Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

You have asserted that infinite = unchanging.I asked you to provide your source for this and/or to justify it. That is how this conversation started.You then pull out some very short, very vague and deeply open to interpretation biblical quotations to justify your assertion.You then proceed to extrapolate this by redefining what 'change' means to suit your very individual interpretation.You have no basis for your assertion. Not even a biblical one. Your assertion that infinite = unchanging is flawed, unjustified and uniquely your own.You are basically making it up as you go along.

We could apply your same arguments to make the complete opposite case to the one you are trying to make!!
By the same standards of logic that you apply we could say that which is infinite is ever changing and that which is infinitesimal is perfectly static and unchanging.
None of these things are observed in the universe. They are all equally flawed argumentsThere is no basis for any sort of relationship between the infinite and the unchanging.You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any foundation for the assertion that infinite = unchanging. Your assertion remains baseless, unjustified and logically flawed. If you want to discuss the scientfic validity or otherwise of Genesis I suggest you start a new thread. My argument against your baseles assertion in this thread has nothing to do with the validity of the source whatsoever.Regardless of the source your assertion that the quotes below somehow equate to infinity = unchanging are incredible. Only with an interpretation borne of a predetermined coclusion which itself is based on extreme philosophical bias can anyone turn these obviously ambiguous statements into the baseless assertion that infinite = unchanging.

I have no philosophical position regarding the universe. Finite, infinite it really makes no difference to me at all. Read your statement again. This is literally meaningless. What is agreed? All I have ever disputed is your assertion that infinite = unchanging. Regardless of whether this is applied to the universe or anything else. I continue to dispute this. You continue to fail to demonstrate your position If infinite = unchanging then it should apply to all things infinite not just the universe. Agreed? How can the two line quotes you have cited say anything definitive about the nature of infinity when neither the word infinity nor the concept of infinity is mentioned in either of them???How can you get infinite = unchanging from these two lines?This is extrapolation gone mad on your part. Show me something which always changes and I will show you something infinite.
Show me something that never changes and I will show you something infinitesimal.
Thus the common denominator you mention also proves the opposite of your assertion.Thus your argument is refuted by means of the very same flawed logic on which your argument is based.

I don't know and contrary to your latest assertion it has no bearing on anything I do or don't believe. It is an interesting physical question to which the the answer has no philosophical consequences as far as I am concerned. I am happy to go with the current conclusions of mainstream science on this matter. These seem to have a far more rational foundation than your alternative theory based on your individual interpretation of 2 deeply ambiguous quotes. Neither of which mention infinity or the universe anyway.That infinite = unchanging remains a baseless assertion on your part.
Thus your subsequent conclusions regarding the finiteness or otherwise of the universe are equally invalid.

Once again logic fails you.I have no disagreement with your concept or definition of change as far as I can see.
I have absolutely no disagreemnet that something which undergoes no change must be infinite.
You can indeed conclude that anything unchanging must be infinite.
However you cannot logically infer from this that everything that is infinite is necessarily unchanging.In the terms of our earlier conversation - All ends are changes but not all changes are ends.Again I give the example - All trees are plants but it obviously does not follow that all plants are trees!!Even if we accept your dubious sources and interpretations you have still failed to demonstrate that a changing universe must be a finite universe.Your logic is just flawed. Honestly I don't.
I am just pointing out your flawed logic. The nature of the universe with regard to infinite (or otherwise) is something I am interested in but about which I have no philosophical bias at all.

No. This is exactly what you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate. You are just asserting it again.You can logically argue that the unchanging and static must be infinite. Fine. I have no problem with that.
But there remains no basis for your assertion that things subject to change must be finite.One does not lead to the other. Your logic remains flawed.

