PDA

View Full Version : I like this!!



Barry Morris
02-18-2016, 12:30 AM
"If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe. "

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/2782/

Hans
02-18-2016, 07:14 AM
That is assumption, unless you have actual proof of that statement.

Barry Morris
02-18-2016, 11:53 AM
That is assumption, unless you have actual proof of that statement.

Logic dictates that nothing can be created from within itself.

Unless you have actual proof of the opposite.

dancingqueen
02-18-2016, 06:28 PM
Logic dictates that nothing can be created from within itself.

Unless you have actual proof of the opposite.

Actually you made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

Barry Morris
02-18-2016, 08:08 PM
Actually you made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

I don't particularly care about providing such "proof".

You reject the logic because you reject the possibility of a Creator. I could ask you to prove something can come from nothing, but you wouldn't and couldn't.

dancingqueen
02-18-2016, 10:46 PM
I don't particularly care about providing such "proof".

You reject the logic because you reject the possibility of a Creator. I could ask you to prove something can come from nothing, but you wouldn't and couldn't.

Actually I do not reject the possibility of a creator.
As for not caring to provide such proof, What is the purpose of this thread?

Barry Morris
02-18-2016, 11:00 PM
Actually I do not reject the possibility of a creator.
As for not caring to provide such proof, What is the purpose of this thread?

Re: the creator, my apologies, I had forgotten that.

Purpose: To point out that others believe as I do.

Barney Rubble
02-18-2016, 11:26 PM
That is assumption, unless you have actual proof of that statement.

Law Of Causality - To get an effect, you must have a cause...nothing comes from nothing!
Seeing that time, space & matter did not exist until the "big bang", what caused this? Obviously something but beyond the confinds of space, time & matter. We Christians call Him GOD!! :)

Hans
02-19-2016, 09:05 PM
Law Of Causality - To get an effect, you must have a cause...nothing comes from nothing!
Seeing that time, space & matter did not exist until the "big bang", what caused this? Obviously something but beyond the confinds of space, time & matter. We Christians call Him GOD!! :)

Before big bang: universe in a state of non chaos.
After big bang: universe in a state of chaos.

Now as to your assertion about nothing: your "Creator" cannot come from nothing either, unless that Creator is above your assumption. In which case everything else can be above your assumption also.

Hans
02-19-2016, 09:09 PM
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I trust this smart person more than a few people with some bible notion when it comes to the universe and the how of it all.

Barry Morris
02-19-2016, 09:21 PM
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I trust this smart person more than a few people with some bible notion when it comes to the universe and the how of it all.

Indeed?? Why don't you give us a few select quotes from the lecture, supporting your point of view.

By the way, I did notice this: "There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. "

I'm sorry Hans, but the book of Genesis says no such thing, and the idea of the young universe is not held by very many people.

Barry Morris
02-19-2016, 09:23 PM
Before big bang: universe in a state of non chaos.
After big bang: universe in a state of chaos.

Now as to your assertion about nothing: your "Creator" cannot come from nothing either, unless that Creator is above your assumption. In which case everything else can be above your assumption also.

Hans, stop saying "come from". That implies the passage of time, and I suspect even Hawking know that time exists only in this universe, and that is flexible too!!

Hans
02-20-2016, 12:36 AM
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

Hans
02-20-2016, 12:38 AM
Hans, stop saying "come from". That implies the passage of time, and I suspect even Hawking know that time exists only in this universe, and that is flexible too!!

Barry, do you have actual proof that time only exists in this universe, or is that one of your assumptions?

RWGR
02-20-2016, 11:44 AM
Quite right

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 12:12 PM
Barry, do you have actual proof that time only exists in this universe, or is that one of your assumptions?

Science has found out many things about time. It's flexibility for one thing. If it were totally immutable, I think it might be reasonable to assume that it merely sits in place, never, ever changing, existing before the Big Bang and forever on.

But it is not.

Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that time itself may have had a beginning. Furthermore, that it's source was something outside the universe.

And in spite of RWGR's useless comment/attack, I do not think it unreasonable to believe that intelligent design had something to do with it.

