Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 226 of 273 (473331)
06-28-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 10:58 PM


Change = End
Infinite = everlasting = unchanging
Your base assertion reworded. It still remains unfounded.
That which is unchanging must be infinite. I agree.
But you cannot logically reverse this to say everything infinite is unchanging. One does not follow from the other. Why are you so incapable of seeing that?
A state of change = the thing was and is finite.
Another assertion. Based on the original assertion with some flawed logic thrown in for good measure.
All finite things are subject to change.
Agreed. This still does not prove that all infinite things are not subject to change however.
Name anything which is finite and not subject to change?
All things finite must be subject to change. No disagreement there.
You just don't get it do you. Your logic is just flawed regarding the infinite.
HERE IS WHY
An end is a change.
But not all changes are ends.
That which is unchanging must be unending and therefore must be infinite. Fine. We agree.
That which is finite must have an and and therefore must be changing. Fine. We agree.
But not all changes are ends.
Therefore not all things that change are necessarily finite.
Therefore not all things that are infinite are necessarily unchanging.
Your assertion is logically false.
Your whole flawed argument relies on the assumption change = end.
It falls apart if there are forms of change other than ends.
QUESTION: There are forms of change other than endings. Yes or No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:58 PM IamJoseph has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 227 of 273 (473333)
06-28-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 10:58 PM


Last word
IaJ, Straggler has had the last word on your idea of changing things must be finite.
If you persist with your illogical nonsense you'll be banned from this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:58 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 228 of 273 (473334)
06-28-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 10:08 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
I said a prediction. Not an interpretation.
The CMB was predicted. The bending of light around massive objects was predicted. The rate of clocks on orbitting satellites was predicted. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Physical phenomenon described in detail before they had been observed with calculated predicted results and no post observation interpretation required.
All you do with your Genesis nonsense is reword selected bits of it to fit in with the parts of modern science you agree with and other bits of it to fit in with your preconceived notions of God. About as unobjective as it is posible to be.
The objective test of theory against nature lies at the foundation of what is science. Yours is lacking even an understanding of this concept never mind an adherance to it.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 9:36 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 9:53 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 229 of 273 (473340)
06-28-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 9:53 PM


Re: Infinity
One has to agree with the position prior to the universe [namely, all things], there was ONE - as opposed no things/nothingness. Nothingness is a subjective posiion, meaning it is limited to what one can fathom, discern, calculate, measure, see or contain in their vocab. And this means only that there is ONE factor when no things existed - meaning there is never nothing - else no things could be possible. Even the notion of no-things or nothingness - requires ONE to say that is so!
This is a philosophical position and not an evidenced based position that you have taken. I know to you it feels as though you've expressed it scientifically but to us reading, it doesn't translate that way.
Not enough is known about this particular area of cosmology for you to jusy insert your theological bias in there as a plausble theory, without any evidence mind you.
If cosmologist and physicist still haven't agreed on it, where do you get off just filling in their blanks with you conclusions based on only YOUR understanding?
At some point you're going to have to admit to yourself that you are just talking out of your ass...

All great truths begin as blasphemies
I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 9:53 PM IamJoseph has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 230 of 273 (473343)
06-28-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 10:08 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
That the uni had a beginning; that next came entropy [formless to form]; then came critical seperations of the elements [light from darkness; water from land; etc]; then came life giving luminosity; then came life forms - in a chronological, evolutionary order.
Yes and shortly after this there was a talking snake offering temptations to humans via fruit.
Also, this is not the original language that you quoted, in the original language many of the words don't translate as you've written them, and you are ignoring rhe rest of the garbage that follows the opening words of the Bible.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/...civ_reader_1/hebrew_creation.html

