Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Best evidence for Creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 91 of 176 (477471)
08-03-2008 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phat
08-03-2008 8:08 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Hi Phat -
If the universe always existed, that seems to set better with folks than asking if God always existed. Folks usually ask "Who created God?" but never seem to mind the fact that a singularity was sitting around for eternity until the explosion.
I think the relevant argument is that if we insist on the need for a creator for the Universe, we must also insist on the need for a created creator. But if we are happy to relax the point, and accept that the Universe could exist without the need for a creator, that then allows us to consider also an uncreated creator...
Cavediver, if the universe had no beginning, what is the purpose of our lives if we may someday be compressed back into a singularity?
I don't know about purpose, but you are a fixed permanent immutable part of our Universe. Your limited span of time merely fixes your position in the 4d space-time. In the same way that you cannot expect to be at all places in the Universe, nor can you really expect to be at all times. That doesn't diminish your role...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 08-03-2008 8:08 AM Phat has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 176 (477479)
08-03-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
08-03-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Existence.
cavediver writes:
To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure.
So are you saying that neither is a possibility?
Not in any way that allows one to talk about existence coming into being. Both would have to extend across this non-existence/existence boundary, which immediately means that your non-existence isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 1:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:29 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 176 (477482)
08-03-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
08-03-2008 2:20 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed.
This is only true locally - globally there is no such restriction...
the universe has always existed in some form.
...and so this becomes merely an assertion.
The universe did not exist.
This is a meaningless statement, and hence your argument fails.
"The universe did not have to come into existence to exist now."
Could you please explain how that is possible.
You've read Hawking's work with Hartle on the no-boundary proposal and also his work with Turok, so you should know by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:14 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 176 (477486)
08-03-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
08-03-2008 4:14 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Do you mean inside our universe as locally?
No. Locally means within a sufficiently small volume to avoid non-trivial topological considerations.
One shared by those who believe in string theory, brane theory and the bounce theory.
Really, have you asked them all? Given that I am/was a string/brane theorist amongst other things, how does that work?
Instead of answering yourself you proposed Hawking's explanation. I know what his explanation I was asking for your explanation.
They are essentially the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:59 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 176 (477494)
08-03-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
08-03-2008 4:59 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Would T=0 qualify as locally? or T=10-43 ?
Most definitely not.
I notice you did not mention the bounce theory as that is a given.
There is no such thing as a 'bounce theorist' - it is just one idea.
as there would have been an absence of any thing
there has never been an 'absence of any thing'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:11 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 112 of 176 (477511)
08-04-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
08-03-2008 9:11 PM


Re: Bounce
cavediver writes:
there has never been an 'absence of any thing'
I agree.
No, you don't. Even if the existence is only 14 billion years old, there has never been an 'absence of any thing'.
But if the universe had a beginning that is the best evidence for creation.
It is only evidence for creation when viewed from a very naive understanding of space-time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 130 of 176 (477585)
08-05-2008 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
And there was nonexistence 14 billion years ago as you say.
I certainly did not say this, as it is nonsense.
The Universe possibly has a 'beginning' 14 billion years ago, i.e. there is a minimum value to the time dimension. To then say that therefore there was nonexistence 14.00001 billion years ago is complete lunacy. You are trying to claim that the earth does not exist north of the north pole. The beginning is not a point of creation, in the same way the north pole is not an edge of the world. And here we are back to very first concepts we tried to explain to you last year, and we do not seem to have progressed any further.
I think this tediously repetitive digression has taken up enough of Brian's thread, so I shall bow out now.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT 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