Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,875 Year: 16,911/19,786 Month: 1,036/2,598 Week: 282/251 Day: 10/43 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 106 of 687 (520907)
08-24-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Rahvin
08-24-2009 7:53 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
quote:
ICANT has a history of being completely unable to comprehend a finite but unbounded dimension. We've been over the issue with him many times as to the actual nature of time, and what it means when discussing "beginnings" and "causes." He continues to insist that, if the Universe has a "beginning," it must also have a "cause," as if the notion of a preceding event has any meaning when discussing an absolute minimum value for time. As we've said to him many times, it's like asking what's farther North than the North Pole.

I agree with you that it makes no sense to ask about things "before" the Big Bang. However, I also agree with ICANT that if the universe truly had a "beginning," this beginning must have a "cause." This argument depends on logical causality, not on existence of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Rahvin, posted 08-24-2009 7:53 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Perdition, posted 08-25-2009 12:13 PM kbertsche has responded

    
caldron68
Member (Idle past 2100 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 107 of 687 (520910)
08-24-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
08-24-2009 12:57 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
quote:

Provided my assumption is correct the sun was created in the beginning which took place during Genesis 1:1. According to the Bible.

Well, your assumption is wrong.

Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 14-19 clearly describes the creation of our Sun and Moon. If the Sun had been created in Gen 1:1, there would be no need for verses 14-19. Yes, Gen 1:3 describes the general creation of light and darkness but it does not describe the physical creation of the Sun and the Moon. That act was clearly done in Gen 14-19.

Cheer
Caldron68


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 108 of 687 (520911)
08-24-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theodoric
08-24-2009 1:59 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

So the sun was created but it didn't shine? The sun was an empty something or other?

Where is the sun mentioned in the following:From Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry (Message 23)

ICANT writes:

kbertsche writes:

The second verse says that now the earth exists in an unfinished state. The third verse describes, from an earth-centered perspective, six "days" of finishing the rest of creation.

I do not believe it exists in an unfinished state in Genesis 1:1.

Therefore it had become an empty uninhabitable place. It was in darkness and covered with water. Inhabitable to water creatures only, maybe.

The "IT" being refered to is the earth kbertsche was talking about existing in an unfinished state.

There is nothing at all about the sun mentioned.

Yes it was in existence and shining on earth. The earth was covered with a cloud that the sun did not penetrate to produce much light but God fixed that when He turned the lights on in verse 3.

If I am not mistaken there was a meteor that hit the earth causing an extinction event that produced just such a situation at a different time.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 08-24-2009 1:59 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
caldron68
Member (Idle past 2100 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 109 of 687 (520913)
08-24-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
08-24-2009 10:11 AM


Re: Re; Scientific Evidence

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isa 45:12I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

It's a real "stretch" to assume that these two passages imply an expanding universe. Isa 45:12 clearly says "stretched", past tense, meaning that God stretched out the universe, but that's it. The passage does not indicate that the universe is still "stretching".

Cheers
Caldron68


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 10:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 110 of 687 (520914)
08-24-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ochaye
08-24-2009 4:06 PM


Re: proven false
Hi ochave,

ochave writes:

'Genesis 2:4 is the history of what took place in Genesis 1:1.'
That was the story that fundamentalists came up with eventually.

If you know some of those fundamentalist would you please give me their name or tell me where I can find them.

In 60 years I have never met anyone that believes Genesis 2:4 is the history of what took place in Genesis 1:1. I'll take that back there was an English teacher that examined the two verses and said Gen 2:4 claimed to be the history of Gen 1:1. Since he was an atheist he then added but it is just a myth so what difference does it make.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ochaye, posted 08-24-2009 4:06 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 08-25-2009 10:01 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 117 by ochaye, posted 08-25-2009 10:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 111 of 687 (520915)
08-24-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Sasuke
08-24-2009 6:04 PM


Re; Scientific Evidence
Hi Sasuke,

Sasuke writes:

The big bang model explains how the universe COULD have expanded.

Agreed.

God streaching out the universe accomplishes the same thing.

Sasuke writes:

It also suggest that the universe has always existed.

I would like to have some evidence for that statement.

If expansion is true the universe is not infinite.

Sasuke writes:

Says you! Follow the evidence. Not historical claims.

Then explain how something can expand that does not exist.

Sasuke writes:

There is no such thing as proof in relation to argument and more specifically evc arguments. I always find it funny when religious fanatics fail to see that point. Just because the BIBLE says it, does not mean it is TRUE.. Revelations are not enough to conclude that it is from GOD either so dont bring that hogwash up..

Are you saying redshift and mbr are not true?

Sasuke writes:

Why should I trust that the BIBLE is a divine book?

Well when your precious science discovered redshift and the mbr it proved that the statement made 2700 years ago actually happened.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 6:04 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 11:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3414 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 112 of 687 (520916)
08-24-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
08-24-2009 10:36 PM


Re: Re; Scientific Evidence
ICANT,

ICANT writes:


God streaching out the universe accomplishes the same thing.

The issue is we ONLY have circumstantial evidence that GOD exists unless you're just simply assuming the GOD of the BIBLE created everything instead of giving the BIBLE a trial like u do Science. Why the double standard for Science? Why are you not picky about the Bible? You have to have READ something in the BIBLE that made you go HUH!!??? I wonder if you are one of those people that fail to see that they are products of the culture around them.. You do realize that a lot of the reason you think the way you do is because of your culture which can include your family... You should try to step back and be a little more objective...

ICANT writes:

I would like to have some evidence for that statement.

If you read the BB model you learn that there was an expansion which means the universe expanded from a point of already existing. The big bang model does not talk about a universe expanding from nothing but rather from something very small.. Read about singularities.

ICANT writes:


If expansion is true the universe is not infinite.

Since the universe is always expanding, for all intensive purposes, it is infinite in size because literally at every ms of time the size of the universe is different than the last.

ICANT writes:

Then explain how something can expand that does not exist.

The bb model is that the universe expanded from a singularity as mentioned above.

ICANT writes:

Are you saying redshift and mbr are not true?

I fail to see how you concluded this information but I am sure this question is leaeding somewhere because it obviously leads to me asking this question, so spit it out.. what is your point??

ICANT writes:

Well when your precious science discovered redshift and the mbr it proved that the statement made 2700 years ago actually happened.

Ok, if you're assuming there is a connection between the below quotes and the discovery of redshift and mbr you need to realize that is just simply a probability and no more than that. Coincidences happen every single day and to assume 1 or any of them to be linked in a divine way is nutz, trust me, been there.. MOVE ON.. ACCEPT the inevitable.. The Bible is simply just another divine claim no different than any other faith. I have evidence to support my claim, but do you? Perahaps u can't cope with the reality so u try to find ways to stick to the Bible.. You do realize that spirits and god/or gods can exist without the Bible right? You should try ghost hunting sometime.. .. (I know I just lost a lot of respect from those straight minded people.. LOL)

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isa 45:12I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Edited by Sasuke, : error

Edited by Sasuke, : cleaning up a bit...

Edited by Sasuke, : error


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 10:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 113 of 687 (520921)
08-25-2009 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
08-24-2009 6:37 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

The universe has existed for all of time. Does that answer your question?

No because time as we know it is a property of the universe.

What is it that I have been told many time. Oh there is 'no thing' outside of the universe. It is self contained.

An infinite universe would exist in all directions for infinity.

It would be eternal never having to begin to exist or cease to exist.

Science says this is impossible.

Straggler writes:

Where?

This Is what is posted on Cambridge Cosmology.

Expansion of the Universe
The Universe began about ten billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase. The fact that galaxies are receding from us in all directions is a consequence of this initial explosion and was first discovered observationally by Hubble. There is now excellent evidence for Hubble's law which states that the recessional velocity v of a galaxy is proportional to its distance d from us, that is, v=Hd where H is Hubble's constant. Projecting galaxy trajectories backwards in time means that they converge to a high density state - the initial fireball.

This comes from a website prepares for Physics 303 web site.

Though an arguably irrelevant question, "what happened before the big bang?" is one question that many scientists have attempted to answer in the last 20 years, while trying to determine how the universe was created.

A consequence of the universe expansion discovery was reformation of universe-creation theories. If you go back in time and reverse the expansion, you will find that the galaxies move closer together, and the universe becomes smaller, hotter, and more dense. If you go back in time far enough, you will find that all the galaxies, and in fact, all of the matter in the universe, is compacted into a small, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity.

Singularity does not exist as it is only inoperable math.

Here Alan Guth says the universe began from nothing. Play A beginning from nothing, and a need for a beginning.