All great truths begin as blasphemies
I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 9:44 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 236 by Admin, posted 06-29-2008 6:56 AM onifre has replied
 Message 239 by IamJoseph, posted 06-29-2008 7:55 AM onifre has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 231 of 273 (473402)
06-28-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
06-28-2008 10:33 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
All you do with your Genesis nonsense is reword selected bits of it to fit in with the parts of modern science you agree with and other bits of it to fit in with your preconceived notions of God. About as unobjective as it is posible to be.
That's a neat trick. I saw some science books saying the universe was finite, then I looked up an ancient document which co-incidently says the universe had a beginning. But co-incidently, no such document exists elsewhere.
It means: I cannot be right even if...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 273 (473404)
06-28-2008 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
06-28-2008 12:18 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
You bring up talking snakes when it will be off topic to respond. But you use this as a means of negating that whiich you cannot negate. I call it 'thinking clearly inside the box'. You are also disregarding some basic considerations: some words were not yet in humanity's vocabs 3000 years ago: e.g. 'finite, entropy, big bang, etc, etc. One cannot be logical in science but illogical in history lessons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 273 (473405)
06-28-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
06-28-2008 10:33 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
The CMB was predicted. The bending of light around massive objects was predicted. The rate of clocks on orbitting satellites was predicted. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Physical phenomenon described in detail before they had been observed with calculated predicted results and no post observation interpretation required.
So what's your point? Why not play a game: go via a time machine 3000 years back to the future, and make a statement concerning the beginning of light or whether the universe is finite or not - before this is predicted. How would you word it to an audience in the town square, noting that a few may actually understand the spoken word - therein is the test, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 234 of 273 (473426)
06-29-2008 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by IamJoseph
06-28-2008 9:53 PM


Prediction
So what's your point?
My point is that from Genesis you have only interpretatios made with the benefit of hindsight. Not verifiable predictions.
Therefore it obviously is not science.
Why not play a game: go via a time machine 3000 years back to the future, and make a statement concerning the beginning of light or whether the universe is finite or not - before this is predicted. How would you word it to an audience in the town square, noting that a few may actually understand the spoken word - therein is the test, no?
No. The game you are playing is played by the purveyors of that nonsense called astrology on a daily basis. Your interpretaions of ambigous terms and poetic phrases are no different to those people who can find personal meaning and supposed predictions in the following sort of drivel -
"Saturn rising means that you should let home matters prevail. An event or occasion may require your contribution. Planetary clashes suggest you might have to wait a little longer for results or an answer"
In other words "predictions" only work if facts are subjectively made to fit in with "theory" exactly as you are doing with Genesis.
The whole point of science is to maximise objectivity by testing theories against new facts of nature.
Interpreting "theories" (e.g. Genesis) in line with known facts is obviously not objective and is the very antithesis of scientific.
whether the universe is finite or not..
The concepts of prediction and objective investigation are obviously as alien to you as has been your understanding of logic thus far in this thread.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 9:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by IamJoseph, posted 06-29-2008 7:38 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 235 of 273 (473428)
06-29-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
06-28-2008 9:36 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
That's a neat trick. I saw some science books saying the universe was finite, then I looked up an ancient document which co-incidently says the universe had a beginning. But co-incidently, no such document exists elsewhere.
It means: I cannot be right even if...
Every religion has a creation myth.
The idea of a beginning is hardly unique to Genesis.
If the findings of modern science had already been concluded thousands of years peviously why was it humanity seemed so ignorant, and indeed religion so resistant, to scientific theories regarding the nature of the universe?
By interpreing your bible (or whatever) in light of scienific discoveries you are treating your bible like little more than an extended piece of newspaper astrology.
Why don't you start a thread on the scientific vaidity of Genesis? Lets really see the contortions you have to go through ad the knowledge you have to have in advance to make the subjective interpretations that you are insisting upon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 9:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by IamJoseph, posted 06-29-2008 7:47 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 240 by IamJoseph, posted 06-29-2008 8:05 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 242 by IamJoseph, posted 06-29-2008 8:59 AM Straggler has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 236 of 273 (473433)
06-29-2008 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
06-28-2008 12:18 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
Could you perhaps tone down the language a bit in the manifesto in your signature?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 06-29-2008 7:10 PM Admin has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 273 (473435)
06-29-2008 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
06-29-2008 6:24 AM


