I've come...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: I've come...
DLJ Wrote:... If time started at that moment, there is no 'before'. If there is negative time i.e. t = 0 is a place-holder, then it works.

I'm admittedly being facetiously ironic here, but it seems the word, genesis, would apply to a degree.

Toward a more serious contribution, any ocurrance requires a measure of time in which to occur. So even a "negative" time would require its own ocurrance. Which would insist that time be a constant. No?

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kestrel's post
01-03-2014, 07:18 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 06:50 AM)Kestrel Wrote:  ...
I'm admittedly being facetiously ironic here, but it seems the word, genesis, would apply to a degree.
...
Shocking
Oooh! That was good.
And completely unusable Smile

(01-03-2014 06:50 AM)Kestrel Wrote:  ...
Toward a more serious contribution, any occurrence requires a measure of time in which to occur. So even a "negative" time would require its own occurrence. Which would insist that time be a constant. No?

No. Well, yes... in a relative sense.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
01-03-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... to the conclusion that we have made a mistake.

It's to do with terminology.

Three examples:

1. Note this from one of our members:
Quote:...
"there is a considerable amount of observable evidence that suggests the universe is not eternal...that it had a beginning."

It is true we are not certain that the universe had a beginning but it seems that it did. The foundation of the claim that universe could itself be eternal, exists only in the small shadow of uncertainty. It is a claim which makes a weak basis for a refutation of that theistic argument.
...

I'd change the word theistic to deistic but otherwise, fair enough... given the wording of that premise i.e. "...that it had a beginning."

2. I recently re-watched this debate between Jay Richards and Hitch and the same point was made at 1:06:30 (Mr. Richards, btw, came across as honest and had an admirable determination to stay on topic, imho).

3. And lastly, there's this old chestnut which has been debunked so many times on here: Kalām cosmological argument

To the point...

Our mistake is that we offer a free pass to the deist (not theist) with our use of the word 'beginning'.

Hubble's law and the cosmic background radiation tell us that the universe used to be rather small and dense but why must time be zero?

Isn't time merely a measurement of a dimension? A scale/metric that we overlay onto an axis?

Why can't we visualise this as:

---l-------------------l--------------------l---
t = -x ............... t = 0 ................. t = x

... with the big bang occurring a tad after t = 0.

Before this moment, we have some hypotheses but no definitive answers other than "I don't know".

We cannot prove it was not a deity wot dunnit nor can we prove it was... yet.

Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

This has been nagging away at me for a while now.

I would like to go further and say that at t = 0, no timescale (scale of the time axis) had been established and that all timescales were potentially possible i.e. that the universe was spaceless and timefull, but leaving that aside, can you guys help with an accurate replacement for "In the beginning..."

Appreciated. Thanks.

ps, wouldn't it be great to go to church and hear this...

Vicar: "In the beginning..."
Audience: "Erm, can I just stop you there...I have a question?"

Smile


Um ... if saying "could I just stop you there" was part of the schtick, reciting the creed would take about 25-50 years, and going to chuch would be a one-shot deal, and no one would ever get over to the bingo game and donuts.

During the debate with Carroll-Craig in Feb, Carroll addressed the point, and how idiotic Kalam really is. ((And BTW, in this universe, (anyway), it's not "time". It's "spacetime")).

Carry on.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2014, 07:37 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... to the conclusion that we have made a mistake.


What's this we shit?


(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

Are you fucking serious? Who talks like that? More appropriately, who listens to talk like that?

The relativity equations work when t>0 which implies that t is greater than zero. Tongue

And who cares about a bunch of Deists? Those who stick to that theology are about as offensive as kittens. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-03-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: I've come...
Down boy!

Sit!

Staaaaay!

[Image: 39121-Gwyneth-Paltrow-sexy-hot-lbd-b-xI2N.jpeg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
01-03-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: I've come...
Man, I'm too easily distracted... Weeping

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-03-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: I've come...
I saw the title of this post and was going to ask if you feel better now? But clearly after opening the thread I see we are discussing two completely different things.

Carry on. Drinking Beverage


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bows and Arrows's post
01-03-2014, 08:22 AM
RE: I've come...
At it's most basic concept, time is change. The change from one state, one position to another.
The concept of time is dependent upon something existing and changing.

Imagine if you will the first heart beat of a child in the womb and the sound waves, the tiny little sound waves produced by that beat.
If the sound waves are the only thing you can study, you can talk about when the sound waves began, but when you ask "What happened before the first sound wave" ?
The conversation gets muddy.

The universe is somewhat like the sound produced from a child's first heart beat.
More than likely, the state of the universe / singularity / etc had something going on, but at present that remains a mystery.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
01-03-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: I've come...
Holy fuck, Rahn!

That's poetry, that is.

HoC, when you've tidied up the tissues, please could you write a verse or two on...

Before God's First Heart Beat

Our Poetry Corner thread is collecting cobwebs.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 08:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Holy fuck, Rahn!

That's poetry, that is.

HoC, when you've tidied up the tissues, please could you write a verse or two on...

Before God's First Heart Beat

Our Poetry Corner thread is collecting cobwebs.

Eww... that doesn't happen every time...

And! I'll think about it. Last poem I wrote sucked. I don't think I'm depressed enough. Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: