|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2007 : 21:23:02 [Permalink]
|
From the second link:
| Both Newton and Galileo and most people up until the 20th century thought that time was the same for everyone everywhere. This is the basis for timelines, where time is a parameter. Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang. |
I would contend that western common thinking still perceive time in the manner of Newton and Galileo. Moving along a line.
Einstein allows us to perceive that time is but a place(a coordinate).
How hard is it to take the next step that time is eternal and does not have a beginning or an end?
Einstein shows us that time is different depending on where you are.
Where is the evidence that time either began or will end?
If it has not begun and will not end; it is eternal.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 01:08:22 [Permalink]
|
How about, "We don't know"?
Here's a total layman's take, one that may have some major errors in it. (I can't even read the language of the field, as I don't know the math.)
The most accepted current model (not theory) of the univese's expansion since the Big Bang and its future fate is the "Concordance model," also known as the "Lamda-CDM" model (ACDM), which "is the simplest known model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena." [Sorry, I can't get the letter lamda to work here, so I've substituted a capital letter "A" for it. Lamda looks like that, but without the crossbar. Or think of it as an inverted "V".] The Greek letter, "lamda" (A) refers to the cosmological constant, which in ACDM is positive, meaning that the universe will not only continue to expand indefinitely, but this expansion is accelerating.
Just to show how little we know:| ACDM says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter, dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance. |
One of the firmest things known in modern cosmology is the "stating date," some 13.7 billion years ago as of next Tuesday. This has been pretty firmly calculated by backtracking the present expansion to a point in time when "everything" must have come from a point source.
Was there time before the Big Bang? Is that question even meaningful? Better minds than yours and mine are arguing about that right now, and may still be doing so a thousand years from now, as far as I know.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/17/2007 01:40:26 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2007 : 04:55:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
We have no evidence that any lifeform is eternal. All evidence suggests that all individual lives have a beginning and an end. Thus if God existed and created life on Earth, He is now dead, since we have no evidence of anything living much past 4,500 years or so. God also would have had a parent (or two!), if one forms one's conclusions based on what we've observed, and that would be regardless of whether you view time as a measurement of change or as an eternal, static tick-tock.
Face it, Jerome, you've got no evidence at all that any thing is eternal, even if time is. "Maybe we're wrong about time" certainly isn't evidence that we are wrong about time, it is, instead, wild speculation.
If you demand that we form conclusions based on the rather limited set of evidence you've discussed, then we are forced to conclude that if God existed and if He created life on this planet, then He has been dead for nearly four billion years.
|
Are you stating that you are correct in your concept of time despite other cultures perceiving time differently?
Thus these other cultures are just speculating wildly?
|
No, Jerome, he clearly discussed the flaws in your argument. How poor must your reading comprehension be in order to miss that.
edited to add: And in what way does an individual's or a group's concept of time effect time? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 07/17/2007 05:12:39 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 06:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
How about, "We don't know"?
Here's a total layman's take, one that may have some major errors in it. (I can't even read the language of the field, as I don't know the math.)
The most accepted current model (not theory) of the univese's expansion since the Big Bang and its future fate is the "Concordance model," also known as the "Lamda-CDM" model (ACDM), which "is the simplest known model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena." [Sorry, I can't get the letter lamda to work here, so I've substituted a capital letter "A" for it. Lamda looks like that, but without the crossbar. Or think of it as an inverted "V".] The Greek letter, "lamda" (A) refers to the cosmological constant, which in ACDM is positive, meaning that the universe will not only continue to expand indefinitely, but this expansion is accelerating.
Just to show how little we know:| ACDM says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter, dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance. |
One of the firmest things known in modern cosmology is the "stating date," some 13.7 billion years ago as of next Tuesday. This has been pretty firmly calculated by backtracking the present expansion to a point in time when "everything" must have come from a point source.
