|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Really? This is not something I have heard. As far as I've ever heard, the current thinking is that the universe is finite but unbounded. The jury is still very much out. The classic Big Bang model has three scenarios: closed, flat, and open. The latter two are both infinite and were long seen as the strongest contenders, despite all popular depictions of the Big Bang portraying the closed scenario, mainly because it is much simpler to present. So when we talk about the singularity being this infinitely small point, we're lying It is quite possibly infinite in extent (strictly, this doesn't make sense as you cannot define a length measure at the singularity, but at any infinitessimal moment after T=0, the Universe is infinite in extent, so it is sort of sensible to describe the singularity as also being infinite. Because the Universe is so close to flat, the matter density is very close to critical, which means that as our estimates vary, our view on whether the Universe is finite or infinite tends to swing back and forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Because the Universe is so close to flat, the matter density is very close to critical, which means that as our estimates vary, our view on whether the Universe is finite or infinite tends to swing back and forth. I knew this part, and it always seemed interesting to me that the mass of the universe was so close to this critical amount, perhaps there's a reason for that?
The jury is still very much out. The classic Big Bang model has three scenarios: closed, flat, and open. The latter two are both infinite and were long seen as the strongest contenders, despite all popular depictions of the Big Bang portraying the closed scenario, mainly because it is much simpler to present. I must have misunderstood this when I first heard it. I had thought open meant the universe would continue to expand forever because the mass of the universe was not enough to cause it to collapse again, flat was where the mass was perfectly able to slow the expansion, but it would still never end up in a "Big Crunch" because the amount of time needed to reach that scenario was infinite, and closed was where the mass was over that critical mass and the universe's expansion would reverse and collapse. Of course, this was before dark energy was "discovered" (I think) so the ideas may have changed drastically, but I always assumed the universe was finite in all three scenarios, the difference being if/when it would collapse back on itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
However, the assumption that the universe is infinite in your context is that it is infinite in the sense that we could never reach reach the end. That's not quite what I mean by inifinite. When I say infinite, I mean there is no volume value. Even if we can never circumnavigate the universe due to time constraints or the expansion rate, that doesn't mean there isn't a finite value for the volume.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: Exactly. And duration is time. Duration exists whether we have seconds or minutes or hours or not. The labels have no bearing on the actual duration, they're just terms we have arbitrarily made up to help communicate and measure this phenomenon of duration (time). We don't need to designate anything for it to exist. You say time and duration are the same. The dictionary does not agree. The dictionary using the Physics def. says, time is a quantity measuring duration. Time - definition of time by The Free Dictionarytime Noun 1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole Related adjective temporal 2. Physics a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms Time tells me the duration of an event. Time is not physical. Time is a tool invented by man to be able to measure duration.
Perdition writes: You're the one conflating the measurement of time with the phenomenon. An object has length, otherwise it is not an object. A sphere is an object. Are you sure it has length? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
A sphere is an object. Are you sure it has length? Yes...it has a radius, a diameter, a circumference...all of those things fall under the banner of length as used in the argument. I suppose a better way to characterize length, width, height, etc is size.
Time is a tool invented by man to be able to measure duration. Technically, I guess you're right, but when people speak about time in this type of argument, they typically mean duration (which, by the way, also isn't physical), change, and or motion...or the penomenon that allows those things to have meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A sphere is an object. Are you sure it has length? Its called the diameter.
Time is a tool invented by man to be able to measure duration. That's one way to define it. Its also a property of the Universe, itself. You shouldn't equivocate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: Yes...it has a radius, a diameter, a circumference...all of those things fall under the banner of length as used in the argument. I suppose a better way to characterize length, width, height, etc is size. I know it has a radius, a diameter and a circumference. And you can find that information all over the internet. But you can't find out how to find the length of a sphere.
Perdition writes: Technically, I guess you're right, but when people speak about time in this type of argument, they typically mean duration (which, by the way, also isn't physical), change, and or motion...or the penomenon that allows those things to have meaning.
Duration is just as physical as length. Duration exists, it is existence. Without existence to be measured there is no 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi CS
Long time no see.
Catholic Scientist writes: That's one way to define it. Its also a property of the Universe, itself. You shouldn't equivocate.
Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe? If so I would like to see it. I want scientific evidence not somebody said so. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Duration is just as physical as length. To spout your favorite equivocation back at you...is it made of particles or waves?
But you can't find out how to find the length of a sphere. Length is a catch-all term indicating a definite size. And, even if you want to be literal and pedantic, you could put a sphere on a piece of paper and slide a pencil so that it is tangential to the side of the sphere and perpendicular to the paper and make a dot, then go 180 degrees around the sphere and do the same thing and make another dot and then connect the dots with a straight line...this would be the length of the sphere...and guess what, it's the same as the diameter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe? If so I would like to see it. I want scientific evidence not somebody said so.
How can I show you scientific evidence that somebody did not say? You'll deny anything scientific that goes against your pet theory anyway and glorify any psuedo-science that supports it. Plus, you use Hawking's "say so" when it suits your pet theory and deny others' when it doesn't. Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi CS
Catholic Scientist writes: Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game. Just as I thought none exists. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just as I thought none exists. You're too much. FYI, it does exist and you're not smart enough to understand it. Just so you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Just as I thought none exists. Much like the evidence for "eternal infinity" huh? Yet you are very willing to spout that conclusion as the answer to life the universe and everything. If ever you get past your philosophical bias and are willing to look at actual physical evidence and the answers this might suggest let us know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe? Relativity works. By assuming that time is a property of the universe (or more precisely 'spacetime'), we have GPS. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
ICANT writes: My personal opinion is that the universe has always existed eternally in some form. I personally have no objection to that.
I got no problem with someone who puts forth any of the exotic possibilities for the universe beginning to exist. This tells me you are agnostic about whether God is behind the ultimate universe origin. Regardless if such is true, such is my position. The mainstream creationist position is that of YAC/YEC (young age creationist/young Earth creationist). You apparently are outside of that mainstream. I ask the questions I did because I wanted to clarify what if any your objections were to the mainstream scientific positions. The age of the universe? — Mainstream science has it that the universe as we know it is about 13.5 billion years old. My interpretation is that such DOES NOT conflict with your eternal universe position — The 13.5 billion year universe could be the current version of your larger eternal universe. Again, I personally have no conflict with such a position. The age of the Earth? — Mainstream science has it that the Earth as we know it is about 4.5 billion years old. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that? The age of the first life on Earth? — Mainstream science has it that life on Earth goes back 3+ billion years. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that? The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)? — Mainstream science has it that the Homo sapiens species goes back many 1000’s of years (I don’t offhand have a good number). Anyway, this is far outside the mainstream YAC/YEC timeframe of 5 to 10 thousand years. Does your position conflict with that many 1000’s of years timeframe or are you willing to accept that? Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor? — Mainstream science has it that such is the case. Mainstream creationist position is that humanity was God’s special creation and that the great apes of man have no common ancestor. Do you agree or disagree with the mainstream science position?
Moose writes: The prominent exception is that ICANT does seem to subscribe to a literal Noahtic flood somewhere in the past 5000 years What's that got to do with my position on creation? Mainstream creationist position is that the Noahtic flood was a literal event and that it was a sort of a modification or re-creation event. Mainstream science finds that such a flood never happened. What is your position concerning such a flood? Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024