Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

I can't see how the status of finite or infinite can be off topic here - the BBT has to be vested in one of the two options, and I have made my choice, giving a host of reasons and reasonings why. You have given nothing to incline with either position.One cannot debate the universe origins without knowing which universe they are debating - a finite or infinite one. These two universes do not display the same traits.

The "off topic" topic is the 6000 year date you keep claiming. I think it's nonsense, but it's off topic here.Start a new thread for it in the Science Forum. (Third request.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

LOL - that's a brilliant enlightenment.Prove your case, then LOL.

Ok, the 6000 is off topic, but not whether we inhabit a finite or infinite universe!

IAJ it is you who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.The reason we know anything about the physical nature of the universe is by means of scientific investigation.Things like - Can frankly mean almost whatever you want them to mean.
I could take this to mean that God has not changed his clothes recently if I were going to be pedantic and facetious.How on Earth do you conclude from these verses that infinite = unchanging?
Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that God is infinite (what would that actually mean?) and has declared himself to be unchanging it does not necessarily follow that anything infinite must therefore be unchanging as you are asserting.Your assertion that infinite = unchanging remains unfounded even on your own rather silly terms.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If god has changed, would he still be god? If he is perfect and then he changes, what would we get? Definitely not a perfect god. The stories in the bible are so childish, i am amazed there are still people falling for them.
IMJ, what was god doing before the genesis? Was he born just prior to the genesis?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi all!This thread's topic is problems with the Big Bang, and it's in the [forum=-2] forum, which is one of the science forums. The science forums are for discussion of creation/evolution from a scientific perspective. Those who prefer a more spiritual approach should try the religious forums.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

IAJ,that is the problem. I already have. What you need to do now is respond to the correct threads where I have refuted you. Please do not pull stunts like this to avoid the subject. In the past you have gone "off topic" to prove your silly little points. Why be the good Samaritan now? Or is this one of those times when you are aware your belief is clouding your judgment. How about you starting a thread to prove the earth is 6000 years old. How about you starting a thread that the universe is finite and see how far that goes. Start threads on all your silly little claims to find out where they lead you. Atleast in those threads you can yell and scream all you want but it will not go off topic or change the evidence.Edited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks

quote:

---

The reason we know anything about the physical nature of the universe is by means of scientific investigation.

---

Correct. Whatever we call 'knowing', must be evidenced scientifically, historically and logically, as opposed by belief premises.

quote:

---

Can frankly mean almost whatever you want them to mean. How on Earth do you conclude from these verses that infinite = unchanging?

---

How about, by examining and debating it scientifically? This is the mode I would like to see this premise examined - not by expelling it as a religious belief. And as such, it cannot be examined better than in a science thread. This requires a scientific determination what constitutes infinity - because we cannot debate a subject without having a criteria what determines it. IMHO, you will find the criteria of 'CHANGE' a singularly legitimate one - via science, maths and logic - in fact it is not replaceable with any other criteria whatsoever.I say, whatever criteria is put forward, will be wanting or incorrect - without the factor of change. Try it sometime before claiming to understand the term.

quote:

---

Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that God is infinite (what would that actually mean?) and has declared himself to be unchanging it does not necessarily follow that anything infinite must therefore be unchanging as you are asserting.

---

Never mind what God said, examine the term infinite where the factor of change is not encumbent. Is that not a scientific methodology? I explained that the changee is less transcendent than the changer - but this had no bearing on you. I explained that something which changes was not infinite 10 seconds back. I explained that a thread a 100 light years long cannot contain an infinite thread. These are not semantical provisions. Infnity cannot apply to anything subject to change, and I find this a vindicating premise from all angles, including a scientific one. I am certain the maths will also vindicate it, while this is above my means.However, if this view is not accepted as the basis for a examination scientifically - then I will drop out from this path of approach - only to please the wanting unconfronting and escapists.

quote:

---

In the past you have gone "off topic" to prove your silly little points. Why be the good Samaritan now? Or is this one of those times when you are aware your belief is clouding your judgment. How about you starting a thread to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

---

The 6000 was in response to a post. The finite factor is of course alligned with any debate of the BB.

quote:

---

Sci-Tech Encyclopedia:

​

Infinity
The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.

