+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 27

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Irreversibly Time

    We have fertile imaginations for thinking about infinity. In math, numbers disappear into infinity. Science fiction conjures up stories about humans traveling back in time. Some scientists claim, without evidence, that the universe is eternal. All these possibilities have one thing in common, they require time. As we make up stories about infinity, time marches on.

    Despite marvelous ideas about defying physical laws, we can't turn back the clock. Even Einstein's theory of general relativity, where times slows down with the speed of light, time is not reversible.

    Scientists have found evidence for a time line to the universe. Matter and energy began with the big bang, subsequently much has happened since that event to produce an expanding universe.

    In short, we're prisoners of time.

    Assuming time is irreversible, what is the explanation? How did our time bound universe begin?

    Most atheist assume the universe has always been here. When asked, where did it come from, or how did it all begin, they have no answers.

    Here are some general propositions related to irreversibly time.

    1. Because matter and energy (universe) are time bound, there must have been a beginning.

    2. It is not possible for science to explain how the universe (matter and energy) popped into existence from nowhere?

    3. Because matter and energy are time bound and finite, the universe did not created itself from nothing.

    3. Based on logic, there is only one explanation. God, an eternal being, created the universe.
    Last edited by Cnance; 11-14-2012 at 06:37 PM.

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    We have fertile imaginations for thinking about infinity. In math, numbers disappear into infinity. Science fiction conjures up stories about humans traveling back in time. Some scientists claim, without evidence, that the universe is eternal. All these possibilities have one thing in common, they require time. As we make up stories about infinity, time marches on.

    Despite marvelous ideas about defying physical laws, we can't turn back the clock. Even Einstein's theory of general relativity, where times slows down with the speed of light, time is not reversible.

    Scientists have found evidence for a time line to the universe. Matter and energy began with the big bang, subsequently much has happened since that event to produce an expanding universe.

    In short, we're prisoners of time.

    Assuming time is irreversible, what is the explanation? How did our time bound universe begin?

    Most atheist assume the universe has always been here. When asked, where did it come from, or how did it all begin, they have no answers.

    Here are some general propositions related to irreversibly time.

    1. Because matter and energy (universe) are time bound, there must have been a beginning.

    2. It is not possible for science to explain how the universe (matter and energy) popped into existence from nowhere?

    3. Because matter and energy are time bound and finite, the universe did not created itself from nothing.

    3. Based on logic, there is only one explanation. God, an eternal being, created the universe.
    What bullshit.

    Again, CDANCE attempts the Triple Lindy by proposing Magic as the explanation for something not yet fully explained.

    Unable to prove the mythical sky fairy created man, flooded the world, created all life....he takes down his Medicine Show and leaves town under the dark of night...only set up shop in another town.

    It won't sell here either.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Despite marvelous ideas about defying physical laws, we can't turn back the clock. Even Einstein's theory of general relativity, where times slows down with the speed of light, time is not reversible.
    Not true. Special relativity doesn't allow for time travel, but general relativity permits closed, time-like curves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    2. It is not possible for science to explain how the universe (matter and energy) popped into existence from nowhere?
    That statement (or question?) should read "popped into existence from a quantum vacuum," (nothing) Cnance, and scientists have explained this already.....quite nicely, too.

    You, above everyone else on this board should know this premise, along with all of the proofs that have been delivered to you, via this website.

    3. Based on logic, there is only one explanation. God, an eternal being, created the universe.
    And, taking your statement a little further, I'd say that this explanation is based only on your personal "logic," wrought by taking a scientific point and either misconstruing it, or leaving something out, or adding something that shouldn't be there, or by putting a personal twist in it, to fit it into your premise.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    That statement (or question?) should read "popped into existence from a quantum vacuum," (nothing) Cnance, and scientists have explained this already.....quite nicely, too.
    Yes, science has explained it. Science has hypothesized VP come from space. What if there is no space? In the beginning of the universe, there was nothing, no space from which VP could pop from. Unless, you assume that multiple universes did it, which seems to be the explanation for scientists who can't deal with nothingness (no space, no matter, no energy, absolutely nothing).

