Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 11:58 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, herebedragons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 62/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 91 of 176 (477471)
08-03-2008 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Thugpreacha
08-03-2008 8:08 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Hi Phat -

If the universe always existed, that seems to set better with folks than asking if God always existed. Folks usually ask "Who created God?" but never seem to mind the fact that a singularity was sitting around for eternity until the explosion.

I think the relevant argument is that if we insist on the need for a creator for the Universe, we must also insist on the need for a created creator. But if we are happy to relax the point, and accept that the Universe could exist without the need for a creator, that then allows us to consider also an uncreated creator...

Cavediver, if the universe had no beginning, what is the purpose of our lives if we may someday be compressed back into a singularity?

I don't know about purpose, but you are a fixed permanent immutable part of our Universe. Your limited span of time merely fixes your position in the 4d space-time. In the same way that you cannot expect to be at all places in the Universe, nor can you really expect to be at all times. That doesn't diminish your role...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-03-2008 8:08 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 176 (477476)
08-03-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
08-01-2008 8:37 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
ICANT,

You may want to continue reading your Hawkings paper a bit more than just the first line.

Heres a quote from it

quote:
At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

If the laws of physics break down, then there is no way of knowing for sure when or how a beginning occured.

Here he further explains what is meant,

quote:
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.

So its not that 'time began at the Big Bang', what he is saying is that we might as well say that time began at the Big Bang since events prior have no observable consequence.

Here again he repets that,

quote:
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

UNDETERMINED BEGINNING...I think thats a pretty clear statement.

However, I would say that String Theory may be closing this gap.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:37 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 3:09 PM onifre has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 93 of 176 (477478)
08-03-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by cavediver
08-03-2008 7:29 AM


Re: Existence.
cavediver writes:

To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure.

So are you saying that neither is a possibility?

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 88 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 7:29 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 1:59 PM ICANT has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 176 (477479)
08-03-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
08-03-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Existence.
cavediver writes:

To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure.

So are you saying that neither is a possibility?

Not in any way that allows one to talk about existence coming into being. Both would have to extend across this non-existence/existence boundary, which immediately means that your non-existence isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 1:47 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:29 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 95 of 176 (477480)
08-03-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
08-03-2008 7:33 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:

I would argue that some there is some slight evidence (from theoretical phsyics) to suggest that perhaps the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. He would agree with that.

If the BBT only covers from T=10-43 the universe had to exist at T=10-43 as it was already expanding.

Hawking has imaginary time or vertical time at T=0. Which I call eternal time.

Hawking Turok have an instanton that becomes a self-expanding open universe.

So I am not sure what Hawking truly believes.

Concerning whether Hawking was right about a beginning about 15 billion years ago you said:

cavediver writes:

We don't know yet.

I believe he was wrong as the universe has always existed in some form. Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed.

cavediver writes:

ICANT writes:

If the universe did not always exist but now it does exist it had to come into existence.

Incorrect

Why is my statement incorrect?

The universe did not exist.
The universe does now exist.
To exist now it had to come into existence.

So in essence you are saying:

The universe did not have to come into existence to exist now.

Could you please explain how that is possible.

As I don't understand the logic.

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 89 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 7:33 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 3:04 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 99 by lyx2no, posted 08-03-2008 3:21 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 96 of 176 (477481)
08-03-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
08-03-2008 1:59 PM


Re: Existence.
cavediver writes:

Not in any way that allows one to talk about existence coming into being.

I have been talking about the universe coming into existence.

Not about existence coming into existence.

I believe existence has always been. I do have a different name for existence.

I believe the mass and energy that our universe was formed from has always existed just not in the form we see it today.

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 94 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 1:59 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 176 (477482)
08-03-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
08-03-2008 2:20 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed.

This is only true locally - globally there is no such restriction...

the universe has always existed in some form.

...and so this becomes merely an assertion.

The universe did not exist.

This is a meaningless statement, and hence your argument fails.

"The universe did not have to come into existence to exist now."

Could you please explain how that is possible.

You've read Hawking's work with Hartle on the no-boundary proposal and also his work with Turok, so you should know by now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:20 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:14 PM cavediver has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 98 of 176 (477483)
08-03-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
08-03-2008 12:38 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
onifre writes:

Here again he repets that,

quote:
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

seemed to predict the universe had a beginning.

That seems to suggest it came into existence.

they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

That seems to suggest the how is unknown.

onifre writes:

However, I would say that String Theory may be closing this gap.

I have read about string theory and brane theory.

The problem with those are how do you see past the hot beginning.

Here Son Goku gives the earliest temperature we know.

Son Goku writes:

At the earliest point we can measure the universe is already at 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees. (roughly) (1 quintillion degrees)

If it was that hot and that dense how do you trace anything past that point?

Imagination?

Faith?

Some other way?

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : Fixed link


"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 92 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 12:38 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 4:50 PM ICANT has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2889 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 99 of 176 (477484)
08-03-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
08-03-2008 2:20 PM


Points In Time
The universe did not exist.
The universe does now exist.

What you mean by this is "At some point in time the Universe did not exist." and "At this point in time the Universe does exist."

As time is an integral part of the Universe — time doesn't exist without the Universe — there has never been a point in time that the Universe has not existed. So how could it be said, in any normal sense of the phrase, that the Universe came into existence?

Edited by lyx2no, : To make sense.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

One hot lesbian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:20 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:26 PM lyx2no has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 100 of 176 (477485)
08-03-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by cavediver
08-03-2008 3:04 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:

This is only true locally - globally there is no such restriction...

Do you mean inside our universe as locally?

Then what would globally be and how would you know?

cavediver writes:

ICANT writes:

the universe has always existed in some form.

...and so this becomes merely an assertion.

One shared by those who believe in string theory, brane theory and the bounce theory.

cavediver writes:

ICANT writes:

The universe did not exist.

This is a meaningless statement, and hence your argument fails.

I think we agree the universe exists.

I think the universe has always existed in some form. You disagree saying that is an assertion. So you do not think it has always existed in some form.

I say if it has not always existed it had to have a beginning and come into existence. You disagree saying it has not always existed but it did not have to come into existence.

I asked you to explain how that was possible.

Instead of answering yourself you proposed Hawking's explanation. I know what his explanation I was asking for your explanation.

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 97 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 3:04 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 4:24 PM ICANT has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 176 (477486)
08-03-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
08-03-2008 4:14 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Do you mean inside our universe as locally?

No. Locally means within a sufficiently small volume to avoid non-trivial topological considerations.

One shared by those who believe in string theory, brane theory and the bounce theory.

Really, have you asked them all? Given that I am/was a string/brane theorist amongst other things, how does that work?

Instead of answering yourself you proposed Hawking's explanation. I know what his explanation I was asking for your explanation.

They are essentially the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:59 PM cavediver has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 102 of 176 (477487)
08-03-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by lyx2no
08-03-2008 3:21 PM


Re: Points In Time
lyx2no writes:

As time is an integral part of the Universe — time doesn't exist without the Universe — there has never been a point in time that the Universe has not existed. So how could it be said, in any normal sense of the phrase, that the Universe came into existence?

Did I mention time as you and I know it?

If I did I am sorry as I have not been talking about time as we know it. Time as we know it only exists inside the universe.

The only kind of time that can exist outside the universe would be imaginary time or eternal time.

String theory, brane theory and bounce theory would require eternal time.

I am still convinced that the universe existing today and Hawking and Peebles saying it had a beginning is the best evidence for creation.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by lyx2no, posted 08-03-2008 3:21 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by lyx2no, posted 08-03-2008 7:39 PM ICANT has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 176 (477489)
08-03-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
08-03-2008 3:09 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
quote:
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

ICANT reply,

seemed to predict the universe had a beginning.

I think you are jumping the gun, it seems to predict that the beginniing, if there was one, is currently undetermined.

Also note that the Laws of science breakdown at the singularity making the 'beginning' currently unknowable. Therefore to boldly state that there is a beginning is a leap of faith.

Here Son Goku gives the earliest temperature we know.

...your link wasn't to Son Goku's explanation.

But i'll take your word that 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees, is the actual number.

So what, Son Goku is refering to the Universe at a particular time after T=O, how is that a problem for String or M-theory?

If it was that hot and that dense how do you trace anything past that point?

I don't see how a particular temperature creates a problem for String theory. Could you explain...


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 3:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:49 PM onifre has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 104 of 176 (477490)
08-03-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by cavediver
08-03-2008 4:24 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:

No. Locally means within a sufficiently small volume to avoid non-trivial topological considerations.

Would T=0 qualify as locally? or T=10-43 ?

cavediver writes:

Really, have you asked them all? Given that I am/was a string/brane theorist amongst other things, how does that work?

I will review my notes later and see why I came to those conclusions.
Church in 45 minutes.

I notice you did not mention the bounce theory as that is a given.

cavediver writes:

They are essentially the same.

I do remember you saying that you skipped the standard theory and went to the Hawking Hartle no boundary theory.

I still haven't figured out where the imaginary time or the point could exist as there would have been an absence of any thing. Because every thing, time, space, gravity, matter and energy are all part of the universe.

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 101 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 4:24 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 5:54 PM ICANT has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 176 (477494)
08-03-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
08-03-2008 4:59 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Would T=0 qualify as locally? or T=10-43 ?

Most definitely not.

I notice you did not mention the bounce theory as that is a given.

There is no such thing as a 'bounce theorist' - it is just one idea.

as there would have been an absence of any thing

there has never been an 'absence of any thing'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:11 PM cavediver has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019