- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Nice copout.You didn't wait for my next post, which I interpret that the posts I did not read at that time are unimportant, so I will not read them.
Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension", which does not exclude He is "here". Like a space includes a plane, God's world includes our universe.Incomprehensible. He is omnipresent, but not in our universe? He's in a different space-dimension? He walks hand in hand with us, but is in a different time-dimension?
Explain how the Creator does exist within the time He created.Sheer assertion. You haven't exhausted the possibilities.
Look at the context.Then I have no idea what your point was.
Sounds like hybris.To be more precise. I'm the only one I know of who renders it consistently …
I have difficulties to see how this relates to what I have said. What I said was not about how to understand Newton, but about things that seem to contradict common sense, like "clocks" running at different speeds, no difference between waves and particles, or non-Euklidean spacetime. Experiments show that the reality is such when you enter micro- or macrocosm. You declared things that are proven by experiments as "illogical". And if such statements are not based of a sort of Newtonian way to describe the world: What else can you bring against modern science?Where did I say to take Newton literally? About 3 time nows I said NOT to do so, right?
Dishonest? You said to me: "You had it correct", which I understood as implying "I was wrong".Totally dishonest. I edited my summary of your statement because I thought YOU had it wrong. Then I realized we were saying the same thing.
To make is as clear as possible:You're funny. You evidently think that inifinity is a specific integer, because you fought me on this point every time I raised it.
But why did you raise this topic? No-one speaks of an expansion into nothingness. Definitely not the "big-bang"-theory as used in nowadays astrophysics.I implied that expansion into nothingess is ridiculous. Which is what you just said, so we are in agreement.
No. Expansion of space is not about new space added to old one, but of a feature of spacetime. Distances (not every distance, but rather the long distances, to say it in a simplified way) increase over time. You may call this movement, but this kind of »movement« follows different rules than normal moves, so it is described as expansion of space and not retraction of objects in long distance.The only other option is creation of space ex nihilo
I pointed to a specific experiment, thought as a means to determine the velocity of the earth in the aether. It turned out that the velocity is zero, and that this does not change over time, which seems to mean the earth does not move (not even rotate!).Total dishonesty. The facticity itself is a lie. You and I are in disagreement about the facticity of light-constancy. You then point to experiments whose conclusions presume the light-constancy assumption. In effect, you presume what's in dispute and then call it a proven fact.
Quantum mechanics says otherwise.Dishonesty. It's not an imprecision in nature itself. It's a limitation of humans and human instruments.
You can use the same approach I outlined above to show that there is an imprecision of time and energy: The shorter the time segment you are looking at, the broader the range of amounts of energy of the object you observes may have. If you constantly shorten the length of segments, you will end up with snapshots that give you no information at all about the state ot the objects you watch.Xeno's paradox shows that the distance traveled is potentially an infinite number of segments (snapshots).
He certainly knows the exact function of uncertainty for such "snapshots".but your supposedly infinite God sees and knows everything.
And they have different size when such a matching is not possible.Actually I only read the first couple of paragraphs of the article. I just read another paragraph on the sidebar of the article. It says:
"Two different infinite sets have the same size when each element of one set can be paired with an element of the second."
Is this the formulation of that articles? That is like saying "The number of months in the year and the number of the tribes in Israel, that's two different numbers". Well, both numbers are the same, namely 12. And so the infinite cardinalities in your examples are the same, namely Aleph-0.And it gives an example. If one set is ALL the integers, and the other set is only the EVEN numbers, then it's "two different infinities".
Your example is. I already mentioned two different infinities: Aleph-1 is greater than Aleph-0. Proof: Cantor's diagonal argument. You use an irrelevant example and overlooked what is relevant. You would say "straw man" to this.(Guffaw). So what? This is completely irrelevant to our debate.
If spaced is curved positively, this will be so. Therefore I left open whether space is finite (i.e. your suggestion is correct), or whether it is infinite (flat or negative curvature) of space. BTW: Local curvature out of gravity is neglected in such "global" pictures of the universe.Huh? I didn't get you. Earlier I suggested that the end of reality probably forms a continuum to the opposite end such that you would reenter there.
Integer infinity is a contradiction in terms. The set of integers (i.e. natural numbers, zero, plus the negatives of natural numbers) does not contain an infinite number. There are specific non-integer infinities, as the cardinalities of infinite sets, or the ±∞ values used in describing limits.There is no "infinite distance" (a region of infinite meters measured) since there is no specific integer infinity.
