Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 8:52 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,804 Year: 8,840/19,786 Month: 1,262/2,119 Week: 22/576 Day: 22/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3104 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 121 of 158 (561882)
05-24-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:13 PM


Re: First Cause
Sorry for my late reply. I've been in the back-of-beyond for a couple of weeks. No internet access. Pure bliss.

DPowell writes:
The explanation of "how" God "could" have done Creation really doesn't seem that difficult to me. What is difficult to do is to trace the steps of the invisible God into a time before the world in which we live, before people, before written history.

JUC writes:
Somebody obviously did manage to do that. Haven't you read Genesis? For all our modern science and technology, we would have done well to retain those old skills.

DPowell writes:
I'm not really following your angle, Chimp. Are you a Biblical theist or just trying to provoke a response? Yes, I have read and subscribe to Genesis.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was being sarcastic. Just re-hashing the old point about how were we able to observe and record the early stages of God's creation, as portrayed in Genesis, before we were...well...created? It implies that in the past it somehow wasn't quite as difficult as you imagine to "trace the steps of the invisible God into a time before the world in which we live, before people, before written history."

So, to be clear, even if you ignore the scientific evidence that explains how the world and life came to be, I think the story of Genesis can logically only be fictional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:13 PM DPowell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DPowell, posted 10-04-2010 11:56 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
Carel
Junior Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 2
From: Heilig Landstichting, The Netherlands
Joined: 07-02-2010


Message 122 of 158 (567650)
07-02-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-15-2010 11:48 AM


Wat was there before the big bang is a question that is subject to all kinds of opinions. Why? Because we have nothing to examine. There is no experiment that we can execute to get some answers. At the moment of the big bang the space time came into existence, and before that... Einsteins general relativity has no answers, quantum mechanics has no answers. Maybe the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) can give some suggestions here.

I am still amazed about the almost exact definition of the variables. A little bit more of this and there should have been no planets at all, a little less of that and no stars would have formed.

Maybe there was an influence of some kind. Maybe..


CarelVanHeugten
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-15-2010 11:48 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-02-2010 5:45 AM Carel has not yet responded
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 6:02 AM Carel has not yet responded

    
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3104 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 123 of 158 (567664)
07-02-2010 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Carel
07-02-2010 5:01 AM


Hi Carel and welcome

Maybe there was an influence of some kind. Maybe..

I don't actually have a problem with someone suggesting the possibility that our universe may have been created by some other intelligent entity. After all, maybe we will invent the technology someday to make other universes.

But of course you then have the problem of who created the first universe, and whether or not that could go back infinitely.

And I do absolutely object to anyone who jumps from the idea that our universe may have been created by an intelligent entity to the conclusion that it must have been one of those "god" characters of myth. There's no link whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 5:01 AM Carel has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1806 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 158 (567666)
07-02-2010 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Carel
07-02-2010 5:01 AM


I am still amazed about the almost exact definition of the variables. A little bit more of this and there should have been no planets at all, a little less of that and no stars would have formed.

True, there are many many slight tweaks that could change the Universe dramatically (and other tweaks that surpisingly don't change it so much.)

We see exactly the same situation with higher-level parameters - just imagine all the parameters that go into making Earth suitable for complex multicellular life for a sufficiently long period of time for something like us to arise. Tweak anything too much and you've got Mars or Venus.

So, given what we know of the Universe, what is the obvious explanation for how we have the correct range of parameters on Earth?

And could this be a suitable explanation for the next level down, in terms of the parameters that govern having a Universe with stars and planets?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 5:01 AM Carel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Bikerman, posted 07-30-2010 9:35 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 125 of 158 (571234)
07-30-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by cavediver
07-02-2010 6:02 AM


There are several hypotheses.
One which I find attractive is the Lee Smolin Evolutionary Universe hypothesis. Basically we know that black holes form in our universe. They are still pretty mysterious to science, though we do know some things. One thing that is possible is a form of 'break' in normal spacetime at the singularity. Sci-Fi often uses this in the form of wormhole, to open a new story. In reality the physics does allow for a version of a wormhole, or perhaps something completely alien.
Smolin's hypothesis is that Black Holes spawn entire universes in separate spacetimes. A bit unusual for a physicists, but not much stranger than many current hypotheses.

