Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2018 12:52 PM
281 online now:
anglagard, DrJones*, edge, jar, Meddle, PaulK (6 members, 275 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,277 Year: 9,100/29,783 Month: 1,347/1,977 Week: 40/445 Day: 40/110 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 301 of 369 (826851)
01-11-2018 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Phat
01-11-2018 3:11 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Phat,

Phat writes:

To be fair, Son Goku may argue that there are more than these 3 choices. I would be interested to hear his informed opinion, based on what he knows.

I would be interested in any other options also.

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 291 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:11 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30429
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 302 of 369 (826854)
01-11-2018 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Phat
01-11-2018 3:11 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Of course there are more than three choices as anyone who is not willfully ignorant would know. In fact the evidence shows that in many cases the cause of something is actually pretty small and weak as well as transient and that the cause seldom survives the event.

Lightning strikes generally last only 0.000050 seconds.

The match that starts a wildfire that burns whole counties gets consumed by the fire itself.

The fires themselves create the very conditions needed to sustain the conflagration.

We've been over this with ICANT in the past and even this very thread. But ICANT is driven by fiction not reality, by ignorance not knowledge, by denial instead of searching.

There is no reason to expect the cause of an event to be anything like the magnitude of the even itself, or of being eternal, or of surviving the initiation of the event and lots of evidence that shows the cause is usually not eternal, not powerful, not very significant in and of itself.

But most of all, the evidence is overwhelming that man made God.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Phat, posted 01-12-2018 11:03 AM jar has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 303 of 369 (826856)
01-11-2018 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Stile
01-11-2018 11:48 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

Because of what we see now.

Are you sure about that?

I forget who said, "it is like it is today because it was like that in the past". Since we do not know what the that was like we do not know what or how it happened.

Stile writes:

If I see a dead tree in a forest, I know that tree grew from a much smaller beginning many years ago.

Yes that is true. But you also know that because you can plant seeds and get seedlings which will grow into trees.

In other words you have empirical evidence that can be reproduced over and over.

This universe began to exist only one time and you have no empirical reproducible evidence of what took place.

Stile writes:

If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.

If inflation is a fantasy as Sir Roger Penrose states the BBT needs a lot or shoring up where inflation was supposed to have fixed.

Stile writes:

If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.

You talk about the BB like something banged, what was it that banged?

I was under the impression that Son's little pea sized universe he told me about just began to expand and that was all there was to it.

stile writes:

They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.

That is the problem there is no empirical evidence and can never be as there is no scientific data available of what was there or what took place.

Because of that restriction, they will give no answer.

Stile writes:

I don't see why that would be true at all.

It was either eternal or the universe began to exist from non existence.

Stile writes:

People used to call the sun a God because they thought it was big and powerful.
The sun is not a God.

I did not say because I thought or anyone else though.

I just think that anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would deserve the title of God. You call it whatever you want too.

Stile writes:

Especially if it's a natural process and has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or will.

I have never seen a natural process that did not require matter to work with to do anything. Could you name one?

Stile writes:

1 - Why would the universe be dead if it always existed?

Not my words, but the words of the scientist that decided we needed a beginning to exist of the universe. It would be cold dark and lifeless had it been around for infinity. I believe it has something to do with some of the laws science has discovered.

Stile writes:

2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?

You really getting silly now, what you drinking?

In the rest of your post I will insert my comments to save time.

Stile writes:

4 - The universe always existed in the past, but will not always exist in the future.

Comment: Same as #1

5 - The universe began to exist from something else that already existed.

Comment: Same as #1.

6 - The universe was created by a weak, eternal God.

Comment: Same as #4 because he was powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

7 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), eternal God.

Comment: Same as #4 because he was powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

8 - The universe was created by a weak, non-eternal God.

Comment: Same as #2.

9 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), non-eternal God.

Comment: Same as #2.

10 - The universe was created by entirely natural processes and no God of any sort was involved in any way.

Comment: Same as #2.
Where did the energy required to accomplish the job come from?

I hope you had fun with that just don't expect a reply to any such drivel in the future.