RWGR
02-20-2016, 12:56 PM
Quite right

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 07:07 PM
the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics

If time, matter & space were created at the big bang, saying that the big bang happened because of the laws of physics is incorrect. there can not be any laws of physics if time, space, matter, gravity never existed.
Atheists accept that the big bang started everything (time, matter, space.gravity etc). Christians do nor refute that....but...something beyond the realm of our physical being must have started or caused the big bang.
If the laws of physics must be followed as you say, the law of causality (which is a law of physics and the second law of thermodynamics) must be true. Both support a big bang & both support a cause leading an effect. Something had to cause the big bang...something outside of our realm...why not a supreme being...why not GOD?
finally, "determined by the laws of physics"? Is this a absolute truth OR only a subjective truth? Meaning a truth according to how you see it. Just because you state that does not make it an absolute truth.

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 07:20 PM
Another thing...
When Hawking says that the universe can come into existence without God in his book "Grand Design",, he says this on the basis that the laws of gravity are sufficient to produce our universe. But this begs the question…how did the laws of gravity get here? You see, when a Christian talks about the universe coming into being we mean that the universe came into existence out of non-being. What this means is that if the universe did not exist, the laws of gravity would not exist either…there would only be non-being. Literally nothing. No time, no matter, no energy, no space…and no laws of any sort (gravity included).

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 07:25 PM
Barry, do you have actual proof that time only exists in this universe, or is that one of your assumptions?

Barry does not have to prove this!
Atheists and scientists all agree on it...even Hawkings...even Einstein!
Many believe that time is not a constant either! Time is at a different rate in space that here on earth...already proven with atomic clocks on earth & on the space station....gravity has an effect on time!

Hans
02-20-2016, 09:27 PM
Barry does not have to prove this!
Atheists and scientists all agree on it...even Hawkings...even Einstein!
Many believe that time is not a constant either! Time is at a different rate in space that here on earth...already proven with atomic clocks on earth & on the space station....gravity has an effect on time!

There is a theory called the multiverse. Dr Hawking is a proponent on that theory. Under that theory time would exist in many universes, including ours.
So yes, when you make the assumption that time only exists in our universe you would have to come up with some relative information to support that theory.

Hans
02-20-2016, 09:32 PM
If time, matter & space were created at the big bang, saying that the big bang happened because of the laws of physics is incorrect. there can not be any laws of physics if time, space, matter, gravity never existed.
Atheists accept that the big bang started everything (time, matter, space.gravity etc). Christians do nor refute that....but...something beyond the realm of our physical being must have started or caused the big bang.
If the laws of physics must be followed as you say, the law of causality (which is a law of physics and the second law of thermodynamics) must be true. Both support a big bang & both support a cause leading an effect. Something had to cause the big bang...something outside of our realm...why not a supreme being...why not GOD?
finally, "determined by the laws of physics"? Is this a absolute truth OR only a subjective truth? Meaning a truth according to how you see it. Just because you state that does not make it an absolute truth.

The state prior to the big bang is called a singularity. The laws of physics do not apply inside a singularity. What initiated the big bang was not part of the laws of physics. Cause and effect do not apply to the big bang.
You also have to realize time and space are tied together in something called spacetime. This is an important concept that Einstein eventually ended up confirming.

Hans
02-20-2016, 09:39 PM
Science has found out many things about time. It's flexibility for one thing. If it were totally immutable, I think it might be reasonable to assume that it merely sits in place, never, ever changing, existing before the Big Bang and forever on.

But it is not.

Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that time itself may have had a beginning. Furthermore, that it's source was something outside the universe.

And in spite of RWGR's useless comment/attack, I do not think it unreasonable to believe that intelligent design had something to do with it.

Time is always relative to the observer, no matter what the circumstances are.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 09:44 PM
Time is always relative to the observer, no matter what the circumstances are.

Entropy says you are wrong.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 09:45 PM
There is a theory called the multiverse. Dr Hawking is a proponent on that theory. Under that theory time would exist in many universes, including ours.
So yes, when you make the assumption that time only exists in our universe you would have to come up with some relative information to support that theory.