The consequences are astonishing. Since a universe would then 'breed' by containing black holes, we can imagine that the fundamental quantum constants, that appear so highly tuned, are in fact the signature of a successful universe - one which is stable enough to allow the formation of Black Holes (and, as a by product, also supports life - hence us).

Each universe would have slightly different fundamental constants. Most would quickly collapse or evaporate and a good number would never get past the quantum singularity stage. We know, however, that evolutionary algorithms home in very quickly on stable phenotypes - so the same is proposed for universes. There are potentially an infinite number of universes out there, but 'universal selection' means that only those stable enough for Black Holes to arise are actually 'fertile' and can pass their genes on (in the form of the physical constants) via their offspring (BHs).

Lovely little hypothesis, which doesn't, of course, speak to the likelihood of it being correct - but physicists have soul too and can spot beauty when they see it - and the symmetry here makes this quite breathtakingly good-looking :-)

Amongst other nice outcomes/predictions, this hypothesis completely does away with the fine-tuning problem, since evolution naturally found the stable values of the constants in the same way as it finds creatures with the right physiological basics - chuck away the rejects. There is no need to invoke chance, divinities or any other gobbledygook.

PS - some people cannot see the power of evolution to home in on a design. I normally illustrate with the coin-toss analogy.
What are the chances of flipping a coin ten times and calling correctly (Heads or Tails) each time? Fairly low? About one in a thousand. (2^10= 1024)

So now I tell you that if you give me a few people and some coins, I will absolutely guarantee to have a person who has called ten straight flips correctly. What is more I'll do it in an hour or less. (no cheating btw - they will not simply toss and toss at incredible speed until they hit 10. They will ONLY make (or call) ten tosses and get every one right). How can I be so sure?

Simple - make it evolutionary. Reward the winner, 'kill' the looser. So you simply have a league contest. Divide into 2s and each pair flip a coin. One wins and they go through to the next round. After 10 rounds someone HAS flipped 10 winning turns inevitably.

Now of course in lots of ways this is not a true analogy with evolution - there is no inheritance of characteristics which is the main driver for evolution. BUT it does illustrate the 'power' of apparently random processes to hone in on pretty unlikely results, and do it inevitably.

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 6:02 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-05-2010 2:38 AM Bikerman has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 9:39 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 126 of 158 (584992)
10-04-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
05-06-2010 7:04 PM


Re: Let's Do Lunch
Please excuse the tardiness; I haven't been on the site for a long time. I have my doubts if you guys missed me, hah.

What I mean when I use the term *God* is, I suppose, my ultimate locus of reality. As a Biblical Christian, my *God* looks like this: "In the beginning God created [everything]..." (Gen 1:1); "...in [God] we live and move and have our being..." (Acts 17:28); "...all things have been created by [Christ] and for [Christ]..." (Col. 1:16); "It was fitting for [God], for whom are all things, and through whom are all things..." (Heb. 2:10).

I think since you cite the existence of the Universe as a fait accompli--as barebones reality itself, I think--then you would have to agree that this fits the bill as your *God,* where you find your ultimate locus of reality.

I guess I am a little hesitant to mention here that I serve a transcendent God. The Biblical Christian understanding of God is that He exists outside of space and time. In fact, the Universe itself is held together and sustained by God Himself. He is the "invisible God" (1 Tim. 1:17). These elements of His transcendence put His actual Person beyond the realm of empirical experimentation--God simply does not operate within our bounds. I understand the obvious reply to this that the burden of proof still remains on me. But no mortal man can build such an instrument as to detect, formulate such an equation as to prove, or develop such a philosophical argument as to necessitate God; I will not pretend that I am the exception. It is clear from Scripture that God is not a reality that all men can and will accept; the majority will not. As a Christian, all I can do is point you to Him. But the question of God is one that all men must deal with in some way in the span of their lives. It is the inclination of the human heart to ask himself whether there must be something more to life.

With respect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 05-06-2010 7:04 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 1:16 AM DPowell has responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 127 of 158 (584994)
10-04-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by DarkMatter
05-07-2010 11:30 AM


Re: First Cause
Nothing supernatural is required for the creation of matter? Or are we assuming the pre-existence of matter?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by DarkMatter, posted 05-07-2010 11:30 AM DarkMatter has not yet responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 128 of 158 (584995)
10-04-2010 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
05-24-2010 6:04 AM


Re: First Cause
Alright, I am going to take Genesis 1-3 in a very literal sense. I think your question is something like this: If man were not created until the 6th day of Creation, how could he know what happened on Days 1-5? I hope I am following you rightly here. And I think that is a solid question. I would respond by pointing to the relationship between God & the man and the woman in the Garden--the conversant, intimate, personal relationship that is implied as they hear the "sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" and God asking the man and the woman as to their whereabouts.

The Mind of God comes through the Bible clearly because it is His personal revelation of Himself, His Mind, and His Plan to us. Man cannot discern it Himself; it can only be revealed.

Am I hitting in the general ballpark with your question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 05-24-2010 6:04 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 129 of 158 (585007)
10-05-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by DPowell
10-04-2010 11:38 PM


Re: Let's Do Lunch
DPowel writes:

"In the beginning God created [everything]..." (Gen 1:1); .......

The Biblical Christian understanding of God is that He exists outside of space and time. In fact, the Universe itself is held together and sustained by God Himself. He is the "invisible God" (1 Tim. 1:17).

Since God is eternal, the same "yesterday, today and forever, he has been eternally creating, destroying and managing everything in the perpetual machine universe. All energy, space and time has been by and through Jehovah eternally. Jehovah was never without created things around him and has never, in all eternity been without a universe to exist in and operate in. The true Biblical position is that he exists in the heavens/cosmos. A number of scriptures attest to this.

To say that Jehovah exists out of space and time goes against both science and the Biblical record. The latter depicts him as existing in the cosmos and having an entourage of beings as well as numerous things at his abode.

All theories and hypotheses are encumbered with those un-answerable origin premises. It's more logical and, imo, scientific thermodynamically for a functional energetic universe to be infinite than for it to be finite.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by DPowell, posted 10-04-2010 11:38 PM DPowell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by DPowell, posted 10-06-2010 10:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 130 of 158 (585010)
10-05-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Bikerman
07-30-2010 9:35 PM


No it doesn't
Well, your coin flip analogy, when just skimmed over without much deeper thought, sounds very clever, and one might walk away from it thinking that it is true. Only this is a problem, in my opinion similar to how evolutionists think, that just sounds clever because no one is thinking long (or correctly) about the details.

I find this type of problem exists in many people who think they are intellectual, by virtue of the fact that they said something which sounds hard to disagree with, and others will say oh that sounds smart-I am a believer too.

Well, here is the problem with your coin analogy, in case anyone, including yourself, missed it:

Your coin tossing tournament doesn't guarantee at all that someone will call ten flips in a row correctly. In your tournament, during each round, who gets to make the call? You have two people, but only one can make the decision of what they are calling. So in order to proceed to the next round, there is no guarantee at all that you made a correct prediction, only that you may have been standing there, while someone else made the incorrect prediction. In that sense, every single person in the world, except the guy who made the incorrect prediction got it right. And thus your game won't work. So I gladly challenge you to find someone to get ten correct guesses in a row, with just a few people and a few coins. How much are we wagering.

In life, I have found, it is easy for many people to think a lot, and still totally miss the obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Bikerman, posted 07-30-2010 9:35 PM Bikerman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by frako, posted 10-05-2010 7:05 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2010 7:32 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Omnivorous, posted 10-05-2010 8:03 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 131 of 158 (585031)
10-05-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Bolder-dash
10-05-2010 2:38 AM


Re: No it doesn't
Your coin tossing tournament doesn't guarantee at all that someone will call ten flips in a row correctly. In your tournament, during each round, who gets to make the call? You have two people, but only one can make the decision of what they are calling. So in order to proceed to the next round, there is no guarantee at all that you made a correct prediction, only that you may have been standing there, while someone else made the incorrect prediction. In that sense, every single person in the world, except the guy who made the incorrect prediction got it right. And thus your game won't work. So I gladly challenge you to find someone to get ten correct guesses in a row, with just a few people and a few coins. How much are we wagering.

well in lotto the ods are fare worse than 10 coin tosses and people win the lottery a few wone 2x, one man wone 2 times in 4 months time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-05-2010 2:38 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 457 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 132 of 158 (585035)
10-05-2010 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Bolder-dash
10-05-2010 2:38 AM


Re: No it doesn't
Bolder-dash writes:

Your coin tossing tournament doesn't guarantee at all that someone will call ten flips in a row correctly.


Yes it does. How? Quite simple, you have each of the two people predict a head/tails flip, they have to be mutually exclusive, one of them is correct and goes through to the next round. And so on, until, after ten rounds you have 1 person left who called all of them correctly.

In your tournament, during each round, who gets to make the call?

The contestants, and they have to be mutually excluding calls, no two "heads" or "tails" in a single pair.

You have two people, but only one can make the decision of what they are calling.

No, they both decide who takes the heads and who the tails.

So in order to proceed to the next round, there is no guarantee at all that you made a correct prediction, only that you may have been standing there, while someone else made the incorrect prediction.

Or that you made the correct prediction. Either way, that's quite irrelevant.

In that sense, every single person in the world, except the guy who made the incorrect prediction got it right.

No, because you only play in pairs. One will get it correct, the other one won't.

And thus your game won't work.

Not if played in your flawed way, yes, played the correct way, however, it does.

So I gladly challenge you to find someone to get ten correct guesses in a row, with just a few people and a few coins. How much are we wagering.

How about 10,000,000 Euros? I need 1024 people and I guarantee you that I will have one person who called every throw correctly after 10 throws.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-05-2010 2:38 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 10-05-2010 8:40 AM Huntard has responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 133 of 158 (585038)
10-05-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Bolder-dash
10-05-2010 2:38 AM


Re: No it doesn't
Bolder-dash writes:

And thus your game won't work. So I gladly challenge you to find someone to get ten correct guesses in a row, with just a few people and a few coins. How much are we wagering.

In life, I have found, it is easy for many people to think a lot, and still totally miss the obvious.

I'll take that bet.

But you'll squirm out of it when you see it was you that failed to think things through.


Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-05-2010 2:38 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 134 of 158 (585042)
10-05-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Huntard
10-05-2010 7:32 AM


Can't believe it.
But I kind of see boulder's point.

If I someone enters a tossing competition (fnar, fnar) would the odds of any one person getting 10 heads or 10 tails out of 10 rounds of tossing (hur, hur) be astonomically low?

One person, getting 10 hits in ten rounds in one go?

Have I missed something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2010 7:32 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2010 8:58 AM Larni has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 457 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 135 of 158 (585044)
10-05-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Larni
10-05-2010 8:40 AM


Re: Can't believe it.
Larni writes:

t I kind of see boulder's point.

If I someone enters a tossing competition (fnar, fnar) would the odds of any one person getting 10 heads or 10 tails out of 10 rounds of tossing (hur, hur) be astonomically low?

One person, getting 10 hits in ten rounds in one go?

Have I missed something?


Well, the way I see it, if played by the rules I (and I think Bikerman too) laid out, the chance of one person getting it correct 10 times in a row is 100%. You see, you start wit 1024 people, half say heads, half say tails, half go throughto the next round. So 512 people left, again, half heads half tails, 256 people left, and so on. After ten tosses, 1 person is left, and he has predicted all 10 tosses correctly. Does that make it clearer?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 10-05-2010 8:40 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Larni, posted 10-05-2010 9:08 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 140 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-06-2010 1:32 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019