Subjective Evidence of Gods

OK Fair enough.

This as I say is highly speculative but it helps me to grasp the idea of what eternal life might conceivably look like.From Brian Greene I think it was, I learned that mathematical formulas tell us that time should be symmetrical, or in other ways we should be able to go backward and forward in time. (Two dimensions of time) If in addition there was a third dimension of time perhaps you could go from one point to another without passing through the time in between.This would make time infinite and so a being that exists in 3 time dimensions would have always existed and so there wouldn't be a question of creation.Take that for what it's worth, which is very little, but it helps me wrap my head around anything infinite. I know I'm leaving myself wind open with this. I don't see it that way. I'm talking about a prime mover that is the first cause which would include being a first cause of a being from somewhere else in the universe who planted the seed of life here. Can you be more specific of what other possibilities that you are talking about.

I've actually been studying the Christian creation account for some time and have yet to find a single case where it does. I have seen people twist verses out of context or try to spin an unintended meaning into the texts, but no fairly examined texts violate any of those rules. In fact there are many cases where the scriptures actually demonstrate a knowledge beyond what was possible for the authors to have possessed at the time. Thereby giving a clear indication of divine rather than human origin. Sure thing. First let me point out that the law of non-contradiction, which is the basis for all logical thinking, states that; a thing can not be both (A) and (non-A) at the same time and place and manor. It can not be both day time and night time over New York at the time of the twin tower attacks. We would expect any Book truly inspired by God to be consistent.The Koran fails the contradictory test. The Koran states that all creation took Allah Six days in Sura 7:54, but in Sura 41:9-12 it took him a total of eight days. The Koran itself, claims to be free from contradictions. Sura 39:23, 39:28. However, the Koran also says it is not supposed to be translated out of the, so called, uncorrupted language of Arabic. Yet the original manuscript contains well over 100 foreign words and phrases, such as, Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, Akkadian, Ethiopian and Persian. The Koran states that Moses was the first to believe. Sura 6:14. Then it states that Abraham was the first. Sura 7:143. The Koran states that Allah first appeared to Mohammed, as a man, to call him to service. Sura 51:19-34, 53:2-18 It then claims Mohammed was first called by the Holy Spirit. Sura 16:102, 26:192-194. Then the Koran states that angels came down to first call him to service. Sura 15:8. Finally The Koran states that it was only the angel Gabrielle who issued the call to Mohammed. Sura 2:97.The Koran fails the scientific test. The Koran calls the moon a male deity, the sun a female deity, and the stars, their offspring. Sura 41:37. The Koran states that the sun sets every night in the waters of a muddy spring. Sura 18:85,86.The Koran fails the historic test. The Koran claims that Abraham , (father of the Jewish nation), moved to Mecca and rebuilt the Kabah. Yet it is a known archeological fact that this never happened. Archeology reveals that the Kabah was originally first built to "worship the black stone that fell from the sky," not Allah. The Koran fraudulently attributes false speeches to people such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, Mary, and Jesus. It has them using words like, Muslim, and Islam, which did not yet even exist. It would be like trying to pass off a so called authentic journal of Julius Caesar of Rome, that makes statements like, "his favorite meal was a Big Mac and fries at McDonald's." Sura 2:60, 2:126-128, 2:132-133, 2:260, 3:48-52, 3:67, 6:74-82, 7:59-63, 7:120-126, 10:71-72, 18:60-70, 19:16-33. The Koran makes crucifixion the form of execution during the time of Pharaoh in Egypt. Sura 7:124. Crucifixion did not yet exist. The Koran has the building of the tower of Babel taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24, 40:36-37. The Koran states that Alexander the Great, was a Muslim and lived to an old age. Sura 18:89-98 He died a young man. The Koran has Noah's flood taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 7:59, 7:136. The Koran confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary the sister of Moses. Sura 19:28. They are two separate people who lived centuries apart.

Straggles still cannot understand that his interpretations of my positions are fundamentally flawed, because of his personal biases and his failure to comprehend it. Amusingly I can test and have tested for it everytime I enter my bedroom. But I don't know as well as you, whether or not you have made this up. It is impossible for me to know. All I can do is look at the objective evidence cited previously that indicates that this is likely a fiction on your part, and I can form my opinion on whether this concept exists in reality -- but I don't know this for sure unless and until you admit that it is a fiction that you have created. However, this does not mean that I cannot behave based on my opinion, and I don't need to claim that it is anything more than opinion to do this (category 5). What I know is that the data and evidence indicate an earth that is old. This is what I have said before, and your failure to comprehend the fundamental distinction is once again noted.Also, as previously stated, science assumes that the empirical evidence truthfully represents reality, as the fundamental principle of science.The alternative is that evidence is illusory, and you cannot then tell what is real and what is illusion, including all religions, all science, all philosophy, and all existence.For all you know the universe is assembled anew every second, as subatomic particles blip in and out of existence. If this is true then the data and evidence would still show an earth that is old.So no, you can't test for it, all you can do is assume one or the other, form an opinion and act on the basis of that opinion. Except that you haven't tested for the presence of a supernatural agency, just assumed it. Science does not consider assumptions to be evidence. All your test shows is how Thor could cause thunder and lightening, not that there is no supernatural agency involved.Your confidence is based on your opinion and biases, and not on any scientific objective empirical testing or data.This certainly does not show that any particular human mind invented the concept of Thor.Fail. Which only shows that humans can create fictions not that any particular concepts are fictions. Fictional stories about fictional cowboys do not mean that all cowboys are fictions.Assuming your conclusion is not evidence for your conjecture. Which, amusingly, can also be construed to be evidence for the Hindu Hypothesis -- that all religious concepts involve different aspects of the supernatural essence/s. Perhaps the universe has a built-in subliminal message: without a test for supernatural presence you don't know if this is imagination or detection, and you only assume a conclusion that fits your a priori conclusion.Enjoy.

IamJoseph, Just because you have not looked for positions that do not support a universe maker does not mean those positions do not exist. Just because you have not studied hard enough, does not mean that these hypothoses and theories do not exist. There are many hypothoses and theories based upon scientific premises and they are not fiction. You being unaware of these ideas does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you can make the incorrect statement that you have made.Here are some positions, based on scientific premeses that do not support a universe maker. Including the universe maker of the Bible.Stephen Hawking on the origin of the universe
(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))sorry for the long quote but I was not able to cut much out and still cover everything.

quote:

---

If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning? What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions? The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis. Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.
However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence, to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.
In terms of the positivist approach, one can compare two models of the universe. One in which the universe was created last year and one in which the universe existed much longer. The Model in which the universe existed for longer than a year can explain things like identical twins that have a common cause more than a year ago. On the other hand, the model in which the universe was created last year cannot explain such events. So the first model is better. One can not ask whether the universe really existed before a year ago or just appeared to. In the positivist approach, they are the same. In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point. The situation changed radically however, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred inch telescope on Mount Wilson, in the 1920s.

​

Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies. By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time. But to his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away. The universe was not unchanging with time as everyone had thought previously. It was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time.

​

The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe? Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time, but didn't have a beginning. One was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle in 1948.
[steady state theory explanation snipped as it has been abandoned]
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo.

​

The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.

​

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories. Richard Feynman was a colorful character, who played the bongo drums in a strip joint in Pasadena, and was a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice.

​

The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state. But how did the histories start? This is the Origin question in another guise. Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

​

Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole. The same laws of Nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning; that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

​

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

​

The world record for inflation was in Germany after the First World War. Prices rose by a factor of ten million in a period of 18 months. But that was nothing compared to inflation in the early universe. The universe expanded by a factor of million trillion trillion in a tiny fraction of a second. Unlike inflation in prices, inflation in the early universe was a very good thing. It produced a very large and uniform universe, just as we observe. However, it would not be completely uniform. In the sum over histories, histories that are very slightly irregular will have almost as high probabilities as the completely uniform and regular history. The theory therefore predicts that the early universe is likely to be slightly non-uniform. These irregularities would produce small variations in the intensity of the microwave background from different directions. The microwave background has been observed by the Map satellite, and was found to have exactly the kind of variations predicted. So we know we are on the right lines.

​

The irregularities in the early universe will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density will slow the expansion of the region, and can eventually cause the region to collapse to form galaxies and stars. So look well at the map of the microwave sky. It is the blue print for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice.

​

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself. Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate.

​

During this so called inflationary period, the marriage of the two theories predicted that small fluctuations would develop and lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non uniformities in the cosmic microwave background, with exactly the predicted properties. So it seems we are on our way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will be needed. A new window on the very early universe will be opened when we can detect gravitational waves by accurately measuring the distances between space craft. Gravitational waves propagate freely to us from earliest times, unimpeded by any intervening material. By contrast, light is scattered many times by free electrons. The scattering goes on until the electrons freeze out, after 300,000 years.

