Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,748 Year: 4,005/9,624 Month: 876/974 Week: 203/286 Day: 10/109 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   former speed of light
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 166 of 230 (121553)
07-03-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by simple
07-03-2004 12:28 AM


Re: doomed?
I don't remember you pointing out how a split of the 2 parts of God's creation, that was needed for a time, is somehow doomed to lead nowhere?
I do believe there is spiritual light. I know this from descriptions in the Bible and the testimony of the dude that lives next door, and others which all make sense; however, I don't have too many reasons to believe it is connected with the physical universe in the manner you describe although I have not ruled it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by simple, posted 07-03-2004 12:28 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by simple, posted 07-04-2004 11:51 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 230 (121956)
07-04-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by sidelined
07-03-2004 3:17 AM


in conclusion
quote:
You make statement after statement with no measurement of any actual phenomena
If we take as a given the spirit world, then we can stack up some measurements. If we rule it out, because physical instruments can not measure it, then you run into a problem. The supernatural is so universally known that you ignore it at your own peril. Also, if you use these same little pipsqueak physical measurements, to embrace your cosmic speck creator, and try to rule out the real One, then you engage in the absurd. Doesn't matter if you take a known physical universe measurement like the speed of light,(which is fine) and then fantasize how far away a star is by assuming it was created billions of years ago as a result. Then turn around, and try to say there is evidence for it. What the evidence is, is how fast our light moves. Anything else is speculation that flies in the face of the known God (lots of people know Him)- and the known supernatural, and spiritual phenomena. It becomes then a mere religion of unbelief in God, based on ignorantly ignoring the camel, and straining holier than thou at knats that lead to insane conclusions. Conclusions like God didn't create us, but we are mere beasts who sprung by good luck times a billion billion to the thousanth power, from granny bacteria, in a cosmos that grew out of a speck sized dead cup o soup for no apparent reason, of course billions of years before the bible says we were actually created!
I think I'll rest from this for a while, and ponder the implications of having something that evos can't really touch, that would explain how our creator was really true after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by sidelined, posted 07-03-2004 3:17 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 07-05-2004 12:22 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 230 (121960)
07-04-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Hangdawg13
07-03-2004 3:18 AM


not ruled out
quote:
I don't have too many reasons to believe it is connected with the physical universe in the manner you describe although I have not ruled it out.
From the link you included in one of your recent posts, I think it was from Setterfield, you know a lot more about this stuff than I ever will, so I'll take that as a compliment!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-03-2004 3:18 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 169 of 230 (121977)
07-05-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by simple
07-04-2004 11:48 PM


Re: in conclusion
arkathon
Doesn't matter if you take a known physical universe measurement like the speed of light,(which is fine) and then fantasize how far away a star is by assuming it was created billions of years ago as a result.
Could you please explain what makes you think it is a fantasy?
I think I'll rest from this for a while, and ponder the implications of having something that evos can't really touch, that would explain how our creator was really true after all.
Yes,it is very difficult to touch that which is only imagination and wishful thinking. Audiatur et altera pars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 07-04-2004 11:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-05-2004 3:01 AM sidelined has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 230 (122008)
07-05-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by sidelined
07-05-2004 12:22 AM


Re: in conclusion
quote:
Could you please explain what makes you think it is a fantasy?
To take the speed of P, and use it to measure time of creation, is mere mental imagination. If you say something like, 'if we were to travel to a distant star at P speed, it would take so long'...then fine, we agree. But unless someone can prove it could not be, and indeed God split the spiritual from the physical for some reason, then shortly after it was created, S could get to the same star in no time. So, we can not say, after split, when along comes P, that P speed is a measurement for creation time. All P speed is, then, would be the speed that our light could travel under present conditions. It could not be used to give us the time when a distant star was created. So this is what I mean by 'fantasy', The fact it travels so fast is not the fantasy, only in using it to try to say God's creation timetable was off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 07-05-2004 12:22 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-06-2004 12:44 AM simple has replied
 Message 173 by sidelined, posted 07-06-2004 2:12 AM simple has replied
 Message 174 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-06-2004 5:53 AM simple has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 171 of 230 (122315)
07-06-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by simple
07-05-2004 3:01 AM


Re: in conclusion
Here's an idea I'm rolling around in my head right now:
Perhaps, spiritual beings have a certain amount of very localized control over the physical universe. If a spiritual being desires (and if God allows), it can manipulate zero-point energy and allow photons to be emitted at any wavelength in order to form an "apparition". It might also be able to manipulate the electron flow in a human's brain in demon possesion in order to take charge of the person's body.
I can't decide if a spiritual being is bound at all by the physical universe and if it is by what dimensions. Perhaps if we had the ability to observe local changes in space density or zero point fields we would see spiritual beings. I donno, just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-05-2004 3:01 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2004 12:48 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 175 by simple, posted 07-07-2004 11:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 172 of 230 (122320)
07-06-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Hangdawg13
07-06-2004 12:44 AM


Re: in concussion
I have thought similarly many a time but I find it best to only work it up in reflective mode when anything needed can be remembered. I used to imagine gravity waves but I still had the difficulty of making the predicate out. If I keep the same as a THOUGHT only then it still works in all its glory but just writing about it destroys a bit of its glory so I find internalizing Kant still a shaper excersice for the brain Pink needed before any letter or book title sought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-06-2004 12:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 173 of 230 (122331)
07-06-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by simple
07-05-2004 3:01 AM


