former speed of light

While some might quibble with the injection of the undefined term Spiritual, it is becoming increasingly likely that there was some seperation somewhere very shortly after creation. During the first few moments of the BB, somewhere around 14,000,000,000 years ago, it is doubtful that light existed.So I would say that it is likely impossible for the light to have been traveling longer than 14,000,000,000 years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

For instance light travelling at infinite speed would have already gone past us and been lost - infinite speed will cover any finite distance in zero time.. Thus the light we see now was emitted at a finite speed.

---

Nice try. Perhaps you should say, if our physical universe light travelled at infinite speed...then such and such would result. Yes, the complete universe light would have got here right away. But what are it's properties? Does it really even need to 'travel'? Maybe it just sort of omnipotently 'basks'!? Yes our light got here (and gets here now) at finite speeds! Our light hasn't much choice it is a part of the physical universe. The question is, as our light was seperated from the 'true' (or spiritual) light how was it left in place? This we can't really answer, it seems to me, unless we knew the properties of the other original complete light. This is hard to do, since many don't even believe in the spiritual! (let alone are able to measure it)
Here again, if someone was in a hospital dying, and saw a light at the end of a tunnel, and a being of light, etc. and you were sitting right at his bedside-would you see it too? No. Now try to explain it's properties to me! You can't even see it when it may be in the same room!

So your point is that if you are allowed to make up whatever unfounded assumptions you want you can explain anything away. Very true. That's why it's a bad idea to rely on making up unfounded assumptions.

quote:

---

During the first few moments of the BB, somewhere around 14,000,000,000 years ago, it is doubtful that light existed. So I would say that it is likely impossible for the light to have been traveling longer than 14,000,000,000 years.

---

Nice theory. Now I don't want to get Silas uptight, but I think the idea is that everything we see anywhere kind of glided out of this cosmic cup o soup. At one time, they conjecture, small as a pea! Presto-Sun, moon, and stars!
Anyhow, Our light wasn't travelling that long! It only existed for some thousands of years. We can't use it's pitiful speed to measure the spiritual world! They are much faster than that. Best such a line of 'reason' could do, was to ignore the spirit world, bible, God, supernatural, etc. and imagine such a slow light speed means there is no God! No heaven. No eternal life. And no new heaven and earth a comin someday. Yech!

quote:

---

So your point is that if you are allowed to make up whatever unfounded assumptions you want you can explain anything away. Very true. That's why it's a bad idea to rely on making up unfounded assumptions.

---

Unfounded assumptions? Try the cup o soup, and granny bacteria! I'm standing on the Rock, and not on the shifting sands of silly Godless conjecture. Should I found things on the present speed of physical universe light?-Such as how God must be a liar, or dead, because our present light is slow?

So your idea of a solid foundation is that you made it upWell there's no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is there ?

Woah now, let's not go doing anything crazy.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

You durn sure need to stop using that computer, or the telephone or TV. They are "founded" on that speed.And what do Chevy Trucks have to do with all this, anyway?

The problem here is that no skeptic here has any reason to believe in your Theory. They seek evidence. Their skepticism is understandable if there is a naturalistic explanation, THAT is why PaulK is frustrated. It's not that he's against you Arkathon, it's just that he's got no reason to believe the earth is young.ANyone seen the british show, "Most Haunted" on TV? The problem with that show is that you actually never ever see a ghost. What you do see is "orbs", yat the skeptic would call it dust on the camera reflecting light. Also, chairs move, doors slam. But should the skeptic believe because of doors slamming and people acting in a irrational manner?I've also seen people posessed on this program. The problem is, they could also just be acting. So, when you apply some kind of spiritual Theory to answer a young universe, a person with a knowledge of science is just going to say, "far fetched attempt to explain a young earth". EVEN if your idea held truth. It's like that program, it is unsatisfying to the mind, when show after show, you see nothing but people acting frightened in the dark. So that is why skeptics aren't going to buy into your idea. I myself also believe in the bible, but it doesn't mention this seperation of spiritual light and physical light, as far as I know.I'm not against your idea Arkethon, but obviously atheists here aren't going to buy it.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-24-2004 06:45 PM

quote:

---

So your idea of a solid foundation is that you made it up

---

No, based on the bible was what I would consider solid, you know, on the Rock.

Go GODleaves us two records.One has been copied, translated, modified, interpreted, vetted, parts added, parts taken out. It is written by plain old people, is full of inconsistencies and outright errors.The other is the physical universe. It's there, written directly by GOD.You actually believe the Bible over the one that GOD wrote himself? Amazing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To arkathon: Although I don't see the connection between this and the former speed of light (note: I am not ASKING for a connection), I am nevertheless interested in a spiritual explanation of the "light at the end of the tunnel" phenomenon.Why tunnel? Why light? Is this phenomenon restricted to Christians, or is everyone subject to it regardless of religious inclinations? Can you give a full explanation for why you believe this phenomenon is restricted to a spiritual explanation, or do you believe that science can explain this phenomenon as well (if not better)?Furthermore, can you explicitly state the reasons why you believe it.********************************************************************************************This is my two cents: My opinion is that religion is not scientific, and science is not religious. You cannot scientifically prove God, nor can you religiously deny that HCL + NAOH => H2O + NACL. Science is objective (all theories assumed wrong until physical evidence suggests otherwise) while religion is subjective (core belief(s) that influence(s) interpretations, explanations and future understanding of physical phenomenon).Religion assumes truth while science rejects falsehood. The two are NOT compatible. Religions don't have theories (or, at least not "scientific" theories), and sciences don't have dogma.But this is only my opinion, and you are very welcome to challenge it.Patiently awaiting your reply.**********************************************************************
(Edited to add the following)And while I'm here, I would appreciate it if mike_the_wiz can reply to some of the threads/posts from me ("Lucifer is...bad?" and "Payer vs. Divine plan). Actually, scratch that. I would appreciate it if he/she can reply to them all.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-24-2004 10:32 PM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Any reason why I shouldn't take the tipitaka over the bible?

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

a person with a knowledge of science is just going to say, "far fetched attempt to explain a young earth"

---

Then this person might have some reason why he or she thought our light was not possibly only in our physical universe, or something, rather than just prefering to not believe in anything spiritual.

quote:

---

I've also seen people posessed on this program. The problem is, they could also just be acting.

---

I don't base much on a tv show, but Jesus Himself cast out bad spirits. Jesus also sat on the mountainside and had angels minister to Him. He also had a chat with Moses, and Elijah one time. He also told us if we believe in Him, we would live forever! He also made the world, it says, and all that is therein. He also talked about the flood coming, and sweeping them all away.

quote:

---

I'm not against your idea Arkethon, but obviously atheists here aren't going to buy it.

---

And I'm not in the market for a cosmic cup of soup creator either. It's not so much will someone buy the idea, but that no one can give scientific reason it just could not be. As far as the bible goes, as I pointed out, the physical world is coming to a close, and a new one coming.

quote:

---

Any reason why I shouldn't take the ti pit aka over the bible?

---

the bible doesn't have the "pit" in in the middle?