​

Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved. We do not yet have a good theoretical understanding of the observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating again, after a long period of slowing down. Without such an understanding, we cannot be sure of the future of the universe. Will it continue to expand forever? Is inflation a law of Nature? Or will the universe eventually collapse again? New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly. Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age old questions. Why are we here? Where did we come from?

---

There is also this theory, again, not requiring a universe maker...
(Source : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=been-the...)

quote:

---

the big bang is not a one-of-a-kind event but part of a recurring cycle. "What we're motivated by string theory to believe is that the big bang is not what we've always thought--a beginning of space and time, where temperature and energy diverge," Steinhardt says. "Rather it is a transition between the current expanding phase and a preexisting contracting phase."

---

Some information on the cyclic model : Cyclic model - WikipediaHere is another theory based on scientific premeses the require no universe maker...(Source : http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf)

quote:

---

a model of the universe which provides a solution to the mystery of its origin, as well as to the paradox posed by Kant, is presented. Implications of the model, one which appears to be compatible with general relativity and standard hot big bang theory, include that the universe has neither a beginning nor ending, but yet is finite; singularities are never actually encountered in nature; events are neither determined by initial or final conditions; problems such as why the universe has a low entropy past, or conditions at the big bang appear to be so special, require no causal explanation; and that time travel is not possible.

---

You can also check this out for more information. It is pretty heavy going though, I will be of no help if you want any of it explained : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)I am happy that I could clear up the issue you were having locating current scientific theories and hypothoses (that are not works of fiction) that do not support a universe maker for the existing universe. there is no absolute certainty in science. There is also no absolute evidence of a universe maker. You have been asked on mulitple occasions to provide your absolute evidence but you never have. If you have this absolute evidence, please publish it. I will personally travel to Sweden and congratulate you upon your receiving the Nobel Prize for your discovery. Please dont keep it a secret. Why dont you write to Hawking with your idea as he has provided another source (not really a source as suggesting there has to be a source in the statement you have already set up conditions to your advantage) as a potential.There is also always an option to dismiss. There is always the option that we dont know. This is not an absolute dismissal of any idea. It is an admission that we dont know everything yet. All of sciences most respected figures do not agree with your first statement. I hope Stephen Hawking is respected enough to invalidate your statement. I have covered this issue over at Message 200Lucky for us we have objections with alternate sound premises then isnt it?

IamJoseph, i have been struggling with your use of the word law to describe everything from Judicial system laws, scientific laws, theories and other uses that i cant even identify.Help me out here.What laws do you believe cause thunder and lightning? What laws 'turn on the rain cycle'? What are these corresponding laws? It is not on topic but I am wondering how you establish the beginning point of a cycle. Dont bother answering that, just food for thought. So the (so far undefined) 'laws' that govern the rain cycle are also a deciding factor on the existence of life and also the existence of the universe?

You have mentioned that the Hebrew Bible has changed the universe forever.examples... How exactly was the universe changed? What was it like before the writing of this particular book? What changes can we detect now. Exactly when did all of these changes occur?Also, considering that there are people on this Earth who have not even heard of the book, how would you suggest an area 1000 light years from Earth has been changed?

You still refuse to give any evidence. it is your premise, not mine. You need to show evidence not speculation. GIVE ME THAT EVIDENCE.

Hello Dawn Bertot, I did not say that philosphical debates are boring nad pointless. I said that I find them boring and pointless. Me personally. Thats why I dont get involved in them. Thats fair enough. But as I was not talking about existence with regards to the false dichotomy, this is irrelevant. Your replies are simply not correct. The word used is respond. Not communicate. It is possible and quite common for something to have a response without the target receiving the response.In the first example, the responder is able to respond. But the receiver is not able to understand the response. This means that communication has failed, but the response was sent by a willing and able subject.The second example, the subject can be both willing and able to respond but is unaware of the original communication. This means that communication has failed. But the subject was willing and able to respond.Respond is different to communicate. Communication is a two way street. Response does not have this restriction. Are you suggesting that plant to plant communication does not occur. I certainly hope it does because I am considering this subject for my masters. If you actually do not believe or understand this issue, let me know and I will provide ample evidence. You are confusing response with communicate.A response does not require the receiver to actually receive the response. A response can be without a receiver at all. If the word communication was in your original example, then everything you have said would make perfect sense. As the word response was in the original example, it does not make sense.

And GEN 1:6 states that it took 3 days to make the heavens and the earth and in GEN 2:4 it states that it only took 1 day.
So, the bible also fails the contradictory test. The bible states that the earth sits upon pillars. This has easily been shown to be false.
So, the bible also fails the scientific test.
(I would have mentioned that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth - but, somehow, the bible no longer says that it does. I guess that they released an updated version of the bible that included several corrections.) The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood.
So, the bible also fails the historic test. Then I am glad to have pointed out what you have clearly failed to notice.Edited by Panda, : typos

quote:

---

Just because you have not looked for positions that do not support a universe maker does not mean those positions do not exist. Just because you have not studied hard enough, does not mean that these hypothoses and theories do not exist. There are many hypothoses and theories based upon scientific premises and they are not fiction. You being unaware of these ideas does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you can make the incorrect statement that you have made.

---

Not only did I study it, but I also never opened mouth wide and said AAH. Be assured all of your blondly accepted assertions will be shown as ludicrous.

quote:

---

Stephen Hawking on the origin of the universe
(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))

---

You forgot about Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose. Somewhat greater than Hawkings - and they all support a universe source! The likes of Hawkings and Dawkins do not support a finite universe - guess why!

quote:

---

If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning?

---

There is no 'IF' here. Before the universe existed the universe never existed - including all the universe's components. A finite cannot cntain an infinite. Which part is confusing?

quote:

---

What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions?

---

The question has no alignment with its inclusion as a responsa. If we do not know what your dentist did before removing your tooth - does it mean your dentist never existed? The madness continues:

quote:

---

The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began?

---

Knock-knock! Time is a post universe phenomenon. It would be ubsurd and a violation of the universe's finite factor in anything contained in this universe existed before the universe existed. The madness continues:

quote:

---

He called that the thesis.

---

Why not an unsubstantiated conjuring without any scientific basis?

quote:

---

On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis.

---

I call it madness; see above re time. The thesis totally abandons the finite factor again.

quote:

---

Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.

---

Then pray tell why are stars accounted as 15B years - how many stars existed 250 B years ago - and why not if time is infinite!? The madness:

quote:

---

However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe.

---

So matter and energy are also infinite - how many objects did these infinite phenomenons produce in their infinite time period: list one? What about pineapples?

quote:

---

They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back.

---

Why then have you been touting time? Duh!

quote:

---

Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence, to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence.

---

Its not philosophical but one of math and physics. There is no need to go back to earlier times; the universe is dated as approx 13.7 B years. Finite! Yes/no?

quote:

---

A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.

---

Fine. In a finite model, we cannot depict anything in this universe existing before this universe: yes/no? In an infinite universe we would most certainly be able to depict at least something which existed before - e.g. background radiation; different colors; square pinepples; etc. But no luck! Yes/no?

quote:

---

In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point. The situation changed radically however, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred inch telescope on Mount Wilson, in the 1920s.

---

Correct, but against Apion: a changing universe proves only a finite one. Only something not subject to change can be infinite. The madness will continue!

quote:

---

Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies.

---

No impact. BTW, Galaxies are homonogised and expand in equal direction and velocity. But still no impact here.

quote:

---

By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time.

---

You are chopping off your own foot. The universe is changing, proving it is finite.

quote:

---

Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.

---

The singularity factor is incorrect. No actions can occur with an indivisible and irreducible lone item. This is the premise introduced in Genesis and is scientifically irrefutable. The madness does not stop:

quote:

---

The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity.

---

Correction. Laws would not have yet emerged, rather than break down. You are observing the universe retrospectively. Gravity yet did not exust because no laws of gravity existed, nor any mass bodies which gravity is derived of..

quote:

---

Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun.

---

And everything we see relates to that which is evolved, referring to time, and measuring only a 13.7B period. Conclusion: finite.

quote:

---

There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul.

---

Who!!!??? Wow - did the Pope really write Genesis?

quote:

---

The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe.

---

There you go again! It yet never kick started.

quote:

---

It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.

---

Its been said Einstein is toppled by QM, but this is not correct. Einstein based his equations by inserting and allowing an 'X' factor, namely there is a componenet of unknown factors, but which do not effect the whole premise.

quote:

---

He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice.

---

History is proof of finite. Once there was no history!

quote:

---

The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state. But how did the histories start? This is the Origin question in another guise. Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science?

---

Science is a faculty which explains observable and testable laws. Once there were no laws - and no stars, energy, light, time or space. You have to show us trillion billion year stars incumbent in a finite universe to impress! You cannot. Need a more powerful telescope, perhaps?

quote:

---

I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off.

---

Them thar Helenists' flatulent earth was KO'd by Genesis - yet you harken to them in prostration mode!?

quote:

---

Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole. The same laws of Nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning; that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

---

The reverse applies. Not time or space existed before the universe. Infinite stuff cannot be measured.

quote:

---

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size.

---

No sir! It means there were many small bubbles in the one big bubble called the universe. I don't say AAH! to what is clearly slight of hand casino science.Its like saying the surface of a circle is infinite - it is not: the circle ends when the same ground is covered again! Otherwise everything is infinite, including a 2 meter rope: just make a U-turn at the end!

quote:

---

They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

---

Your explanation does not validate multi-universes. MV only pushes the goal post further back.

quote:

---

The irregularities in the early universe will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others.

---

This infers external input of a purposeful and impacting kind and negates internal random impact! Try to sing out of tune purposefully.

quote:

---

God really does play dice.

---

QM has proven to be definitive, not as first thought.

quote:

---

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe.

---

How? If we discovered anything more than 15B years then I missed it. Please demonstrate your assertion?

quote:

---

Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions.

---

No, they do not. Black holes are less old than the universe!Its the ssme old story. Only now we have a new kind of fundamentalist theology with the same anxst as those who have been beaten to disappear before.

quote:

---

How exactly was the universe changed?

---

It is expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

quote:

---

Also, considering that there are people on this Earth who have not even heard of the book

---

No?

quote:

---

GEN 1:6 states that it took 3 days to make the heavens and the earth

---

No it does not. Actions entailing Billions of years are listed before the Creation days; e.g, seperation of light and darkness [universal action]; seperating day from night [solar system action]; seperation of water from land [earthly action]. The creational days are epochs of time, prior to the sun's luminosity being critically focused on the erath [the text 1/14], and prior to history. That is why the Hebrew calendar, the oldest we have, begins 'AFTER' the creational days.

quote:

---

and in GEN 2:4 it states that it only took 1 day.
So, the bible also fails the contradictory test.

---

No sir. 'IN THE DAY WHEN...' refers to the times when. The periods have already been given in Ch 1.

quote:

---

The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood.
So, the bible also fails the historic test.

---

Not so - I say you fail the comprhension test here. The flood refers to a regional flood and to Noah's own possessions only [the text: 'thou and thy possessions/household']. There are 100's of factors in the Noah story which are 100% proven factual historical items and the only ones we possess of this period.

Ok - to be clear:
You are a dishonest debater with a grasp of English which would embarrass a chimpanzee.
I intend to completely ignore your posts from now on as discussing anything with you is beyond pointless.Hopefully the time you waste replying to my posts will be less time spent annoying others.

Believe me there is a point to this madness. I sorry but I dont think you are seeing very simple points. If the recieve is not ABLE to recieve the response, (for any reason) then the sender is UNABLE to respond irregardless if they sent the message. therefore unable. Nice try though The expression "communication has failed", means that they are unable to recieve the info, correct. Remember though the enterprise is party in the process as well. You cant only look at it from the other ships perspective. It takes two to tango. If the other ship is not aware of thier communication, then from the enterprises perspective, they are unable to respondThe only way your scenerio would work is if neither ship was tyring to contact eachother or there was no situation at all heck I cant even understand IMJ or Iano when they speak and now you want me to listen to plants. let me figure these goomers out firstI wonder what aplant thinks right before you cram it in your mouth. Oh crap, Oh crap, Oh crap The words UNABLE and UNWILLING have to have meaning to both parties, otherwise it makes no sense. Think about it logically Spock is the one making the suggestion in the first place. unable has to have meaning to the originator as well Correct. However, if the enterprise is wishing for a reception of that response, then from the enterprises perspective they were unable, no matter the failed reason. Both parties are a part of the scenarioMaybe what we are discussing here will assit you and IMJ in that discussion. I hope soNo amount of logic or rangling will allow you to go past the only options, there are no othersDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.