|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The one and only non-creationist in this forum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: I'll remind you of what you actually said:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It either existed in existence or it did not exist as there was non-existence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, if you want to retract your claim and change it to the 2 options above, then fine.
In what you quoted I was agreeing with you that the universe prior to the BB existed in existence or in non-existence. This is what I actually said that you are cherry picking. In Message 244I said:
ICANT writes: Regardless of how long the universe existed previous to the BB the universe has always existed in some form or the universe had a beginning to exist.
Panda writes: It existed in exactly the same place that our universe currently exists. I agree. It either existed in existence or it did not exist as there was non-existence. Can you fathom non-existence
Panda writes: Where do you think the universe exists? I believe it has always existed in eternal existence in some form. You totally ignored the bolded section of what I said. In Message 238 I said:
quote: CS responded in Message 242 with quote: #1. Universe began to exist.#2. Universe existed in In some manner or to some degree. #3. Is an oxymora as something that is infinite can not be finite. #4. Universe existed in the form of 2 - 1/2 verses. So CS did not present and alternative. You presented in Message 22: One of them is that a god existed and he began the universe's existence Your alternative is that the universe began to exist.
Panda writes: But, if you want to retract your claim and change it to the 2 options above, then fine. Why would I retract my statement I gave as comentary as I agreed with your statement. Prior to T=0 the Universe either existed in existence or in non-existence.If it existed in non-existence then it required a beginning to exist as we live in it today. So I will restate my Axiom of truth. The universe exists today. 1. It either has either existed eternally in some form. OR 2. It had a beginning to exist in non-existence. I see no alternative and none has been presented to date. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes:
OR So I will restate my Axiom of truth. The universe exists today. 1. It either has either existed eternally in some form. OR 2. It had a beginning to exist in non-existence.
3. A god created the beginning of the universe.
ICANT writes:
See above. I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.It is not the same as 2. If a god exists then it exists in existence (to use your phraseology) and therefore the universe didn't begin to exist in non-existence. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
What's all this fairy-scary nonsense is doing on the page of a biologist?
That is why Stephen Gould ended up with having written so much wishy-washy nonsense on his own subjects. He had no independence. His umbilical cord to the prevailing nonsense of his day had never got severed from his poor brain. Trillions of trillions of trillions of degrees was the temperature? The poor silly has to show how temperature is not distance travelled by objects. Next he needs to show how any distance can be travelled by an absence of objects lacking any room to travel in. Planck length is indivisible by conception and definition. No distance to travel inside the length. Contradiction. Planck is rotating in his grave listening to all this twaddle. Hawking and the rest of his quackademic buddies are not doing any science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Sorry, such reasoning is based on the assumption that energy is an entity capable of independent physical existence. I do not see any reason to take the assumption for granted. If you define energy as the capacity to do work, there still must be those capable of working. If only bigbangist concepts could be implemented what a delight life would become for the industrialists!! No need to deal with all the dirty pesky workers. Just import pure capacity to work and all the needed jobs are done nice and clean like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: 3. A god created the beginning of the universe. And your god either created the universe out of existing material or he created it in non-existence, out of non-existing materials. Now lets examine your premise. A god Created the universe. Did that universe have a beginning to exist or had it always existed in some form? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Prior to T=0 the Universe either existed in existence or in non-existence. There is no universe prior to that.
1. It either has either existed eternally in some form. You can't just use the word "form" in this case to mean anything you want or as some "unknown". You need to define what you mean by "in some form." Because what the evidence show is there is no "form" before the big bang.
2. It had a beginning to exist in non-existence. This is nonsense. It literally means nothing.
I see no alternative and none has been presented to date. Alternative to what? You haven't presented anything. You continue to use the word "universe" but a universe means 4D spacetime -- which is "existence". So how can existence exist in non-existence? That's ridiculous. Also, there is NO OTHER form for the "universe" to be in. Once there is no 4D spacetime there is NO universe. All we can do is define spacetime and the geometry of the universe as it currently is. We can also describe it at it's earliest state, until it gets too small and GR breaks down. And in the future, hopefully, unify quantum field theory and general relativity which would then explain how the universe emerges from a quantum state. Everything else you are trying to say is nothing more than a quasi-philosophical point that is basically worthless, other than I guess to help you with your confusion. You have not presented us with anything for us to give you an alternative to. Your word salads don't mean anything. As usual, you can learn this stuff properly but you'd rather remain comepletely ignorant on the subject. I don't get it, man. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
...or he created it in non-existence, out of non-existing materials. *Puts gun to head ---- A single shot is heard* - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
How would you tell the difference? Given an object - something that "exists" - what tests would you do to determine whether it "began to exist" at some point or changed from one form to another at some point? Some form = materials that was used in the formation of the universe existed. Non-existence = none of the materials in the universe existed in any form. For example, when you go to bed the grass is dry but when you get up the next morning, there's dew on the grass. How do you know whether the dew was always there and just changed form or whether it came into existence overnight? I'm looking for a real answer here, not just an assertion that something is "impossible". You're making a dichotomy between A and B and I want to know what concrete methods you use to determine that A and B are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
ISAW writes:
Sure, it's Stephen Hawking talking about his personal ideas for what was going on in the Big Bang.
This statement says the universe has not existed forever. The universe does exist today.
Well, I'm not going to argue with that.
That requires a beginning to exist.
Does it? I'm not really sure if that's a logical necessity.
Can we agree that for the universe to exist at T=0 it either had to exist in some form prior to T=0, or either it had to have a beginning to exist from non-existence?
Yes, for the hundredth billionth time, the Big Bang does not have a T = 0 point. It does not say where the universe came from. It just says that "long, long" ago, the universe was in a quark-gluon electroweak plasma and expanded from that state to what we see now. What happened before we don't know.
Or do you have another explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
The Big Bang theory does not discuss an "original Planck volume". I have nothing to say about an idea not present in the Big Bang theory.
Son, you jump ahead of the game. The temperature of the putative quark-gluon plasma after the alleged inflation of the original Plank volume had already occurred was not the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes: What does the word "universe" mean to you? All that exists in what we call the universe. I have been told by cavediver and others there is nothing outside of the universe. But I do believe that there is existence outside of the universe in which the universe exists and expands. God Bless, How does the "existence outside of the universe" differ from "the universe" that "exists and expands"? Did the existence outside of the universe also either always exist or come into existence in nonexistence? Or do these two existences differ in some profound way? And how do you determine their similar or dissimilar status? Thanks. Walk in beauty."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes:
For arguments sake, let's go with that. And your god either created the universe out of existing material or he created it in non-existence, out of non-existing materials.Either our universe has always existed or it was created by a 'god-like' being or it began to exist due to a natural phenomenon. ICANT writes:
I do not know whether our universe has always existed or if it was created by a 'god-like' being or if it began to exist due to a natural phenomenon. Did that universe have a beginning to exist or had it always existed in some form?"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You need to educate yourself, Son, about the scriptures of your faith. The Big Bunk hypothesis has quite a bit to say about the original Planck volume. This period in the history of creation of something from nothing is called Planck epoch in your gospels, if you did not know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry, such reasoning is based on the assumption that energy is an entity capable of independent physical existence. How is it based on this assumption? Independent of what?
If you define energy as the capacity to do work, there still must be those capable of working. There are entities capable of performing work in the early universe. They aren't 'people who are employed' of course. But I wasn't talking about that kind of work. I was talking about, for example, a force displacing something with mass.
If only bigbangist concepts could be implemented what a delight life would become for the industrialists!! No need to deal with all the dirty pesky workers. Just import pure capacity to work and all the needed jobs are done nice and clean like. No. That's just not it at all. Indeed, you have the whole point completely backwards. Nobody is saying that any job could be done by the mere application of workable energy. What I am saying is that in order for work to be done (be it in the context of paid employment, or of exploding a star), there must be workable energy available. And that there was more workable energy available early in the universe than there is now. And there was less space. So it would be 'hotter'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: I do not know whether our universe has always existed or if it was created by a 'god-like' being or if it began to exist due to a natural phenomenon. Just where would that natural phenomenon exist? 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024