Was there time before the Big Bang? Is that question even meaningful? Better minds than yours and mine are arguing about that right now, and may still be doing so a thousand years from now, as far as I know.
|
Saying we do not know about time in its self calls into question our current thoughts on the functioning of the universe.
The background microwaves currently could be explained with electricity not gravity causing the universes structure.
The Big Bang theory rests on our western concept of time which you readily admit is unknown as to its accuracy.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2007 : 06:29:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
We have no evidence that any lifeform is eternal. All evidence suggests that all individual lives have a beginning and an end. Thus if God existed and created life on Earth, He is now dead, since we have no evidence of anything living much past 4,500 years or so. God also would have had a parent (or two!), if one forms one's conclusions based on what we've observed, and that would be regardless of whether you view time as a measurement of change or as an eternal, static tick-tock.
Face it, Jerome, you've got no evidence at all that any thing is eternal, even if time is. "Maybe we're wrong about time" certainly isn't evidence that we are wrong about time, it is, instead, wild speculation.
If you demand that we form conclusions based on the rather limited set of evidence you've discussed, then we are forced to conclude that if God existed and if He created life on this planet, then He has been dead for nearly four billion years.
|
Are you stating that you are correct in your concept of time despite other cultures perceiving time differently?
Thus these other cultures are just speculating wildly?
|
No, Jerome, he clearly discussed the flaws in your argument. How poor must your reading comprehension be in order to miss that.
edited to add: And in what way does an individual's or a group's concept of time effect time?
|
So, both you and Dave are saying that Einstein was just wildly speculating.
Do you not even realize the consequences of what you are saying?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 07:06:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Saying we do not know about time in its self calls into question our current thoughts on the functioning of the universe. |
But that doesn't provide evidence that any lifeform is eternal.| The background microwaves currently could be explained with electricity not gravity causing the universes structure. |
Then go ahead and explain the CMBR with electricity, please.| The Big Bang theory rests on our western concept of time which you readily admit is unknown as to its accuracy. |
The model makes several successful predictions. If our "concept of time" were wrong, those predictions wouldn't be possible.
You also wrote:| So, both you and Dave are saying that Einstein was just wildly speculating. |
No, I was saying that you are wildly speculating by saying that maybe if we're wrong about time, there might be an eternity, and so perhaps that means that God could be alive after all.
You've never responded to that substantively. You've just gone off on this weird tangent about time. But time is irrelevant to your original argument. There is no evidence for any eternal lifeforms, so whether eternity exists or not simply doesn't matter. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 07:11:47 [Permalink]
|
| Jerome, Einstein was not a God, he did not have the data that exists today and he was capable of making errors. Just because he MAY have been inaccurate doesnt mean we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 08:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Saying we do not know about time in its self calls into question our current thoughts on the functioning of the universe. |
But I didn't say "we do not know about time." You do not have a right to misquote others. I said nobody knows if there was such a thing as time "before" the Big Bang.| The background microwaves currently could be explained with electricity not gravity causing the universes structure. |
Oh? Then explain it.| The Big Bang theory rests on our western concept of time which you readily admit is unknown as to its accuracy. |
False witness! Again, I "admit" no such thing, "readily" or othewise. Also, since you seem to know, explain to us just how another culture's concept of time can be used in science to overthrow the Big Bang theory.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/17/2007 08:39:04 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 10:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, both you and Dave are saying that Einstein was just wildly speculating.
|
Dave covered this.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you not even realize the consequences of what you are saying?
|
Coming from someone else this may have caused me to stop and consider further the point. But with your history of spin, dodge, and obfuscation I'm going to ask you to explain the consequences. So have at it. Enlighten me with your one or two sentences worth of blather.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 14:33:56 [Permalink]
|
| See Bede Rundle's " Why is there Something rather than Nothing?" for a great expostulation of why Existence is just there. How could there be nothing anyway? |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2007 : 13:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by skeptic griggsy
See Bede Rundle's " Why is there Something rather than Nothing?" for a great expostulation of why Existence is just there. How could there be nothing anyway?
|
Sorry ,but depression kept me from posting.To argue for a first cause like Aquinas did in stating that if one takes away the first cause, one does not arrive at the intermediate one or others. More anon. |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 20:20:21 [Permalink]
|
As Existence is all [Lee Smolin], there can be no transcendent God. As it is unique, there can be no cause whatsoever for it, because as Hans Reichenbach reveals it takes two objects for cause to take place. The infinite regress argument reveals that time,cause and event require previous times, causes and events, so there can be no First Cause.
Aquinas begs the question in assuming that by taking away the First Cause , one takes away the intermediate ones. He also [coming and going] things of Exiistence. He knew that it is from day to day eternally whereas William Lane Craig begs the question in the Kalaam argument by assuming a starting point.Also as Aquinas uses the First Cause as the Ultimate Explanation, he fails there as the presumption of naturalism holds as natural causes and explantions suffice. Thereto Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz fails in finding that Cause as the Sufficient Reason as not only are natural causes and explanations efficient but also necessry, primary and sufficient; they rather than God are the sufficient reason.This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but is simply the demand for evidence as Einstein overcame Newton.
A s the ignostic-Ockham reveals , either God is fatuous,nebulous, otiose, specious and vacuous or He is hopelessly redundant to any natural explanations, contrary to Alister McGrath, Dawkins's nemesis.So the presumption holds. Richard Swinburne errs thus in finding Him as the personal explanation.
As the First Cause is here the Utimate Explantion, it accompanies teleological arguments that try to show God as the Designer, that sort of explanation. All teleological arguments- design, fine-tuning [anthropic] and probability- beg the by assuming that divine mind had wanted us to arrive,while mindless natural selection, the anti-chance force of Nature, working as a sieve, forms beings undirected. Nature shows no cosmic teleology- no predetermined plan. Therefore to aver theistic evolution is to deny the conflict between undirected selection that science so shows with God's direction. It takes the argument from ignorance to imply Him alongside selection.Had he dinosaurs not died out due to that meteor, there would have been no other intelligent being comparable to us as the current issue of Skeptic reveals.
The atelic argument reveals that as the weight of evidence [ scientists, philosophers Richard Carrier,Paul Draper] shows no cosmic teleology, then no divine mind to guide matters. Then David Hume's dysteological argument reveals that the imperfections show no omnipotent God.We rationalsts should not let them get off with their cop-out called theodicy.They should without any argument therein explain why the imperfections. He further notes that there are alternatives to God as the source of arrangement of matters.
The argument from pareidolia reveals that theists project behind Existence the pareidolia -like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla- of design when there are patterns and thus the Designer when natural forces are at work.This pareidolia arises from the mere feeling that a caring, super mind had to be behind everything.
Other theistic arguments fare no better as anon I'll so show.
Now as a fallibilist, I acknowledge that others might be right! Hey, Half Mooner and Papa Smurf and others.Double depression is so depressing! Your happy depressive schizotypal.
Blessings and goodwill to all!
|
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 22:00:00 [Permalink]
|
griggsy.....
For Christ's (choose your deity) sake. get your fucking brains in order!!
1. PARAGRAPHS! Or else, neither I nor anybody else is going to read this shit!
2. GET YOUR GOD DAMN THOUGHTS ORGANIZED to the point that you can write a sensible sentence to which a sensible person can write a sensible answer!
3. Otherwise, go jack off in a corner somewhere and stop messing this site up with a bunch of unintelligilble crap to which isn't worth the time it takes to respond!
I will be happy to to answer you if you write a post that consists of single declarative paragraphs that express whatever the hell it is that you are trying to say! And SEPARATE the fuckers!! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/22/2008 22:09:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 22:44:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
get your fucking brains in order!! |
You do remember that skeptic griggsy is an avowed schizophrenic, don't you? I couldn't tell you whether her visits here were on medication or off, but I'm not sure that makes a real difference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Existence
