Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Evidence for/against YEC

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 11 of 14
 [ 272 posts ] 
Evidence for/against YEC
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
Image



Image
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:39 pm
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:I was under the impression that "infinite" is a problem for physics?


No. It can be, in certain contexts. For example, infinity is the most common outcome when we try to marry GR and QM, but that's because the output of all QM calculations is a probability, which means that the solution MUST be between 0 and 1 (because all probabilities fall in this range. For that reason, infinity is a massive problem in that context, and in certain other contexts where a well-defined solution should be possible. Beyond that, it isn't much of a problem, and physicists deal with infinities all the time.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:46 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:Isn't a causal cause a bit like a tautological tautology?

Well... yes. That felt better in my head when I was at work and before a half a bottle of red. But "causal cause" feels more timey wimey than just "cause".

Then again it was made to look like an apologist argument.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:43 pm
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:It's not a good assumption. If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.


I was under the impression that "infinite" is a problem for physics? Eternal implies, without beginning or end. Where did you come up with your definition?

Infinity is not a "problem" as you foresee it. It's a problem in that you can not apply normal calculus to it because infinity is not a value.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
Yet you have no problems making up what ever you want to fill in the blanks.


As do you.

No. I never make any claim that is not supported by facts and you would be hard pressed to find any of us that have.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:40 pm
WWW
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Bernhard.visscher wrote:If I say God exists and God creates therefore creation

Then I give an argument for eternal existing. Example out of nothing nothing comes... Therefore since there is something,there is that which is eternal.

Then when you question my answer the argument is no longer on topic. Otherwise you go to an infinite regress of questions and never get anywhere.

No I have simple premise a creator exists. Reason because there is an eternal.

To then question the reasons given for the premises is to go to another topic.

So let me place a limit. 3 follow up questions and then that's it. Anymore and it gets way of topic.


*edit


Image
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:53 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote: If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

And this highlights a problem with God being defined as a being that exists outside of time and space.

I understand existence as occupying a place in space and time.

If God exists in no space and exists for no seconds, how can we confidently say he exists? If it is actually possible to exists in no space and for no seconds, why would this be limited only to a god?

The "outside of space and time" argument raises more questions than it provide answers.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:09 pm
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

MarsCydonia wrote:
JRChadwick wrote: If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

And this highlights a problem with God being defined as a being that exists outside of time and space.

I understand existence as occupying a place in space and time.

If God exists in no space and exists for no seconds, how can we confidently say he exists? If it is actually possible to exists in no space and for no seconds, why would this be limited only to a god?

The "outside of space and time" argument raises more questions than it provide answers.


We localise space and time to our realities, which mean things exist in our universe. We do not know if there is anywhere external to our universe without space and time. Nor do we know that our singularity was not constrained within the realms of some other universe's space-time (eg, was ours born out of a black hole), or perhaps born out of quantum foam. The point here is that if there is always "somewhere" external to our known universe, then placing something outside of it becomes problematic.

However, there are theists who are not constrained by "outside of time and space" and regard their imagined entity to be always present, everywhere. The wonderful thing about their beliefs is that they require no explanation, and their entity always has a plan and need not reveal it - their entity can be trusted through its greatness and goodness.

To overlay natural concepts which have plausibility, with supernatural ideas which offer no explanation (beyond the ideas themselves), does not suggest we have anything to progress apart from interesting imaginations. The principal problem for supernaturalists is in showing that whatever ideas they do have can be proven to impact on our world in ways unique to their beliefs. To claim Biblical events as evidence is disingenuous as their veracity should bear replication or repeated observation. To claim beyond that, as they do, seems to deny the wonder and majesty of our natural world.
Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:17 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

SpecialFrog wrote:You you mean this video?





Yeah, that is a clip from the show that I watched on the Science Channel.

SpecialFrog wrote:
"Infinity" is a problem in that you can't do calculations that use it as a value. He seems to be using it here to demonstrate that relativity breaks down under certain conditions.


