Chance and evolution

Mike Flynn · #51 4th November 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

IF there is "imaginary time", then the universe is finite but unbounded. Now, in this case, what Hawking means by "imaginary time" is that, for a while after the BB, time and the 3 space dimensions were not distinguishable but all were the same.

Hawking's best analogy for finite but unbounded is the surface of a sphere. It is finite but you never come to an "end" of the sphere becaues you simply keep walking around it.

And this is compatible, to some degree, with string theory. String theory sets a minimum size for the universe...hence a non-singular BB. There is also some speculation that the three extended space dimensions are still curled up like the other 7...making space both finite and unbounded.

I still havn't found any viable physics (outside of string theory) that can accurately formulate the BB events. String theory remains the only viable option on the table for now since it incorporates quantum gravity(however, string theory remains unproven). It is likely that thermal fluctuations in a planck-length sized dimension caused the expansion according to one BB formulation in string theory.

David Gould · #52 4th November 2003, 10:50 PM

For the love of god, please use some paragraphing! I'm dying out here ...

(This is to Gnarly Love)

Arikay · #53 4th November 2003, 10:52 PM

But the thing is. god is often held at a different standard than other things. "First Cause God" probably doesn't have a cause. However, it is automatically assumed that nothing can come from nothing, and then it is automatically assumed that everything that is not god needs a cause. But for some reason god is exempt from this.

Sure, god could Just exist, however, if god can Just exist, then it should also be considered that other things Just exist. If other things need a cause then it should also be considered that god needs a cause.

God could have been a first cause, but so could other things that are not God. They all need to be held to the same standards, and since the scientific standard is that none of the possible first causes have been falsified, or have much over one another, that scientifically, they all should be considered equal.

If any of that makes any sense.

From what I was reading, they described imaginary time as vertical time (if normal time was horizontal) and thus there could be an infinite amount of vertical time, and a finite amount of horizontal time.

Originally Posted by lucaspa

First Cause demands and uncaused cause. Therefore it is illegitimate to demand "what caused God" as it is to demand "what caused quantum fluctuations". The question is "What caused the universe to exist." If the answer is "Deity created it" then that is the answer. That we don't know where deity came from doesn't alter that it is the answer to the question.

IF there is "imaginary time", then the universe is finite but unbounded. Now, in this case, what Hawking means by "imaginary time" is that, for a while after the BB, time and the 3 space dimensions were not distinguishable but all were the same.

Hawking's best analogy for finite but unbounded is the surface of a sphere. It is finite but you never come to an "end" of the sphere becaues you simply keep walking around it.

gnarly love · #54 4th November 2003, 10:52 PM

What created god?
Let me guess, god "just exists" or god is infinite
Juat as you explain the universe, or at least Bertrand Russel did, ah but that isnt good enought evidence. God by definition isthe uncreated creator of the universe, you asked a question like, to whom is the bachelor married? GOD always has existed, He is the only one i know of that fuses meaning from past, present, and future all together. you certianly dont undertand the concept of GOD, as I dont your belief, but i was an atheist for 14 years so...

Arikay · #55 4th November 2003, 10:58 PM

Yes paragraphs would be nice.

David I can translate,

Unsupported claims,
Strawman,
Unsupported accusation.
Strawman.
Finish.

Gnarly, maybe you can back up your claims.
Lets start with,
1) creationist biologists.
A) Can you give us the list of creationist biologists?
B)Can you tell us how many believe in creationist based on evidence alone?

2) that scientists are selective at what they accept and ignore?

Next,
can you give us a definition of evolution.
and tell us what your source is?

As you appear to not really understand evolution, and im curious.

Mike Flynn · #56 4th November 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by gnarly love

What created god?
Let me guess, god "just exists" or god is infinite
Juat as you explain the universe, or at least Bertrand Russel did, ah but that isnt good enought evidence. God by definition isthe uncreated creator of the universe,

If you have a point, I'm having a really hard time understanding it. Why are we quibbling about the definition of God? Surely yours is as inadequate and meaningless as anyone else's.

Why don't you explain to everyone the 'concept of God' so we can understand how the BB and evolution are incompatible with it?

Arikay · #57 4th November 2003, 11:01 PM

:rolleyes:
You understood what an "atheist" was when you were two or younger?
So far you dont seem to understand what an atheist is now.

Originally Posted by gnarly love

What created god?
Let me guess, god "just exists" or god is infinite
Juat as you explain the universe, or at least Bertrand Russel did, ah but that isnt good enought evidence. God by definition isthe uncreated creator of the universe, you asked a question like, to whom is the bachelor married? GOD always has existed, He is the only one i know of that fuses meaning from past, present, and future all together. you certianly dont undertand the concept of GOD, as I dont your belief, but i was an atheist for 14 years so...

gnarly love · #58 4th November 2003, 11:02 PM

for the very nature of the case, as the cause of the universe of space and time, the cause must be uncaused chagless, timless and immaterial being of which created the universe. It is timeless and therefor echangless because it created time beacuse it also created space it must be immaterial and not physical. i would also argue that it would have to be personal, for if it was of a changless and impersonal cause, it couldnt exist without its effect. If the changless and impersonal conditions were timelessly present the effect would also be timeless.

gnarly love · #59 4th November 2003, 11:04 PM

Surely yours is as inadequate and meaningless as anyone else's.
o come on, just ways to get around the existence of GOD. please, absolute is something that nothing can be added to it and nothing can be detracted from it. And in that sense GOD alone is the only absolute unchanging being. There was never a moment in time where GOD did not exist. GOD by defintion is a necessary being, it is not possible for GOD not to exist. The very name GOD symbolizes that which is an absolute and from that we can measure all other changes.

David Gould · #60 4th November 2003, 11:05 PM

Arikay,

I think Lucaspa is saying that the demand for an answer to the question 'What caused God?' before accepting that God is the answer to 'What caused the universe?' is not logical, and is certainly not scientific.

The problem is that some Christians connect the two by demanding that everything that exists needs a cause in order to try and prove God and then suddenly somewhere along the way exempt God from this axiom.

Lucaspa, I believe, does not argue for God along those lines. But because so many do there is an automatic connection in many atheists' minds (mine included) between the questions, 'What caused the universe?' and 'What caused God?'