The Problem of a Different Past

[Quantic]

False. That shows the universe is physical only, as well as the earth. No surprise there.

I'm glad that you agree that the universe, and everything we see, is composed of matter and electro-magnetic radiation.

False, there is nothing you could bring up. You are blowing smoke.

I'm sorry, but supernova 1987A is quite well supported by evidence!

Nonsense.

No. Evidence is found in nature, not in the writings of humans.

What physical evidence do you have ther is no heaven or spiritual? None. Science ONLY covers the natural. The past and the future seem to be more than the natural. You cannot imprison them with the natuaral only laws, unless they too are natural only. That you cannot prove.

Back at you: What evidence do you have for the spiritual? You assert that at some point in the past the spiritual and physical where merged together (correct me if I misrepresent your position) and then something happened which caused the spiritual to go away and only leave the physical.

This change is something that science can test! Your supposed split would leave evidence in the universe that could be gathered and examined. So, where is this evidence?

 

[crimsondeath]

everything in the world and the universe occurs in nature. so there is no supernatural things, like heaven or anything. but that is my opinon. so dont get angry at me. pls. dont beat me up

 

[Morcova]

Sorry if you have some sort of sexual hang up. Don't worry, there may be a good hamburger simulation joint you could park it if you like, and eat twinkies all day.

Where in the bible does it say there's going to be sex in heaven?

 

[dad]

I'm glad that you agree that the universe, and everything we see, is composed of matter and electro-magnetic radiation.

I'm glad you're glad.

I'm sorry, but supernova 1987A is quite well supported by evidence!

Your point? Of course we know about that.

No. Evidence is found in nature, not in the writings of humans.

The evidence is mine o mine, as well as yours.

Back at you: What evidence do you have for the spiritual?

I have spiritual evidence, what else? If you don't know what it is, it would be hard to describe to you.

You assert that at some point in the past the spiritual and physical where merged together (correct me if I misrepresent your position) and then something happened which caused the spiritual to go away and only leave the physical.

God seperated it.

This change is something that science can test!

Only at the present. Someday, if they ever are able to deal with the spiritual, they could do some testing. Meanwhile, they are very much in box.

Your supposed split would leave evidence in the universe that could be gathered and examined. So, where is this evidence?

Our universe is the evidence that was left!

 

[dad]

Where in the bible does it say there's going to be sex in heaven?

If a child sits on the hole of an asp, and is not hurt, that shows that the curse is gone. But we also might ask where the child comes from? Do you think it is a heavenly stork?

 

[dad]

everything in the world and the universe occurs in nature. so there is no supernatural things, like heaven or anything. but that is my opinon. so dont get angry at me. pls. dont beat me up

Everything in the PO is natural. That doesn't mean there is no spiritual.

 

[dad]

It's called morality... so far you've demonstrated lust, greed, pride, and gluttony... are there any sinful behaviors you're not looking forward to in your version of heaven?

Why do I get the sinking feeling you are not kidding? Why is it you lust after cheesecake, and meat, and then I am a luster because I exampled taking a pretty girl to a concert?? Selective, much??
Jesus is getting married, is He lustful??? He ate after rising from the dead as well. You say I am greedy, why is that? Because there are mansions and gold in heaven? That isn't my idea, that is just the fats. And 'pride' is another accusation thrown out there. Falsely, of course.
Maybe you could drop the pontificating, and address the topic.

 

[dad]

If your distinction between "physical" and "supernatural" is correct, it shows that the universe was physical only at least 160,000 years ago (the distance in light years from Earth to the Large Magellanic Cloud, where Supernova 1987A was located). Unless, of course, you are willing to accept that radioactive decay rates and the speed of light have altered by precisely the right amount to mislead us into thinking this, which would be terribly unparsimonious.

No. You are looking at the picture as if it always were the same. The process of the split, apparently first affected some areas. Like the supernovae. So it was physical universe explosion. The information was able to get well on it's way to earth, likely, because the area between there and here was still merged.

 

[RedAndy]

No. You are looking at the picture as if it always were the same. The process of the split, apparently first affected some areas. Like the supernovae. So it was physical universe explosion. The information was able to get well on it's way to earth, likely, because the area between there and here was still merged.

As I said all the way back in the OP, it sounds like you're invoking new, unfalsifiable and very, very unparsimonious ideas to explain away all the evidence pointing towards an old universe. Why should we accept your "different past" and metaphysical hypotheses when our ancient universe model works just fine?