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 295 by Stile, posted 01-11-2018 11:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Stile, posted 01-12-2018 9:38 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 304 of 369 (826857)
01-12-2018 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Son Goku
01-11-2018 3:46 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Son,

Son writes:

Observational evidence refers to measurable side effects in the present, not eye witness accounts.

You are talking about circumstantial evidence. Assumptions are involved.

Son writes:

Such as?

quote:
Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundreth of a second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe.

1. The flatness problem.
2. The horizon problem.
3. The density fluctuation problem.
4. The dark matter problem.
5. The exotic relics problem.
6. The thermal state problem.
7. The cosmological constant problem.
8. The singularity problem.
9. The timescale problem.



http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/...rch/gr/public/bb_problems.html

Son writes:

The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s

It doesn't assume that.

Didn't you tell me in the past that the pea sized universe expanded at T=10-43 s.

Is there empirical evidence of anything existing at T=10-42 s?

Is the earliest time we claim to have evidence for T=10-43 s?

If the universe is expanding at T=10-43 s. and we don't know anything about T=10-42 s, wouldn't we have to assume it started expanding at T=10-43 s.

There is no way we can know what was going on "without making some assumptions". The quote is from Stephen Hawking.

Son writes:

The Big Bang theory is not about how the universe began or how things originated or how reality started. It is simply a historical claim about the observable universe.
Stop and think about what this means.

Are you saying it does not cover from T=10-43 s to present? That is as close to the origin as science can get.

Son writes:

Similarly with the Big Bang theory. It is not a theory about the ultimate origins of the world, hence criticisms about an origins theory are irrelevant.

But this thread is about orgins.

Why would we discuss who made God if it did not concern origins.

There would be no need for such a discussion if it wasn't for the creation debate.

The best proof that God is eternal and all powerful is that the universe exists today.

There are three choices.

1. The universe has always existed.
This would be an eternal universe solid state theory.

2. The universe began to exist where there was non existence
Non existence means: no space, no time, no energy, no
matter, and no little pea sized universe to expand.

3. The universe and everything in it was created by an eternal all
Powerful God.

The option I actually believe and have stated numerous times on this site.

4. The universe has always existed in some form just not in the form it is today. Somewhere in eternity past (I will let you guys guess the numbers) The all powerful eternal God I serve created the heavens and the earth in 1 light period (day as described by God Genesis 1:5). God spoke and the events you talk about taking place
happened, There was much preparation needed for the earth to be ready to be inhabited by mankind. There was the matter of at least four trillion barrels of oil not to mention the natural gas and coal. For the oil to get to the point in the earth it is today the surface of the earth had to be there. As there was no darkness there everything was bountiful. In the process of duration this vegetation and water animals were covered to provide the material for the fossil fuel we get from the deep wells. When there were much matter to be covered it was and this process went on until the earth had grown to the size it is now.

So nothing you can give me that you think happened during that light period would surprise me. The Bible reveals that light period is there. When you talk about the cmbr I have no problem in believing it exists. The Bible teaches me the earth is round and that its path is directed. Not only that but all the stars and planets have fixed paths they take. The Bible teaches that the all of earths dry mass was connected in one place at one time in the past. The :Bible teaches that it was divided. The Bible teaches critters will produce critter like themselves. (they do, I have never seen one produce something else).) The Bible teaches mankind will fly. The Bible teaches we will have wrecks on the highways. The Bible teaches we will be able to see pictures around the world. The Bible teaches we will be able to talk around the world I will stop there but there are many more.

All of these predictions were made at least 2400 years ago. They were written down and have come to pass.

Need sleep that will do for now.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Son Goku, posted 01-11-2018 3:46 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-14-2018 12:05 AM ICANT has responded

    
Aussie
Member
Posts: 178
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


Message 305 of 369 (826859)
01-12-2018 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Phat
01-07-2018 2:58 AM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
Humans are strange creatures. It would be as if i made a robot and gave it a brain and speech and it looked at me and said that I had to come from somewhere...even though for all intents and purposes I pre-existed the bleepin robot! What mechanical hubris!

How is that hubris? My parents made me, and their parents made them, and you made your imaginary robot...how is it hubris to understand that you DID have to come from somewhere? To me your robot has more intellectual integrity than many Christians I know, who are afraid to question their concept of God.

It seems to me that the hubris is yours in that somehow in your brain if you create something, say, an imaginary robot, that you are somehow above its questioning.

To me this is clearly the projection of the slave (doulos) mentality you think God demands of you, onto other people and things.


"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Phat, posted 01-07-2018 2:58 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3177
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 306 of 369 (826860)
01-12-2018 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by ICANT
01-11-2018 10:38 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:

This universe began to exist only one time and you have no empirical reproducible evidence of what took place.

I agree with you.
Why are you mentioning this?
I've agreed with you many times that I don't know how the universe began, and neither do you, for this exact reason.

There's no need to debate something we both agree on.

ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.

You talk about the BB like something banged, what was it that banged?

You are mistaken. I'm not talking about the BB like it banged. I only mentioned that it left "remnants" to which I was using to refer to observational evidence we can see today.

Many things leave evidence that do not bang. I am very puzzled as to how you jumped to that idea.

I was under the impression that Son's little pea sized universe he told me about just began to expand and that was all there was to it.

That's what I was referring to. Let's stick with that.
Are you under the impression that an expanding universe does not leave remnants (or "observational evidence that we can see today?")
Because it did. And we see it. No bang required or observed.

ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.

That is the problem there is no empirical evidence and can never be as there is no scientific data available of what was there or what took place.

Because of that restriction, they will give no answer.

You are correct that they have no empirical evidence yet. That's why there's no answer yet.
But who is reading the future saying there can never be any empirical evidence?
Is it you?

People who read the future, especially those who say science cannot advance in certain areas, have been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong over and over and over as science keeps discovering new things and moving forward.

Will this be the one and only time science can never find a way to get an answer?
Maybe. But it's extremely doubtful.

Much more likely that it's just a matter of time.

It was either eternal or the universe began to exist from non existence.

Why can't it be something else that you and I cannot fathom?
Are you, ICANT, claiming to be all-knowing?

I don't believe you.

I just think that anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would deserve the title of God. You call it whatever you want too.

Sounds good.

If anything is ever known about it, I'll call it exactly what it is.
You can continue to add unnecessary confusion to the topic as long as you'd like. That reflects a lot more about you than it does about me.

I have never seen a natural process that did not require matter to work with to do anything. Could you name one?

Nope.

But natural processes have been shown to exist.
Can you name one supernatural process that has been shown to exist?

As long as you can't do that... natural processes will always remain as more-likely answers to unknown questions.

Before the natural process of lightning was discovered, it was quite valid for someone to ask "Can you name one natural process that can create electricity?" and the answer at that time would have been "Nope."

Until, of course, the natural process of lightning was discovered.

...this same process of not-knowing-things and then science-figuring-out-things has happened over and over and over again for many ideas.
Many of them had "God" as the answer previously as well. So far... all of them have turned out to be wrong. God was not the answer, it was a natural process.

This is one more similar as-yet-unknown issue.

If you want to go with the side that's lost every argument where answers can be verified... that's up to you.
I'll go with the on that's won every argument where answers can be verified.

ICANT writes:

It would be cold dark and lifeless had it been around for infinity. I believe it has something to do with some of the laws science has discovered.

I see. You're confused.
Being cold, dark and lifeless is what would happen to our current universe, eventually, if it's ever around for "infinity" and remains to act as it has for the last 13.7 billion years (after it began).
Any laws of science that have been discovered are about the universe after it's beginning.
They may not apply to the universe's actual beginning. Like I said... science doesn't know... yet.

Therefore, it's quite possible that an eternal universe-beginning would not be cold, dark and lifeless after being around for infinity.
It remains a valid possibility.

ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?

You really getting silly now, what you drinking?

Again, I don't think you know everything and I don't believe you.
I'll take your ongoing inability to answer this question to mean that you still have no reason to actually support your assertion that existence cannot begin to exist.

It's okay, I wasn't really expecting you to have anything to back up your claim.
We've spent many posts and threads trying to get you to back this up in the past, and you've never been able to.