Understood..

SpecialFrog wrote:
However, there is no problem with the concept of something not having a limit. For instance, the universe could possibly expand without limit. At no point would its size be equal to "infinity" but its potential size has no upper bound. Though logically the size of the universe may have a lower bound.

Time may have neither an upper bound nor a lower bound, though our ability to measure time currently begins at the start of the Planck Era.


In other words, we do not know if time has an upper of lower bounds due to our limited knowledge, correct?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:19 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:
tuxbox wrote:I was under the impression that "infinite" is a problem for physics?


No. It can be, in certain contexts. For example, infinity is the most common outcome when we try to marry GR and QM, but that's because the output of all QM calculations is a probability, which means that the solution MUST be between 0 and 1 (because all probabilities fall in this range. For that reason, infinity is a massive problem in that context, and in certain other contexts where a well-defined solution should be possible. Beyond that, it isn't much of a problem, and physicists deal with infinities all the time.


Understood, however, does not mean we have an eternal universe?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:21 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

MarsCydonia wrote:
JRChadwick wrote: If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

And this highlights a problem with God being defined as a being that exists outside of time and space.

I understand existence as occupying a place in space and time.

If God exists in no space and exists for no seconds, how can we confidently say he exists? If it is actually possible to exists in no space and for no seconds, why would this be limited only to a god?

The "outside of space and time" argument raises more questions than it provide answers.

It's worse than that. It not only doesn't provide answers, it is a cop out from having to provide any.
Last edited by JRChadwick on Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:27 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:Infinity is not a "problem" as you foresee it. It's a problem in that you can not apply normal calculus to it because infinity is not a value.


That only answered half my question. So, I will ask the other part again. Where are you coming up with your definition of eternal?

JRChadwick wrote:

No. I never make any claim that is not supported by facts and you would be hard pressed to find any of us that have.


Sure you have, you made this claim , " Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain."
You can't make up definitions as you go long to support your position. If you tell me where you came up with this definition, then I will let this one go.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:33 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:Infinity is not a "problem" as you foresee it. It's a problem in that you can not apply normal calculus to it because infinity is not a value.


That only answered half my question. So, I will ask the other part again. Where are you coming up with your definition of eternal?

I am not coming up with a definition for eternal, that is the definition of eternal. Something that has been existing as time approaches negative infinity is the definition of eternal. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim that you know for fact something which can not be proven; specifically that you know that the universe was caused by something you can not prove exists.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:

No. I never make any claim that is not supported by facts and you would be hard pressed to find any of us that have.


Sure you have, you made this claim , " Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain."
You can't make up definitions as you go long to support your position. If you tell me where you came up with this definition, then I will let this one go.

That is not made up... What else could eternal mean?
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:55 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Not really.

We know that *something* existed before the Big Bang.


Logic dictates that something must have existed before the Big Bang, but that something is still an unknown.

Dragan Glas wrote:
The Big Bang is consistent with that *something* being naturalistic in nature, through observed naturalistic cause-and-effect, rather than super-naturalistic.


1) I agree with the Big Bang being was naturalistic.

2) I'm not injecting a supernatural cause here.

Dragan Glas wrote:
That's right - our bit is only part of "everything that exists".

There is 100% observed evidence for naturalistic cause-and-effect - none for super-naturalistic causes.

It is a perfectly reasonable and logical inference that the cause of the Big Bang is naturalistic - not super-naturalistic.


We do not know what else exists outside our own universe. Trying to answer what is beyond what we can observe would be pure speculation. I'm not claiming a supernatural origin of the universe. This argument came about when it was said that the universe was eternal. There is not any evidence for that.

Dragan Glas wrote:
There is a theory of "infinite expansion", where "bubbles" - like our one - continue to come into existence. Ours is not the first, nor will it be the last.

On this basis alone, there's every reason to suppose that whatever is "blowing bubbles" is eternal. And, remember, whatever it is, it would have to be naturalistic - there's simply no reason for gods.