 

[Morcova]

If a child sits on the hole of an asp, and is not hurt, that shows that the curse is gone. But we also might ask where the child comes from? Do you think it is a heavenly stork?

Just for the record, you have dodge providing proof for your belief once. I ask again.

Originally Posted by Morcova
Where in the bible does it say there's going to be sex in heaven?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why do I get the sinking feeling you are not kidding? Why is it you lust after cheesecake, and meat, and then I am a luster because I exampled taking a pretty girl to a concert?? Selective, much??

but you don't want to take a "pretty girl" to a concert... your motives are all too transparent... even if you don't want to admit them.

And what does any of this have to do with cheesecake?

Jesus is getting married, is He lustful???

Does he plan to literally consummate the marrage with each and every one of us, or are you prehaps taking this a might too literally?

He ate after rising from the dead as well.

So what?

You say I am greedy, why is that? Because there are mansions and gold in heaven? That isn't my idea, that is just the fats.

And you're obsessed with that one particular fact... In all your ramblings about heaven, I've never once heard you say anyhing about being in the presence of God... does that not matter?

And 'pride' is another accusation thrown out there. Falsely, of course.

One of us is looking forward to power over the universe.

Maybe you could drop the pontificating, and address the topic.

The topic is your justifying changing the universe to suit your definition of heaven... like you justify changing everything else for your version of heaven. I am addressing that topic... you just don't like what you hear.

 

[dad]

but you don't want to take a "pretty girl" to a concert... your motives are all too transparent... even if you don't want to admit them.

Don't blame me if you have some hang up about men and women.

And what does any of this have to do with cheesecake?

What does it have to do with a concert.

Does he plan to literally consummate the marrage with each and every one of us, or are you prehaps taking this a might too literally?

Who knows exactly how heaven works? I would think that is largely spiritual. But it is called a marriage, so if some of the brides end up in the sac, far be it from me to throw stones.

And you're obsessed with that one particular fact... In all your ramblings about heaven, I've never once heard you say anyhing about being in the presence of God... does that not matter?

It's all good.

One of us is looking forward to power over the universe.

Do you have some hang up about the saints ruling also??

The topic is your justifying changing the universe to suit your definition of heaven... like you justify changing everything else for your version of heaven. I am addressing that topic... you just don't like what you hear.

Your staunch and starched opinion of some sexless heaven, devoid of pleasure of any kind, apparently doesn't turn my crank, no. I am not as concerned about the taste of meat and cheesecake as you either. There is fodd in heaven, that is certain. Nothing will hurt or destroy, so that is certain you won't be eating animals you kill. No opinion needed, I can gaurantee that. Simple basic bible.
There are virgins, and children, and some form of marriage, and pleasures evermore there, yes, you will just have to get over it.

 

[dad]

As I said all the way back in the OP, it sounds like you're invoking new, unfalsifiable and very, very unparsimonious ideas to explain away all the evidence pointing towards an old universe. Why should we accept your "different past" and metaphysical hypotheses when our ancient universe model works just fine?

The question is, why should anyone accept yours, since it is faith based only?? It is not the only faith based model, and it is not science backed. You are welcome to your beliefs, just don't foist them off as science. Your same past is not falsifiable! Or testable, or observed, or anything else but assumed!

 

[The Lady Kate]

What does it have to do with a concert.

You brought up the concert... you tell me.

Who knows exactly how heaven works?

None of us... including you.

I would think that is largely spiritual. But it is called a marriage, so if some of the brides end up in the sac, far be it from me to throw stones.

Far be it indeed... it seems to be the only part you're looking forward to.

It's all good.

So you say, now that God has finally be addressed by you.

Do you have some hang up about the saints ruling also??

You're a saint, now??

Your staunch and starched opinion of some sexless heaven, devoid of pleasure of any kind, apparently doesn't turn my crank, no.

Ah, so you're a hedonist. Fine... just be honest about it.

I am not as concerned about the taste of meat and cheesecake as you either. There is fodd in heaven, that is certain.

Whatever happened to "Who knows exactly how heaven works?"

Nothing will hurt or destroy, so that is certain you won't be eating animals you kill. No opinion needed, I can gaurantee that. Simple basic bible.

But there is sex in heaven, according to you... and that's not in my Bible.

There are virgins, and children, and some form of marriage, and pleasures evermore there, yes, you will just have to get over it.

