Even if our univese is the result of an intelligent being's actions, that does not necessarily imply design. Could have been an accident, or something it does several times a day without thinking. You can't know.
Random higher dimensional events can be science, even if they are not understood by our current science.
Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?
Maybe, I'm doubting it, though. That is one "powerful" dimension if you get my meaning. I don't know if we will ever be able to even use math based on these higher dimensions, let alone use the sciences.Random higher dimensional events can be science, even if they are not understood by our current science.
I have heard that it does, (I will have to look it up online for confirmation) I have also heard that it is the only religion that does.(excluding Judiasm if there is anything in the old testament) (I don't want to get flamed about this, so if I'm wrong, you can tell me)Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
There are certain biological structures that by their somewhat 'haphazard' design would not indicate that they had been designed by an intelligent being. Two I can think of are the mammalian epididymis and the vertebrate cornea. The epididymis takes a massive detour around the ureter. This rather inefficient feature can only be explained by the gradual repositionin of the male reproductive organs over the course of evolution.
And vertebrate photoreceptors face backwards, which is why we have a blind spot.
Which seems a bit silly if they had been designed that way, but makes sense if you take into account gradual changes in morphology.
Apparently sperm have to spend some time in the epididymis to mature. This could explain it's length.Two I can think of are the mammalian epididymis and the vertebrate cornea. The epididymis takes a massive detour around the ureter.
Read this. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199611/0189.htmlAnd vertebrate photoreceptors face backwards, which is why we have a blind spot.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Just a couple of questions that I'm too tired to wrestle with for now.
If a god created time, wouldn't time already have to exist for him to be at the beginning? If he is constantly creating time from some other place on a different dimensional scale, why does the universe having a beginning point to a god?
If we accept that the laws of physics as we understand them allow for a god to exist eternally, why don't they allow for prior universes to exist eternally?
I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel? I remember reading a theory where a very small loop at the beginning of time with a small chance of becoming the big bang, eventually became the big bang. I read that a long time ago, and briefly though.
Does evolution account for the eye to any real extent? I remember that being thrown around in a Darwinism thread on here.
Are we assuming that the relationship of cause and effect exists outside our own minds, or did that get proven at some point?
I say what I think. If you disagree, then that is up to you.
Possibly a higher dimension version of time, but not our time.If a god created time, wouldn't time already have to exist for him to be at the beginning?
I assumed that if something has a beginning than it has a cause. Cause and effect has never been proven, but it is a stronger theory than any scientific theories we have. (note: my assumption is stronger than cause and effect (because cause and effect implies my assumption, but not the other way around))Are we assuming that the relationship of cause and effect exists outside our own minds, or did that get proven at some point?
We don't know whether he is constantly creating time or not, this only shows that at least one version of time was created.If he is constantly creating time from some other place on a different dimensional scale,
why does the universe having a beginning point to a god?If they follow the rules of our universe, they cannot exist eternally. Therefore, if they do exist eternally, they can be seen as "supernatural" to us. Furthermore, if that universe was the cause of our universe, they must have enough power to create time, energy and space.If we accept that the laws of physics as we understand them allow for a god to exist eternally, why don't they allow for prior universes to exist eternally?
Hopefully someone else can answer this, (I haven't taken any Quantum courses yet, but I hope to do some as electives) but keep in mind, this idea would still not be an explaination for the beginning as it still requires time and energy.I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel? I remember reading a theory where a very small loop at the beginning of time with a small chance of becoming the big bang, eventually became the big bang. I read that a long time ago, and briefly though.
Last edited by Auronhart; 12-23-2004 at 10:16 AM.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
"Possibly a higher dimension version of time, but not our time."
If we are taking this 'higher' time to mean that it doesn't have to have a beginning, and we're assuming that ours does have to, aren't we putting a lot of faith in a proof none of us have actually read? Does the proof even say that our time couldn't act like this in any situation, rather than just as far as the current motions and positionings in our universe go?
"I assumed that if something has a beginning than it has a cause. Cause and effect has never been proven, but it is a stronger theory than any scientific theories we have. (note: my assumption is stronger than cause and effect (because cause and effect implies my assumption, but not the other way around))"
Cause and effect implies there can't be a beginning doesn't it? If we assume it broke down somewhere we don't have to assume anything had a cause.
"We don't know whether he is constantly creating time or not, this only shows that at least one version of time was created."
I may have worded that badly. My point was that if god wasn't acting in our time when he created the universe then why couldn't he have started it from the middle? If he could start it from anywhere why does it starting at a beginning point to a god?
"If they follow the rules of our universe, they cannot exist eternally. Therefore, if they do exist eternally, they can be seen as "supernatural" to us. Furthermore, if that universe was the cause of our universe, they must have enough power to create time, energy and space."
Not exactly create neccessarily. They may have already possessed these dimensions and simply passed them on. Maybe we're actually a mommy and daddy universes baby universe, and we'll grow up to have some eternal dimensions when we hit puberty.
"Hopefully someone else can answer this, (I haven't taken any Quantum courses yet, but I hope to do some as electives) but keep in mind, this idea would still not be an explaination for the beginning as it still requires time and energy."
Yeah, I may look up the theory later on. But the idea of a loop in time always seemed a fairly simple solution to me, this just gave a scientific account. I don't think it was a major theory, just a suggestion.
I say what I think. If you disagree, then that is up to you.
"No it isn't, if time has an actual beginning, (includes oscillating universe is incorrect) then it does come up with the result that there must be at least one supernatural causal being."
No, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. It means we don't understand it yet, and you are attributing it to god out of ignorance. Why god? There's nothing that points to god other than your religious beliefs.
And again, no, time having a beginning doesn't prove the oscillating universe theory is incorrect (although there are other things that potentially do). As Hawking said in the article you referenced earlier
"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."
After that is where time began, and since everything had broken down, and was independant of what occured previously (essentially a universal "blank slate") time can have a beginning, and the occilating universe theory can still be correct.
You're misunderstanding Hawking's words. He is saying it implies God, because something outside the universe had to impose time. This could still be a natural process. Only a theist mind, not the mind of a scientist, would conclude an unknown to be god. If Hawking does this, he is not automatically right, he'd be acting unscientifically too.
"Read this. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199611/0189.html"
So you're suggesting that an omnipotent god would be unable to design an eye that doesn't have a blind spot? Of course simply flipping the cornea around would cause problems. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you shift things around a bit, the problem would probably be fixed. You'd think a god would realize that.
"I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel?"
No. Quantum mechanics is comparable to relationships between atoms, but with some fruity rules thrown in. Many things become possible at a quantum level, but time is unaffected.
"Does evolution account for the eye to any real extent?"
Yes. There are many creatures that exist with primitive eyes. The theory suggests that eyes started out as a couple photosensitive cells (planarians), then a light-sensitive pit, then a pit with a lens, etc etc.
God did not have to design our bodies to be perfect. Plus, if God decided to design all things based on our rules, the cornea thing has some trouble.It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you shift things around a bit, the problem would probably be fixed. You'd think a god would realize that.
Exactly, there are other things that do.And again, no, time having a beginning doesn't prove the oscillating universe theory is incorrect (although there are other things that potentially do). As Hawking said in the article you referenced earlier
Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God.No, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. It means we don't understand it yet, and you are attributing it to god out of ignorance. Why god? There's nothing that points to god other than your religious beliefs.
So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)After that is where time began, and since everything had broken down, and was independant of what occured previously (essentially a universal "blank slate") time can have a beginning, and the occilating universe theory can still be correct.
Yes, cause and effect does break down at the beginning, that is why I made my premise fix that error. We cannot imagine in our universe a beginning without a cause, so either way, it implies the supernatural.Cause and effect implies there can't be a beginning doesn't it? If we assume it broke down somewhere we don't have to assume anything had a cause.
When he started it counts as the beginning. He could have started it whenever he wished, but the start is always going to be the beginning.I may have worded that badly. My point was that if god wasn't acting in our time when he created the universe then why couldn't he have started it from the middle? If he could start it from anywhere why does it starting at a beginning point to a god?
......Possible, but I deem it unlikely.Not exactly create neccessarily. They may have already possessed these dimensions and simply passed them on. Maybe we're actually a mommy and daddy universes baby universe, and we'll grow up to have some eternal dimensions when we hit puberty
Yes, it is not certain that there has to be a higher dimension of time, but it makes this much easier to think about.If we are taking this 'higher' time to mean that it doesn't have to have a beginning
It's more that we are putting our faith in the scientists who believe in evolution to show that his proof is incorrect because of it's implications. Hawking would have a hard time becoming famous (a lot of people put him in the same boat as Einstein) if one of his strongest proofs could be proven wrong.and we're assuming that ours does have to, aren't we putting a lot of faith in a proof none of us have actually read?
It could not work like this in any situation in which general relativity works. (not to mention all the other problems infinite time has) Even if this is just for our universe, that is all we are concerned with.Does the proof even say that our time couldn't act like this in any situation, rather than just as far as the current motions and positionings in our universe go?
Last edited by Auronhart; 12-24-2004 at 12:50 AM.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Just quickly want to say I'm agnostic, although most of my questioning is directed at you Auronhart sorry.
"Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God."
I think the question then is 'why'?
"So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)"
The laws of physics weren't decided by man and then the universe had to follow them. The universe can do what it likes. I'm not strictly sure that the laws of physics (correct me on this) would even break down as such, it'd just be like applying Newtonian physics at the small scale, it's a different situation.
"Yes, cause and effect does break down at the beginning, that is why I made my premise fix that error. We cannot imagine in our universe a beginning without a cause, so either way, it implies the supernatural."
Only if the beginning is actually the beginning, and is an effect without a cause. Also just because we can't imagine this, it doesn't make it impossible.
"When he started it counts as the beginning. He could have started it whenever he wished, but the start is always going to be the beginning."
Well yes. But why start at a normal beginning. If I throw a ball,it's path starts by leaving my hand, whether you understand how I managed to move or not, you can see the ball's path having a logical beginning. It would imply a supernatural influence far more if a ball suddenly appeared mid flight somewhere in the air.
"It could not work like this in any situation in which general relativity works. (not to mention all the other problems infinite time has) Even if this is just for our universe, that is all we are concerned with."
Not really. If a universe prior to ours could exist without a beginning, then it could be responsible for starting ours.
Just for reference, I'm not trying to forward a theory about time spanning infinitely into the past.
Emerald Aeris:
"Yes. There are many creatures that exist with primitive eyes. The theory suggests that eyes started out as a couple photosensitive cells (planarians), then a light-sensitive pit, then a pit with a lens, etc etc."
Isn't a lens a fairly complex thing to just develop at random? I really don't know much about micro-evolution so I don't know what's possible.
I say what I think. If you disagree, then that is up to you.
There is amazing amount of design work built right into the fabric of the universe. Miniscule differences in the universe/matter would result in the universe collapsing or something other catastrophe occuring.I think the question then is 'why'?
As I said, an entropy decrease + energy increase would be required for this oscillating universe to be correct. Those break both the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Those are almost as close as you can get to the founding principles of Physics.The laws of physics weren't decided by man and then the universe had to follow them. The universe can do what it likes. I'm not strictly sure that the laws of physics (correct me on this) would even break down as such, it'd just be like applying Newtonian physics at the small scale, it's a different situation.
We can't possibly imagine this happening, so this doesn't make it impossible, but as I said, in the realm of the supernatural (not natural)Only if the beginning is actually the beginning, and is an effect without a cause. Also just because we can't imagine this, it doesn't make it impossible.
Since people are just using extrapolation to find out where the ball is, yes it could be in mid flight, I haven't heard any arguments that show time must start in the form of the Big Bang, it just seems that way if time had existed as long as scientists think it has. Personally, though, I don't think that God has to prove his existence to us, so either method would suffice.Well yes. But why start at a normal beginning. If I throw a ball,it's path starts by leaving my hand, whether you understand how I managed to move or not, you can see the ball's path having a logical beginning. It would imply a supernatural influence far more if a ball suddenly appeared mid flight somewhere in the air.
A supernatural (does not follow our laws of physics) universe with the power to create space, time and energy in our universe. That is exactly my point, it requires the supernatural.Not really. If a universe prior to ours could exist without a beginning, then it could be responsible for starting ours.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
"God did not have to design our bodies to be perfect. Plus, if God decided to design all things based on our rules, the cornea thing has some trouble."
Does it not say in the Bible that god is perfect? How can a perfect being create something imperfect? Also, we're created in his image, how can we be imperfect? Although I guess you can interpret perfection differently. This is a minor point anyway.
"Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God."
Which is good, but we're debating here. Saying "it's just what I believe" is not a point to your side, it's conceeding. I'm not saying "we don't understand" is an explaination. I'm saying there is no explaination. At this point it's unknowable as far as I'm concerned. Theorizing is fine. Theorizing, or believing that this proves god to you is fine. Stating it as a fact like you've been doing is what I say is unscientific.
"So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)"
Er, no, not when they feel like it, only when confined in a singularity of infinate mass... Your article that hawking bases his beginning of time-ness on is based on this idea. He even says this in the article. It's because of the infinite density, I believe, that the laws break down. To be honest I don't completely understand why, although I've heard many scientists speak of it. Complex stuff. Gets very mathematical. The occilating universe thing only comes in before and after the singularity part, which is what you're disagreeing with.
"Isn't a lens a fairly complex thing to just develop at random? I really don't know much about micro-evolution so I don't know what's possible."
Think of it in evolutionary steps. Pit. Pit with edge. Pit with bigger edge. Pit with film over. Pit with thicker film. Pit with shaped film... becoming more and more lens-like. It seems like a lot... but think of dog breeds. In mere hundreds of years, dogs have gone from wolves to great danes and chihuahuas. Pressure to change on population can do a lot to genetics. Don't underestimate mutations.
"As I said, an entropy decrease + energy increase would be required for this oscillating universe to be correct."
Entropy doesn't factor in with the oscillating universe theory. It's the mass of the universe, which (and this is where the theory goes wrong) doesn't seem to be enough to slow, stop, and revese the expansion of the universe as the theory states. Although, we really don't have the technology to be sure the universe doesn't have enough mass, in my opinion, so I continue to believe it despite that. None of the other theories are as believable.
It says in the Bible that God looked at the world he had created and said "it was Good", not "it was perfect". The image of God is only I guess what he chooses to look like, it does not imply that God does not know what is behind him.Does it not say in the Bible that god is perfect? How can a perfect being create something imperfect? Also, we're created in his image, how can we be imperfect? Although I guess you can interpret perfection differently. This is a minor point anyway.
Whatever, I will certainly debate the issue. I refuse to conceed this point, I am just pointing out that this part of the debate cannot be proven, I can only give evidence for it.Which is good, but we're debating here. Saying "it's just what I believe" is not a point to your side, it's conceeding.
I state as fact what is supported by the principles of science, (you could say that the science we know is wrong, but I would rather not lower myself to that belief. I have stated my assumptions, and I come to my conclusions from those assumptions.) you have yet to come up with a hole in this argument (proving the existence of the supernatural) that does not say that some scientific principle is wrong.Stating it as a fact like you've been doing is what I say is unscientific.
Yes it does, infinite time + an increase in entropy for each Big Bang, would give us a current universe that exists in a near complete state of disorder. (which it is nowhere near)Entropy doesn't factor in with the oscillating universe theory.
You mean that you do not want to believe any other theory.None of the other theories are as believable.
An example is this verse "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began" (Titus 1:2). I should have looked this up sooner probably.Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?
Last edited by Auronhart; 12-24-2004 at 11:46 AM.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
"I state as fact what is supported by the principles of science,"
"There is a god if Hawking's theory is true" is what you were saying, and it's not supported by science. that's what I was referring too.
"you have yet to come up with a hole in this argument (proving the existence of the supernatural) that does not say that some scientific principle is wrong."
It's not really a hole, I just think you're jumping to conclusions. Beginning of time does not equal God anymore than it equals a dinosaur threw up and time began. We can't even speculate what happened to create time. It could be a natural process of universal evolution (which is what I would lean to), but I won't even come to that conclusion, since there's simply not enough information at this point. My point can be summed up to we don't have enough evidence to say that a supernatural being created time. Only as Hawking said, that it could be interpretted to mean a supernatrual being. To conclude this, however, is a jump.
"Yes it does, infinite time + an increase in entropy for each Big Bang, would give us a current universe that exists in a near complete state of disorder. (which it is nowhere near)"
No, each big bang basically restarts the universe. As it says in the Hawking article you referenced (that you said you agreed with) the big bang, aka, beginning of time and of this universe, would not rely on anything that happened prior to the singularity state. This means that the state of complete disorder, or however the universe was before the big crunch leading to the singularity doesn't matter. When it becomes a singularity... think of having a universe of playdoh. A singularity is like mashing everything together into a tiny ball, which lets you create new things again, when before, since all the doh was used up, you couldn't. Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully you get the idea. I suggest you reread the article, because it says exactly what I'm saying in it. Well, not that it indicates an osccilating universe, but about being a singularity and such.
The osccilating universe theory depends on the mass of the universe, and does not rely on energy or entropy contained therein.
"You mean that you do not want to believe any other theory."
No, I mean I don't think any of the other theories fully explain observed phenomena, or are supported as well. yes, god explains everything in a neat little package, but unfortunately there's no proof (by which I mean no acceptable proof to me, personally, I'm not saying this is universal).
Posting Permissions
