|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9214 total) |
| |
Cifa.ac | |
Total: 920,021 Year: 343/6,935 Month: 343/275 Week: 60/159 Day: 2/58 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10334 Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
RAZD writes: We also have evidence for constants, such as Uranium Halos and the Okla Natural Reactors producing the same by-products as man-made reactors, and in the observed radioactive decay of isotopes in the light from supernova's like 1987a. Precisely. We say that these things are constant because everywhere and everywhen we look in the universe it appears to be using those constants. Its not as if we write down laws and the universe snaps into shape to fit those laws. If the constants were different then we would see things like type Ia supernovae brightening and fading at different rates, stars putting out strange spectra, stars exploding for no apparent reason, stars not exploding when they should, and variances in the speed of light as we speed through space and time. We don't see any of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Plus we have the evidence of Science being self correcting and searching for places where it is wrong while the Biblical Christianity is factually wrong and has a history of not ever correcting factual errors and even denying the obvious factual errors exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: Sounds like you feel the author of the book of Hebrews is saying Jesus was God? You said this from a later post.
quote: Here are the fist 2 chapters of Hebrews.
quote: It does seem to be making a point that Jesus is God and not an angel. The Synoptic Gospels say Jesus did not know the time when the prophecies would be fulfilled (only God knows). Matthew 24:34-39
quote: The eternal son will not know when the father will send him? Hebrews 13:8 was mentioned by you.
quote: He did not know the time when prophecies would happen I suppose. Jesus being ordered by the father to come to earth again isn't so absurd. The idea of him actually being a split personality/entity of God (which the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never claimed but Hebrews did) himself and NOT knowing what God will do seems very odd. Do you think Martin Luther was correct in challenging the Roman Catholic council of Carthage (397 AD) which made Hebrews part of the Bible? (The Council of Trent, in 1546, affirmed the inspiration of the Bible of Jerome with its 27 New Testament books that Catholics and Protestants, in turn, now consider sacred) I feel like you might be looking at works of man and attributing them to God. The Bible is: The Word ABOUT God. Not: The Word OF God. (edit Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia"The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon in 382 at the Council of Rome [2] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1546, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393—419." Council of Rome - Wikipedia hebrews martin luther - Google Search ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: Paul Steinhardt said that most physicists would bet against Dark Energy tearing the universe apart (though it seems set on doing just that). He said that the Dark Energy could decay into something else. That would make it a field and not a force (or constant) since a force that comes through a particle is then a "field". Alan Guth said that there was a inflaton particle associated with the early rapid expansion and seemed to be saying that the early inflation was perhaps the same Dark Energy force (or "field") but acting on a particle. The late 1990s discovery of Dark Energy caused the Cosmos book (written by Carl Sagan in 1988 who died in 1996) to have an asterisk note (in a past humus edition) which said that Dark Energy falsifies the idea of a universe that might collapse in on itself. The DVD series by Sagan didn't know of Dark Energy but he presented the possibility of a universe that keeps on expanding against the other (defunct?) possibility of a universe that stops expanding and then is pulled back to a singularity by the force of gravity. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
quote:Expanding on what jar said, the Big Bang Theory states that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was very hot and the size of a pea and mostly composed of particles. It then explains how we got the universe we have today from that pea-sized soup. What proceeded that is unknown (maybe it was apple sized for five million years prior, then stadium sized for a trillion years, etc.) and the Big Bang Theory makes no statements on the origin of the universe.
quote:"Laws of Physics" is a very pre-1800s way of viewing physics. Modern physics postulates that the world is composed of various "objects" (e.g. fields, spacetime) and derives the consequences of these postulates, which match current experiments. Laws tended to be absolute statements about observed behaviour. Modern Quantum Field Theory for instance couldn't be broken down into "Laws", there'd be infinitely many if you tried. In this sense Modern Physics is more like biology, i.e. entities and their behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, as a layman on physics that's my take on it, too. While the Laws change; the behaviour (workings) of the Universe hasn't at all. We just learn more about how the Universe works. That's why any sane modern scientist would be reluctant to call a discovery a Law.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
I was a bit unclear in the previous post.
I meant that we don't use "Laws" as it's an outmoded way of viewing physics, i.e. absolute dictums on observed quantities, e.g. "Momentum is conserved". In modern physics we simply describe conjectured basic objects and have complex mathematical models describe how they behave. "Laws" like "Momentum is conserved" then fall out as a consequence of their behaviour rather than being the basis of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 538 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
It really doesn't make a difference if science doesn't claim to have definition of absolute laws that govern the universe.
The universe does behave in a very specific way, at least at the quantum level, and this must be consistent seeing our universe behaves in a consistent manner from the micro-level all the way to the macro-level. Therefore the universe has specific behaviors, and therefore, even though science hasn't discovered the exact Laws of the universe, the universe does abide by certain Laws. Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years. For if the universe had formed from nothing, having nothing to cause it, there is nothing to prevent it from vanishing without a cause. Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Guido writes: Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years. Good grief Guido; haven't you learned anything at all? Are you still simply set on posting silly assertions that are not just wrong but sophomoric?My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9600 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The Universe has laws
Therefore goddidit You need to learn some very basic logic.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8679 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.0 |
The universe does behave in a very specific way, at least at the quantum level, and this must be consistent seeing our universe behaves in a consistent manner from the micro-level all the way to the macro-level. In actuality matter and forces at the quantum level can behave quite differently from what classical physics would predict. Two apples separated from their basket are not entangled. Two photons may very well be. For us humans today the physics of the micro and of the macro are described in separate magisteria. We do not know, yet, how to combine them.
Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years. You sure it wasn't an unfaithful, cruel, bloodthirsty, ogre of a god? How about a rainbow unicorn god? How about no god at all? And you are trying to say in a round-about way that order equals god. That is an ignorant view of this world. We know otherwise.
For if the universe had formed from nothing, having nothing to cause it, there is nothing to prevent it from vanishing without a cause. If this were all true as you present it then maybe, but it isn't. No one can say "the universe had formed from nothing" or "had nothing to cause it". We are too ignorant of this beginning to say anything at all about it. So, no Preacher, your views are neither factual nor logically consistent.
For if the universe had formed from nothing, having nothing to cause it, there is nothing to prevent it from vanishing without a cause. Ignorant speculation. Really not worth the effort to contemplate.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 702 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Gospel Preacher writes:
Billions of years. Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8679 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.0 |
Gospel Preacher writes: Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years. Not even a few yactoseconds.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 538 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
If the universe has laws, if these laws are constant, if that constancy is an eternal one, then by no means from nothing can it suddenly emerge, and not into nothing at any time disappear. For the laws of the cosmos, as they do permit a sudden dawn of all things, must also permit a sudden end of all things. For there is no law saying all things must remain for eternity.
Thererefore science is not a dependable thing. Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given. Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given. Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025