The Laws of the Universe

[Tiberius]

In the "If Evolution were true" thread, Dad has been making the claim that the laws of the universe way back a long time ago were different to the laws we see today. That is taking that thread off topic, so I decided to create this thread to discuss whether the laws of the universe have always been the way they are now, or whether they have changed.

I am of the position that the laws have always been as they are now (with the possible exception of the first few seconds). My main reason for this position is that we get meaningful results when we look at ancient evidence for things. if the laws were different back then, would we get any meaningful results?

So, for Dad and anyone else who has the opinion that the laws that govern the universe were different in the ancient past, here are some questions.

1. What evidence is there to support your claim? Please be specific.
2. How do you explain the fact that we get meaningful results without this assumption?
3. If the laws were different back then, in what way were they different?
4. What caused the laws to change from what they were to what they are now?

 

[dad]

In the "If Evolution were true" thread, Dad has been making the claim that the laws of the universe way back a long time ago were different to the laws we see today. That is taking that thread off topic, so I decided to create this thread to discuss whether the laws of the universe have always been the way they are now, or whether they have changed.

I am of the position that the laws have always been as they are now (with the possible exception of the first few seconds). My main reason for this position is that we get meaningful results when we look at ancient evidence for things. if the laws were different back then, would we get any meaningful results?

So, for Dad and anyone else who has the opinion that the laws that govern the universe were different in the ancient past, here are some questions.

1. What evidence is there to support your claim? Please be specific.
2. How do you explain the fact that we get meaningful results without this assumption?
3. If the laws were different back then, in what way were they different?
4. What caused the laws to change from what they were to what they are now?

You won't get many responding, since the idea happens to be kind of my gift to mankind..

The evidence is that the bible (as well as ancient records of Egypt and Sumer) talks of a very different world, impossible in this day. The reason that God changed things on earth, I don't know. He did mention that man had just 120 years till something big came down. I used to assume that was the flood. I now lean toward assuming He meant the split.

 

[Jazer]

I am of the position that the laws have always been as they are now (with the possible exception of the first few seconds). My main reason for this position is that we get meaningful results when we look at ancient evidence for things. if the laws were different back then, would we get any meaningful results.

It is a question of how accurate they are. Newton's law was accurate enough to do what he needed to do. But Einstien needed a law that was more accurate to get the job done. So how do you know what the laws are, when we can only deal with our understanding of them. Often the complexity is beyond our ability to be able to come up with accurate results. Mark Buchanan wrote a book on this.

 

[dad]

It is a question of how accurate they are. Newton's law was accurate enough to do what he needed to do. But Einstien needed a law that was more accurate to get the job done. So how do you know what the laws are, when we can only deal with our understanding of them. Often the complexity is beyond our ability to be able to come up with accurate results. Mark Buchanan wrote a book on this.

Sounds good. Almost like admitting you don't know. That is a sign of actual knowledge in some areas.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a question of how accurate they are. Newton's law was accurate enough to do what he needed to do. But Einstien needed a law that was more accurate to get the job done. So how do you know what the laws are, when we can only deal with our understanding of them. Often the complexity is beyond our ability to be able to come up with accurate results. Mark Buchanan wrote a book on this.

There is a difference between our attempt to describe them and the laws themselves. Sure, newton's idea of gravity is almost there and will suffice for most purposes, and yes, Einstein's explanation is much more accurate, but the underlying principles themselves never changed. Only the mathematical way by which we express them changed.

 

[Jazer]

Sounds good. Almost like admitting you don't know. That is a sign of actual knowledge in some areas.

I wish we did know. Japan knew the big one was coming and tried their best to be prepared. But there were to many things they did not know.

 

[dad]

I wish we did know. Japan knew the big one was coming and tried their best to be prepared. But there were to many things they did not know.

True.

 

[Tiberius]

Anyway, Dad, feel like answering the questions in the OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, for Dad and anyone else who has the opinion that the laws that govern the universe were different in the ancient past, here are some questions.

1. What evidence is there to support your claim? Please be specific.
2. How do you explain the fact that we get meaningful results without this assumption?
3. If the laws were different back then, in what way were they different?
4. What caused the laws to change from what they were to what they are now?

1. There is no evidence in existence that I know of that supports this truth. What evidence there was, was relegated to the distant past and buried under current paradigms; but God preserved its effects in Writing.

2. Because science is myopic and can only see so far back. Under the original paradigms, people didn't die; but under the current ones, they do. Thus, you are looking for a paradigm, not evidence. If I said the weather patterns were different back then -- (which they were) -- you would have to look for evidence of weather patterns, and if that evidence was destroyed by a cataclysmic event, then you would have to take my word for it.

3. There was no death; people lived in a glorified state; the universe was kept from experiencing entropy by a supply of energy that I like to call Shekinah energy; man and animals were co-operative with one another; the earth was one giant supercontinent; and the gene pool was in its purest form.