So... you're in it for the orgy. Which may be fine and dandy in heaven, but it's causing you some less-than saintly thoughts here on Earth, where such things are still considered sinful.

 

[dad]

You brought up the concert... you tell me.

It has to do with fun, and music, and more in a heaven that it sounds like you might not like.

Far be it indeed... it seems to be the only part you're looking forward to.

I do look forward to that. As well as a host of other things. Maybe there will be a section for eunachs you may enjoy.

You're a saint, now??

Sactified by salvation, can't get any better than that.

Ah, so you're a hedonist. Fine... just be honest about it.

No, apparently they are kind of like PO hackers at real pleasures.

Whatever happened to "Who knows exactly how heaven works?"

We know a lot about it.

But there is sex in heaven, according to you... and that's not in my Bible.

So, do storks deliver the kids there? What were the 5 foolish virgins expected to do if they had made it to the wedding, eat twinkies all night?

So... you're in it for the orgy. Which may be fine and dandy in heaven, but it's causing you some less-than saintly thoughts here on Earth, where such things are still considered sinful.

By you, apparently. Sorry about your hang ups.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It has to do with fun, and music, and more in a heaven that it sounds like you might not like.

All the pleasures you've mentioned thus far have been strictly physical.

I do look forward to that. As well as a host of other things. Maybe there will be a section for eunachs you may enjoy.

Again... nothng but physical pleasure for you, I see.

Sactified by salvation, can't get any better than that.

Fair enough.

No, apparently they are kind of like PO hackers at real pleasures.

You seem to have much in common with them.

We know a lot about it.

So your last statement was a contradiction.

So, do storks deliver the kids there? What were the 5 foolish virgins expected to do if they had made it to the wedding, eat twinkies all night?

Kids in heaven? Just like Earth, only better?

By you, apparently. Sorry about your hang ups.

My "hang-up" as you call it is that you think heaven is nothing more than a place where you can do all the things that you'd be afraid to go to hell for here.

Again, your motives are all too clear... and all too self-serving.

 

[dad]

All the pleasures you've mentioned thus far have been strictly physical.

No, eating was done by Jesus after He arose. Besides what is wrong with physical? It will be a part of the new heavens, and heaven. Why else do you think we need our bodies ressurected? If it was all a ghost town, we could just live there forever in a pure spiritual state.

Again... nothng but physical pleasure for you, I see.

I look forward to plenty of pleasures evermore. We also have a lot of work to do, but it will be fun as well.

You seem to have much in common with them.

Doesn't bother me.

Kids in heaven? Just like Earth, only better?

Right, ...so??

My "hang-up" as you call it is that you think heaven is nothing more than a place where you can do all the things that you'd be afraid to go to hell for here.

False. I am not afraid of going to hell, I got saved. You mistake me for someone else. I also see nothing wrong with sex, eating, swimming, music, learning, etc etc.
I even kind of like Christmas.

Again, your motives are all too clear... and all too self-serving.

I am not a religious prude, no. Never intend to be either.

 

[RedAndy]

The question is, why should anyone accept yours, since it is faith based only?? It is not the only faith based model, and it is not science backed. You are welcome to your beliefs, just don't foist them off as science. Your same past is not falsifiable! Or testable, or observed, or anything else but assumed!

The model of an old universe and a "same past" is not "faith-based." It is based on observations and evidence such as radioactive decay in supernovae (see Supernova 1987A), the presence and uniformity of cosmic background radiation, and observed phenomena such as red shift. The only way you can advocate a "different past" is to suggest that these phenomena were all "different" in the past, by precisely the same amount.

Why should people accept the "same past" model? Because it is the most parsimonious explanation we currently have for the observed age of the universe. The burden of proof lies with those who are advocating more complicated hypotheses - such as the different past model.

Principles such as evidence, observation and parsimony contribute to good science (although they are not the only criteria). Thus I feel confident in my labelling of the "same past" hypothesis as "scientific."

 

[Gipper]

The model of an old universe and a "same past" is not "faith-based." It is based on observations and evidence such as radioactive decay in supernovae (see Supernova 1987A), the presence and uniformity of cosmic background radiation, and observed phenomena such as red shift.

But you put your faith in falable hands of human scientists but God is unfalable. So when scientists disagree with God then we know that they are wrong because the Bible is always right.

 

[The Lady Kate]

But you put your faith in falable hands of human scientists but God is unfalable. So when scientists disagree with God then we know that they are wrong because the Bible is always right.

God and the Bible are two different things.