    You, above everyone else on this board should know this premise, along with all of the proofs that have been delivered to you, via this website.
    One reason why I continue with the argument is because no one, including yourself, has presented scientific evidence to refute a time-line for the universe.

    So, here it is again. Assuming a time line, there must be a beginning. Science can't explain how the universe came from nothing, so God is the logical explanation.

    And, taking your statement a little further, I'd say that this explanation is based only on your personal "logic," wrought by taking a scientific point and either misconstruing it, or leaving something out, or adding something that shouldn't be there, or by putting a personal twist in it, to fit it into your premise.
    What does that mean? Science supports a time line for the universe, particularly the big bang.

    The argument for God can be presented in so many different ways.

    As always, truth and logic triumphs.
    Last edited by Cnance; 11-15-2012 at 12:13 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Not true. Special relativity doesn't allow for time travel, but general relativity permits closed, time-like curves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
    I understand your point, but I think you may have confused my posting. I didn't mention special relativity. I was referring to general relativity related to the speed of light.

    I read the link. Interestingly, it proposes the possibility of time going backward, but evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. I understand the possibility of time travel backwards. Could that be a phenomena relative to a forward time continuum? It seems however that as the universe expands, forward time is a constant pulling timelike curves with it.

  7. #7
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    3. Based on logic, there is only one explanation. God, an eternal being, created the universe.
    No, that's not logic, that's a complete leap of faith. Is it logical to believe in something for which there is no proof? Is it logical to believe in something to have been shown IS NOT THE CAUSE of what has been attributed to it in the past?

    Logic is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

    Soooo.....how are you claims based on logic?

    Second, where do you get of tossing all reason, based on history, and assuming magic is the answer?
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Science has hypothesized VP come from space. What if there is no space? In the beginning of the universe, there was nothing, no space from which VP could pop from.
    (Ahem) IF there really, and truly was no 'space' as you claim, then there was SOMETHING.

    And if you think that it was a god, what proof, beyond your biased feelings, points to this conjecture as being a possibility?

    The uncertainty principle (Heisenberg's) of quantum mechanics implies that space can never be truly empty. Instead, random fluctuations (Virtual particles) give birth to a seething cauldron of particles, such as electrons, and their antimatter counterparts, called positrons.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...cles-real.html

    A vacuum is a vacuum.....meaning that there is NO THING, Cnance.

    According to Lawrence Krauss, a vacuum with absolutely zero virtual particles is actually unstable.

    He talks about the universe coming from nothing, existing for a certain time, and then as expansion continues and the stars in it all die out, it may begin again, simply because of the instability of a vacuum without virtual particles.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1681113.html


    One reason why I continue with the argument is because no one, including yourself, has presented scientific evidence to refute a time-line for the universe.
    I've presented arguments with links to valid scientific theories, which have mathematical proofs, and some actual experiments which have shown to support these theories.

    Now, just what have you brought to this debate, as far as proof that all of these mathematically-proven theories are false, other than your own personal beliefs?

    And, taking your statement a little further, I'd say that this explanation is based only on your personal "logic," wrought by taking a scientific point and either misconstruing it, or leaving something out, or adding something that shouldn't be there, or by putting a personal twist in it, to fit it into your premise.
    What does that mean?
    It means that you have a tendency to subvert proven theories by either ignoring them, making claims that they are wrong, or by distorting them, in order to support your own personal "theory."
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I understand your point, but I think you may have confused my posting. I didn't mention special relativity. I was referring to general relativity related to the speed of light.

    I read the link. Interestingly, it proposes the possibility of time going backward, but evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. I understand the possibility of time travel backwards. Could that be a phenomena relative to a forward time continuum? It seems however that as the universe expands, forward time is a constant pulling timelike curves with it.
    Uhhh..... I don't think you understand the difference between general relativity and special relativity. Both of them begin with the postulate that light is always measured to travel at the same speed, c.