ICANT writes:

Comment: Same as #1, #2, #4...

Not true.
But, it doesn't really matter since your #1, #2 and #3 aren't valid statements to begin with.

Where did the energy required to accomplish the job come from?

Who says any energy was required?
But, if it was, then would come from the cause... whatever it was. Quite possibly God. But probably not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 10:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:23 PM Stile has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10818
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 307 of 369 (826861)
01-12-2018 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by jar
01-11-2018 8:52 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
I CANT,to Stile writes:

I just think that anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would deserve the title of God. You call it whatever you want too.


Its not a matter of any concept deserving anything! Though I can see where I CANT gets offended that his God is not being respected as a sacred cow in this discussion, I personally believe that GOD if GOD exists would not be offended in any way.
Stile,to I CANT writes:

Can you name one supernatural process that has been shown to exist?

As long as you can't do that... natural processes will always remain as more-likely answers to unknown questions.

Your logic is sound, Stile. The only answers that we can collectively discuss are natural processes, be they my brain, human intuitiveness, confirmation bias, or scientific evidence.
Stile writes:

Why can't existence begin to exist?

My usual answer to this question is that it appears impossible for something to arise out of absolute nothingness. Looking at that answer another way, some folks have become believers in what they previously saw as nothing, so I retract my original reply. Asking "Why" is always a good approach.

Aussie,replying to me writes:

It seems to me that the hubris is yours in that somehow in your brain if you create something, say, an imaginary robot, that you are somehow above its questioning.

To me this is clearly the projection of the slave (doulos) mentality you think God demands of you, onto other people and things.

Good point. I'll think about that. Sometimes I dont know why it is so important for believers to attempt to prove their belief. In ways, sometimes I think we are projecting our inner insecurities. In essence we are arguing with ourselves because we have doubts.
jar writes:

There is no reason to expect the cause of an event to be anything like the magnitude of the event itself, or of being eternal, or of surviving the initiation of the event and lots of evidence that shows the cause is usually not eternal, not powerful, not very significant in and of itself.

But most of all, the evidence is overwhelming that man made God.

Though we can assert that man did not make GOD, if GOD exists. (Though you did coin the term)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by jar, posted 01-11-2018 8:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by jar, posted 01-12-2018 11:25 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30429
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 308 of 369 (826862)
01-12-2018 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Phat
01-12-2018 11:03 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Phat writes:

Though we can assert that man did not make GOD, if GOD exists. (Though you did coin the term)

Anyone can assert anything, but note even in what you assert there is the qualifier "if GOD exists".

Above, you even posted "...I personally believe that GOD if GOD exists would not be offended in any way. "

That is also irrelevant. Whether or not GOD would be offended is immaterial, even GOD has no right to not be offended.

Phat writes:

Sometimes I dont know why it is so important for believers to attempt to prove their belief. In ways, sometimes I think we are projecting our inner insecurities. In essence we are arguing with ourselves because we have doubts.

Very likely and certainly the best case explanation, although the evidence seems to show that it is far more common that those in the business of selling religion do it out of fear of losing their job and power.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Phat, posted 01-12-2018 11:03 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 309 of 369 (826865)
01-12-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Stile
01-12-2018 9:38 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

I agree with you.
Why are you mentioning this?
I've agreed with you many times that I don't know how the universe began, and neither do you, for this exact reason.

There's no need to debate something we both agree on.

Because the lurkers may not be aware that we at least agree that science does not have an answer for the origin of the universe.

Stile writes:

You are mistaken. I'm not talking about the BB like it banged.

You mention BBT and then Big Bang without theory behind it. If you print the abbreviations for the words meaning Big Bang what am I supposed to believe you are talking about.

Stile writes:

That's what I was referring to. Let's stick with that.

Then stick with saying what you mean.

Stile writes:

Are you under the impression that an expanding universe does not leave remnants (or "observational evidence that we can see today?")

Sure I believe the heavens have been stretched out and did not need the BBT to tell me it had as I knew that information in 1955 before I heard anything about the BBT in 1993.

quote:
45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

That information was provided at least 2,681 years ago.
And no I would not be surprised to find things such as the universe was bathed in light for a very long time before darkness was created.
Isaiah 45:7

Stile writes:

You are correct that they have no empirical evidence yet. That's why there's no answer yet.
But who is reading the future saying there can never be any empirical evidence?
Is it you?

Lets examine the facts.
1. We do not know what existed at T=10-44 s.
2. Whatever existed at T=10-43 s was:

quote:
At the earliest point we can measure the universe is already at 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees.
Son Goku Message 295
What would you propose to plow through that hot dense universe to get information prior to T=10-43 s?

Ten years ago Son gave an answer to that question.

Message 292

quote:
Well gravitational wave astronomy may be able to see further when the technology is advanced enough. The Large Hadron Collider in CERN may be able to learn something. Plus there are several cosmological tests of theories about the previous era. However it's a difficult area and it could take some time.

Stile writes:

Why can't it be something else that you and I cannot fathom?
Are you, ICANT, claiming to be all-knowing?

I don't believe you.

1. The universe exists.
2. Has it existed for infinity? If it has not existed eternally.
3. Did it have a beginning to exist?

It had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist as it does exist today.

And no I don't know it all. If I did I would not be here wasting my time trying to learn new things.

BTW I don't care if you believe anything I say or not. It is no skin off my teeth.

So which way did it get here?

Stile writes:

Who says any energy was required?
But, if it was, then would come from the cause... whatever it was. Quite possibly God. But probably not.

What we think we know.
There was the pea sized universe that existed at T=10-43 s in which all the energy, mass and matter that is in the present universe existed. Can you imagine the power required to accomplish a feat such as that?

My question is what held it in place after it got there until it decided to expand?

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : corrected #


"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 306 by Stile, posted 01-12-2018 9:38 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Stile, posted 01-12-2018 2:33 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2018 2:54 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 310 of 369 (826866)
01-12-2018 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Son Goku
01-11-2018 3:46 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Son,

Just a small question that I passed on earlier.

Son writes:

If I had a theory that a volcano erupted on an island 3,000 years ago and I worked out as a consequence that the soil should contain, say 12.6% calcium. A valid criticism of the theory would be:
(a) Measurement of the soil contains 13.4% calcium
(b) Sea deposits may have left the calcium.

Would you be measuring something that was physical that you could hold in your hand?

How do you compare something you can hold in your hand and examine with something that you can not hold nor test as you could the soil?

quote:
ICANT SAID: We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed.
2 The universe began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God.

#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.


Let me phrase the above in 2 simple questions.

1. What would be the state of the universe today if it existed for infinity?

2. Is it possible for existence to begin to exist?

Thanks in advance,

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 296 by Son Goku, posted 01-11-2018 3:46 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3177
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 311 of 369 (826867)
01-12-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by ICANT
01-12-2018 1:23 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:

You mention BBT and then Big Bang without theory behind it. If you print the abbreviations for the words meaning Big Bang what am I supposed to believe you are talking about.

I only used the BBT abbreviation because it's what you used in Message 290, the message I was replying to.

Big Bang Theory, however, doesn't include any bangs, or explosions only inflation.
And I never talked about it as if it did include any bangs.

It's poorly named, and adds confusion.
I'm pretty sure scientists today would change the name (or maybe they have?) in order to prevent public misconceptions... but since they already know what it means, it doesn't matter too much to them. And they have more important things to spend their time on. Like.. actually answering the questions we're asking here.

It's very similar to how you keep wanting to call any possible cause of the universe "God" even if it doesn't include any God-like qualities.

If you'd like to be consistent... perhaps you should have issues with your own insistence on calling any possible cause "God" as you do with calling the description of the inflation period the Big Bang Theory.

What would you propose to plow through that hot dense universe to get information prior to T=10-43 s?

I don't propose anything.
Like I said, I don't know.
I don't even know how to get information at T=2 billion years.
But science does.

Why do you think that just because I don't know something that science will never learn it?