Hmmm … I heard this before, or rather a variation of it:I can't prove anything 100%, but the twofold argument for finitude is the most cogent position.
...(1) All we know for sure are finite objects. This makes finitude an ordinary claim. Anything else would an extraordinary claim, basically a fairy-tale, and thus a cult-like assertion.
The most cogent position is: What we cannot determine because we are limited, should not excluded on merely theoretical beliefs.Unless we want to behave like a cult, we should accept the most cogent position.
Posting more in a debate where sometimes there are texts that are longer than the limit for posts here, is quite natural, Bur to respond while the other guy is still reading and thinking about what you read before, is like interrupting a dialogue partner while he speaks.Nice copout.
Incomprehensible. Any cult could speak of "a higher dimension". Nobody knows what that means. And you just said He is "not within our universe." And yet omnipresent? Sounds like the riddles of a Yoga instructor.Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension", which does not exclude He is "here". Like a space includes a plane, God's world includes our universe.
Pearls that I don't want to share with you. I explained why.Explain how the Creator does exist within the time He created.
Oh I'm fine with that. As I mentioned earlier, I hope you don't think this necessitates the Calvinistic conclusion of double-predestination. Anyone can be saved. If you don't see why, try thinking outside the box. But don't ask me to share those pearls with you.Look at the context.
You denied God's foreknowledge, using your philosophy. I cited biblical verses that show that God decided to save us in Christ even before He created the world. It's simply a matter of Bible vs. your world-view with your aspiration to understand everything.
Again, time dilation is not proven. It is a (gibberish) interpretation of the data based on the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy. Thus the two go hand in hand, and I submitted three separate objections:I have difficulties to see how this relates to what I have said. What I said was not about how to understand Newton, but about things that seem to contradict common sense, like "clocks" running at different speeds, no difference between waves and particles, or non-Euklidean spacetime. Experiments show that the reality is such when you enter micro- or macrocosm. You declared things that are proven by experiments as "illogical". And if such statements are not based of a sort of Newtonian way to describe the world:
What else can you bring against modern science?
Right, but my problem with this is that you KNEW that's not the way I was using the term 'specific'. I made it clear multiple times that I was referring to a specific regular number reachable by several increments (or one large addition) with clearly identifiable digits. That's why I kept asking you tell me the exact number (exact digits).To make is as clear as possible:
- "Infinity" is not clear, because there is more than one Infinity.
- Aleph-0 is an example of a specific infinity.
- A specific infinity is an infinity, and no integer. But it is specific.
One standard analogy is blowing up a balloon. Note that this causes expansion into an outer region.But why did you raise this topic? No-one speaks of an expansion into nothingness. Definitely not the "big-bang"-theory as used in nowadays astrophysics.
For me, the only explanation was: You misunderstood the sentence you highlighted as speaking of an expansion into nothingness..
No. Expansion of space is not about new space added to old one, but of a feature of spacetime. Distances (not every distance, but rather the long distances, to say it in a simplified way) increase over time. You may call this movement, but this kind of »movement« follows different rules than normal moves, so it is described as expansion of space and not retraction of objects in long distance.
(Sigh). Again, the Big Bang is relevant because it is widely believed - believed to be "scientific", and yet is gibberish. You seem to think that just because science experiments have "demonstrated" something, it must be fact.But why did you raise this topic?
Maybe we had a disconnect here. I heard about MIckelson-Morely probably about 20 years ago and forgot about it. But I have NEVER believed that their experiment presumed light-constancy. Not even for a moment. On the contrary, light-constancy is allegedly a kind of corollary widely presumed to best explain their test results.But stop saying "dishonest" when we disagree. Better ask. I could have called you dishonest because you said that the Michelson-Morley experiment presumed the constancy ot the speed of light. But I think you were not dishonest, but rather believed that.
Maybe this was where the disconnect occurred (I'd have to go back and check) since I had forgotten, over those 20 years, that the experiment was aether-related. In any case, my real objection was to the additive-velocity experiments, and time-dilation experiments, that you seemed to be hinting at. THOSE two categories of experiments DO seem to presume light-constancy.I pointed to a specific experiment, thought as a means to determine the velocity of the earth in the aether. It turned out that the velocity is zero, and that this does not change over time, which seems to mean the earth does not move (not even rotate!).