I do not doubt that there is theory of infinite expansion, but does not mean it is based in fact, nor any observable evidence for it. Again, I am not injecting god or a creator into this argument.

Dragan Glas wrote:
As I said earlier, there's no reason to suppose that the universe isn't eternal - that way, you only have to explain one thing, Nature, rather than two, Nature and the creator-entity.

It's not moving the goal-posts - it says that the simplest explanation for everything is to say that the universe (Nature) is eternal.

Kindest regards,

James


I'm going to say this for the last time. I am not injecting god into this. I am simply stating that there is not any evidence that suggests the universe is eternal. I thought this argument was thrown out with the steady state theory.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 5:03 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:I am not coming up with a definition for eternal, that is the definition of eternal. Something that has been existing as time approaches negative infinity is the definition of eternal. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim that you know for fact something which can not be proven; specifically that you know that the universe was caused by something you can not prove exists.


That is not the definition that I have ever seen in any dictionary, which is why I am asking were you got yours. You, like all the others keep on insisting that I'm injecting god into this. Or at least that is what you seem to be implying.

JRChadwick wrote:
That is not made up... What else could eternal mean?


According to dictionaries it means, "lasting forever, without end or beginning".
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 5:11 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

Tuxbox, look at it this way: what's to stop Nature being eternal?

The main argument comes from theists because they want to insert a Creator before Nature.

What (other) argument can you provide?

Kindest regards,

Jamest
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 25, 2015 11:32 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:However, there is no problem with the concept of something not having a limit. For instance, the universe could possibly expand without limit. At no point would its size be equal to "infinity" but its potential size has no upper bound. Though logically the size of the universe may have a lower bound.

Time may have neither an upper bound nor a lower bound, though our ability to measure time currently begins at the start of the Planck Era.

In other words, we do not know if time has an upper of lower bounds due to our limited knowledge, correct?

While it is true that we don't know if time has an upper or lower boundary, our most viable models indicate that it does not. Obviously they could be wrong, but there is certainly no sound reason for concluding that time is definitely bounded in either direction.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Sat Jul 25, 2015 11:57 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Tuxbox, look at it this way: what's to stop Nature being eternal?


Absolutely nothing. However, there is not any evidence to support that claim. If the universe is 15 million years old (plus or minus) then it had a beginning. If time started during the beginning of the universe coming into existence then an eternal universe does not follow.

Dragan Glas wrote:
The main argument comes from theists because they want to insert a Creator before Nature.


I don't disagree with you here, but I'm not inserting a creator/god before nature in this argument.

Dragan Glas wrote:
What (other) argument can you provide?

Kindest regards,

Jamest


I could provide several arguments on many different topics, but topic (off topic or not) is about evidence of an eternal universe and I've given you my reasoning why I do not accept an eternal universe.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:02 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Tuxbox, look at it this way: what's to stop Nature being eternal?

Absolutely nothing. However, there is not any evidence to support that claim. If the universe is 15 million years old (plus or minus) then it had a beginning. If time started during the beginning of the universe coming into existence then an eternal universe does not follow.

What you refer to as "the universe" above is our space-time "bubble" - that's not the universe (everything that exists).

Secondly, it's between 13 and 14 billion years old - I think you made a slight typo there. ;)

Your last sentence is not correct - even if time began for us in our "bubble", it doesn't mean that the universe hasn't existed before our "bubble".

Look at it this way, our "bubble" has existed for over 13 billion years - another "bubble" could have existed for over 130 billion years.

That would mean the *something* that preceded our "bubble" must exist to produce the older "bubble".

Just because the *something* is timeless doesn't mean it can't exist - indeed one of Stenger's earlier books is called Timeless Reality.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The main argument comes from theists because they want to insert a Creator before Nature.

I don't disagree with you here, but I'm not inserting a creator/god before nature in this argument.