    They differ in that special relativity only applies to inertial reference frames, while general relativity applies to all reference frames (meaning those undergoing acceleration or in a gravitational field). Special relativity does not allow for time travel - it actually allows for very little since the inertial reference frame restriction rules out any realistic solutions. General relativity has solutions that allow for time travel. They require extreme conditions, but it most certainly does not rule it out, which is what you said in the OP.

    It is also not saying that time can go backwards. Time is a dimension in relativity, similar to (but not the same as) the spatial dimensions. You can travel east and you can travel west, but no one would ever say that by travelling west you are making east go backwards. You are just travelling in the opposite direction.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    (Ahem) IF there really, and truly was no 'space' as you claim, then there was SOMETHING.

    And if you think that it was a god, what proof, beyond your biased feelings, points to this conjecture as being a possibility?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...cles-real.html

    A vacuum is a vacuum.....meaning that there is NO THING, Cnance.

    According to Lawrence Krauss, a vacuum with absolutely zero virtual particles is actually unstable.

    He talks about the universe coming from nothing, existing for a certain time, and then as expansion continues and the stars in it all die out, it may begin again, simply because of the instability of a vacuum without virtual particles.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1681113.html


    I've presented arguments with links to valid scientific theories, which have mathematical proofs, and some actual experiments which have shown to support these theories.

    Now, just what have you brought to this debate, as far as proof that all of these mathematically-proven theories are false, other than your own personal beliefs?

    It means that you have a tendency to subvert proven theories by either ignoring them, making claims that they are wrong, or by distorting them, in order to support your own personal "theory."
    All of the theories you referenced are predicated on causal links. Regardless of sophistication, even mathematical models, assume causal relationships. That's the key for my discussion about a time line. As long as there are causal relationships, science has a problem explaining the beginning of everything (universe).

    What preceded matter and energy? If you want to evoke a VP explanation, what preceded space? Because science is part of our material universe, it has only one option. Science must use physical laws to explain it.

    The way out of the dilemma is to find a non-material theory or a non-causal model to explain the beginning.

    So far, science has no methodology or theory to explain a non-causal event. To be fair, I won't rule out the possibility. Science may want to compete with God for supernatural status.

    God is the only explanation for a non-causal event. Based on what science knows, matter and energy cannot come from nothing. However, God, a spiritual being, can created it from nothing.

    We can, of course, skip logic and claim science is capable of explaining the beginning of everything without a causal theory. However, That would make science supernatural.

    Incidentally, the Krauss analysis assumes nothing to be space filled with virtual particles. That doesn't answer the question, where did that space and VPs come from. I've read his book, A Universe From Nothing, and discovered that he ducks the question. Also, there is no evidence, just unsupported theories, that VPs started the universe. The most likely possibility is what scientists have discovered about the big bang, a rapidly exploding light became a gigantic universe.
    Last edited by Cnance; 11-19-2012 at 12:01 AM.

  11. #11
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    God is the only explanation for a non-causal event. Based on what science knows, matter and energy cannot come from nothing. However, God, a spiritual being, can created it from nothing.
    You can't claim magic until you can prove magic exists.

    Prove magic exists.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    All of the theories you referenced are predicated on causal links.
    Hume suggests that "causation" is the physical property of one event causing another, such as one ball colliding with and causing the movement of a second ball. This property is part of the realm of mechanics and physics.

    "Causality" describes the attribution by an organism (you and I) of an effect to a cause, meaning that it is we human beings, by that which we discover from our structured, combined knowledge foundations, (science) that give definition to that which we see as real, and causal.

    But not only the proofs of science are chained to this "causality dilemma."

    Subjects that have no relevancy to reality are separated from it by the causation factor.

    Everything real in the universe is predicated on this same premise that you proposed.....a lack of, or the demonstrated, observed, and tested attribute...causation.

    Also, everything not real is bound by the same premise of causation, Cnance.

    By these same causal bonds, your "god of the bible" premise fails in every causal category to be true, since there has never been any demonstration of any viable supernatural activities in nature congruent to those "proofs" that are proposed in the Christian bible.

    By it's lack of viable attributes, it has not been found to be a factor in our creation......ever.

    Science can only effect an answer based on what it tests, built on it's past work on what it has proved to be true before it's last proof.

    Things for which nothing in the logical world follow any natural, or factual sense have been identified and exposed by this lack of causation.

    I speak of the emotional, and need-driven "god" premise, Cnance.....it also needs a causal link, of which you, nor anyone else, have provided one iota of the absoluteness for the universe's creation that would be needed from a "humanoid-like god" position, given in the Christian bible.

    Heres one example of the difference between these two ideas bound by the same conditions of causality, both based on what can be, and cannot be detected:

    Christian doctrine states that god created the universe, with no mechanisms involved, other than his word.

    On the other hand, science has both observed and mathematical proof that a universe with no virtual particles in it's empty vacuum is an unstable universe, meaning that no universe would've came into being, without the stability that virtual particles create.

    Scientific observations have found that the universe quite possibly came into existence driven by virtual particles that constantly pop in and out of a perfect vacuum, mutually annihilating
    each other, unless they are torn apart by some energy source, such as the gravitational field generated at a black hole.

    At the event called The Big Bang, the particles and the anti-particles were separated so quickly from each other by the event's velocities that they didn't have a chance to destroy each other, thus giving the universe it's substance.

    The first "theory" is based only on outdated stories, and emotionally-biased hearsay, and personal beliefs, having absolutely zero basis in anything in reality....since there is a definite lack of causation and zero logical pathways, suggesting that it is not viable.

    The second theory is based on sound, repeatable observations, logic, and math, that was the result of thousands of scientists working over hundreds of years, contributing solid results based on previous works of other scientists, both before them, and along side of them, peer-reviewing each work.

    Each theory is built soundly on the others, all based precisely on observed causation.

    The former story is "hearsay," simply because there has never been anything even remotely found in it to follow any sort of causal logic for our creation, compared to what we've found to be true. Period.

    The latter story isn't a story....

    So far, science has no methodology or theory to explain a non-causal event. To be fair, I won't rule out the possibility. Science may want to compete with God for supernatural status.
    Cnance, you seem to forget that these unobserved virtual particles have been popping in and out of existence for aeons longer than you or I have been around.

    Unlike your gospel stories, we are caused by them, they are not caused by us.

    They are quite the norm, despite our thinking of how "impossible" their existence must be.

    Theres no "holy magic" involved with their existence.

    And again....there is simply no supernatural, or non-causal event because the "non-causal event" (or, if you like, the "sound of one hand clapping" event) would be relegated to the unobserved "world of fantasies," which only exists in the minds of the believers of this mentally sustained, emotionally-charged, unseen world of make-believe, simply for lack of proof of causation.

    Incidentally, the Krauss analysis assumes nothing to be space filled with virtual particles. That doesn't answer the question, where did that space and VPs come from.
    He assumes no such thing.

    He, as a theoretical physicist, has proven to himself and his colleagues, through their combined works, that this theory is sound, both through observed experimentation, and logically-derived, and mathematically-certain premises.

    He only assumes that those who understand the work involved would question it, and perform the same tasks, finding the same exact results, given the same identical parameters that he had to work with.

    As far as where do virtual particles "come from," science may never know.

    A set of "Forces" unknown, from a sister universe unknown.....there is no telling at this point in time.

    However, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the god referred to in the Christian bible exists, and has constructed these virtual particles, simply because the texts of the bible do not support this function that science has discovered.

    As the biblical text reads, god simply spoke the "word."

    Speaking a word requires one to inhale a gas like air, in order to move it through one's vocal chords, creating a sound.

    There is no thing like air, or a gas in a vacuum.