Re: Prediction
quote:
My point is that from Genesis you have only interpretatios made with the benefit of hindsight. Not verifiable predictions.
Absolutely not - the relevent, opening entry in genesis is contexted in a verse and paragraph which discusses only the universe origins, with no possibility of interpretations being required. The entire follow-up verses also deal precisely and solely with the subsequent factors immediately upon the universe occuring.
I tend an open challenge to you: instead of deflecting away - what other possibility can Genesis be talking about? I mean, there has to be other potential and different interpretations possible before you accuse me of wrong or exeggerated interpretations - is Genesis's first chapter talking about agriculture, wood carving, rock'n'roll - what other thing aside from the universe's origin?
You either have a comprehension issue, or else guilty of the charges you lay elsewhere. I note also your own self contradictions: first you negate genesis - then you say it is a retrospective interpretation - which also admits, by default and denial, an over-turning of the first charge.
There is only one issue to confront, and that is whether today's science is catching up with a first recording of a finite universe. The answer is positively yes, but only recently, half heartedly and reluctantly dragging its foot there. Now I can produce a host of ancient writings which affirm the view held of a limited and finite universe - well before the term 'finite' was coined. In any case you have no grounds to question a document which says something 3000 years ago, and attack me instead of addressing what is said in that document.
quote:
Interpreting "theories" (e.g. Genesis) in line with known facts is obviously not objective and is the very antithesis of scientific.
There is no interpretation - or any other possible meaning to a verse which says the galaxes and this planet had a beginning - then goes on to list what came next, and next, and next - all being limited to universe origins, and mentioning no other items - even saying this prior to the emergence of any life forms: IOW - the writings is exclusively vested in the universe origins [the texts!].
You can learn from genesis - and state your preamble which universe you are talking about - a finite or infinite one. Otherwise, you can say whatever you wish and none can question you - and that os what is happening all over the place. Genesis is bold and up-front here - while you have not responded to this primal question after repeated requests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:24 AM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 238 of 273 (473436)
06-29-2008 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
06-29-2008 6:37 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
Every religion has a creation myth.
That is your problem: you equate head bashing deities battling for supremecy with genesis' monotheistic creator. FYI, the term religion and bible has no reference of equalisation with genesis, other than an imposed common usage. Nor has anything been negated in genesis by you or anyone else. They're just shouting words such as myth, religion, etc - but putting nothing on the table.
quote:
The idea of a beginning is hardly unique to Genesis.
So you do admit genesis is talking about a universe which had a beginning? What took you so long to decide!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:37 AM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 239 of 273 (473437)
06-29-2008 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
06-28-2008 12:18 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
All great truths begin as blasphemies
There can be only one truth about the universe origins, not many truths. The charges of Rome's heresy was itself a blasphemy. All divine roman and egyptian emperors are de-finitely dead.
quote:
I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.
Lol. Then you should see the inner light of logic. Every sane person agrees its a finite universe - they're just hell mad that it was first stated in a mythical, religious document. Its enough to drive you potty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 06-29-2008 7:26 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 240 of 273 (473438)
06-29-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
06-29-2008 6:37 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
BTW, the BBT agrees with Genesis, and if it makes you feel better, you can see it the ither way around. Now that we've decided the universe is finite, we can look for any other problems with the BBT.
IMHO, the problem is that there is no other theory which is better, and right or wrong, this theory also alligns with genesis in many other aspects: the BB expansion can be seen as a triggering of light. Here, the issue would be - what is pre-star light? - because stars do not emit light until they reach a certain developed stage. Genesis says, the essence of light preceded the stars - but luminosity came later. Will science catchup with Genesis? - oops, I mean the other way around!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by AdminNosy, posted 06-29-2008 8:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 9:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024