Dragan Glas wrote:What (other) argument can you provide?

Kindest regards,

Jamest

I could provide several arguments on many different topics, but topic (off topic or not) is about evidence of an eternal universe and I've given you my reasoning why I do not accept an eternal universe.

I still feel you're confusing the concept of "universe" and our bit after the Big Bang, as your answer to the first part appears to indicate, hence your answer - with all due respect, tuxbox - is not soundly based.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:22 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,


What you refer to as "the universe" above is our space-time "bubble" - that's not the universe (everything that exists).


Again, we only know of this bubble. Any other bubble is based speculation, or at best conjecture.

Dragan Glas wrote:
Secondly, it's between 13 and 14 billion years old - I think you made a slight typo there. ;)


Not really a typo, it was based on ignorance. hehe

Dragan Glas wrote:
Your last sentence is not correct - even if time began for us in our "bubble", it doesn't mean that the universe hasn't existed before our "bubble".

Look at it this way, our "bubble" has existed for over 13 billion years - another "bubble" could have existed for over 130 billion years.

That would mean the *something* that preceded our "bubble" must exist to produce the older "bubble".

Just because the *something* is timeless doesn't mean it can't exist - indeed one of Stenger's earlier books is called Timeless Reality.


Again, isn't this conjecture, at best?

Dragan Glas wrote:
I still feel you're confusing the concept of "universe" and our bit after the Big Bang, as your answer to the first part appears to indicate, hence your answer - with all due respect, tuxbox - is not soundly based.

Kindest regards,

James


I'm now getting what you are trying to convey to me, as far as the "universe" is concerned, however, I still have not heard of any observable evidence that multiple bubbles exist. Yeah, I know that sounds strange coming from a person who believes in a Creator. ;)

P.S.
I'm reading the "Before The Big Bang" thread again to see where my brain has farted.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

What you refer to as "the universe" above is our space-time "bubble" - that's not the universe (everything that exists).

Again, we only know of this bubble. Any other bubble is based speculation, or at best conjecture.

If the *something* caused our "bubble", then it's certain - not just speculation/conjecture - that it can cause (and most probably has caused) other "bubbles".

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Secondly, it's between 13 and 14 billion years old - I think you made a slight typo there. ;)

Not really a typo, it was based on ignorance. hehe

We'll draw a kindly veil over that... ;)

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Your last sentence is not correct - even if time began for us in our "bubble", it doesn't mean that the universe hasn't existed before our "bubble".

Look at it this way, our "bubble" has existed for over 13 billion years - another "bubble" could have existed for over 130 billion years.

That would mean the *something* that preceded our "bubble" must exist to produce the older "bubble".

Just because the *something* is timeless doesn't mean it can't exist - indeed one of Stenger's earlier books is called Timeless Reality.

Again, isn't this conjecture, at best?

No - this a logical inference from what we know.

In fact, another possibility is that time exists in the *something* that caused our "bubble" - just that our "clock" runs at a different rate. Now that's just my conjecture there.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:I still feel you're confusing the concept of "universe" and our bit after the Big Bang, as your answer to the first part appears to indicate, hence your answer - with all due respect, tuxbox - is not soundly based.

Kindest regards,

James

I'm now getting what you are trying to convey to me, as far as the "universe" is concerned, however, I still have not heard of any observable evidence that multiple bubbles exist. Yeah, I know that sounds strange coming from a person who believes in a Creator. ;)

P.S.
I'm reading the "Before The Big Bang" thread again to see where my brain has farted.

Actually, there was a re-run of a program the other day - BBC Horizon's, How Big is the Universe [54:30 onwards, particularly 56:00] - where it was suggested that any major anomalies in the CMB might indicate where our "bubble" was pressing against another one.

You should watch it, it'll give you a better idea of what I've been talking about - and help with understanding hackenslash's posts in the other thread.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 25, 2015 2:28 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 11 of 14
 [ 272 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests