02-28-2007, 03:11 PM
|
#226
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
prove it bitch
|
The second law of thermodynamics combined with the observable universe prove it couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time. The first law of thermodynamics proves the universe couldn't have created itself. This means that in all meaningful ways the universe was created and creation is a beginning.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:17 PM
|
#227
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
Victus wrote
Time, being only internal to the universe itself, cannot be used to determine an external 'beginning' to the universe. Outside the universe there may well be no 'time', and hence the universe never 'began'.
Of course, this is more the stuff of physicists. We have a PhD on the forums, and you ain't it.
|
The concept of being "outside" the universe or time is a meaningless concept and thus irrelevant. And even a PhD can't make what you say about a meaningless concept meaningful.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:26 PM
|
#228
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:27 PM
|
#229
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Victus wrote
Time, being only internal to the universe itself, cannot be used to determine an external 'beginning' to the universe. Outside the universe there may well be no 'time', and hence the universe never 'began'.
Of course, this is more the stuff of physicists. We have a PhD on the forums, and you ain't it.
|
The concept of being "outside" the universe or time is a meaningless concept and thus irrelevant. And even a PhD can't make what you say about a meaningless concept meaningful.
|
Is God outside the universe and/or time?
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:28 PM
|
#230
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Victus wrote
Time, being only internal to the universe itself, cannot be used to determine an external 'beginning' to the universe. Outside the universe there may well be no 'time', and hence the universe never 'began'.
Of course, this is more the stuff of physicists. We have a PhD on the forums, and you ain't it.
|
The concept of being "outside" the universe or time is a meaningless concept and thus irrelevant. And even a PhD can't make what you say about a meaningless concept meaningful.
|
D'oh. That's the sound of a theist shooting himself in the foot.
So, if "outside" of the universe is a meaningless concept, where is God?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:32 PM
|
#231
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
Yoo hoo!!!!!!!!
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:33 PM
|
#232
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:34 PM
|
#233
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
Xans: I think this might have gotten lost in the shuffle, and I'm interested to hear your response.
|
Your "big bang" "big crunch" universe has no meaningful reason to be cyclical. It should just stay in it's "crunch" state forever. If everything in the universe is "crunched" together, there is nothing left to cause it to go "bang". Or do you claim the gravity that crunched it together just "decides" to stop acting on it?
Quote:
What I find ironic here Xans is that you're positing an eternal external agent. So clearly, you have no objection to the concept of an eternal entity. The Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle theory presents a model of the universe that simply implies that the universe itself is that eternal entity.
|
The universe is claimed to be subject to the laws of physics. God is spirit, and thus not claimed to be subject to the laws of physics.
Quote:
As to the "beginning" of the universe: the Big Bang as we know it would only be the beginning of this iteration of the universe.
|
If you make the claim the laws of physics don't apply "before" the big bang, this "iteration" of the universe is the only meaningful one. Any other "iteration" is meaningless. Also, I've read the evidence points against a "big crunch". Am I mistaken?
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:37 PM
|
#234
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:38 PM
|
#235
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Victus wrote
Time, being only internal to the universe itself, cannot be used to determine an external 'beginning' to the universe. Outside the universe there may well be no 'time', and hence the universe never 'began'.
Of course, this is more the stuff of physicists. We have a PhD on the forums, and you ain't it.
|
The concept of being "outside" the universe or time is a meaningless concept and thus irrelevant. And even a PhD can't make what you say about a meaningless concept meaningful.
|
Is God outside the universe and/or time?
|
Yes, and any of God's aspects outside the universe and/or time are meaningless. At least to us right now.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:39 PM
|
#236
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Victus wrote
Time, being only internal to the universe itself, cannot be used to determine an external 'beginning' to the universe. Outside the universe there may well be no 'time', and hence the universe never 'began'.
Of course, this is more the stuff of physicists. We have a PhD on the forums, and you ain't it.
|
The concept of being "outside" the universe or time is a meaningless concept and thus irrelevant. And even a PhD can't make what you say about a meaningless concept meaningful.
|
D'oh. That's the sound of a theist shooting himself in the foot.
So, if "outside" of the universe is a meaningless concept, where is God?
|
Everywhere
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:39 PM
|
#237
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Xans wrote
The universe is claimed to be subject to the laws of physics. God is spirit, and thus not claimed to be subject to the laws of physics.
|
If God is spirit, and not subject to the laws of physics, how can he affect the natural world? Is it magic?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:39 PM
|
#238
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
|
Quote:
Xans wrote
Your "big bang" "big crunch" universe has no meaningful reason to be cyclical.
|
It doesn't need what you might think of as a "meaningful reason" to be anything. There is no meaningful reason for a comet to collide with Jupiter; would you argue on that basis that it wouldn't happen? As long as an explanation exists to describe "how" it happens, there is no meaningful reason to look for a "why."
Quote:
Xans wrote
It should just stay in it's "crunch" state forever. If everything in the universe is "crunched" together, there is nothing left to cause it to go "bang".
|
If everything in the universe is "crunched" together, then there is everything left. It's all just been condensed down to a singularity.
Quote:
Xans wrote
Or do you claim the gravity that crunched it together just "decides" to stop acting on it?
|
I don't claim anything about the physics (or lack thereof) of a singularity. Ask the PhD.
Quote:
Xans wrote
The universe is claimed to be subject to the laws of physics.
|
Not exactly. Things in the universe are subject to the laws of physics. To say that the universe itself is subject to anything is to imply that something outside of the universe is acting upon it, and you yourself have admitted that there is no meaningful way to describe anything outside of the universe.
Quote:
Xans wrote
God is spirit, and thus not claimed to be subject to the laws of physics.
|
Then you can't say anything meaningful about it that isn't just you making things up.
Quote:
Xans wrote
If you make the claim the laws of physics don't apply "before" the big bang, this "iteration" of the universe is the only meaningful one. Any other "iteration" is meaningless.
|
Not exactly. Because the laws of physics (some kind of physics, at least) would apply to whatever iteration the universe existed in prior to this latest Big Bang. The only "moment" that no laws of physics would apply to the universe, in fact, would be the "instant" of the singularity (which wouldn't really be an instant at all, since time itself would not exist). We might not be able to know what laws of physics applied to previous iterations of the universe, but that doesn't prove that they didn't exist, or that they weren't subject to some set of laws.
Quote:
Xans wrote
Also, I've read the evidence points against a "big crunch". Am I mistaken?
|
Perhaps; perhaps not. If the evidence is the fact that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, then you might be mistaken. As demonstrated in my pendulum example, the downswing (red-shift) phase should be marked by acceleration; the upswing and eventual deceleration would come much later (billions of years from now).
Quote:
Xans wrote
The second law of thermodynamics combined with the observable universe prove it couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time.
|
Problem is, the universe isn't losing any energy. The amount of energy in the universe today is the same as the amount of energy in the universe a billion years ago. The energy is merely changing form.
Quote:
Xans wrote
The first law of thermodynamics proves the universe couldn't have created itself.
|
First: no, it doesn't.
Second: if the universe is eternal, as per our little pendulum theory, then it wasn't created at all, by itself or by anything else.
Third: the 1st LOT does include the notion that neither matter nor energy can be created ex nihilo. Which, unfortunately, is how you propose the universe was created by your eternal external agent.
a‧the‧ist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:39 PM
|
#239
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 03:42 PM
|
#240
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
Quote:
Xans wrote
The universe is claimed to be subject to the laws of physics. God is spirit, and thus not claimed to be subject to the laws of physics.
|
If God is spirit, and not subject to the laws of physics, how can he affect the natural world? Is it magic?
|
If God ever effected the natural world, these effects could be scientifically observed and tested making them natural not magic. I've never observed spirits so I have no clue how they work, I can only guess.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 PM.
|