New or Grew?

[public hermit]

I'm arguing that he is able to make them actually old, and to do it in time that we can only describe as instantaneous.

Okay, let's say it is possible. I don't disagree that God could do that. Just, as I wouldn't disagree God could have made a flea the size of a the Empire State Building, perhaps with similar Art Deco design and all. Who knows?

My point is, why? Why would God make it look as if this world were older than it is? What would be the point?

 

[SelfSim]

My point is, why? Why would God make it look as if this world were older than it is? What would be the point?

Well, if 'points' matter, then what is the 'point' of this entire sub-conversation, when we already know the Earth is very old?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, let's say it is possible. I don't disagree that God could do that. Just, as I wouldn't disagree God could have made a flea the size of a the Empire State Building, perhaps with similar Art Deco design and all. Who knows?

My point is, why? Why would God make it look as if this world were older than it is? What would be the point?

I'm not saying make it LOOK LIKE, but it looks like it because it IS actually old. THAT he could do instantaneously, by mere say-so, and it seem contradictory only to us.

We do the same thing when we say a person traveling at a great speed and returning, will not have aged as much as the place where he left. We speak of a Universe 15 billion years old, but an extremely rapid expansion, causing a doppler effect. The doppler calculation only takes certain things into account. There is a LOT we still don't know about and, more ironically a lot we do know that we probably didn't think to "plug into" the equation. Life is like that. Anyhow, we know time is relative, God is not.

If it were possible for a consciousness to move from the Big Bang to the present, but bound to time (as we are) as it experienced it, it would seem like that consciousness would pass through maybe 15 billion years. But did it? Or maybe I'm saying it backwards. What is the speed of light --relative to what? I don't know, but God does. From one pov, it may well have been a six days, from another pov, instantaneous. Who knows? God knows.

(The people that argue against me here, saying I'm ignorantly (which I agree I am) making some ludicrous and non-cogent presupposition to support a mythology (which I don't agree I am) are sometimes the same people who support such a mind-insulting thought as Infinite Regression of Causes, rather than to admit to First Cause.)

Like I just told someone else, God usually has multiple reasons for what he does. One given in Scripture is to further blind those who blind themselves. Among other reasons, just as I have said about why God would allow Job to go through what he did, "so that we would have this conversation!"

 

[public hermit]

Well, if 'points' matter, then what is the 'point' of this entire sub-conversation, when we already know the Earth is very old?

That's kind of what I'm driving at. The point of the OP seems to be to get a particular reading of the Genesis narrative to square with the evidence. As I said earlier, it's ad hoc.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Anyhow, we know time is relative, God is not.

If it were possible for a consciousness to move from the Big Bang to the present, but bound to time (as we are) as it experienced it, it would seem like that consciousness would pass through maybe 15 billion years. But did it? Or maybe I'm saying it backwards. What is the speed of light --relative to what?

Spacetime.

I don't know, but God does. From one pov, it may well have been a six days, from another pov, instantaneous. Who knows? God knows.

Only because you say so ..

(The people that argue against me here, saying I'm ignorantly (which I agree I am) making some ludicrous and non-cogent presupposition to support a mythology (which I don't agree I am) are sometimes the same people who support such a mind-insulting thought as Infinite Regression of Causes, rather than to admit to First Cause.)

.. or, more justifiably, any 'cause'?

Like I just told someone else, God usually has multiple reasons for what he does. One given in Scripture is to further blind those who blind themselves. Among other reasons, just as I said thought about why God would allow Job to go through what he did, "so that we would have this conversation!"

Uh .. huh ..

 

[Mark Quayle]

Spacetime.
Only because you say so ..
.. or, more justifiably, any 'cause'?
Uh .. huh ..

↑
Mark Quayle said: Anyhow, we know time is relative, God is not. If it were possible for a consciousness to move from the Big Bang to the present, but bound to time (as we are) as it experienced it, it would seem like that consciousness would pass through maybe 15 billion years. But did it? Or maybe I'm saying it backwards. What is the speed of light --relative to what?

SelfSim: Spacetime.

Me now: But isn't spacetime relative?

Mark Quayle said:
I don't know, but God does. From one pov, it may well have been a six days, from another pov, instantaneous. Who knows? God knows.


SelfSim: Only because you say so ..

Me now: Propositional logic assuming God, needs a common deffinition for God that all parties in a debate can agree on. To me, God is not God unless unless he knows absolutely everything.