Then why did you keep talking about additive velocity, for example?I never pointed to experiments that presume the light-constancy assumption. If you think there is such an implicit assumption (not discovered by science so far), explain it to me.
That doesn't make sense to me. God suffers from an uncertainty principle? How likely is that? In my view, the divine Word not only tracks particles, He effectively constitutes them, by supplying the needed forces such as gravity and electricity. "In Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17) because He "sustains all things by the [divine] Word of his power" (Heb 1:3). For example nuclear force is defined as:Quantum mechanics says otherwise.
An elementary object (photon. electron, …) can be describes as particle or wave. Waves are mathematically described by sinus functions. A simple sinus function has a definite wavelength, but stretches into infinity (from -∞ to +∞). If you have a finite wave, a mathematical method called Fourier analyses describes it as a bundle of infinite waves with different wavelengths, adding up to a finite wave. So you have some range of wavelength, and a range of space. In quantum physics, the wavelength of the wave is the pulse of the corresponding particle, which means, you have an imprecision of he place of an particle (the space of the finite wave) and an imprecision of the pulse of this particle (the range of wavelengths of the wave).
For some time, physicist saw this as a real difference between waves and particles: "We can see the trace of an electron in our cloud chamber". But then came Heisenberg and showed: What can be seen has the same imprecision as the imprecision of the wave, there is no inherent precision in the path of an electron.
That's what quantum mechanics says. Maybe you were mislead by some "popular science" articles.
I really don't see what's uncertain if God has an infinity of snapshots containing all the information, especially if His influence is highly deterministic except to the degree that He allows free will to interfere.BTW: If it were only about inability to observe, Einstein would not have protested against the uncertainty principle.
That may be true for a man. Not likely true for the divine Word.You can use the same approach I outlined above to show that there is an imprecision of time and energy: The shorter the time segment you are looking at, the broader the range of amounts of energy of the object you observes may have. If you constantly shorten the length of segments, you will end up with snapshots that give you no information at all about the state ot the objects you watch.
What are you talking about? Take the number of years transpired. You seem to be saying that, even though the year infinity is not possible to reach as an integer, we can reach it as a non-integer? That is, some large number plus a decimal portion? I don't care how large is that number, we can always add more to it right? So infinity isn't any specific number by any stretch of the imagination. Reality is an identifiable sphere of existence present right now. It IS specific. Infinity isn't attainable.I can't see why the non-integrality of definite infinite values is any argument against their existence in the real world.
This is why you'll never understand the Incarnation, incredibly simple as it is. Think outside the box.Hmmm … I heard this before, or rather a variation of it:
»All we observe and explore in science, is not God. This makes God an extra-ordinary claim, basically a fairy-tale, and thus a cult-like assertion.«
The most cogent position is Occam's Razor, not adding cult-like fairy-tales to simple reality and the simplicity of the Incarnation.The most cogent position is: What we cannot determine because we are limited, should not excluded on merely theoretical beliefs.
Maybe I took the wrong term. I thought „the USA are within New York” means that the USA are not outside new York, so „the USA are not within New York” is a true statement. Was I wrong in that?Incomprehensible. Any cult could speak of "a higher dimension". Nobody knows what that means. And you just said He is "not within our universe." And yet omnipresent? Sounds like the riddles of a Yoga instructor.
Take one example (I mentioned it before, now comes the long version):Again, time dilation is not proven. It is a (gibberish) interpretation of the data based on the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy.
I already told you that I don't ask you to renounce basic math, but to accept that the formula for "adding" two velocities v1 and v2 is not just (v1+v2), but rather (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c2). This is math. When I say that (0.001c+c)/(c+0.001c*1c/c²)= c, I don't ask you to renounce that 0.001c+c=1.001c.Thus the two go hand in hand, and I submitted three separate objections:
....(1) Common sense objection based on two trucks having relative speeds. Asking me to make an exception for light-quanta is like asking me to renounce basic math.
This is what you said:Maybe I took the wrong term. I thought „the USA are within New York” means that the USA are not outside new York, so „the USA are not within New York” is a true statement. Was I wrong in that?
