TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Gravitons are a hypothesis, so it is a possibility.
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.
I'm asking a question.
I believe we can. I don't think any attention has been given to this because most people can't even understand the depth of the question.
Most people just think that once we've discovered the properties of a particular object.. that's it.. the study ends there.. but where did the properties that define the object come from?
I'm just interested in how you come to the line of thought you've arrived at. Maybe if we start at the basics together we can see where our perspectives shift away from each other.
Why is it special pleading to state that God ... doesn't need a cause?I don't have a specific answer for the origin of the universe. My general view is this:
1) My understanding is that classical physics breaks down in sub-Planck length and time.
2) Quantum mechanics is weird. Things like traditional classical causality doesn't necessarily work the way we think of it. Consequently, the very concept of causation of the universe at that level may not apply.
3) Conceptually, I think it's near impossible to truly conceptualize what the origin of the universe would be like once we no longer think in classical terms.
4) I find that these arguments about the origin of the universe often run along the lines of "X needs a cause, therefore God is the cause". But this isn't particularly useful since it merely raises the question "what caused God"? Which typically results in special pleading around the nature of God and leads to a dead-end discussion.
If you have something interesting to add on the origin of the universe, then by all means present it.
Why is it special pleading to state that God ... doesn't need a cause?
Hey TLK,Sounds a little closer to metaphysics than physics.
Understood.. but maybe that's the actual end of the discussion... not a "dead' end .. but an actual end. Stating that something required no form of creation.. appears to be in my view the most logical conclusion.. If you see the universe as "One".. linking everything together then yes.. It would appear that everything has always been here.. but I think our universe shows signs of age.. so that would in my opinion imply that our universe isn't that thing that wasn't subject to creation..You're invoking something to explain something else with an arbitrary exception to the thing you're trying to explain. And if you're going to claim that God doesn't need a cause, then perhaps the universe didn't necessarily need a cause either.
Either way, it's a dead-end discussion at that point.
You have a lot going on here, like why you would capitalize 'One'. That the universe has always been which physics trace back to the Big Bang, an no further. The universe shows signs of age which is irrelevant since the creation of the universe was simply in the beginning.Understood.. but maybe that's the actual end of the discussion... not a "dead' end .. but an actual end. Stating that something required no form of creation.. appears to be in my view the most logical conclusion.. If you see the universe as "One".. linking everything together then yes.. It would appear that everything has always been here.. but I think our universe shows signs of age.. so that would in my opinion imply that our universe isn't that thing that wasn't subject to creation..
Yeah. Who needs the news? I for one would like to get my information from infomercials.
Dont be so surprised. Your eyes do not deceive you my dear
Higgs paper 1964.
1964 no good either?
Ask me 1 of your questions. Then I'll answer and then you tell me if you're satisfied and we can progress from there.
If whales never were terrestrial tetrapods, why do they have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development and develop hind limb buds in utero?
I capitalized "One" because if we see everything together none of it subject to creation then we are a piece of "God" .You have a lot going on here, like why you would capitalize 'One'. That the universe has always been which physics trace back to the Big Bang, an no further. The universe shows signs of age which is irrelevant since the creation of the universe was simply in the beginning.
That's called, 'ex nihilo', creation out of nothing, something only God can do. It might not make sense to you, or me for that matter, because it's something only God can comprehend.I capitalized "One" because if we see everything together none of it subject to creation then we are a piece of "God" .
Yes but in order for the universe to "begin" i would think something outside of it would be required to initiate it. It seems you're implying that we could go from "nothing".. to "everything" .. or simply put.. something from nothing which doesn't logically make sense to me.
.. well.. interesting that you'd ask that.. it leads me to some of my thoughts on directed evolution vs blind evolution..
I agree.. and I'll read up on 'ex nihilo' sounds very interestingThat's called, 'ex nihilo', creation out of nothing, something only God can do. It might not make sense to you, or me for that matter, because it's something only God can comprehend.
Please sir, please sir. I know the answer to this one. Cetaceans are obviously creationists who have deliberately fiddled with their genome just to confuse evolutionists. We should have known. How can you trust a mammal that masquerades as a fish?If whales never were terrestrial tetrapods, why do they have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development and develop hind limb buds in utero?
since the creation model predict it too, then by this criteria this is an evidence for the creation model.
It's waiting for you do come up with a model. 6,000 years ago God created life. 4,000 years ago a global flood kills all reptiles, birds and mammals not on the ark. I think your looking for a molecular mechanism(s) responsible along with some confirmed population genetics statistics.Where's my noble prize?
Apart from God I would not be able to understand the Bible. I do not trust in man to explain the Bible. I trust in God to help me to understand.
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?