Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
561 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 557 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,254 Year: 4,366/6,534 Month: 580/900 Week: 104/182 Day: 11/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 796 of 1482 (833635)
05-24-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 795 by ICANT
05-24-2018 1:26 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
do you understand the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object?

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by ICANT, posted 05-24-2018 1:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 811 by ICANT, posted 05-25-2018 12:55 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 797 of 1482 (833643)
05-24-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by ICANT
05-24-2018 6:32 AM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
When did fundamental paricles begin to exist?

This period was between a millionth of a second and several minutes in.

I am not the one claiming that the space expanded at the speed of light. Everywhere I read anything about the early universe that is the speed given and some claim the space expanded faster than the speed of light.

You are misinterpreting or being misinformed. The inflationary period was rapid expansion, but there was just a pretty uniform sea of energy at this point (in fact - the most uniform it has ever been -> which even thermodynamics predicts, no fancy post newtonian phyiscs required!). During the period when quarks became of interest the rate of expansion was much closer to the 70km/s per megaparsec that we're used to dealing with than during the inflationary epoch. You can see this represented in the diagram you were having trouble with earlier:

1 second to several minutes is about halfway into that diagram - as you can see the expansion is much slower here than at the left most area representing time before 10-32 seconds. In that very early state - there were no raisins.

An assumption that might be true or not be true.

Naturally it may or not be true - but it's not an assumption, its an empirically derived fact. It is much closer to reality than your raisin notion.

It is not my description.

quote:
universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Exactly. There are no raisins, or particles at this time. It goes on to say:

quote:
According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

source

See that? A slower rate. The formation of particles, and where they are in relation to one another is what you are discussing - during that period the expansion was nowhere near that of the inflationary period.

There was something at Planck Time and this something is what the space between the sub-atomic particles expanded.

Not sub-atomic particles. There were none at that time. You have to look at the time there were some.

If the space which would be between the smallest units of what existed at Planck Time began to expand at the speed of light in 1 millionth of a second the space between each unit would expand by 982.08 feet. There would be 186,000 miles between each unit in 1 second.

Yes, we know. But that has nothing to do with whether atoms could form during the period after this. In order to understand this - we have to understand what the density of 'raisins' was at this time, what the energies involved were and the rate of expansion etc.

If you want to use the raisin analogy, think of it like this. At first there are no individual raisins. Just a uniform raisinesque goop. It rapidly expands and then slows down its expansion. Then individual raisins start to break away from the goop. They are still very densely packed. The space between them is not expanding faster than they are able to move.

What would be a mechanism that could cause the expansion to slow down?

A phase transition of dark energy.

The universe is a sphere and we are inside of it.

That's the universe as you imagine it - but that's not what the evidence actually tells us. It might be true, but it seems increasingly likely that it is not.

And it would not make any difference which direction you went in you would never reach the fabric of the universe.

Well, if you want to criticize the model, you have to use the model. Not your model. The model cosmologists use very strongly points towards the notion that there is no edge.

What I want to know is why you could fly in a circle like you can in an airplane around the world. Do you actually believe that the universe is like your balloon? Do you believe we live on the surface of the universe?

I think it likely we live in something like a 3-sphere. A 2-sphere would be like the surface of a balloon. We can easily visualize a 2-sphere. It has two dimensions (north-south and east-west for example) but it wraps around itself in a 3d space - every point on the surface of the balloon being equidistant from the centre of this 3d space. A 3-sphere would be wrapped around itself in a 4d space. I'm not proposing an actual 4th dimension in which it is wrapped, although that might be the case, just that to describe the universe in terms of a shape, it would involved talking about points equidistant from a point in a fourth dimension - its a mathematical description, the point in the fourth spatial dimension does not need to exist for this topology to exist.

We talk about the 2-sphere - the surface of balloon because its conceptually easier. IF the universe was two dimensional we can kind of picture existing on the surface of a '3d sphere' as we know what a 3d sphere looks like. Imagining existing on a 3 dimensional surface of a 4d sphere is more brain melting!

