Physics and our place in the Universe

[dad]

I haven't actually bothered to read any of this thread. Sorry.
...

Since you did read the one response, I will make it clear as you head out the door, that although science is fine where it applies, it doesn't apply in the far past or future, or even distant universe probably.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Since you did read the one response, I will make it clear as you head out the door, that although science is fine where it applies, it doesn't apply in the far past or future, or even distant universe probably.

Of course, if you rule to the past and the future, you are also ruling out the present too. The present moment is a very slippery concept to pin down, you see.

 

[dad]

Of course, if you rule to the past and the future, you are also ruling out the present too.

No one is ruling out the present or the past or future. I simply note a difference in the bible, and even history, and the utter inability of science to question this. Let them stick to genetically altering strawberries or something in their pay grade.

The present moment is a very slippery concept to pin down, you see.

Not in the reasonable and sane big picture of the bible. The current state started and ends at a certain time. No mental anguish needed.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No one is ruling out the present or the past or future. I simply note a difference in the bible, and even history, and the utter inability of science to question this. Let them stick to genetically altering strawberries or something in their pay grade.
Not in the reasonable and sane big picture of the bible. The current state started and ends at a certain time. No mental anguish needed.

And what time would that certain time be?

 

[lesliedellow]

No one is ruling out the present or the past or future. I simply note a difference in the bible, and even history, and the utter inability of science to question this. Let them stick to genetically altering strawberries or something in their pay grade.
Not in the reasonable and sane big picture of the bible. The current state started and ends at a certain time. No mental anguish needed.

So 1 microsecond ago wasn't one microsecond ago. It was now.

 

[davidbilby]

No one is ruling out the present or the past or future. I simply note a difference in the bible, and even history, and the utter inability of science to question this. Let them stick to genetically altering strawberries or something in their pay grade..

So, the apparent laws of physics break down at some arbitrary distance and time, simply because your idea of God was incapable of creating a universe that couldn't be completely described in a heavily edited, poorly translated text "written" by some of the less literate people on the planet in the 1st to 4th centuries. Rather like a reverse form of Thomas Aquinas, I can easily conceive of a universe greater than what you claim your God created (an essentially deceitful, tricks-playing universe with the local illusion of natural laws), which makes your God's universe creating skills look feeble, rather at odds with his supposed omnipotence...

The universe science is uncovering is vastly more magnificent than your idea of what's out there, you know. Don't you do your deity a disservice by belittling his work?

 

[dad]

And what time would that certain time be?

If the nature changed shortly after the flood, that would be the better part of 5000 years ago.

 

[dad]

So 1 microsecond ago wasn't one microsecond ago. It was now.

No, it was a micro second ago in this present state. Time transcends this state. There was also time in the former state. If the flood was 4500 years plus ago, and the nature change more that, that would mean some 4400 plus years ago. That is a lot of seconds.

 

[dad]

So, the apparent laws of physics break down at some arbitrary distance and time,

Right. Both in the past and in the future!

simply because your idea of God was incapable of creating a universe that couldn't be completely described in a heavily edited, poorly translated text "written" by some of the less literate people on the planet in the 1st to 4th centuries.

No, but because the past God recorded for us in the time given was what it was.

Rather like a reverse form of Thomas Aquinas, I can easily conceive of a universe greater than what you claim your God created (an essentially deceitful, tricks-playing universe with the local illusion of natural laws), which makes your God's universe creating skills look feeble, rather at odds with his supposed omnipotence...

What you dream doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to what God did and recorded.

The universe science is uncovering is vastly more magnificent than your idea of what's out there, you know.

False. It is a foolish little temporary fishbolw in comparison.

 

[lesliedellow]

So, the apparent laws of physics break down at some arbitrary distance and time, simply because your idea of God was incapable of creating a universe that couldn't be completely described in a heavily edited, poorly translated text "written" by some of the less literate people on the planet in the 1st to 4th centuries. Rather like a reverse form of Thomas Aquinas, I can easily conceive of a universe greater than what you claim your God created (an essentially deceitful, tricks-playing universe with the local illusion of natural laws), which makes your God's universe creating skills look feeble, rather at odds with his supposed omnipotence...

The universe science is uncovering is vastly more magnificent than your idea of what's out there, you know. Don't you do your deity a disservice by belittling his work?

You know about as much regarding the history of the Bible as Justa does astrophysics.

I doubt if even Dad has any clear idea about why he spouts his nonsense, except that he half understands a newspaper article on a scientific subject, tries to relate it to theology, and then proceeds to dig himself into an ever deeper hole.

Even his theology would make a theologian wince.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If the nature changed shortly after the flood, that would be the better part of 5000 years ago.

So this change to all the physical laws 5000 years ago is mentioned in the bible is it?

 

[lesliedellow]

That is a lot of seconds.

That is a lot of nonsense.

 

[dad]

So this change to all the physical laws 5000 years ago is mentioned in the bible is it?

The differences from Adam and Noah's day with today, are pretty stark and clear.

 

[dad]

I doubt if even Dad has any clear idea about why he spouts his nonsense, except that he half understands a newspaper article on a scientific subject, tries to relate it to theology, and then proceeds to dig himself into an ever deeper hole...

The OP used an article, and it was pretty basic stuff. Data from the Cassinni spacecraft about the solar system. Pretending you know great things is of no import unless you deal with the facts and topic, rather than rhetorical beak foaming.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The differences from Adam and Noah's day with today, are pretty stark and clear.

But where in the bible does it mention this dramatic change? You don't think something as dramatic as all the physical laws of the universe being changed 5000 years ago would warrant a pretty lengthy and detailed section all to itself?

 

[lesliedellow]

But where in the bible does it mention this dramatic change? You don't think something as dramatic as all the physical laws of the universe being changed 5000 years ago would warrant a pretty lengthy and detailed section all to itself?

You could try pointing out to Dad that if Newton's Constant changed 5,000 years ago we would either be frying or freezing, but the result would only be a torrent of yet more drivel, so why bother?

 

[dad]

You could try pointing out to Dad that if Newton's Constant changed 5,000 years ago we would either be frying or freezing, but the result would only be a torrent of yet more drivel, so why bother?

Faulty logic. If the constants were only constant as long as this state existed, it would not be these constants that changed!!

Elementary my dear fellow.

 

[dad]

But where in the bible does it mention this dramatic change? You don't think something as dramatic as all the physical laws of the universe being changed 5000 years ago would warrant a pretty lengthy and detailed section all to itself?

It mentions that in the future, the world and universe we know will cease to exist. Clearly. It mentions a world in the past that was different in many specific ways. There is just no way to make all that happened happen in this nature. That is why so many have just tossed out the bible as a fairy tale. Far better is it to toss out the current nature. That fits.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It mentions that in the future, the world and universe we know will cease to exist. Clearly. It mentions a world in the past that was different in many specific ways. There is just no way to make all that happened happen in this nature. That is why so many have just tossed out the bible as a fairy tale. Far better is it to toss out the current nature. That fits.

So you admit that the bible is strangely silent about your bonkers theory about a complete change in all the physical laws 5000 years ago. Got it.

 

[dad]

So you admit that the bible is strangely silent about your bonkers theory about a complete change in all the physical laws 5000 years ago. Got it.

The astounding and manifold differences are recorded, both for the past and the future. How sweet it is!