Re: in conclusion
arkathon
To take the speed of P, and use it to measure time of creation,
I need clarification of this. Do you mean the speed of light is the only evidence pointing to the measure of the time of the Big Bang?
But unless someone can prove it could not be, and indeed God split the spiritual from the physical for some reason, then shortly after it was created, S could get to the same star in no time.
Therein is the problem old man. You are asking us to prove it could not be when it is you making this claim for spiritual light. In the same way it is our responsibility to show how the claims we make are consistent and logically sound so to must you show what the means are for arriving at your conclusion that this event actually occured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-05-2004 3:01 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 12:12 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 230 (122352)
07-06-2004 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by simple
07-05-2004 3:01 AM


To arkathon:
You have got to be kidding me.
First, you created the premise of "spiritual light" (out of thin air or creative imagination) that cannot be detected/measured/manipulated by any physical instruments.
Then you applied this hypothetically metaphysical concept on physical reality, while providing no limitations on its properties.
And finally, you conclude from the introduction of this unsupported/ uneducated/unfalsifiable assertion (no, it is NOT a theory) that its properties (e.g. arrive from one point to another in zero time) must be possible unless proven otherwise.
*********************************************************************
Consider:
I believe that in the World of Infinite Enlightenment, 20,000,000 years ago, there was a perfect substance called "gob". If you're hungry, you eat gob and it will replenish your strength. If you're thirsty, you drink gob and it will quench your thirst. If your car's not moving, pour some gob into the tank and you can drive forever. If your shirt's ripped, smear some gob onto the rip and the shirt will be good as new. It fixes all problems and improves on the imperfect, regardless of situations and circumstances.
Unfortunately, the last unit of gob was consumed by the hobgoblin "Spearmefish" some twenty-million years ago, which is the reason why there's no gob around today. However, unless someone can prove that it could not be, then gob's existence must be true.
You see no problems with your reasoning?

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-05-2004 3:01 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 12:00 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 230 (122840)
07-07-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Hangdawg13
07-06-2004 12:44 AM


bound to find out sooner or later
quote:
I can't decide if a spiritual being is bound at all by the physical universe
Some spirits would be. Some people, as I understand it, after death, have to hang around earth, usually in a certain area, perhaps to see the results of their life on others. Hopefully it would be a way of learning from mistakes, and seeing clearly how certain things were mistakes. Anyhow, these ones (in christian speak, the unsaved) must be bound by the physical. Then we could look at old 'jailhouse' hell, and any spirits there would certainly be bound, and limited.
Then we could look at the angels, it seems there may be certain boundries there sometimes as well. One angel on his way to get a message to Daniel, in the bible was delayed by a demon or some such, for I think it was about a month, before he finally fought his way through!
As far as exactly scientifically how they do it, you could have something. Then again, you very well may be missing a few pieces of the puzzle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-06-2004 12:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 230 (122842)
07-08-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Sleeping Dragon
07-06-2004 5:53 AM


can't claim credit for it all!
quote:
First, you created the premise of "spiritual light"
Did I invent God too? How about the spirit world, can I get a patent on that one? As far as traveling beyond physical limits, as I think I pointed out somewhere, that was the bible's idea. Yes, the bible even applies the spirits to the physical world!! Take Gabriel visiting Mary, as a quick example. Or how about Jacob wrestling with an angel? Measuring? Why when the big rend in the fabric covering the ark of the covenant came from top, to bottom, at the moment of Jesus' death, showing that He was now the only way to God, you could have measured that!! (no doubt the very ones who helped have Him killed to begin with would have covered this up quickly, though). If you measured His tomb, it would have had less volume inside after He arose! Anyhow, the concept of the spiritual having a physical affect is ancient, and well established. Unlike your tale you posted, which does not check out with the bible. I know. 'there just ain't no such thing'!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-06-2004 5:53 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 07-08-2004 12:13 AM simple has replied
 Message 182 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-08-2004 9:39 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 230 (122848)
07-08-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by sidelined
07-06-2004 2:12 AM


you want logical?
quote:
I need clarification of this. Do you mean the speed of light is the only evidence pointing to the measure of the time of the Big Bang?.
No, certainly a very important one though. If you want to conceed this one, I'll be happy to flip through the other dominoes that will fall wit ya.
quote:
In the same way it is our responsibility to show how the claims we make are consistent and logically sound so to must you show what the means are for arriving at your conclusion that this event actually occured.
"logically sound" -the speck that all came from? The only way it seems to me you could say that was sound logic, was if you sailed right back past the actual creation date, first of all, by billions of years. Then, explain why it is so logical galaxies and planets, and the Milky Way, etc, would basically fit on the head of a pin! Then why is it so logical they got the bright idea to slow motion blow up, or out of little mama soup speck!? I guess there was no God in the soup, squashed up, as well? So He couldn't then have helped with the excercise. Ah, no wonder He couldn't help granny bacteria!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by sidelined, posted 07-06-2004 2:12 AM sidelined has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 178 of 230 (122849)
07-08-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by simple
07-08-2004 12:00 AM


Can you get back on topic if possible.
You still have failed miserably to explain seeing the light from the star that is one billion light years away.
Unless you can explain that one you got nothing here just as in the other threads.
So let's stick to just that one. How can we see lights from any star that is more than 6000 light years away?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 12:00 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 12:42 AM jar has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 230 (122856)
07-08-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
07-08-2004 12:13 AM


back and read thread if possible.
quote:
How can we see lights from any star that is more than 6000 light years away?
I think this was answered quite clearly. Here's the hint, has to do with the split.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 07-08-2004 12:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 07-08-2004 12:45 AM simple has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 230 (122857)
07-08-2004 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by simple
07-08-2004 12:42 AM


Re: back and read thread if possible.
Wrong. Please explain the mechanics. This should be fun.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 12:42 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by simple, posted 07-08-2004 1:34 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024