Show me where my math is wrong.

The maths isn't the problem so much as your physics. I've shown you that error, you have to address that now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by ICANT, posted 05-24-2018 6:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 842 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2018 3:32 AM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 798 of 1482 (833645)
05-24-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 792 by Phat
05-24-2018 9:37 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Phat,

Phat writes:

Where was the speed of light before the distance 186,000 miles even existed?

The speed of light has never changed it has been the same for eternity.

The distance of 186,000 miles is a concept of mankind devised to measure distance in duration. It makes no difference whether you are talking about 1 mile or 10 miles the concept is the same. It is based on a mile being 5,280 feet.

Phat writes:

How did the maths break down in the early singularity?

If I understand it the math gets to the point you only have zeros. I could be totally wrong.

Phat writes:

Were laws discovered by humanity through testing or were they invented by humanity?

They were discovered and then we began to test them.

Phat writes:

Does the concept of a singularity actually represent the origin of creation?

No.
The singularity represents zero data about anything.
The BBT is suppose to explain what happened from Planck Time to present.

Phat writes:

In other words, without humanity, would math actually mean anything? would distance? would matter? would words themselves and definitions themselves?

No to all of these. All of those are concepts of mankind that mankind has invented to explain their observations to themselves.

Phat writes:

If the answer is yes does this not mean that laws can exist without our need to define them?

The speed of light is the same it has always been. Before man existed it was the same. Our concept of the measurement of duration can change but the duration in existence will never change it stays the same.

•The laws of thermodynamics are laws that were observed taking place in the universe.

All of those take place without the input of mankind.
There are many such laws that exist with out mankinds help

Phat writes:

And if so, why is it considered silly to believe in God without evidence?

Phat that started in the garden when the man chose to freely without any coercion of any kind choose to eat the fruit and die with his wife.

Eve wanted to be like God and that is what the devil used.
People today want to be in control of their life and there can be no room for any outside control which God represents in their life.

Now as to why it seems foolish to mankind.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It is supposed to be foolishness to them
Can they overcome there problem. Probability not.

On the other hand have you seen 1 iota of evidence for the universe beginning to exist according to their theories.

Oh I forgot they don't know how the universe began to exist.

They just know it did, and you better not try to confuse them with the facts.

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 792 by Phat, posted 05-24-2018 9:37 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 799 of 1482 (833650)
05-24-2018 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 792 by Phat
05-24-2018 9:37 AM


sing "a larry tree"
Where was the speed of light before the distance 186,000 miles even existed?

Well you can define the speed of light in terms of centimetres or any other distance unit or time unit. It's just how far light can travel, in a vacuum in a given time. I drive to work at 30mph but I neither travel 30 miles nor do I travel for an hour.

How did the maths break down in the early singularity?

It's not like math's developed an engine fault or something. The best examples I've heard go like this:

1) Travel north. Keep travelling north. When you get to the north pole, keep travelling north. What? you can't? Your entire understanding of travelling in a straight line breaks down. The concept of north, east, and west cease to exist at the north pole. There is only south. The pole is a sort of singularity. If you are 60 miles south of the north pole you can point north and say 'I'm going to travel 100 miles that way', and at that point it would be '100 miles north' of where you are. But there isn't 100 miles north of you. At 1 mile to go to the pole, you can still point in the same direction. But that suddenly changes when you get there. It's a singularity in our coordinate system. If you were calculating speed as distance travelled north / time what would be your speed at the north pole? The maths can't handle that because suddenly you aren't travelling north.

2. Imagine some object that becomes more and more brittle the colder it gets. Now heat up the object slowly. It's brittleness lowers over time. We could create an equation that tells us how brittle the object is for a certain temperature - but then, suddenly, there is a phase transition and the object becomes liquid. What does the brittleness even mean of a liquid? This phase transition creates a singularity in our equation where the object suddenly obtains zero brittleness or brittleness ceases to make sense or something.

So imagine a sphere of water getting larger and larger. The density is mass per volume, but the mass, M, is always the same and the volume increases so the density goes down. The volume, V, is (4/3) π R3 the density is Mass / V

Let's describe the history of the sphere though. As it goes back in time the R, radius, decreases. This means V decreases, M stays the same and the density increases Let's say the mass is 1kg and the radius is 1metre.

4/3 * π * 1 = 4.2

so density is about 1/4 - the units don't matter right now.

So now we half the radius.

4/3 * pi * 0.125 = 0.5

The volume drops and the density is now 2.

Half it again and the volume goes to 0.08 and density rises to 12.5

We keep going back and back and back. But what about the origin - if we extrapolate back at some point the radius is equal to zero.

4/3 * pi * 0 = 0

It has no volume.

The density is 1 / 0 which is...erm...erm...what?

That's a singularity.

So what does this mean?

It probably means that the idea that we can keep going until the volume is zero is probably wrong. In cosmology - there is no reason in General Relativity why we can't go to zero, so General Relativity gives us singularities.

But what if zero volume is not possible? What if there is some minimum size? This is the notion that quantum theories get involved in. In classical physics we can think of the earth's gravity as emanating from a central point of zero volume and it works out - but do points really exist? What if particles don't act in a 'point like' fashion but are 'smeared out'? Instead of a point, we instead have some kind 'stringy' object?

Were laws discovered by humanity through testing or were they invented by humanity?

They're just descriptions of the way things happen. The descriptions are human created, but the way things happen is independent of humans.

If the answer is yes does this not mean that laws can exist without our need to define them?

Things happen a certain way even if nobody is describing them. There's no reason to suppose there must be some cosmic regulator ensuring the laws are followed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 792 by Phat, posted 05-24-2018 9:37 AM Phat has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 800 of 1482 (833663)
05-24-2018 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Modulous
05-23-2018 8:14 PM


Meaning of life
That is a great post Modulous and thank you for it.
Modulous writes:

I am simply pointing out that appealing to a deity doesn't solve the problem and ascribing special properties to said deity either present their own problems, or could equally be applied to nature. Thus an appeal to a deity does not solve any problem that an appeal to nature could not also.

I agree, but it isn’t about trying to solve a problem. The question, for which there is no certain answer, is whether or not we are the result of intelligence. It becomes a matter of belief. Ascribing special properties to a deity is a separate issue.
Modulous writes:

It certainly opens up the possibility, but the extra dimensions could all be spatial. I think this is the general consensus, though some physicists have had some successes with additional time dimensions so it's still an open area of investigation.

My point would be that physicists speculate about some of the same things that a theist might. For example there was a headline on the cover of Scientific American that read, “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter – An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own”. Essentially this is roughly how I speculate about my theistic beliefs. I see our world with our 5 senses as being an emergent property of a greater reality. Physicists tell us that there is a form of connection between the world of dark matter and our own. As a theist I see God’s universe/dimension as somehow connecting with our own, but I agree, not in the same way.
Modulous writes:

The geometry of spacetime does place limitations on our movement determined by the speed of light. It is possible for a region of spacetime could exist in which we are free to move around through the time dimension - but in such a case we would be constrained to a directional spatial situation. That is, we'd be able to go back in time, but we'd continuously be moving in a particular dimension. Examples of such possibilities would be beyond the event horizon of a black hole where the descent into the black hole's centre is an inevitable path through space that cannot be escaped and space time is very curved. But the mathematics is tricky.

Well, that puts me way out of my depth. I would only ask the question of wouldn’t it make sense that if there were 3 dimensions of time we could move in time infinitely, in the same way that with our 3 spatial dimensions we can move around infinitely in space.
Modulous writes:

Though I think a prediction that the base of all these questions would be fundamental in nature. Just as a river flow is dynamic and interesting but is ultimately just jostling molecules which are themselves perturbations of a field.... I have no problems with there being a fundamental fact that has no prior explanation, but I expect the answer won't be a thinking being with motivations.

We all have a personal history that forms our motivations which of course influences our conclusions. I had an Anglican church background growing up but became agnostic in my teens. In my thirties I decided that I wanted to come to my own conclusions and did some research, (mainly CS Lewis), which resonated with me. Since then I have quite seriously studied pretty much all aspects of my faith, and my views have continuously been revised and sometimes by this forum. I like you are merely trying to sort out what we believe to be true while knowing that it will always be what we believe and can never know absolutely.

Modulous writes:

An answer that has been given for many phenomena, but closer examination has shown it to be false. Our brains are wired evolutionarily to infer intent, it's been termed the hyperactive agency detection - it's a useful survival mechanism that causes us to be wary of a rustling in the bushes...but feelings don't mean truth.
If you suppose our intelligence must come from another intelligence you are engaging in this practice. It may feel right, but we need more. We know that intelligence does come in a scale, we know its the product of an organ and we know that organs evolve and there is no need for this evolution to be directed.

I use to argue that God might well have intervened for His own purposes in the evolutionary process. Well I still consider it a possibility I am now more inclined to believe that even with all the randomness of the process, everything needed was in place from the beginning. (I don’t mean that from a deistic POV as I do believe that God is involved with our world but primarily through His created creatures.)
I think that there is intent in the evolutionary process to a greater degree than the instinct for survival as in the rustling in the bushes. I would contend that the universe was brought into existence with the high probability through randomness that it will eventually bring into existence creatures that are able to act and love sacrificially. I also contend that the point of that, is that ultimately that will bring about a world where sacrificial love is the overriding feature of existence. That belief is something that has evolved for me through study and life experience. You might characterize it as a feeling but I don’t think that is the same as belief. It does for me make sense of my world and my life.
Modulous writes:

As I said - proposing an intelligence to explain intelligence doesn't explain intelligence.

No, but neither does a simply materialistic belief. I do contend though that intelligence from an intelligent root is more reasonable than believing that it has risen from a non-intelligent root. That of course says absolutely nothing about the methodology in either case.
Modulous writes:

Is the explanation of the highly dense energy's existence likely to be a primordial sea of all seas who loves seas so much he'd create a universe with very apparently few of them relative to its size? Seems a bit far fetched.

But if we are going to achieve the aim of producing creatures that love sacrificially through randomness then a large universe becomes necessary. I’d also point out that it appears that the universe is likely infinitely large but that at one point it was infinitely small.
Modulous writes:

To conclude, proposing a deity doesn't explain anything. We know nature exists so proposing that isn't controversial. If you want to propose some new thing, you need to do better than say, 'I can think of no other way feature x could exist'. That's just a rationalization for giving up the search for an explanation borne out of owning an ape's brain. This is not to say this therefore proves God does not exist, but simply to point out that a lack of understanding does not justify resorting to some supernatural mind being responsible. Not a thousand years ago, not today.

But I’d suggest that you are only looking at it from a scientific POV. There is also the philosophical. The question remains – are we teleological beings. Ultimately are our lives meaningful? Certainly materialists can find meaning in work, family, acquiring things, helping others etc but ultimately does it matter? As a theist I believe that it does and that ultimately our lives do have meaning beyond what we are able to find in this life, and that lives that are based on sacrificial love or if you like the Golden Rule, do have ultimate meaning and purpose.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 8:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 8:02 PM GDR has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 801 of 1482 (833665)
05-24-2018 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by GDR
05-23-2018 6:46 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
... but don't some physicists propose the possibility that the universe itself is infinite in size.

Yes. Caution, they (outside the charlatans and the crazies) do not propose that the universe IS infinite but that there may be the possibility that our universe may be infinite in extent. What some of them study is how one would go about finding evidence either way.

Right now our best evidence is that the universe is flat which could (but not necessarily) mean our universe may be infinite. Problem is the error bars on these more and more precise measurements still leaves open the realistic possibility that this universe is ever so slightly curved by trillions upon trillions times trillions of mega-parsecs in extend leading to a universe that may be finite after all, just ... big.