First of all, time-dilation seems just as much of a gibberish-claim as light-constancy and curvature of space. I don't think that gibberish can be experimentally proven. "I just proved a concept incomprehensible to the human mind."Take one example (I mentioned it before, now comes the long version):
There is a type of particles called mesons. They are all unstable, i.e. they decay in short time. Sometimes mesons are produced in interaction between atomic nuclei and radioactive radiation. Which happen in higher regions of the atmosphere (Van Allen radiation belt etc.).
We know the Half-life of mesons, the rate at which mesons are produced can be measured, and therefor the amount of mesons expected to arrive at ground. But more mesons arrive there. It seems that their half-life is prolonged during their coming down to ground. Which fits perfectly to the prediction of relativistic theory about time-dilation.
Where is there any base of "the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy"? I can't see any.
What are you talking about? Where did I say that was not math? I merely cited an article indicating it was math predicated on the assumption of light-constancy. I also said that accepting Einstein's gibberish-concepts - taking them literally - is as absurd as renouncing basic math.I already told you that I don't ask you to renounce basic math, but to accept that the formula for "adding" two velocities v1 and v2 is not just (v1+v2), but rather (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c2). This is math. When I say that (0.001c+c)/(c+0.001c*1c/c²)= c, I don't ask you to renounce that 0.001c+c=1.001c.
Why would I want to discuss with someone whose stance is, "I know more science, therefore my theology is better than yours?"And that is it. I warned you that I know more about science than you (I can see it by the errors you make). I will no longer discuss with a guy that always comes with statements that are blatantly wrong, so much of our debate is about some (ad-hoc?) thesis from you that I have to correct.
Including the proof from the physics professor that special relativity is a logical contradiction? Something that was obvious to me long before I read his article?Your view is that of 19-th century science, and all your arguments you pile against modern science are based on misunderstandings out of ignorance.
Where did I say that? I seem to stand on the correct side of a few important theological issues, so in that sense I believe myself to know three or four facts that most people don't seem to know. Certainly I don't claim to know more facts than most people.When you stop arguing as if you know more than me,
Like when you told me that the Hypostatic Union does not involve a created human soul? Is that what you mean by objections based on wrong assumptions? Just to be clear.I can (if you want) answer to every point you brought up here. But don't ignore what I say and don't give more objections based on wrong assumptions. I don't believe you will do it, so unless you write that you understood and changed your behavior, I will no longer write here. Pr 26:4-5.
It's hard to make any kind of evaluation, since the conversation got bogged down with strawmen.If you like, you may claim that you have won the debate.
Disconnects happen in these debates. It's not a fixation. You cited verses that Calvinists normally use against me. So I asked you a question, "Is this a Calvinist argument?" You do know what a question is, right?PS:
I told you I'm no Calvinist, and even that Calvin himself was less Calvinistic than his followers. That you repeatedly come back with that topic shows a fixation on Calvinism (the reason for that I do not speculate about).
And if you really want me to understand what you discussed with some »Calvinist« (the way you talk lets me doubt whether they were real Calvinists), you should give a link to at least one thread. I will not spend days to look for the place where your "irrefutable" views are written down. I myself made no secret about what I think.
No, I wrote:This is what you said:
"We know the Creator of our universe is not in our universe."
No? You did NOT make that statement? Could somebody please take a look at post 219 and tell me who is lying here? Because this is what I seem to read:No, I wrote:
Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension"
You the criticized the "within", and when I asked whether I took the wrong English term, you wrote as if I never wrote the above sentence.
My sentiments exactly.I leave it up to you whether this is carelessness to the highest degree or outright lying.
Strawman. Obviously, the question I raised is whether "time dilation" is a misnomer for and misunderstanding of what He is doing consistently. This strawman-response is your version of honest debate? I've had enough.The last point I say here: When God does something consistently, this is what science calls a „natural law”. Dilating the tome of movinmg particles is just some example.
And now I throw this thread out of my watch list.
So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.
In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.
I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.
That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.
What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?
If the scriptures told us that God had laboured for 13 billion then we would praise Him for them. It doesn't.@BNR32FAN
Just make sure you're not being stubborn here. You praise God for 1 day on the cross but not for 13 billion years of labor? You really want to risk robbing Him of that glory and having to confess it to Him on the last day? Be properly cautious about all this. Try not to rush prematurely to a preconceived conclusion.
If the Scripture used the word "Trinity" I would believe in the Trinity.If the scriptures told us that God had laboured for 13 billion then we would praise Him for them. It doesn't.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Told to us so we would not be swayed by men claiming to age things 13 billion years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?