    I do know that your biblical answers do absolutely nothing to advance knowledge in this, and other areas of scientific investigation, as they simply stagnate in the dust of an emotionally-charged antiquity.
    Last edited by GHOST DOG; 11-19-2012 at 11:21 AM.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    Hume suggests that "causation" is the physical property of one event causing another, such as one ball colliding with and causing the movement of a second ball. This property is part of the realm of mechanics and physics.

    "Causality" describes the attribution by an organism (you and I) of an effect to a cause, meaning that it is we human beings, by that which we discover from our structured, combined knowledge foundations, (science) that give definition to that which we see as real, and causal.

    But not only the proofs of science are chained to this "causality dilemma."

    Subjects that have no relevancy to reality are separated from it by the causation factor.

    Everything real in the universe is predicated on this same premise that you proposed.....a lack of, or the demonstrated, observed, and tested attribute...causation.

    Also, everything not real is bound by the same premise of causation, Cnance.

    By these same causal bonds, your "god of the bible" premise fails in every causal category to be true, since there has never been any demonstration of any viable supernatural activities in nature congruent to those "proofs" that are proposed in the Christian bible.

    By it's lack of viable attributes, it has not been found to be a factor in our creation......ever.

    Science can only effect an answer based on what it tests, built on it's past work on what it has proved to be true before it's last proof.

    Things for which nothing in the logical world follow any natural, or factual sense have been identified and exposed by this lack of causation.

    I speak of the emotional, and need-driven "god" premise, Cnance.....it also needs a causal link, of which you, nor anyone else, have provided one iota of the absoluteness for the universe's creation that would be needed from a "humanoid-like god" position, given in the Christian bible.
    You don't understand my argument. Simple stated, science based on causal relationships cannot explain the beginning. You need to trace back events in the universe to the beginning. At that point, what caused creation, or, if you like, what caused matter and energy to come into existence.

    VP theories are very nice, they explain how something pops into space and disappears. How amazing! And yet, scientist duck the question. I suppose that don't want to be embarrassed. After all brilliant careers are at stake.

    Here it is again!

    Heres one example of the difference between these two ideas bound by the same conditions of causality, both based on what can be, and cannot be detected:

    Christian doctrine states that god created the universe, with no mechanisms involved, other than his word.

    On the other hand, science has both observed and mathematical proof that a universe with no virtual particles in it's empty vacuum is an unstable universe, meaning that no universe would've came into being, without the stability that virtual particles create.

    Scientific observations have found that the universe quite possibly came into existence driven by virtual particles that constantly pop in and out of a perfect vacuum, mutually annihilating
    each other, unless they are torn apart by some energy source, such as the gravitational field generated at a black hole.

    At the event called The Big Bang, the particles and the anti-particles were separated so quickly from each other by the event's velocities that they didn't have a chance to destroy each other, thus giving the universe it's substance.

    The first "theory" is based only on outdated stories, and emotionally-biased hearsay, and personal beliefs, having absolutely zero basis in anything in reality....since there is a definite lack of causation and zero logical pathways, suggesting that it is not viable.

    The second theory is based on sound, repeatable observations, logic, and math, that was the result of thousands of scientists working over hundreds of years, contributing solid results based on previous works of other scientists, both before them, and along side of them, peer-reviewing each work.

    Each theory is built soundly on the others, all based precisely on observed causation.

    The former story is "hearsay," simply because there has never been anything even remotely found in it to follow any sort of causal logic for our creation, compared to what we've found to be true. Period.

    The latter story isn't a story....

    Cnance, you seem to forget that these unobserved virtual particles have been popping in and out of existence for aeons longer than you or I have been around.

    Unlike your gospel stories, we are caused by them, they are not caused by us.

    They are quite the norm, despite our thinking of how "impossible" their existence must be.

    Theres no "holy magic" involved with their existence.

    And again....there is simply no supernatural, or non-causal event because the "non-causal event" (or, if you like, the "sound of one hand clapping" event) would be relegated to the unobserved "world of fantasies," which only exists in the minds of the believers of this mentally sustained, emotionally-charged, unseen world of make-believe, simply for lack of proof of causation.

    He assumes no such thing.