The problem with infinities in cosmology is that in working with General Relativity's tensor analysis the equations force a divide-by-zero at the extremes. An infinity and the absurdity of the singularity are the results.

And the singularity is acknowledged to be absurd thus cannot be real. Infinite mass/energy/gravity (meaning all the mass/energy/gravity of an infinite number of universes) squeezed into an area of infinitely small size (meaning it isn't there). Something is very wrong with GR at these extremes.

Maybe a bit aggressive but here is a video of a simplified example of the differences in math vs physics infinities.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by GDR, posted 05-23-2018 6:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 803 by GDR, posted 05-24-2018 9:43 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 802 of 1482 (833666)
05-24-2018 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by GDR
05-24-2018 7:39 PM


Re: Meaning of life
That is a great post Modulous and thank you for it.

Thanks!

I agree, but it isn’t about trying to solve a problem. The question, for which there is no certain answer, is whether or not we are the result of intelligence. It becomes a matter of belief. Ascribing special properties to a deity is a separate issue.

Well I was addressing an ICANT argument. It goes along the lines of 'the energy of the universe must have come from something, there has to be an end to the regression of explanation, that must be an eternal god of infinite power'.

My point would be that physicists speculate about some of the same things that a theist might. For example there was a headline on the cover of Scientific American that read, “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter – An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own”. Essentially this is roughly how I speculate about my theistic beliefs.

Sure - humans speculate along many lines and theists and physicists are both humans (and sometimes a physicist is a theist!).

The difference is that physicists are constrained in what speculations they can run with, and how they operate...when they are doing physics at least.

I see our world with our 5 senses as being an emergent property of a greater reality.

"How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way, is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?" -- William Blake

I would only ask the question of wouldn’t it make sense that if there were 3 dimensions of time we could move in time infinitely, in the same way that with our 3 spatial dimensions we can move around infinitely in space.

I don't think we can move infinitely in 3 spatial dimensions. We can move along three axis. If there were 4 dimensions we could move along 4 axis.

If there were 3 dimensions of time, it'd be the same kind of deal. We'd have more axis of time to progress along.

I mean if the universe was two dimensional - one space and one time. We could 'move infinitely' along the spatial direction but still be constrained in the time direction. The directionality of time seems to be related to entropy and probability more than the fact that there is only one dimension of it.


I think that there is intent in the evolutionary process to a greater degree than the instinct for survival as in the rustling in the bushes. I would contend that the universe was brought into existence with the high probability through randomness that it will eventually bring into existence creatures that are able to act and love sacrificially. I also contend that the point of that, is that ultimately that will bring about a world where sacrificial love is the overriding feature of existence.

To what end? The problem with implying a plan of sorts is that it's got to make sense, right? Cui bono, as they say. If there was only God in the beginning, and God is a being of supreme sacrificial love - then it was already the overriding feature of existence. Why all the extra stuff if the goal is to arrive where you started from?

No, but neither does a simply materialistic belief.

But it's not simply materialistic - it's quite detailed and complex, coherent, consistent and testable that results in predictions, advances in technology....

I do contend though that intelligence from an intelligent root is more reasonable than believing that it has risen from a non-intelligent root.

I understand that you believe it, but on what grounds is it more reasonable? I already gave my argument as to why it is not, so what is your argument in favour - if its not just a gut feeling but one based on reason?

But I’d suggest that you are only looking at it from a scientific POV. There is also the philosophical.

I'd like to point out that the scientific POV is philosophical. It is based on the epistemological position that we can understand the world by applying reason to experience.

Ultimately are our lives meaningful? Certainly materialists can find meaning in work, family, acquiring things, helping others etc but ultimately does it matter?

Well the question really then is, what makes the mattering ultimate. If the final thing that cares about what matters is us - then it does ultimately matter.