Genesis is science?
BBT is only a theory. They are both just points of view etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.Science tests it's conclusions regarding nature against the facts of nature. Predictions about physical phenomenon are made and verified or refuted.If you produce one verifiable prediction regarding an as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of your "Genesis science" I will dedicate my life to God.
If you cannot produce any verifiable predictions then your "Genesis science" just isn't science.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We have discussed entropy before and it was obvious then that you have no understanding of the concept beyond the sort of misinformation posted on creationist sites regarding life, death, decay, order and development.Entropy arguably has some very interesting things to say about all of these things and other intriguing areas such as the nature of time. However to even begin to grasp why this is you need to uderstand what entropy is in terms of energy. The physics of simple energy transfer may not ge as sexy as discussing cosmological evolution but there is absolutely no point discussing entropy in cosmological terms with you unless you have a grasp of these basic concepts.Do you understand, for example, how the sun and your reliance on it as an energy source can be described in terms of simple energy transfers and the minor but increasing entropy of the universe these cause? Can you describe the energy source and the energy transfers involved that allow you to lift a box (for example) in your own words?Can you explain why a hot cup of water placed in a perfectly sealed room would temporarily reduce the entropy of the room? Can you explain in simple thermodynamic terms how the entropy of the room would subsequently increase until maximum entropy was eventually reached? Can you explain how this relates to incresing disorder of the room?If you cannot get the concept and practical implications of energy transfer and entropy in terms of these simple examples there is no hope of applying such concepts to an expanding universe.Where exactly do you think BBT contradicts the 2ndLOT in terms of energy?
Forget your concepts and dictionary definitions of development, complexity etc. etc. for one moment (we can come back to those if you can demonstrate a basic understanding).
If you cannot express your objections in terms of energy then frankly there is no point having this discussion until you have learnt something about energy transfer and entropy from a basic physics text book rather than a creationist website.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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? Another assertion. Based on the original assertion with some flawed logic thrown in for good measure. Agreed. This still does not prove that all infinite things are not subject to change however. 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?

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Put your money were your mouth is and start a thread to explore Genesis as a (testable?) scientific hypothesis.If you want to restrict it to cosmology you could even set it up as a BBT Vs Genesis thread in one of the religious forums where the two are examined as rival competing theories in terms of prediction and verification of empirically observed results.I think your illogical notions of finitenes and your hindsight ridden interpretations/"predictions" will be exposed for the flawed, unscientific subjectively derived nonsense that they so obviously are.

This is just an agument of first causes.
At some point in the chain there has to be an uncaused. Maybe the universe is the uncaused event in which case there is no "pre universe product". Maybe there is a wider multiverse in which case there is.
Objective scientific investigation based on verification by prediction is the only means by which we should assess the validity of any hypotheses regarding these questions.At the moment the only reliable answer available - is that we do not know. What?
Your obsessive lust for finiteness is a theistically derived philosophical requirement with no basis in observation and one which has already been demonstrated to be logically flawed even if your biblical source is accepted.
Start a new thread if you want to continue with this. I am happy to keep pointing out your flawed logic for as long as you are willing to keep pushing it. But this is not the place.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your description of science as observation is a commonly held misapprehension. Especially amongst those of a creationst persuasion.The basis of science is testing. Not observation per se. Testing theories against the facts of nature. Testing hypotheses. Observation is a means to an end in this respect not an end in itself.Unless the conclusions we make about nature are tested against nature itself they are unscientific and, in any objective terms, not to be considered reliable. That is why verification by prediction is the gold standard of scientific investigation. We can make our theories fit known facts. We can work our philosophical bias and subjective interpretations around known evidence. We can easily fool ourselves into believing false explanations for known phenomenon.But it is all but impossible to make new facts of nature fit our theories of nature. Predictions of new physical phenomenon made from theory and verified by observation are the most objective tests of theory possible.
Thus we achieve a level of objectivity by means of predicted results that is impossible through explanatory theories alone.Current cosmological models have passed such tests. With flying colours.Until someone can predict new and as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of the God hypothesis such conclusions will rightfully be considered unreliable, unscientific and ultimately somewhat pointless.
What new phenomenon has the creationist or IDists method discovered recently? Or indeed ever?In short - Science is a philosophy and method of discovery whilst creationism (in all it's various ID forms) is a philosophy of ignorance.EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.