---

'End' = a change.

IAJ you are making this up as you go along.Where, other than in your head, does infinite = unchanging?If you have some incredible new angle on infinity that mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and everybody else has missed up until now you are going to have to do more than simply assert this as a fact.If you are referencing some sort of little known but previously analysed theory of infinity then tell us your sources.

quote:

---

Where, other than in your head, does infinite = unchanging?

​

If you have some incredible new angle on infinity that mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and everybody else has missed up until now you are going to have to do more than simply assert this as a fact.

---

I gave a definition of what constitutes infinity: why don't you do the same?My definition is not a new angle or from my head, nor unscientific or a-mathematical, but one which is written in the same source which introduces creationism, and which I happen to agree with upon its deliberation. Rather than make remarks inferring it is ridiculous, why not address how it is not correct scientifically, or what other definition applies? I gave at least one mathematical definition from a respected dictionary.Are you saying, an infinite can contain changes effected by a finite source, and still remain infinite? - I see no other conclusion from your response, nor do I understand what your objection refers to, or what aspect you are correcting and what is the correct replacement of it.At least you must agree on one factor: deeming any part of the universe as being always existing [infinite], is not a definition of an infinite universe, thus everlasting space cannot apply as being infinite, while being contained in a finite structure: because an infinite quantity of space just does not fit into a young, 15 Billion year measure of space. Elementary, 101 science, maths and logic?

DOUBLE POST.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I have no real objection to your definition. All ends may be changes but not all changes are necessarily ends. Your logic is flawed.Again how do you justify infinite = unchanging?

quote:

---

I have no real objection to your definition.

​

Infinity
The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.

---

The maths version is limited to the theoretical and academic only, and can only apply with other maths problems - not outside the maths.

quote:

---

All ends may be changes but not all changes are necessarily ends. Your logic is flawed.

---

So you concede an end is a change, but not that a change is an end? Moderately confused here: an end is a change, but only because an alteration represents the change from the transcendent changER to the lesser changEE - which means that a change is also an alteration. IOW, if something is changed, it also says whatever changed it is a greater power [so to speak] over it.It is different from a 'change of state', which I suspect you are confusing it with. The premise of 'no end' with the change takes on a different outcome than a change of state, because we are not really limiting this premise to a change to another state, but to which is greater, and that the greater cannot be limited to a containment in the lesser.

quote:

---

Again how do you justify infinite = unchanging?

---

Consider that a changing action represents a power or force, and whatever it is able to change, represents a less transcendent force. When this same analogy is applied where it is supposed to, namely with space-time measures, then whatever factor is able to change that space-time, must also be able to outlast that space-time; otherwise, the change will not be evidential. A 10 mile long train cannot be contained in a 5 mile long tunnel - nor can an infinite amount of time be contained in a finite [15B years] amount of time.An infinite can contain a finite, but not the other way around; here, any changes can only be limited to the finite, not the infinite - because of the transcendent factor.Another way to consider this issue, [which deliberation only indicates this is one of the hediest subjects, and not fully comprehended by anyone - or any person which is finite], is to imagine your great grand-parent being infinite or everlasting. This would mean not that he is able to enjoy a very long life span, because this is only a relative term - his lifespan is not long relative to the big picture. For your great grand parent to be infinite, there must be no changes whatsoever; IOW, there must be no force in the universe which can age him or effect him - because no force in the universe is infinite. Infinite is different from very old or long surviving, which is a relative factor, while infinite is an absolute factor - transcendent of all which is finite. It is also varied from a cyclical change of states.Another consideration is, why is everything in the universe finite? The latter answers only to one factor: changes. Its proof is that nothing in the universe [or our imagination] withstands change. I found it significant that this is the only condition nominated in the source which declares the universe as finite, and then I considered this deeply and performed research in the definitions and manifest examples of finite everywhere we look. If I am wrong, I have not seen any evidence which says I am wrong, nor of any alternative examples which fit this description better.My conclusion of this subject: if an infinite factor is proposed for the universe or anything else [e.g. space] - then that cannot display any changes - the only trait making it transcendent to all things which are finite.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.