As a theist I believe that it does and that ultimately our lives do have meaning beyond what we are able to find in this life, and that lives that are based on sacrificial love or if you like the Golden Rule, do have ultimate meaning and purpose.

And you are of course, welcome to your belief.

However, from a philosophical position - asserting your belief isn't much. Is it possible to defend or support it beyond 'I just believe it?'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by GDR, posted 05-24-2018 7:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 803 of 1482 (833667)
05-24-2018 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by AZPaul3
05-24-2018 8:01 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Thanks for that post AZPaul3. Frankly most of it is beyond me but the idea of infinity is intriguing. I do use it though as a way of understanding, rightly or wrongly, a creative intelligence beyond our 4 dimensional world.

The video was interesting but frankly as the minuscule knowledge I have is from reading guys like Greene, Hawking etc, I'm kinda left in the dust. I can only grasp things conceptually.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2018 8:01 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 804 of 1482 (833669)
05-25-2018 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by Modulous
05-24-2018 8:02 PM


Re: Meaning of life
Modulous writes:

I don't think we can move infinitely in 3 spatial dimensions. We can move along three axis. If there were 4 dimensions we could move along 4 axis.

If there were 3 dimensions of time, it'd be the same kind of deal. We'd have more axis of time to progress along.

I mean if the universe was two dimensional - one space and one time. We could 'move infinitely' along the spatial direction but still be constrained in the time direction. The directionality of time seems to be related to entropy and probability more than the fact that there is only one dimension of it.

I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.

Modulous writes:

To what end? The problem with implying a plan of sorts is that it's got to make sense, right? Cui bono, as they say. If there was only God in the beginning, and God is a being of supreme sacrificial love - then it was already the overriding feature of existence. Why all the extra stuff if the goal is to arrive where you started from?

Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm. As a Christian I see Jesus as being the first citizen of that recreated world but this is getting off topic.

Modulous writes:

But it's not simply materialistic - it's quite detailed and complex, coherent, consistent and testable that results in predictions, advances in technology....

It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all. To go back to the compatibility of religion and science I do not find any part of science that is not compatible with my religious beliefs. For that matter I understand science as part of a natural theology which informs my religious beliefs but my religious beliefs do not have any impact on what little science I know.

Modulous writes:

I understand that you believe it, but on what grounds is it more reasonable? I already gave my argument as to why it is not, so what is your argument in favour - if its not just a gut feeling but one based on reason?

IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

Modulous writes:

Well the question really then is, what makes the mattering ultimate. If the final thing that cares about what matters is us - then it does ultimately matter.

This world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning. If however, if God is going to recreate our world, where existence is characterized by sacrificial love then there is an ultimate purpose.

Modulous writes:

And you are of course, welcome to your belief.

However, from a philosophical position - asserting your belief isn't much. Is it possible to defend or support it beyond 'I just believe it?'


We both have our beliefs, and we both do what we can to explain our rational for what we believe. In the end though it is belief, as neither of us has absolute knowledge.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 8:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 8:57 AM GDR has replied
 Message 806 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 10:38 AM GDR has replied
 Message 808 by Stile, posted 05-25-2018 11:49 AM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 805 of 1482 (833671)
05-25-2018 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by GDR
05-25-2018 1:04 AM


Re: Meaning of life
I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.

Well exactly - the number of dimensions doesn't impact our capacity to move through them. Thus adding more time dimensions would not necessarily grant us more freedom to move through them than we do the one time dimension that we have.

Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm.

So God is just making do?

It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.

But it does. You just don't like that answer

IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

But "more likely" and "more reasonable" have meaning. I'm not asking you to prove that intelligence was the root - but I am asking you to justify your stance on likelihood and reasonableness. Otherwise, it's just a feeling - however compelling that feeling is.

This world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning.

Again - ultimate means 'final'. If the final meaning is our own, then there is ultimate meaning. That meaning may not transcend us, but I don't see a problem with that.

If however, if God is going to recreate our world, where existence is characterized by sacrificial love then there is an ultimate purpose.

