Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,122 Year: 22,158/19,786 Month: 721/1,834 Week: 221/500 Day: 49/69 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 7 of 687 (520573)
08-22-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
What do you mean by "prove"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:23 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 14 of 687 (520588)
08-22-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
08-22-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Prove .
Simply present the evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began or how life began.

You do realise that you are in serious god of the gaps terriotory here. Yes?

That shouldn't be too much of a problem as I have been told science has proved the Genesis story to be false.

Well which part of Genesis are we talking about specifically? Or does finding evidence contrary to any aspect of the Genesis story invalidate the whole thing?

Isn't the flood and the destruction of all humanity in the book of Genesis? I don't want to hijack your thread down that specific route but that one has been pretty conclusively invalidated has it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:23 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:44 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 17 of 687 (520591)
08-22-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
08-22-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
When did the BBT begin to speak about the beginning of the universe?

Dude is this inevitably going to be one of those "uncaused cause" threads again?

If so shall we just cut to the chase and get down to that topic specifically?

If that is not the purpose of your thread then fine. I'll leave that particular topic alone. But if that is where, as it seems, we are inevitably heading shall we cut out the various middle men and get down to it? If so let's ignore the distractions of modern physics and whatever other scientific theories people waste their time explaining to you and just get down to "uncaused causes".

Let me know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 12:26 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 19 of 687 (520595)
08-22-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
08-22-2009 11:44 AM


Re: Prove .
So is the point of your thread the whole "uncaused cause" argument or not?

Because people are going to waste a lot of time talking about various things with you when all that really matters to you is the "uncaused cause" thing.

Which ultimately has little to do with BB theory. Or any of the other scientific theories you have mentioned thus far.

So is that what we are talking about or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 22 of 687 (520598)
08-22-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
08-22-2009 12:26 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Science has proven the Genesis story to be false.

Well it has unearthed a serious amount of evidence that contradicts most of the stories in Genesis. Is that no enough?

The only answer science has for how the universe began to exist is, "we don't know".

The only answer science has for how life began to exist is, "we don't know".

You seem to conclude that the human need for an answer means that there must be one available.

Isn't "we don't know" the honest and truthful answer to hese questions?

Without knowing the answer to those two questions everything else is a guess.

Why?

So is this about unacaused causes or not? Because if not I will leave the subject. If it is just say so.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 12:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 3:30 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 29 of 687 (520630)
08-22-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
08-22-2009 3:30 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
If you want to proceed down the uncaused cause road why don't you proceed to explain how the universe "just is".

Well which part of "just is" do you have a problem with or not understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 3:30 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 7:43 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 91 of 687 (520839)
08-24-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ICANT
08-22-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
For the universe to to be "just is" as you put it.

It has to be infinite.

Does it? Why?

And what do you meant by "infinite"? Do you mean eternal? As in no beginning? Or do you mean something else?

I don't understand either your terminology nor your thinking regarding this matter. Can you clarify both?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 7:43 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 1:22 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 99 of 687 (520887)
08-24-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
08-24-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
If the universe "just is" that means it exists and never had a begining to exist.

OK.

So my question to you has been and is, Is the universe infinite (has always existed eternally) or did it begin to exist?

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

ICANT writes:

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

Exactly.

Science says this is impossible.

Where?

I still think you are destined to go down the philosophical route of uncaused causes, parsimony and the causal chain in this discussion but I will play your ever present T=0 games for now.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 1:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 7:42 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 1:37 AM Straggler has 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

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


Message 126 of 687 (521062)
08-25-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?

It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption?

The universe can be "just is". But that means it has to be infinite in all directions.

Why must it be "infinite" if it "just is". On what do you base this conclusion?

When you date it as 13.7 billion years old it becomes finite. That requires a begining to exist.

And if a "beginning" exists why does that preclude the Universe from being "just is"?

I agree that eventually you get to an uncaused existence, that is responsible for all existence.

Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 5:42 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 147 of 687 (521170)
08-26-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:24 AM


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

Yes, Straggler brought it up a long time ago and we discussed how the universe is a free lunch, energy and matter is created with the energy remaining zero in the universe. So the universe or universes are created from nothing, for free.

Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here:

T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe contains a link which is what I believe ICANT is referring to.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:24 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 12:31 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 164 of 687 (521246)
08-26-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
08-26-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
We had talked about it in an earlier thread

Do you mean this? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdf

This is a paper by Guth regarding inflation and mentioned by me in a previous thread.

Also if you fancy continuing Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 126) is still awaiting a response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 12:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 179 of 687 (521482)
08-27-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ICANT
08-26-2009 5:42 PM


Internal Logic
You seem determined to conclude that the universe is eternal (by your definition of the word eternal/infinite) because you seem intent on concluding that "something cannot come from nothing" (again to use your terminology and definitions).

Ignoring the difficulties of modern cosmology and the scientific meanings of tems for one moment - Can you explain to me how "eternal with no beginning" existence is superior in terms of observed phenomenon to an "uncaused beginning"?

Purely in terms of your own internal logic why is one more plausible to you than the other?

This is a feature of your argument I have never understood. Please explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 5:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 6:09 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 203 of 687 (521650)
08-28-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
08-27-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Eternal existence. Never having to begin to exist.

I can accept that.

Uncaused existence. Beginning to exist where 'no thing' exists.

I can not accept that.

So the only difference between your acceptance of infinite eternity and uncaused "beginnings" (using your terminology and your definitions in both cases) is personal incredulity. You don't claim that eiether is any more evidenced than the other.

And on the basis of this incredulity you dipsute the highly observable and predictively evidenced theory that the universe is expanding from a prior hot dense state.

Dude that is a pretty weak position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 6:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:09 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 210 of 687 (521683)
08-28-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ICANT
08-28-2009 12:09 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings?

Again - Using your terminology and your definitions. Where have we observed either?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:28 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