    He, as a theoretical physicist, has proven to himself and his colleagues, through their combined works, that this theory is sound, both through observed experimentation, and logically-derived, and mathematically-certain premises.

    He only assumes that those who understand the work involved would question it, and perform the same tasks, finding the same exact results, given the same identical parameters that he had to work with.

    As far as where do virtual particles "come from," science may never know.

    A set of "Forces" unknown, from a sister universe unknown.....there is no telling at this point in time.

    However, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the god referred to in the Christian bible exists, and has constructed these virtual particles, simply because the texts of the bible do not support this function that science has discovered.

    As the biblical text reads, god simply spoke the "word."

    Speaking a word requires one to inhale a gas like air, in order to move it through one's vocal chords, creating a sound.

    There is no thing like air, or a gas in a vacuum.

    I do know that your biblical answers do absolutely nothing to advance knowledge in this, and other areas of scientific investigation, as they simply stagnate in the dust of an emotionally-charged antiquity.
    Skip the Bible, just consider the most logical explanation. Having already established that science can't explain the beginning, what other explanation can there be?

    God doesn't require an advance degree, or a pedigree in science to created something from nothing. God is not part of a causal system, God is not a consequence of something, God is not depend on anyone, or anything. God was before all creatures were, God will be until all creatures either cease to exist or continue with Him in eternity.

    Science will never explain how matter and energy came about from a natural cause. For science, it's impossible for matter and energy to come into existence without physical laws or a material world. That's the problem, explaining the impossible.

    Where did the very first particle of matter or energy come from?

    Those VP studies are fascinating, but all they do is explore further God's complicated universe. So VPs pop out of nowhere, they explain a lot about dark matter and energy. We are getting closer and closer to understanding God's remarkable creation. Krauss and other scientist have unraveled mysteries that have baffled scientist for a very long time. Those scientist however don't want to confront origin questions beyond assumptions of a never ending universe. We have, however, the big bang and logic. Logic directs us to accept a time line for the universe. So, assuming causal relationships are necessary for matter and energy to exist, how do we explain the very first moment, or instance of existence?

    Maybe it came from Frankenstein's laboratory. Oh, I forgot, the good doctor created Frankenstein. Where did the good doctor come from? Oh, that's foolishness, he came from human's imagination.

    God created the universe (big bang). If you don't believe it, present a alternative explanation. Since science is the best alternative, it must have an explanation. What is it?
    Last edited by Cnance; 11-20-2012 at 12:01 AM.

  14. #14
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    You don't understand my argument. Simple stated, science based on causal relationships cannot explain the beginning. You need to trace back events in the universe to the beginning. At that point, what caused creation, or, if you like, what caused matter and energy to come into existence.
    And you problem is?

    Based on what science has already been able to discover, prove and explain, why would this be any different? Science has shown, given the time and technology...all things can and will be explained. Regardless of personal incredulity.

    Skip the Bible, just consider the most logical explanation. Having already established that science can't explain the beginning, what other explanation can there be?
    That is your classic, "gawd of the gaps" excuse. Gawd was supposed to have created the world in 6 days. Wrong. Gawd was supposed to have flooded the entire world. Wrong. Gawd was supposed have created all created all creatures at the same time. Wrong.

    Of course you want to "Skip the bible", so much in it has been proved to be nothing more than myths....BUT without it, THERE WOULD BE NO KNOWN mention or inference to gawd. NONE.

    Truth is, if there were never a bible, you would be either a Muslim or Atheist.

    God doesn't require an advance degree, or a pedigree in science to created something from nothing. God is not part of a causal system, God is not a consequence of something, God is not depend on anyone, or anything. God was before all creatures were, God will be until all creatures either cease to exist or continue with Him in eternity.
    Really??? How do you know all this??? Did gawd tell you...or are you just claiming magical powers dreamed up to explain whatever questions remain unanswered.

    Hint: Yes.