Sorry, Hans, all you have done is widen the possible scope of the discussion.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 09:47 PM
"What initiated the big bang was not part of the laws of physics. Cause and effect do not apply to the big bang."

An interesting contradiction.

Cause and effect don't apply?? Why??

Hans
02-20-2016, 10:19 PM
"What initiated the big bang was not part of the laws of physics. Cause and effect do not apply to the big bang."

An interesting contradiction.

Cause and effect don't apply?? Why??

Because it is a singularity Barry.

Hans
02-20-2016, 10:20 PM
Sorry, Hans, all you have done is widen the possible scope of the discussion.

No, all I have done is contradict your assumption that time only exists in this universe.

Hans
02-20-2016, 10:26 PM
Entropy says you are wrong.

Barry, I suggest you google and read some documents on the subject matter before coming up with statements.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

One of Albert Einstein's greatest insights was realizing that time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else.

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 10:42 PM
Before big bang: universe in a state of non chaos.
After big bang: universe in a state of chaos.

This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which Christians agree on...point is?
It proves laws of physics is in effect now but does not prove that they did prior to big bang
Multi universe is simply a theory...not scientific fact...big bang is closer to scientific fact than theory...proven in expanse of universe, radiation decay still present, 2nd law of thermodynamics, theory of relativity & great galaxy seeds (S.U.R.G.E.)
multi universe rebuked by many scientists & atheists alike...still if multi universes are there...who created them?
Still does not diminish possibility of supreme being

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 10:48 PM
Cause and effect do not apply to the big bang

You say that EVERYTHING must follow the Law of physics yet you say there is an exception (the big bang)?
Either everything does or doesn't??? This is a contradiction & a self defeating statement!
Again, i think this is a subjective truth (your or my opinion) & not an absolute truth (real truth)...or as RW would say....source? link?

Hans
02-20-2016, 11:04 PM
You say that EVERYTHING must follow the Law of physics yet you say there is an exception (the big bang)?
Either everything does or doesn't??? This is a contradiction & a self defeating statement!
Again, i think this is a subjective truth (your or my opinion) & not an absolute truth (real truth)...or as RW would say....source? link?

It is not subjective but a fact. The laws of physics do not apply inside a singularity.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down".

Hans
02-20-2016, 11:07 PM
This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which Christians agree on...point is?
It proves laws of physics is in effect now but does not prove that they did prior to big bang
Multi universe is simply a theory...not scientific fact...big bang is closer to scientific fact than theory...proven in expanse of universe, radiation decay still present, 2nd law of thermodynamics, theory of relativity & great galaxy seeds (S.U.R.G.E.)
multi universe rebuked by many scientists & atheists alike...still if multi universes are there...who created them?
Still does not diminish possibility of supreme being

All possibilities are open, but a supreme being is more far fetched that any other possibility. It will always turn into a circle . If you are going with a supreme being theory, why only 1?

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 11:26 PM
No, all I have done is contradict your assumption that time only exists in this universe.

Now you're just being silly.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 11:28 PM
Barry, I suggest you google and read some documents on the subject matter before coming up with statements.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

One of Albert Einstein's greatest insights was realizing that time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else.

Hans, you are once again, posting the irrelevant.

It's an old principle I'm familiar with. It's called "Baffle 'em with bull****!!"

Sorry, ain't working.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 11:29 PM
All possibilities are open, but a supreme being is more far fetched that any other possibility. It will always turn into a circle . If you are going with a supreme being theory, why only 1?

Only one all knowing being is possible. Think about it.

Barry Morris
02-20-2016, 11:30 PM
You say that EVERYTHING must follow the Law of physics yet you say there is an exception (the big bang)?
Either everything does or doesn't??? This is a contradiction & a self defeating statement!
Again, i think this is a subjective truth (your or my opinion) & not an absolute truth (real truth)...or as RW would say....source? link?

Must be faith!!!