He also says if you follow eternal inflation backward far enough you would find a beginning. He then says we need a theory to find how that beginning took place.

Here we find:

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.

You don't seem to like my Hawking quote concerning the universe has not always existed but had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.

So I thought I would get you a new one.

Here Hawking says:

quote:
if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start.

Straggler writes:

ICANT writes:

The universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is only 15 billion or so years.

Exactly.

Since this quote is not from Here could you supply the source.

Is this where I ask you a question: Are you saying the universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is on 15 billion or so years?

And you are agreeing that is exactly what you were saying.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2009 6:37 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 9:10 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 115 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 9:31 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 12:53 PM ICANT has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 114 of 687 (520985)
08-25-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
08-25-2009 1:37 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Alan Guth says the universe began from nothing. Play A beginning from nothing, and a need for a beginning.

I think you are misinterpreting Alan Guth's views.

quote:
Alan Guth believes that the size of the entire universe is at least 1023 times bigger than the size of the observable universe. The universe also exists among countless other universes with various different laws of physics. A fractal pattern exists in the multiverse system, which involves universes inside vacuums that are inside other universes. Each pocket universe created by inflation will appear flat to the observers within it. Meanwhile, new universes will fill in the gaps created by older ones, similar to Hoyle’s discredited steady-state theory. The big bang of the universe is actually similar to cell division in biology, since new universes are continuously formed. However, inflation always wipes out the circumstances of the beginning of the particular universe.

Source

You have to look at everything he says. Taking things out of context can be dangerous. Guth does believe that the universe came from something.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 1:37 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 2:58 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3414 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 115 of 687 (520993)
08-25-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
08-25-2009 1:37 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
ICANT,

you need to remember that there are a lot of scientific views out there just like there are a lot of religious views out there. The point with science is that it is built around observations that can be tested and verified not revelations that can't be verified and tested.

----
Hey icant here is a movie that sorta reflects my views in one way or another...

createauniverse

Edited by Sasuke, : add movie


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 1:37 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:23 PM Sasuke has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 116 of 687 (521000)
08-25-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
08-24-2009 10:19 PM


Re: proven false
ICANT in Message 88 writes:

Genesis 2:4 is the history of what took place in Genesis 1:1.

ICANT in this message writes:

In 60 years I have never met anyone that believes Genesis 2:4 is the history of what took place in Genesis 1:1.

The obvious implication is that ICANT has never met himself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 10:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3498 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 117 of 687 (521007)
08-25-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
08-24-2009 10:19 PM


Re: proven false
quote:
If you know some of those fundamentalist would you please give me their name or tell me where I can find them.

Its a common excuse on the 'net, these days, ever since I first pointed out that Genesis contradicts itself if understood literally. Just look around. Fundamentalists pretend that they can't see the contradictions of Gen 2 with Gen 1, and employ their own bigoted circularity by insisting that Gen 2 is the detailed history of Gen 1, entirely removing the possibility of there being separate accounts from their terrified minds.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 10:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 118 of 687 (521018)
08-25-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by kbertsche
08-24-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
This argument depends on logical causality, not on existence of time.

Causality is a property of time. If there's no time, causality breaks down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 08-24-2009 9:30 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by kbertsche, posted 08-25-2009 12:41 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 119 of 687 (521026)
08-25-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Perdition
08-25-2009 12:13 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
quote:
Causality is a property of time. If there's no time, causality breaks down.

Then why do cosmologists speculate on the cause of the Big Bang, suggesting such things as a fluctuation in the cosmic background or a collision of branes?

(Note that in Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 106) I referred to logical, not temporal causality. This is not a property of time.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Perdition, posted 08-25-2009 12:13 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 120 of 687 (521027)
08-25-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
08-25-2009 1:37 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Stragggler writes:

The universe has existed for all of time. Does that answer your question?

No because time as we know it is a property of the universe.

Well it seems you have learnt something over the past couple of years. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of "time" that is not "as we know it". Or am I reading too much into your phraseology here?

Is this where I ask you a question: Are you saying the universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is on 15 billion or so years?

If for the sake of argument you want to call T=0 a "beginning" then I'll go along with that if it will make you happy

Why exactly do you think that this precludes the universe from being "just is"? Somewhere down whatever causal chain you go there has to be something that "just is" (i.e. is uncaused). Why cannot the Universe be it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 1:37 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM Straggler has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019