    Science will never explain how matter and energy came about from a natural cause. For science, it's impossible for matter and energy to come into existence without physical laws or a material world. That's the problem, explaining the impossible.
    Your statement implies that it was impossible for the universe to arise by natural cause (you know, they way science has been able to explain EVERYTHING WE KNOW TO DATE).

    How do you know this? Where is your proof this is impossible? Is it because we don't yet currently know? Is it because of your personal incredulity?

    That's not proof. Furthermore, the claim is intellectually dishonest because you well know that all we know, is not all that we will ever know.

    Let's assume science is wrong, where is your proof that this all came about by magic? The answer is, you don't have it because there is no proof.

    Where did the very first particle of matter or energy come from?
    The answer is, we don't currently know. Just like at one time we didn't know how species came about. Just like at one time we didn't know how the Sun worked.

    Science explained all this...not gawd. AND, gawd wasn't the cause.

    Those VP studies are fascinating, but all they do is explore further God's complicated universe. So VPs pop out of nowhere, they explain a lot about dark matter and energy. We are getting closer and closer to understanding God's remarkable creation. Krauss and other scientist have unraveled mysteries that have baffled scientist for a very long time. Those scientist however don't want to confront origin questions beyond assumptions of a never ending universe. We have, however, the big bang and logic. Logic directs us to accept a time line for the universe. So, assuming causal relationships are necessary for matter and energy to exist, how do we explain the very first moment, or instance of existence?
    That's a vacuous statement. Here, next time you make it, insert The Easter Bunny for gawd and notice evidence for your statement still doesn't exist.

    Second, you dishonestly claim "scientist however don't want to confront origin questions beyond assumptions of a never ending universe". That as stupid a claim as it is dishonest.

    What you don't like is, scientist aren't finding any evidence of a mythical sky fairy's hand in anything.

    Maybe it came from Frankenstein's laboratory. Oh, I forgot, the good doctor created Frankenstein. Where did the good doctor come from? Oh, that's foolishness, he came from human's imagination.
    The claim is a logical fallacy.

    God created the universe (big bang). If you don't believe it, present a alternative explanation. Since science is the best alternative, it must have an explanation. What is it?
    Prove gawd created the Big Bang.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Simple stated, science based on causal relationships cannot explain the beginning.
    And you can also state, most truthfully, that a supernatural answer cannot explain a god, based on causal relationships either, especially since there has never been any evidence for anything of the supernatural variety.

    My prior point to you was that these two are both in the same "causality" boat.
    It just so happens that my answer has validated proofs and proven theories behind it.
    I'm still waiting for your dissertation which will prove that all of these physicists are wrong, and you are right.
    Science has one big connection to the truth.....it's meticulous structure of investigation....
    In your next post, please offer up your version of the bible's means to this "beginnings" question.

    IOW, the facts and "structured" methods that the bible bases it's version of the beginning of the universe on.

    Skip the Bible, just consider the most logical explanation. Having already established that science can't explain the beginning, what other explanation can there be?
    If you have a universe made up of NATURAL STUFF, then why would it come from a "SUPERNATURAL SOURCE"....especially one that looks much like a human being?

    Especially if a supernatural source has never been detected, or observed?

    Cnance, we cannot "skip the bible" as your premises are based on it's "facts" about origins.

    Is the part in Genesis that talks about god speaking "The Word," and then everything comes into existence, factually true, or hyperbolic fiction?

    Maybe it came from Frankenstein's laboratory. Oh, I forgot, the good doctor created Frankenstein. Where did the good doctor come from? Oh, that's foolishness, he came from human's imagination.


    The exact same place that the biblical version of a god came from.

    God created the universe (big bang).
    In all honesty, you cannot make this statement unless you have proof.....I've brought Stephen Hawking's proof, along with his legions of dedicated physicists, now it is up to you to prove that he and they are wrong.
    Last edited by GHOST DOG; 11-20-2012 at 09:24 AM.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Irreversibly Time

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    And you can also state, most truthfully, that a supernatural answer cannot explain a god, based on causal relationships either, especially since there has never been any evidence for anything of the supernatural variety.
    Yes, I agree, "that a supernatural answer cannot explain a god, based on causal relationsh8ips either," That is my point, the supernatural (God and His angels) are not made of matter or energy, they are spiritual forms without it.