But is there a purpose to recreating the world in this way? Some purpose that transcends God? If not, then I don't see how it more meaning than the meaning we give things - just because some other entity also gives meaning doesn't mean our meaning is any greater or lesser.

We both have our beliefs, and we both do what we can to explain our rational for what we believe. In the end though it is belief, as neither of us has absolute knowledge.

Naturally (heh) - but we can put forward a defence. Simply saying 'I believe' doesn't get us anywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 806 of 1482 (833679)
05-25-2018 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by GDR
05-25-2018 1:04 AM


Re: Meaning of life
IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

You've said such things before, and I have to admit that I find this form of argument very unsatisfying. You are just layering belief on top of belief on top of how you feel. "To my mind it is logical," says absolutely nothing.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 7:55 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 807 of 1482 (833680)
05-25-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 794 by ICANT
05-24-2018 1:06 PM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
If you don't have any knowledge to share why do you hang around being an obstructionist? Seems like you are the one playing a game

At least I discuss honestly. I don't pretend that people said something that they did not and I don't misrepresent folks on the other side of the argument. If I play a game at least it is one with some scruples. You are willing to lie and/or dissemble if you think there is something to be gained. I am not willing to do that.

For those reasons, while I may point out some of your more inane offerings, I am not going to assist you with making them. Have a nice day.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by ICANT, posted 05-24-2018 1:06 PM ICANT has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 809 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 11:54 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4071
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 808 of 1482 (833684)
05-25-2018 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by GDR
05-25-2018 1:04 AM


Re: Meaning of life
GDR writes:

This world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning. If however, if God is going to recreate our world, where existence is characterized by sacrificial love then there is an ultimate purpose.

My understanding of what you're saying here is that "ultimate purpose" is the purpose you were created for.

God created the world, and people... for a reason. That reason would be our "ultimate purpose."
If no intelligence created the world, and people... there would be no reason. Therefore, no "ultimate purpose."

Does that sound about right?

But what if we don't care about the reason we were created for?
What if we go beyond that reason anyway?

What does that do to your chosen term of "ultimate" if I can do something better?

For an example of what I'm talking about, let's just review the story of the discovery of penicillin:

A guy was experimenting with the influenza virus.
His reason for creating the experiments was to learn about influenza.
He ended up discovering and creating penicillin.

According to your use of the world "ultimate" the "ultimate purpose" of penicillin would therefore be to learn about influenza.

But this isn't true, is it? This is, really, silly.
The real purpose of penicillin would be closer to something like: "helping people live longer, healthier lives against a wide variety of viral dangers."

I would say that helping so many people win in their life-or-death battle vs. a large variety of viral dangers is much better than singularly learning about influenza.

Therefore, the "real purpose" of penicillin is larger/greater/better than it's "ultimate purpose."

So, who cares what the ultimate purpose is, or if it even exists... if we're quite capable of expanding larger/greater/better real purposes beyond it anyway?
Why even use the word "ultimate" to describe such a thing that can be rendered irrelevant so easily?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 8:37 PM Stile has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 809 of 1482 (833685)
05-25-2018 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 807 by NoNukes
05-25-2018 10:43 AM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
I don't pretend that people said something that they did not and I don't misrepresent folks on the other side of the argument.

This is false and I just answered one example of it yesterday where you misrepresented me as saying Catholics are not Christians when what I've said over and over and over is that they may or may not be, that I am not talking about people as individuals, what I'm talking about is the institution of Roman Catholicism and specifically the antichrist papacy as nonChristian. I am misrepresented about this by many here no matter how carefully I make the distinction, and you are one of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 10:43 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 12:09 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 810 of 1482 (833687)
05-25-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by Faith
05-25-2018 11:54 AM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
This is false and I just answered one example of it yesterday where you misrepresented me as saying Catholics are not Christians

I did not say anything like that yesterday. If you can point to such a post, I will publicly proclaim that you are correct. But I suspect you have me confused with Jar.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 11:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 1:07 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022