4. The Fall. God withdrew supplying the universe with this Shekinah energy, and the universe started running down.

 

[AV1611VET]

You won't get many responding, since the idea happens to be kind of my gift to mankind..

Ahem ... any child in Sunday school, when they first learn that man wasn't supposed to die, and that God and Adam & Eve interacted directly with each other, starts to learn that things were different back then.

Anyone who reads Genesis 1-3, then reads a science book, should be able to ascertain that things were quite different back then; and if he reads Genesis 1-10, then reads a science book, he should know things were quite different back then.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sounds good. Almost like admitting you don't know. That is a sign of actual knowledge in some areas.

Not in yours.

 

[chilehed]

"the universe was kept from experiencing entropy by a supply of energy that I like to call Shekinah energy"...

HAAA HAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!

no, really, please... uh...hahahaha HAHAHAHHHAAAHAHAHAA!



kept from experiencing entropy??...*shakes head*....

 

[Jazer]

Anyone who reads Genesis 1-3, then reads a science book, should be able to ascertain that things were quite different back then; and if he reads Genesis 1-10, then reads a science book, he should know things were quite different back then.

Before Noah's flood we are told that Adam lived to be around 1000 years. After the flood we are told that people would not live longer then 120 years. Is this something we would consider to be a change in the law?

 

[Tiberius]

1. There is no evidence in existence that I know of that supports this truth. What evidence there was, was relegated to the distant past and buried under current paradigms; but God preserved its effects in Writing.

2. Because science is myopic and can only see so far back. Under the original paradigms, people didn't die; but under the current ones, they do. Thus, you are looking for a paradigm, not evidence. If I said the weather patterns were different back then -- (which they were) -- you would have to look for evidence of weather patterns, and if that evidence was destroyed by a cataclysmic event, then you would have to take my word for it.

3. There was no death; people lived in a glorified state; the universe was kept from experiencing entropy by a supply of energy that I like to call Shekinah energy; man and animals were co-operative with one another; the earth was one giant supercontinent; and the gene pool was in its purest form.

4. The Fall. God withdrew supplying the universe with this Shekinah energy, and the universe started running down.

So then you are saying that if we base our ideas about the real world on what we learn when actually studying the real world, we come to the conclusion that the world is ancient.

So, apart from your say-so, can you give us any reason why we should accept your point of view?

 

[jonmichael818]

In the "If Evolution were true" thread, Dad has been making the claim that the laws of the universe way back a long time ago were different to the laws we see today. That is taking that thread off topic, so I decided to create this thread to discuss whether the laws of the universe have always been the way they are now, or whether they have changed.

I am of the position that the laws have always been as they are now (with the possible exception of the first few seconds). My main reason for this position is that we get meaningful results when we look at ancient evidence for things. if the laws were different back then, would we get any meaningful results?

Sounds a bit like David Hume's Problem of Induction.

presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold)...-Wikipedia/Problem of Induction

I personally think that the laws of physics where always the same and will always be the same. Our understanding of those laws, however, have changed and will continue to change. There is no evidence that I know of that suggests otherwise. Some may think that is begging the question, however, to the best of our current understanding it is the best answer we have.

 

[dad]

1. There is no evidence in existence that I know of that supports this truth. What evidence there was, was relegated to the distant past and buried under current paradigms; but God preserved its effects in Writing.

2. Because science is myopic and can only see so far back. Under the original paradigms, people didn't die; but under the current ones, they do. Thus, you are looking for a paradigm, not evidence. If I said the weather patterns were different back then -- (which they were) -- you would have to look for evidence of weather patterns, and if that evidence was destroyed by a cataclysmic event, then you would have to take my word for it.

3. There was no death; people lived in a glorified state; the universe was kept from experiencing entropy by a supply of energy that I like to call Shekinah energy; man and animals were co-operative with one another; the earth was one giant supercontinent; and the gene pool was in its purest form.

4. The Fall. God withdrew supplying the universe with this Shekinah energy, and the universe started running down.

Thanks. I wish there were more of you so I could retire..

 

[dad]

Ahem ... any child in Sunday school, when they first learn that man wasn't supposed to die, and that God and Adam & Eve interacted directly with each other, starts to learn that things were different back then.

Anyone who reads Genesis 1-3, then reads a science book, should be able to ascertain that things were quite different back then; and if he reads Genesis 1-10, then reads a science book, he should know things were quite different back then.

Sounds good.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before Noah's flood we are told that Adam lived to be around 1000 years. After the flood we are told that people would not live longer then 120 years. Is this something we would consider to be a change in the law?

It is a reflection of the change in the laws.

As flesh gets more and more corrupt, one of the things that takes a hit is longevity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks. I wish there were more of you so I could retire..

-- thank you, bro! Likewise! To God be the glory!

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is a reflection of the change in the laws.

As flesh gets more and more corrupt, one of the things that takes a hit is longevity.

Very creative -- you want to file that with all the other things you've made up whcih reality contradicts?