    My prior point to you was that these two are both in the same "causality" boat.
    Again, the supernatural is outside of the causality category, unless you infer that angels were created by God, they have however no material substance.

    It just so happens that my answer has validated proofs and proven theories behind it.
    What answer? Your reply about causal elements only proves or refers to causal relationships whereby matter and energy cannot create itself, nor can there be a prior material condition for their production.

    I'm still waiting for your dissertation which will prove that all of these physicists are wrong, and you are right.
    Science has one big connection to the truth.....it's meticulous structure of investigation....
    It is not my fault that brilliant scientist refuse to address my argument, they may become discouraged. Admitting a supernatural being created the universe would be a humbling and intolerable experience.

    I applaud the progress of science, but I don't worship science nor do I have faith that science will every prove a natural cause explanation for the universe. It will never happen!


    In your next post, please offer up your version of the bible's means to this "beginnings" question.
    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . " Genesis 1.

    If back then, if humans had some knowledge of science, descriptions would have included the big bang, etc. It's interesting, the recipient of God's holy word, the Jews, are some of the most brilliant scientists in the world.


    I
    OW, the facts and "structured" methods that the bible bases it's version of the beginning of the universe on.
    You know of course the Bible is not a science textbook.

    If you have a universe made up of NATURAL STUFF, then why would it come from a "SUPERNATURAL SOURCE"....especially one that looks much like a human being?
    Have you seen God? Why do you think God looks like one of his creatures? Unless you are referring the Jesus; when, for a short time, God took on human form.

    Especially if a supernatural source has never been detected, or observed?
    Here go again. Prophets of the Bible had personal experiences with God. You like others on scam.com hate the Bible and all that it stands for, so we can have no discussion. Indeed, humans are an arrogant and destructive species.

    Cnance, we cannot "skip the bible" as your premises are based on it's "facts" about origins.
    Even though crude in form and composition, the Bible is necessary for our discussion, especially because my personal testimony is off limits. Without the Bible, I have an understanding of God, heaven, angels, Satan, the purpose of the universe, paradise, and God's intervention in human affairs. The Bible however is God's blueprint for his communication with humans.

    Is the part in Genesis that talks about god speaking "The Word," and then everything comes into existence, factually true, or hyperbolic fiction?
    I already covered that. Again, I don't think authors of the Bible should be condemned for not having degrees in science, or a modern day understandings.

    The exact same place that the biblical version of a god came from.
    Yes, I know about your prejudice. Those men created God. One day one of them, a highly intelligent may by the name of Abraham decided to make up a fantastic story, one that would carry on for many generations. What a remarkable accomplishment. Then, his ancestors, having lying genes, continued the fraud.

    In all honesty, you cannot make this statement unless you have proof.....I've brought Stephen Hawking's proof, along with his legions of dedicated physicists, now it is up to you to prove that he and they are wrong.
    You have never presented such evidence, because it doesn't exist. There are legions of scientist who continue working on the same old worn out paradigm, causal theories. No scientist has presented a natural cause explanation. The reason for that failure is it's impossible, science is not capable of understanding a non-causal event.

    Which scientist would you like to discuss? How about Hawking? Either his theory that space without time preceded the big bang, or his theory of multiple universes? Which theory? They're all fanciful theories without proof.

    Where is the evidence for a non-causal event, one that would produce matter and energy.

    Do you want me to believe matter and energy created itself? Where is the proof for that proposition?

Similar Threads

  1. Time for Him to Go
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-22-2008, 08:57 AM
  2. Now Is The Time to Buy
    By hello1122 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 03:32 PM
  3. Long time reader - first time poster.
    By terazleaman in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2007, 11:45 AM
  4. Time Out!
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 01:29 AM
  5. Small-Time Crime With Hints of Big-Time Connections
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2006, 05:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •