|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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 WHYAn 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
Every religion has a creation myth. It means: I cannot be right even if...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Could you perhaps tone down the language a bit in the manifesto in your signature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: So you do admit genesis is talking about a universe which had a beginning? What took you so long to decide!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024