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 11:34 PM
Some scientists do believe in a singularity BUT many also believe in an alternative...the multi universe as you mentioned earlier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Also many hold true to the believe in theory of relativity but as you say, it breaks down in the singularity
I read:

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

So..either the singularity is correct or theory of relativity is correct?

I can't see a non-beginning always was universe as many suggest with all the scientific evidence i read
I can't see the possibility of multi universes as it just seems as an escapist way of denying the possibility of a creator & yet does not in reality (to me)
A million billion mult universes does not deny that a creator made them all...just makes HIM look all that much more powerful...thanks
And...the singularity theory....just a way of saying that there was something (singularity) before something (big bang)...i don't know...just don't make sense to me & doesn't make the idea of a creator any less viable....guess i just don't have enough FAITH to be a non-believer

Barney Rubble
02-20-2016, 11:37 PM
All possibilities are open, but a supreme being is more far fetched that any other possibility. It will always turn into a circle . If you are going with a supreme being theory, why only 1?

It's an absolute truth in my subjective reasoning

Hans
02-21-2016, 08:03 PM
It's an absolute truth in my subjective reasoning

How do you reason a single being and not multiple, or even a complete race of supreme beings?

Hans
02-21-2016, 08:04 PM
Only one all knowing being is possible. Think about it.

A complete race of supreme beings is possible also. Think about that.
It would actually make more sense if you think about the scope of creating a universe like ours.

Hans
02-21-2016, 08:08 PM
Some scientists do believe in a singularity BUT many also believe in an alternative...the multi universe as you mentioned earlier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Also many hold true to the believe in theory of relativity but as you say, it breaks down in the singularity
I read:

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

So..either the singularity is correct or theory of relativity is correct?

I can't see a non-beginning always was universe as many suggest with all the scientific evidence i read
I can't see the possibility of multi universes as it just seems as an escapist way of denying the possibility of a creator & yet does not in reality (to me)
A million billion mult universes does not deny that a creator made them all...just makes HIM look all that much more powerful...thanks
And...the singularity theory....just a way of saying that there was something (singularity) before something (big bang)...i don't know...just don't make sense to me & doesn't make the idea of a creator any less viable....guess i just don't have enough FAITH to be a non-believer

Well, there was a time everyone believed the earth was flat, because how else could you not fall off it or hang upside down?
There was also a time the earth was considered the center of the universe and everything rotated around the earth.

Science has proven both of those theories incorrect, and has proven what the correct version is and why.
Just because of those 2 examples alone I have come to the conclusion science makes more sense than religion when it comes to explaining the "why's" of something.

That does not mean religion does not have a purpose, it just means they should stick to what they do best and leave the rest to science.

Barney Rubble
02-21-2016, 08:56 PM
Actually science & religion are not at opposite ends. Most of science that I have seen & read promotes a supreme creator.
Lots of athesist scientists have become either Christians or wonderers of the possibility of a supreme being & there is so much reading of this on the net.
You don't see too many believers turning atheist after studying science.
Don't forget...the study of science was originally started by Christians as well as all the major schools...harvard, yale etc...all started by Christian fore fathers.
it is only recently that the schools have become atheist based; forcing students to be closed minded rather than seeking all information & finding conclusions for themselves.

Not everyone believed in a flat world btw (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html):

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22

I believe in a single supreme being & it is HE that is spoken of in The Bible. That is my view from all the evidence that "I" have seen & read about.
Multiple "gods" such as Greek & Roman fokelore don't make sense to me.
To say that multi gods would make it easier to create the universe...why?
An all supreme being that is not bound by time or space or any of the things that we are bound by is possible...why does HE have to be bound by the laws of physics when he created the laws of physics?

Barney Rubble
02-21-2016, 10:56 PM
a very good debate between Frank Turek (Christian Apologist) & Christopher Hitchens (Renowned Atheist) is available to download by checking torrents. It's a 2 hour debate (450 MB) so i don't think i could send it but I recommend it to anybody no matter what side of the fence anybody sits

Bluesky
02-21-2016, 11:43 PM
For the record

“With extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat,” historian Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote in 1997. “A round Earth appears at least as early as the sixth century B.C. with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.” By the first century A.D., “the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.”

http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775


The fault lies with 19th century writers such as Washington Irving, Jean Letronne and others. Letronne was “an academic of strong anti-religious prejudices... who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers,” published in 1834, Russell writes.

Apparently that anti-religious prejudice that distorts the truth is still going strong.

Barry Morris
02-22-2016, 12:52 AM
A complete race of supreme beings is possible also. Think about that.
It would actually make more sense if you think about the scope of creating a universe like ours.

Not really. After all, supreme beings is not what I said. All knowing is what I said.

And then THEY would have to have a source!!!

Barry Morris
02-22-2016, 12:53 AM
For the record


http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775



Apparently that anti-religious prejudice that distorts the truth is still going strong.

According to Isaac Asimov, Aristotle estimated the circumference of the earth 3000 years ago, and was only about 5 percent off.

Hans
02-22-2016, 07:45 PM
For the record


http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775



Apparently that anti-religious prejudice that distorts the truth is still going strong.


Well, I did say there was a time people believed the earth was flat. Before 300 BC would be an example, or the Chinese in general.
Also, if I am not mistaken certain passages in the Bible refer to the 4 corners of the earth. You cannot have 4 corners on a spherical object, correct?

Barney Rubble
02-22-2016, 08:00 PM
the 4 corners of the earth meant north, east, west & south...many people still use a similar saying, "I'll travel the four corners of the earth to make you happy"!
They know the earth is round.
In Isaiah 40:22 he told of the circle of the earth & he was to have lived around the time of 8th-century BC.

You do know that the singularity theorem is in direct conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity (one of the most prized theories in all of science) right?

Barry Morris
02-22-2016, 08:03 PM
Well, I did say there was a time people believed the earth was flat. Before 300 BC would be an example, or the Chinese in general.
Also, if I am not mistaken certain passages in the Bible refer to the 4 corners of the earth. You cannot have 4 corners on a spherical object, correct?

You do refer to sunrise and sunset, do you not??

Case closed.

Hans
02-22-2016, 08:04 PM
I am not sure on that statement about the theory of relativity versus singularity theorem. I would not mind reading about that?
What I do know is that Einstein was not fully satisfied with that theory, as certain things could not be explained. That is why he developed a new theory called special relativity, to fill in the gaps.

Hans
02-22-2016, 08:05 PM
You do refer to sunrise and sunset, do you not??

Case closed.

East and West are not corners, if that is what you are stating?

Barry Morris
02-22-2016, 09:32 PM
East and West are not corners, if that is what you are stating?

No Hans, I am referring to common statements, fully understood by most people, though not in fact actually the case.

The sun does not rise or set, and there may be reference to the "four corners of the earth" in common language or literature, even though we know the statement to be erroneous.

BTW, did you know that the biblical word for "circle" is also used for "sphere" ???

"God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

Bluesky
02-22-2016, 11:30 PM
Well, I did say there was a time people believed the earth was flat. Before 300 BC would be an example, or the Chinese in general.
Also, if I am not mistaken certain passages in the Bible refer to the 4 corners of the earth. You cannot have 4 corners on a spherical object, correct?

This is a cliche that is used to this day. Not a mistake at all.

RWGR
02-23-2016, 04:56 PM
I think if the Bible made a concrete statement about the earth being flat then such a thing would be used against it by those not of a Christian persuasion.

Just the fact the vast majority of the Bible's detractors do not claim it makes any flat-earth reference tends to prove that it does not.

Related, found this interesting:

"In contrast to the supposed “flat earth” verses, there are numerous Scriptures that clearly indicate otherwise. The earth is described in Job 26:7 as being suspended over empty space, implying a spherical figure. This notion is further entertained in Isaiah 40:21-22, which refers to “the circle of the earth.” This is further supported by Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV), which speaks of God drawing a circle on the face of the deep. From a “bird’s-eye view” of the ocean, the horizon is seen as a circle. Such an observation indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins, describing the reality of day and night on a spherical earth.


http://www.gotquestions.org/flat-earth-Bible.html