition somewhere back in infinity, if expansion is correct. Wouldn't it?
Perdition writes: Only if "direction" you are including time. Time is not necessary. Only existence is necessary.
Perdition writes: Tehn you're wrong. The inches, meters, liters, and gallons we use are arbitrary units we have devised, and could be considered human concepts, Here you agree that these measurments have been devised by man.
Perdition writes: but length, volume, et al are intrinsic properties of something being physical. Then you give this as a definition of length and volume. You got some source that gives that definition? The only definitions I find are like the ones found in Wikipeda. Length - WikipediaLength is the long dimension of any object. Or In the physical sciences and engineering, the word "length" is typically used synonymously with "distance"
quote:
What Is Time?
ScienceDaily (Apr. 15, 2005) The concept of time is self-evident. An hour consists of a certain number of minutes, a day of hours and a year of days. But we rarely think about the fundamental nature of time.
Time - Wikipedia Says this of time.
quote:
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
Perdition writes: They are not made of particles or waves. So time and length are not physical things.
Perdition writes: They are properties of being physical, they are not physical themselves. Are you trying to say they are a physical property? It is said that length, and volume are a physical property. It is not said that time is a physical property. This because of preception as we can preceve something to have length or contain volume.
Perdition writes: Likewise, the matter a box is made of is physical, but the length of that material is a property of the physical thing. If I put your box in a chipper the length, width, and height along with the volume can not be preceived. But the box still exists only in a different form. 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 285 by Perdition, posted 09-01-2009 10:48 AM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Information please
Hi Straggler, Where was this lifted from?
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? I can't find what you are referencing. 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 284 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 6:33 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Who Supports an uncaused beginning of the universe?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: It wasn't "lifted" from anywhere. I wrote it in response to your claim: I was just making sure. My statement: "The universe can not have an uncaused beginning to exist as something can not come from nothing." Is based upon: Plato's cosmological argument in his book the Laws. Where he concluded that matter could not move itself. Therefore needed a mover. Aristotle's statement "The series must start with something, for nothing can come from nothing" My personal observation's over my lifetime. I have never seen anything produced out of nothing. I have seen a lot of things produced from something. A tree from a seed. Plants from seed's. Houses from trees. So now you introduce your assertion.
Straggler writes: 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?
Upon what do you base this statement. It is not upon anything I have said as you claim. I have never said: "something can not exist without beginning to exist". I have said and will continue to say: "Something can not BEGIN to exist without having a cause for it's existence. Otherwise something must begin to exist from nothing. You claim the universe "just is". And then turn around and deny the universe "just is" by saying it began to exist 13.7 BYA. Why can't you make up your mind. The universe either "just is". OR The universe began to exist. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. In other words you can't have your uncaused universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA. Two branes colliding has been suggested for the cause. An Instanton has been proposed as the cause.
Straggler writes: 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? How could a finite being observe anything with no beginning unless it is the universe. But I can know that nothing has ever produced something in my lifetime. Nor is there any record of nothing producing something. There are people who have spent their lifetime trying to produce life from non-life. That is something from nothing. If you have any evidence that nothing can produce something provide it. So far as I can tell you are the only person that has put forth that the universe had an uncaused beginning. Do any of you other posters support an uncaused beginning of the universe? Now we are back to my OP where I stated. "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. 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 288 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2009 7:29 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 291 of 687 (522333)
09-02-2009 3:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 289 by Perdition
09-02-2009 12:32 PM
|
|
Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: No one. The terms we use to describe/count time are concepts of the human mind, but do not equal time, they are merely the units we have devised to measure time. If you equate minutes and seconds to time, then you're missing the entire point. How could the units we have devised measure time? 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?
Perdition writes: You assert this, but have not given any reason to think of time like this. There is an infinite series of nows. But some nows have past and some nows are yet to come, this transition from now to now' to now'' is what we call time. Now has no past tense nor does it have a future tense. Now is what my pet rock perceives.
Perdition writes: You're conflating the word, or the measurement, with the actual property. Actually I think you are confusing the size of the object with the object.
Perdition writes: If something exists, it has duration. Agreed.
PerditionSomething cannot exist for no span of time. Why not?
PerditionTime measures duration, rate of change or motion, etc. So why can't duration exist without the numbers we have come up with to designate how long that duration was? Duration is simply existence.
PerditionI would disagree with you here, very vehemently, I guess different form just flew right by you. 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 289 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 12:32 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: Exactly. And duration is time. Duration exists whether we have seconds or minutes or hours or not. The labels have no bearing on the actual duration, they're just terms we have arbitrarily made up to help communicate and measure this phenomenon of duration (time). We don't need to designate anything for it to exist. You say time and duration are the same. The dictionary does not agree. The dictionary using the Physics def. says, time is a quantity measuring duration. Time - definition of time by The Free Dictionarytime Noun 1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole Related adjective temporal 2. Physics a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms Time tells me the duration of an event. Time is not physical. Time is a tool invented by man to be able to measure duration.
Perdition writes: You're the one conflating the measurement of time with the phenomenon. An object has length, otherwise it is not an object. A sphere is an object. Are you sure it has length? 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 293 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 4:25 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: Yes...it has a radius, a diameter, a circumference...all of those things fall under the banner of length as used in the argument. I suppose a better way to characterize length, width, height, etc is size. I know it has a radius, a diameter and a circumference. And you can find that information all over the internet. But you can't find out how to find the length of a sphere.
Perdition writes: Technically, I guess you're right, but when people speak about time in this type of argument, they typically mean duration (which, by the way, also isn't physical), change, and or motion...or the penomenon that allows those things to have meaning.
Duration is just as physical as length. Duration exists, it is existence. Without existence to be measured there is no time. 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 305 by Perdition, posted 09-03-2009 4:13 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Information please
Hi CS Long time no see.
Catholic Scientist writes: That's one way to define it. Its also a property of the Universe, itself. You shouldn't equivocate.
Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe? If so I would like to see it. I want scientific evidence not somebody said so. 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: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Information please
Hi CS
Catholic Scientist writes: Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game. Just as I thought none exists. 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."
|
™ Version 4.2