However, if by "Only if you say so", you are referring to my supposing that it may actually be 15 billion years and 6 days also, and even instantaneous, only requires one to consider the fact that time is relative, in order to guess that all three are possible, each from a different POV.

Mark Quayle said: (The people that argue against me here, saying I'm ignorantly (which I agree I am) making some ludicrous and non-cogent presupposition to support a mythology (which I don't agree I am) are sometimes the same people who support such a mind-insulting thought as Infinite Regression of Causes, rather than to admit to First Cause.)

SelfSim:.. or, more justifiably, any 'cause'?

Me now: "Any cause" cannot be First Cause. It may be superhuman, but not God. For the sake of discussion, i.e. to me, (so that we can be arguing about the same thing --I see no point in talking about 'any cause'), God is necessarily First Cause.

Mark Quayle said: Like I just told someone else, God usually has multiple reasons for what he does. One given in Scripture is to further blind those who blind themselves. Among other reasons, just as I said thought about why God would allow Job to go through what he did, "so that we would have this conversation!"

SelfSim: Uh .. huh ..

Me now: Lol Just so you understand why I say that. Logic demands that First Cause not only cause all subsequent effects, (most of which are also causes), but that it cause them specifically as they are (or turn out to be). Supposing the Big Bang was first cause, then, as scientific writers would say, rather poetically, "The seeds of all we see now were sown in the Big Bang.

To me, for God to be God, Omniscient and Omnipotent, absolutely everything that happened, or happens, is according to his plan, his causation. Chance has no ability to cause.

 

[Carl Emerson]

How much of what folks struggle with is the subtle arrogance of science?

Should we not let God be God and nature be nature.

We seem to only want to believe in the 'natural' and refuse the prerogative of God to act as He sees fit.

Even worse we seem to take exception to Him doing anything outside what we consider 'natural' and accuse Him of tricking us if He does....

Elijah got it right - he knew God acted despite the normal forces of nature - pour more water on the sacrifice - Vwoooom....

 

[driewerf]

The universe is old because God created it old.

The Universe is 13.8 billion years old because it emerged 13.8 billion years ago. As far as we know, there was no deity involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Universe is 13.8 billion years old because it emerged 13.8 billion years ago. As far as we know, there was no deity involved.

I take it, then, you would vote "grew"?

 

[SelfSim]

But isn't spacetime relative?

Relative to the human mind which conceives it.

Propositional logic assuming God, needs a common deffinition for God that all parties in a debate can agree on. To me, God is not God unless unless he knows absolutely everything.

So, were I to refute that God knows everything, then he wouldn't know everything .. and therefore, God would not be God?
(IOW: God would only be God, because you say so ..)

However, if by "Only if you say so", you are referring to my supposing that it may actually be 15 billion years and 6 days also, and even instantaneous, only requires one to consider the fact that time is relative, in order to guess that all three are possible, each from a different POV.

I think your supposition there assumes that your God conceives time mysteriously, in the same way we, (and Astrophysicists), do. What's more, he seems to have also mysteriously conceived the fundamental principle of Relativity at the same time Einstein, (a human), did(?) .. And all because 'you say so'(?)

"Any cause" cannot be First Cause. It may be superhuman, but not God. For the sake of discussion, i.e. to me, (so that we can be arguing about the same thing --I see no point in talking about 'any cause'), God is necessarily First Cause.

However, you have only constrained 'God' by using you own mind and your idea that others agree with your own definition that 'he knows absolutely everything', as declared by you above.
I stated a hypothetical objection to that premise.
Your premise is unconstrained by the reality that others hold to that hypothetical objection.
Your reality would simply appear to deal with that by excluding other thinking humans, who happen to think otherwise .. which is a lot of real people!

Lol Just so you understand why I say that. Logic demands that First Cause not only cause all subsequent effects, (most of which are also causes), but that it cause them specifically as they are (or turn out to be). Supposing the Big Bang was first cause, then, as scientific writers would say, rather poetically, "The seeds of all we see now were sown in the Big Bang.

No reputable scientific thinkers refer to the Big Bang as being 'First Cause'. It may be convenient to assume that within the context of the Observable Universe discourse .. but that doesn't stop them from thinking scientifically beyond that context .. which would contradict your idea of the BB as being a 'First Cause'.

To me, for God to be God, Omniscient and Omnipotent, absolutely everything that happened, or happens, is according to his plan, his causation. Chance has no ability to cause.

Uh huh ... (yawn).

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Universe is 13.8 billion years old because it emerged 13.8 billion years ago. As far as we know, there was no deity involved.

13.8 billion years ago is how it appears from our current POV.

 

[SelfSim]

13.8 billion years ago is how it appears from our current POV.

The age of the universe means the duration of the expansion given by the standard cosmological model, or the elapsed time since the Big Bang, in the current observable universe.

If that's what you mean by our 'current POV', then there is no problem I can see there(?)
(Would you kindly clarify ..?)

 

[Carl Emerson]

Mmmm... If you plot the ages of the patriarchs it comes out pretty much as a growth curve...

So maybe time is a living thing that has changed it's rate as it grows...

Who knows ???

That would stymie our attempt to measure it somewhat.

We are such linear thinkers and expect all aspects of reality to conform.

Yet we are more correct - more informed - more entitled - more self convinced -

Not bad for a speck of dust...

Were you there when it happened?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Relative to the human mind which conceives it.

Spacetime is not a static point in space, from which nothing can travel away nor toward at above the speed of light.

So, were I to refute that God knows everything, then he wouldn't know everything .. and therefore, God would not be God?
(IOW: God would only be God, because you say so ..)

If you wish to debate whether God is Omniscient or not, we can do that. But to debate something else, and bring in non-omniscience vs omniscience is moving the goalposts. We need to stick to one or the other. I am unwilling to work with a definition of God that includes any lack of knowledge, unless to prove its illogic with other necessary implications of God, i.e. First Cause. You sound like you think God is not different from Odin or any of thousands of other so-called 'gods'. Well, I'm not talking about one of them. I'm talking about Omnipotence --i.e. First Cause, With Intent.

I think your supposition there assumes that your God conceives time mysteriously, in the same way we, (and Astrophysicists), do. What's more, he seems to have also mysteriously conceived the fundamental principle of Relativity at the same time Einstein, (a human), did(?) .. And all because 'you say so'(?)

Haha no! He doesn't see it the way we do. No doubt he could, if he wanted to, but no need.

("Mysteriously" you say: I don't know why it should need that adverb. To my mind, God as First Cause has the default POV. Everything else should figure as the mysterious --how is it possible that there be any other POV but his? --but there is, and so we have what we are. You sound like the sort who would rate Miracle and Paranormal as NON-natural. Funny how what once was considered Paranormal no long is. Why not just say, "Unusual"? After all, If God spoke the universe into existence it is all miracle, and all natural. Or why not differentiate along the lines of 'material' vs 'of the spirit realm')

Where do you get all this? I don't follow any of it --why would he need to wait to invent special relativity until Einstein came along?

Or do you still stick to the silly 'god' who is subject to causes and principles that magically 'just exist' on their own, from outside himself? That is not God.

However, you have only constrained 'God' by using you own mind and your idea that others agree with your own definition that 'he knows absolutely everything', as declared by you above.
I stated a hypothetical objection to that premise.
Your premise is unconstrained by the reality that others hold to that hypothetical objection.
Your reality would simply appear to deal with that by excluding other thinking humans, who happen to think otherwise .. which is a lot of real people!

I don't really care how many think whatever they think. What is always ironic to me is how often on closer examination they differ from one another on the implications of the collection of words they thought represented commonly held concepts. To me, there can be only one God --Omnipotent, First Cause --With Intent. Any other will not do. And that definition, (actually, redundant "omnipotent" logically implies First Cause, and that follows logically into With Intent. Anyhow, like I said before, I am not willing to argue the nature of reality as relates to what God does, without that definition of God. Again, if you want to debate that definition of God, have at it, but that is not this argument.

No reputable scientific thinkers refer to the Big Bang as being 'First Cause'.

You notice, I said "IF we consider..." No, I take that back. I said "Supposing the BB was first cause, then..." That is --not a claim that the Big Bang is anything, nor that anyone thinks it is anything. I did not say it is first cause, nor that anyone else thought it was first cause. My point was simply that the specificity with which all things come to pass is precisely specifically caused by First Cause. There is no such thing as 'chance' causing something. There is no truly 'random' anything.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The age of the universe means the duration of the expansion given by the standard cosmological model, or the elapsed time since the Big Bang, in the current observable universe.

If that's what you mean by our 'current POV', then there is no problem I can see there(?)
(Would you kindly clarify ..?)

Yes, that is what I am referring to by 'our current POV'.

There was a time when people considered the possibility that the universe would collapse, from the "contradictions" implied if one was to travel above the speed of sound. To be honest, I don't see why the speed of light can't be surpassed. In spite of all the definitions and explanations I have been given (and no, they are not all the same), it still doesn't add up.

And the fact (which I agree to) that I don't know what I'm talking about, when I talk about this, does not mean that those who have studied it, or even lead the pack in the relevant fields, know what they are talking about either. They are better at saying that this, that or the other doesn't make sense, because ..... than to show they truly understand the whole matter. They don't. They can rightly say, "the math and logic shows 'this'". But they can't say, "THAT is what 'this' means". They can say, "'this' seems to imply..." but not "this means".

Anyhow --I see no reason there can't be a POV different from ours, as to the passage of time, or even an economy where time is irrelevant.

I'd be willing to bet you could not explain to me why the speed of light is in relation to "space time" and not in relation to some static point in space, or a moving point. I wouldn't be surprised to find you could do the math, but you yourself can only hold the logic of it loosely. (I admit I could be wrong). One guy I talked to who was very good, ended up telling me that those who think they understand it do not.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned to remove off topic posts.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[driewerf]

13.8 billion years ago is how it appears from our current POV.

13.8 billion years is a conclusion based on empirical data.

 

[SelfSim]

Relative to the human mind which conceives it.

Spacetime is not a static point in space, from which nothing can travel away nor toward at above the speed of light.

Not a relevant response to what I wrote above.

If you wish to debate whether God is Omniscient or not, we can do that. But to debate something else, and bring in non-omniscience vs omniscience is moving the goalposts. We need to stick to one or the other.

Re: underlined part: No .. You need that .. I don't need any such thing .. all I need is a scientifically thinking mind.

I am unwilling to work with a definition of God that includes any lack of knowledge, unless to prove its illogic with other necessary implications of God, i.e. First Cause.
...
I'm talking about Omnipotence --i.e. First Cause, With Intent.

I am working with how we know the age of the universe.

You however, are intent on ruling out people who don't accept the definitions your argument is solely dependent upon.

Haha no! He doesn't see it the way we do. No doubt he could, if he wanted to, but no need.

Again .. only because you say so.

Relativity (GR and SR) are concepts. They were developed by normal, scientifically thinking, human minds (Einstein etal) - go look it up!

You are assuming GR, SR and Spacetime, as being some kind of universal 'truths', or 'intentions' established by your 'first cause' .. awaiting humans to somehow uncover, as though they were some kind of things floating around in space or something. That is one huge objectively unevidenced assumption you need others to accept as being true .. (under threats of exclusionism, I might add).
I don't need any of that to explain how science establishes the age of the universe.

("Mysteriously" you say: I don't know why it should need that adverb. To my mind, God as First Cause has the default POV. Everything else should figure as the mysterious --how is it possible that there be any other POV but his? --but there is, and so we have what we are. You sound like the sort who would rate Miracle and Paranormal as NON-natural. Funny how what once was considered Paranormal no long is. Why not just say, "Unusual"? After all, If God spoke the universe into existence it is all miracle, and all natural. Or why not differentiate along the lines of 'material' vs 'of the spirit realm').

I am not a 'sort' .. and I take that comment as leading into an Ad-Hom attack, which uses already evident 'anti-' or 'pseudo-scientific' beliefs, as the basis of that prejudicial version of exclusionism.

There is no objective test which would lead to data which would allow science to build useful distinctions around your concepts of 'material' and 'spirit realm'. Both are of no use in how we go about establishing the age of the universe.

Where do you get all this? I don't follow any of it --why would he need to wait to invent special relativity until Einstein came along?

Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are objectively testable concepts Einstein and his peers developed by way of thought experiments, physical principles, math, inspirations and other scientific ideas of the time.

The extent of your understanding however, is a mere untestable assumption that they are 'things' floating around in space (put there by 'God' or something).. awaiting our discovery, (or something like that).

Until you wrap your mind around that as being an untestable assumption, you should refrain from then assuming you are speaking from a knowledge of science works, or how we determine what's real and what isn't in science, (eg: such as the age of the universe).

Or do you still stick to the silly 'god' who is subject to causes and principles that magically 'just exist' on their own, from outside himself? That is not God.

What you mean by 'causes' and 'principles', is as much about how you conceptualise the meanings of these terms, as it is for any of the other terms you use.
Yet you claim that these terms as being intrinsically assumed to exist, as some kind of universal 'truths' .. which is an irrelevant concept in science, whenever science goes about establishing the age of the universe.

I don't really care how many think whatever they think. What is always ironic to me is how often on closer examination they differ from one another on the implications of the collection of words they thought represented commonly held concepts. To me, there can be only one God --Omnipotent, First Cause --With Intent. Any other will not do. And that definition, (actually, redundant "omnipotent" logically implies First Cause, and that follows logically into With Intent. Anyhow, like I said before, I am not willing to argue the nature of reality as relates to what God does, without that definition of God. Again, if you want to debate that definition of God, have at it, but that is not this argument.

No I don't care for debating your definition of 'God'. It is completely irrelevant when it comes to establishing the age of the universe.

You notice, I said "IF we consider..." No, I take that back. I said "Supposing the BB was first cause, then..." That is --not a claim that the Big Bang is anything, nor that anyone thinks it is anything. I did not say it is first cause, nor that anyone else thought it was first cause. My point was simply that the specificity with which all things come to pass is precisely specifically caused by First Cause. There is no such thing as 'chance' causing something. There is no truly 'random' anything.

This is one of the most blatant, classic examples, of a circular argument I've ever heard of, and can be disposed of on that basis alone, without further comment being needed.
Completely pointless, really ..

 

[SelfSim]

To be honest, I don't see why the speed of light can't be surpassed. In spite of all the definitions and explanations I have been given (and no, they are not all the same), it still doesn't add up.

'Add up' by what method? That's all that matters really .. (and not so much your conclusion).

You are not alone because GR doesn't rule spacetime (for eg) bending, expanding (or warping) at any speed. GR and SR do not rule out faster than light motion. You can have objects in these theories that can move faster than light, with no causality paradoxes.

The problem recognised by theoretical physicists is that you can’t accelerate objects from below, to above the speed of light, with finite energy/momentum. In GR, multiple spacetimes are created by specifying stress/energy and mass distributions which may, or may not, be possible in practice.

And the fact (which I agree to) that I don't know what I'm talking about, when I talk about this, does not mean that those who have studied it, or even lead the pack in the relevant fields, know what they are talking about either.

What they are 'talking about' though, is (usually) internally consisent within the context of theoretical physics.

They are better at saying that this, that or the other doesn't make sense, because ..... than to show they truly understand the whole matter. They don't. They can rightly say, "the math and logic shows 'this'". But they can't say, "THAT is what 'this' means". They can say, "'this' seems to imply..." but not "this means".

They do (usually) understand the contexts from which they are speaking. That they might say 'is consistent with', is a demonstration of intellectual honesty.

All of science's conclusions are inferences based on objective testing .. either theoretically, or empirically, measured. Just because this may not satisfy you, is not science's concern, especially when the age of the universe is well supported in objective reality.

Anyhow --I see no reason there can't be a POV different from ours, as to the passage of time, or even an economy where time is irrelevant.

The passing of time is relative, but the respective observers forming perceptions and describing them, using language, (English, Math, etc), still requires a human mind.
Humans are obviously not omniscient nor omnipotent, which also doesn't necessarily mean that such concepts exist independently from our imaginings, or beliefs, that they do, (or that they 'may' be possible).

I'd be willing to bet you could not explain to me why the speed of light is in relation to "space time" and not in relation to some static point in space, or a moving point.

Re - my underlines:
The speed of anything, by necessity, implies a passing of time. The two are related by the empirically derived relationship: (speed=distance/time). The spacetime model encodes the passing of time as a co-ordinate axis in that model.

I wouldn't be surprised to find you could do the math, but you yourself can only hold the logic of it loosely. (I admit I could be wrong). One guy I talked to who was very good, ended up telling me that those who think they understand it do not.

So what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Mmmm... If you plot the ages of the patriarchs it comes out pretty much as a growth curve...

So maybe time is a living thing that has changed it's rate as it grows...

Who knows ???

That would stymie our attempt to measure it somewhat.

We are such linear thinkers and expect all aspects of reality to conform.

We measure time locally in terms of events that occur regularly. It makes no more sense to suggest time has changed its rate over time than it does to suggest that distances change length with distance.

Even if you could decide on some preferred rate of time (relative to what?), and somehow established that time passed faster or more slowly in the past than today, it would make no historical difference - it would affect all systems equally; a year might be longer or shorter by your preferred temporal standard, but individuals of the time would still age a year in that time.

IOW the supposed ages of the patriarchs would be unaffected by variations in the rate of the passing of time (if that had any sensible meaning).