• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Before I go:

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here I have a thing on Xenophanes: He was a Pre-Sokratic Greek philosopher who believed many things I agree with (besides an infinite earth). His reasoning behind a one true God is interesting (he argues that in infinity, there must be a perfect. For it to be perfect, it had to have no begining or end or equal. It had to have made everything, because it would be imperfect if it hadn't.)

But the real interesting part is his archeological evidence of the earth being under water, or atleast mingled with water at some time. In bold below, I have all I have been able to find on this matter. Everything else, is just thrown in for interests. The places he mentions are, infact, islands. It does not mention his inland mountains in which he finds shells. On the other places, he finds various fossils. I do not know of Paros or Melite. But, I know Syracuse to be an island.

Hipp. Philos. i. 14; Dox. 565. Xenophanes of Kolophon, son of Orthomenes, lived to the time of Cyrus. He was the first to say that all things are in- comprehensible, in the following verses: (Frag. 14) 'For even if one chances for the most part to say what is true, still he would not know ; but every one thinks he [Page 83] knows.' [Epiph. adv. Haer. iii. 9; Dox. 590] And he says that nothing comes into being , nor is anything destroyed, nor moved; and that the universe is one and is not subject to change. And he says that god is eternal and one, homogeneous throughout, limited, spherical, with power of sense- perception in all parts.[Zeller, Vorsokr. Phil. 543, n. 1.] And Xenophanes believes that once the earth was mingled with the sea, but in the course of time it became freed from moisture; and his proofs are such as these: that shells are found in the midst of the land and among the mountains, that in the quarries of Syracuse the imprints of a fish and of seals had been found, and in Paros the imprint of an anchovy at some depth in the stone, and in Melite shallow impressions of all sorts of sea products. He says that these imprints were made when everything long ago was covered with mud, and then the imprint dried in the mud. Farther he says that all men will be destroyed when the earth sinks into the sea and becomes mud, and that the race will begin anew from the beginning; and this transformation takes place for all worlds.

I mentioned in another thread, that, after posting this information, I would leave these forums. I am way too busy, and these things are addictive. I'll stick around till this dies, and then I'm gone for a few months or so. If you see me posting after this thread, tell me to leave. I don't need to be reading posts when I am juggling two jobs and college. I'll be back.- vote for me.
 

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
42
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well he's right, many parts of the world were under water at one point or another.

As for his thoughts that in an infinity a perfect must exist is more of a philosophical idea. If the universe really is infinite, a multiverse, then he may be right. If somewhere the laws of nature permit such a being to exist then it's just a matter of time before said being comes into existence.
 
Upvote 0

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the_malevolent_milk_man said:
Well he's right, many parts of the world were under water at one point or another.

As for his thoughts that in an infinity a perfect must exist is more of a philosophical idea. If the universe really is infinite, a multiverse, then he may be right. If somewhere the laws of nature permit such a being to exist then it's just a matter of time before said being comes into existence.
Well, that's true. For this theory to be true, there would have to be any quantity that has achieved infinity, whether that be space or time itself. Funny though, is that, I believe that if the universe were without God- that space is a finite thing continually expanding, as time is currently finite and continually becoming more. But, with a God, infinity may exist. And wait, doesn't there exist an infinite amount of space in between my two fingers? If there is an infinity in the small, there is an infinity in the opposite big.

And we would not have to wait for the perfect. It would not be the perfect if it was not a constant. The two words are interchangable. The perfect must have omni-everything, but, because we do not witness chaos in existence, the constant must be a being. A being is more perfect than a non-being (I don't yet know why), and a being can limit its own actions by choice. Therefore, we see stability in existence.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Michali said:
I never thought of that. I can't comprehend it though. Would not infinity be valueless? How could you add anything to it?
well you can have a bigger infinity. if we wish to expand an infinite space, then we enlarge the distance between points - relativistically this is what happens, and the moment of the "big bang" is the time when the distance between all points was equal to zero.
 
Upvote 0

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jet Black said:
well you can have a bigger infinity. if we wish to expand an infinite space, then we enlarge the distance between points - relativistically this is what happens, and the moment of the "big bang" is the time when the distance between all points was equal to zero.
Yeah, but, thats not infinity. Like, in the next moment, the space between all points was 2. Then it was 1000. Even though that is the largest number we could calculate at the time, its still not infinity. The big bang proves that the universe is finite, but, if it occurd on its own in nothingness, there must be random universes popping up all the time. On a zero'th dimensionless plane, how did it even occur at one point when there was no space? Would it then not be happening all the time where there is no space?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Michali said:
Yeah, but, thats not infinity. Like, in the next moment, the space between all points was 2. Then it was 1000.
no, imagine we have the entire spectrum of integers:

-n...........-2,-1,0,1,2,............n

of which there are infinite. well just add a new one between each of them

-n...............-2b,-2,-1b,-1,-0,1,1b,2,2b..............n

your second infinity is bigger than your forst one, but it is still infinity.

