The Age of the Universe

[HitchSlap]

Hmm. Doubtful. To my knowledge love and forgiveness do not create gravitation lensing.

Your description of god sounds more like a deistic view of god, not Christian.

 

[Michael]

Huh?

You asked me if this would be necessary.

Let's try answering your question this way:

Unless you or I went out of our way to introduce ourselves to the germs that live inside of in our body, they wouldn't have any way to figure out if they were living inside of a living host without using the 'scientific method' to figure it out. Unless the living host goes out of his way to make it's presence and awareness obvious to the germs, yes, it very well could be necessary to employ the scientific method to find evidence of the living host.

In short, if God really is the entire visible universe (and more), then ya, it very well may be necessary for *some individuals* to demonstrate it empirically. Other individuals might not require such a "demonstration" of course.

 

[Michael]

Your description of god sounds more like a deistic view of god, not Christian.

In my experience, God has a very *personal* effect on human lives, and he's interactive. Deism implies non interaction with humans which really doesn't explain anything written about "God" by humans since the dawn of recorded civilization. They all talked about God personally interacting with them and with their lives, if only via prayer and meditation.

 

[HitchSlap]

In my experience, God has a very *personal* effect on human lives, and he's interactive. Deism implies non interaction with humans which really doesn't explain anything written about "God" by humans since the dawn of recorded civilization. They all talked about God personally interacting with them and with their lives, if only via prayer and meditation.

So this interaction takes place within the confines of the mind?

 

[Michael]

So this interaction takes place within the confines of the mind?

The "person to person" contact, sure. In terms of physics however, it's technically happening *everywhere*. Even the sunlight on your face is an interaction that takes place between you and God IMO.

 

[Davian]

There's no false dichotomy. Pretty much *any and every* finite "age" that you might wish to put upon this universe will require *blind faith* in some supernatural agent. What passes for "science" requires *four* of them!

I am always amazed to see a religionist use terms "blind faith" and "supernatural agent" in the pejorative.

 

[Michael]

Do it then. Change Doveaman's mind about the age of the universe. Pick whatever age you want that is different that what he currently believes. You have one post to do it in.

I didn't claim that I could change anyone's mind in one post, I said I could explain the nature of the various *assumptions* that one has to make in order to arrive at any particular magic number for the age of the universe.

I have no idea how old the universe might be. It could be eternal for all I know. Why should I worry about trying to convince him or anyone else of any particular number, when I have no idea how old it is myself?

I don't personally think it's logical to try to give the universe an 'age' in the first place.

We can get a pretty good idea of the age of the Earth based on radiometric decay rates, but that's about it IMO.

IMO any finite figure that one might pick out of a hat becomes indefensible sooner or later when you take a close hard look at the evidence.

 

[Davian]

If you actually don't care, why are you taking pot shots at EU/PC theory or any non standard *scientific* theory about the universe?

Why not? One does not need hold a position on something in order to critique another's. I do not hold to a false dichotomy. We could all be wrong.

 

[Davian]

I didn't claim that I could change anyone's mind in one post,
<snip>

That was the subject of that post.

 

[Michael]

I am always amazed to see a religionist use terms "blind faith" and "supernatural agent" in the pejorative.

You don't run into a lot theistic empiricists I presume?

I certainly prefer a "natural' explanation for God over a supernatural one. Faith is fine, and necessary even in science, but it doesn't necessarily have to be "blind".

Right now all "faith' in exotic forms of matter are simply "blind" to the revelations of galaxy mass underestimates that were used in that 2006 lensing study, and blind to the results at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness tests. That's not just "faith" anymore, that's over the line, and well into realm of pure denial.

 

[Davian]

You don't run into a lot theistic empiricists I presume?

No. I suppose that "God" is pretty much a dud in the lab.

I certainly prefer a "natural' explanation for God over a supernatural one. Faith is fine, and necessary even in science, but it doesn't necessarily have to be "blind".
<snip false dichotomy>

Which of your "Gods" did you refer to there? Jesus-as-God, universe-as-God, universe-as-part-of-God, Boltzmann Brain-God, Christian God, or the electricity-in-the-atmosphere-zapping-people-with-lightning God?

 

[Michael]

That was the subject of that post.

You implied in your post to Doveman that more knowledge in astronomy would necessarily resolve the dilemma, but that hasn't been my experience. That was the part I responded to in your post, not the unlikely possibility that you (or I) are likely to instantly change anyone's mind.

 

[Oafman]

That's why God has Michael here

God's omniscience disproven

 

[Michael]

No. I suppose that "God" is pretty much a dud in the lab.

Not as I see it he's not. He is the lab, the light, and even the awareness in the observers too.

Which "God" did you refer to there? Jesus-as-God, universe-as-God, universe-as-part-of-God, Boltzmann Brain-God, Christian God, or the electricity-in-the-atmosphere-zapping-people-with-lightning God?

It's all the same (one) God.

 

[Michael]

God's omniscience disproven

LOL!

 

[HitchSlap]

The "person to person" contact, sure. In terms of physics however, it's technically happening *everywhere*. Even the sunlight on your face is an interaction that takes place between you and God IMO.

This sounds different from the god who helps you find your car keys when you lose them.

 

[Michael]

This sounds different from the god who helps you find your car keys when you lose them.

How so? Does God actually jiggle the keys for some people?

 

[HitchSlap]

How so? Does God actually giggle the keys for some people?

I don't know, you'll have to ask them, or god. Your description of god as sunbeams and flowers sound very new-agey.

 

[Michael]

I don't know, you'll have to ask them, or god. Your description of god as sunbeams and flowers sound very new-agey.

New-agey? Hmmm. Panentheism actually predates the whole European influence here in the US, but suppose it does contain flowers, crystals, sunbeams and stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Ancient_panentheism

Somehow the concept of an eternal universe doesn't sound very 'new age'. It's about as old as it gets in fact.

 

[Michael]

Why not? One does not need hold a position on something in order to critique another's. I do not hold to a false dichotomy. We could all be wrong.

Sure, we could all be wrong, but I'm not the one that is actually making any claims with respect to the age of the universe. Only Lambda-CDM proponents seem to think they can do that.