Science knows much more than I do today. My knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.
Science knows much more than you do today, too. Your knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.
Science knows much more than any single person does today. Any one person's knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.

Science has proven time and time again that where once things were unknown... tomorrow they can be verified and become known.

If you want to go against what's happened over and over again and say "this time it's impossible!" well.. there's a long list of failures you can join with that idea.

But, who knows? Maybe you're right.
My point isn't that you are wrong. Like I've said, I don't know and neither do you.
My point is only that you're likely to be wrong. Since all those taking your position on past, similar unknown-issues were all shown to be wrong as the unknown became known... thanks to science.

It had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist as it does exist today.

You keep saying this.
And I keep saying the same thing in response:

"Why?"

Why can't there be an option that ICANT and Stile cannot fathom?

And no I don't know it all. If I did I would not be here wasting my time trying to learn new things.

I know you don't know it all, that's why I don't believe you when you claim things you can't possibly know like "it had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist."

Unless, of course, you have an actual reason to claim such a thing?

I'm pretty sure the reason is "because ICANT is unable to think of any other possibility."

Well, I'm not really impressed with ICANT's ability to think up possibilities... as I increased a list of yours from 3 to 10+ quite easily just a few posts ago. And you were unable to come up with any reason why my possibilities should be included in your existing ones.

So, unless you provide a reason why these are the only possibilities... your claims will remain entirely meaningless.

There was the pea sized universe that existed at T=10-43 s in which all the energy, mass and matter that is in the present universe existed. Can you imagine the power required to accomplish a feat such as that?

Yes. It could be none. Or maybe some. Or maybe lots.
You seem to think it must be lots.
Again, I'm unimpressed with your ability to think of possibilities.

My question is what held it in place after it got there until it decided to expand?

Good question.
Scientists are asking that same question, as well as others.
And they're actually working on verifiable answers beyond your meaningless, baseless claims.

Maybe it wasn't held together at all and began to expand immediately.
Maybe it didn't take any energy to hold itself together and it held together for an infinite amount of time into the past.
Maybe our current knowledge of time/space/matter/energy is insufficient to explain what happened.
Maybe something else that ICANT and Stile cannot fathom.

There seems to be many, many possibilities. Why do you seem so sure that you've nailed it down to one that has done nothing but fail in the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 4:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7435
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 312 of 369 (826868)
01-12-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Son Goku
01-11-2018 7:28 PM


Re: Boom Goes The Dynamite
Son Goku writes:

In physics at least, people would view the answer as more important, just that the where and how must be sound. The answer is people's main motivation.

However, a specific answer is not their motivation. Scientists weren't trying to produce 2.998E8 m/s for the speed of light. Scientists don't care what the number actually is as long as it is the product of good methodology and science. If someone 200 years ago had just blurted out 2.998E8 m/s for the speed of light they would have been ignored, and no one would have cared about that number. Just having a number is worthless in science. Having an accurate and reliable methodology is everything.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Son Goku, posted 01-11-2018 7:28 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Son Goku, posted 01-13-2018 7:46 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 313 of 369 (826869)
01-12-2018 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Stile
01-12-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

I only used the BBT abbreviation because it's what you used in Message 290, the message I was replying to.

The BBT abbreviation is not the one I was questioning you about.
I was questioning you about the BB abbreviation you used in the same sentence.

In other words I took it you were referring to the theory in the BBT but that you were referring to a BANG with the BB abbreviation. I can't read minds and don't think I would like to be able too.

Stile writes:

It's very similar to how you keep wanting to call any possible cause of the universe "God" even if it doesn't include any God-like qualities.

So you don't think it would require a huge abount of pure energy to cause the universe to begin to exist. I think the description of the Planck epoch describes a tremendous amount of energy. A quintillion degrees would require a lot of energy. Our sun is only 9,941°F. So when we talk of the Planck epoch we are talking of a lot of energy.

A large amount of information is needed to be inserted in the creation to make everything work which would have to be supplied by whatever caused the universe to exist.

That is the reason I say anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would be God because it would meet the requirements to be able to produce the universe and everything in it.

This entity would have to be eternal or have a creator itself.

Stile writes:

I don't even know how to get information at T=2 billion years.
But science does.

I will agree that is what we are told. I just can't find, or get enough empirical evidence by asking to convince me that information is correct.

Stile writes:

You keep saying this.
And I keep saying the same thing in response:

"Why?"

And I keep giving you the answer. The universe exists today. Can't you understand that?

If neither of my ways of the universe beginning to exist is right then how did it get here?

Stile writes:

Well, I'm not really impressed with ICANT's ability to think up possibilities... as I increased a list of yours from 3 to 10+ quite easily just a few posts ago. And you were unable to come up with any reason why my possibilities should be included in your existing ones.

I gave you the reason. You only said what I had already said just in a different form which meant the same thing.

Stile writes:

Yes. It could be none. Or maybe some. Or maybe lots.
You seem to think it must be lots.
Again, I'm unimpressed with your ability to think of possibilities.

Could you please explain how zero or a small amount of energy could produce a temperature of one quintillion degrees?

Stile writes:

I know you don't know it all, that's why I don't believe you when you claim things you can't possibly know like "it had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist."

Then how does the universe exist today?

I remember what Ravin said: "It just is". (which would make it eternal)

Stile writes:

Maybe it wasn't held together at all and began to expand immediately.

After what? Did you think about what you were saying?

Stile writes:

Maybe it didn't take any energy to hold itself together and it held together for an infinite amount of time into the past.

So the universe existed eternally in the past? Is that what you are saying?

If so why did it wait so long to begin to expand?
Also what caused it to start to expand?

Stile writes:

Maybe our current knowledge of time/space/matter/energy is insufficient to explain what happened.

That is a fact.

Stile writes:

There seems to be many, many possibilities. Why do you seem so sure that you've nailed it down to one that has done nothing but fail in the past?

The universe could not have existed eternally in the past. A profound statement, I will agree.

After discussing multiverses and eternal universes Mithani and Vilenkin came to say:
The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal".

https://www.technologyreview.com/...ust-have-had-a-beginning

This is due to the evidence that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past.

That only leaves one possibility as far as science is concerned.
The universe had a beginning to exist

But if my God is the one who created the heavens and earth as He claimed to. The universe could have well exited eternally in the past just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and could be recharged anytime God so chose to do 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Stile, posted 01-12-2018 2:33 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 10:10 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10699
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 314 of 369 (826870)
01-13-2018 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by ICANT
01-12-2018 1:23 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
1. We do not know what existed at T=10-42 s.
2. Whatever existed at T=10-43 s was:

Sigh. 10-42 is a tiny fraction of a second later than 10-43 which makes your sentence nonsense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Phat, posted 01-13-2018 5:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 317 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2018 8:41 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10818
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 315 of 369 (826871)
01-13-2018 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by NoNukes
01-13-2018 2:54 AM


So What If God DID It?
Here is my 2 cents at 3 am since I had to check EvC! (Will go back to sleep shortly)

To I CANT: Even if God exists and even if He is the God YOU understand, what possible benefit would it be for science to simply give up being science and trying to understand how events occur? For many of the science minded folks, studying in order to understand reality is priceless. Concluding that God Did It is a killjoy, in a way. Our creator gave us inquisitive minds for a reason.

To Everyone else: We believers somehow want all of you to believe as we believe, but i can see how that effort is irritating at best. Please ignore my unconscious attempts to convince you of Gods reality. Should He(She, It, Jesus)
think it to be important that you consider Him, He will let you know one way or another.

In conclusion, GOD may well exist, but jar is correct in that humans seek to define and conceptualize Him...or don't really care nor bother.

Some folks are much more fascinated by exploring the universe rather than conceptualizing GOD. The God whom I believe in really does not care if you accept or believe in Him or not. I'm thinking (believing, considering) that He may want to know everyone, but that He won't force Himself on anyone. perhaps most of these religious topics are a waste of time for many of you.

(Im thinking of you Tangle! )

So what else do we talk about? Start a new topic and i will promote it


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2018 2:54 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2018 5:55 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 321 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2018 10:26 PM Phat has responded
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2018 11:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018