Even though that is the largest number we could calculate at the time, its still not infinity. The big bang proves that the universe is finite,
no it didn't, as I have already said, the big bang is comfortable with the idea of a universe of infinite spatial extent.
but, if it occurd on its own in nothingness, there must be random universes popping up all the time. On a zero'th dimensionless plane, how did it even occur at one point when there was no space? Would it then not be happening all the time where there is no space?
who said anything about a 0d "nothingness" - this one seems to me to just be the exmple that creationists throw in all the time to make the big bang look silly. there is not just one possible description of how the universe came about. (see lucaspa's thread somewhere on possible options for universe creation)
 
Upvote 0

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh, no, I agree with the big bang theory. I just didn't fully understand what you meant by a greater infinity. Now, I see what you mean. Its still infinity. The 0d nothingness, though, seems like something that would hinder everything from happening. I'm just trying to understand a "godless" theory that would cause it to start. Like, the planckth length would be too large to exist in the dimensionless point.
 
Upvote 0

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jet Black said:
well here is lucaspa's thread:

http://christianforums.com/t43923&highlight=ekpyrotic

alot of this as all real cutting edge theoretical physics though
Yeah, I've read about them. The only ones that do not require dimensions are the Deity and the mathematical equation one (which I find hard to believe). I don't know about the No boundary one though, but it sounds like it has gotten around a beginning. So there was already dimensions (I suppose).
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Michali said:
Like, the planckth length would be too large to exist in the dimensionless point.
Ahhh... But the entire universe IS a dimensionless point. Bear with me for a moment.

Special Relativity describes the time dilation at occurs as an object moves closer and closer to the speed of light (c). If you were to travel to Proxima Centauri, the closest star to Earth, and were able to travel at .9999999c you would arrive there in about 16.2 hours your time, but anyone outside the ship would see the journey take you 4.2 YEARS.

As a ship travels closer and closer to the speed of light you age less and less compared to the surrounding universe. At .9999~(37 '9s')~999c you would be able to travel across the known universe in .2 seconds while 15 BILLION years passed outside.

At the speed of light the universe becomes instantaneous. Travel from anyplace to anyplace happens instantaneously. So the universe as perceived from something moving at the speed of light is a single dimensionless point. Photons "see" an instantaneous universe.
 
Upvote 0

Michali

Teleologist
Aug 1, 2003
2,287
36
40
Florida
✟25,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Phred said:
Ahhh... But the entire universe IS a dimensionless point. Bear with me for a moment.

At the speed of light the universe becomes instantaneous. Travel from anyplace to anyplace happens instantaneously. So the universe as perceived from something moving at the speed of light is a single dimensionless point. Photons "see" an instantaneous universe.
Whoa ho ho. That's awesome. Very good description, thanks.

So, lets say I wanted to go to another galaxy from Earth. And, I somehow had the ability to travel at the speed of light without becoming infinitely large. How would I actually travel in a single point? How is it that all of spacetime is actually a point that cannot be measured? Or does it just seem like a point to photons. And, if photons travel at the speed of light, how come their speed can be measured if travelling at the speed of light makes you arrive instantly at your destination? Why aren't photons infinitely huge? Is being infinitely massive what makes the universe seem like a point? How does all this relate to the dimensionless plane where there was the Big Bang? In other words, are you saying the universe was always in existence, and at the Big Bang, just got bigger?

I'm sorry bout' that. I'm really curious about this thought. Answer mainly the first and last one, please.

(Oh, and I do already know about Special Relativity- so you don't need to go into the basics of the relation of time and space.)
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Michali said:
Yeah, I've read about them. The only ones that do not require dimensions are the Deity and the mathematical equation one (which I find hard to believe). I don't know about the No boundary one though, but it sounds like it has gotten around a beginning. So there was already dimensions (I suppose).
the deity one effectively does too, and what is so important about dimensionality that you want to compact it all together? The important thing is that the system is self consistent. the ekpyrotic one seems to be.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Michali said:
So, lets say I wanted to go to another galaxy from Earth. And, I somehow had the ability to travel at the speed of light without becoming infinitely large.
you can't because you have mass.
How would I actually travel in a single point?
do you mean, how could you pick where you arrive. you can't, but that is ok because you can't travel that fast anyway.
How is it that all of spacetime is actually a point that cannot be measured? Or does it just seem like a point to photons.
it seems "flat" to photons, but that is because they do not see time.
And, if photons travel at the speed of light, how come their speed can be measured if travelling at the speed of light makes you arrive instantly at your destination?
because you, the observer, is not travelling at c.
Why aren't photons infinitely huge?
because they don't have mass.
Is being infinitely massive what makes the universe seem like a point?
well being infinitely massive would instantaneously collapse everything into a black hole. but nothing is infinitely massive, so that is ok.
How does all this relate to the dimensionless plane where there was the Big Bang? In other words, are you saying the universe was always in existence, and at the Big Bang, just got bigger?
temporally yes, the universe has always existed, since time exists only as part of the universe.
(Oh, and I do already know about Special Relativity- so you don't need to go into the basics of the relation of time and space.)
not alot about SR though, alot of those questions were really basic ones.
 
Upvote 0