The Problem of a Different Past

[Gipper]

God and the Bible are two different things.

Only technically. God is not the Bible but the Bible is the word of God. Therfore the Bible is just as acceptable as God.

 

[WilliamduBois]

Only technically. God is not the Bible but the Bible is the word of God. Therfore the Bible is just as acceptable as God.

And how do you know that the Bible really is the word of God, and not the word of someone trying to trick you?

 

[Gipper]

And how do you know that the Bible really is the word of God, and not the word of someone trying to trick you?

That's a nice try. Because we know through evidence that the events of the Bible are true. We know that Jesus existed was crucified and resurrected. The Bible is corroborated by evidence. What evidence do you have that your fancy carbon dating actually works and it isn't just a demon trying to trick you?

 

[Opcode42]

That's a nice try. Because we know through evidence that the events of the Bible are true. We know that Jesus existed was crucified and resurrected. The Bible is corroborated by evidence. What evidence do you have that your fancy carbon dating actually works and it isn't just a demon trying to trick you?

Woah, lets back up a a step. We know by evidence that Jesus actualy existed?

What evidence? The Bible? Sorry, the Gospels were written many decades after Jesus supposedly existed. By Paul's testimony? By his own admission he never met Jesus personally, and in actual fact seems to have believed the Jesus stories did not take place on earth but in Heaven.

We're gonna need to see this evidence before you can go any further with that line of argument.

 

[RedAndy]

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.

I assume you mean "fallible" and "infallible."

Human scientists are fallible, and this is why they command more respect. They consider the evidence, come up with theories to fit the evidence, and when new evidence turns up that doesn't fit their theory, they find a better theory. That is how science works, in a nutshell.

"God" or the Bible or whatever, on the other hand, are not infallible. The difference is that their mistakes are not corrected, and are instead passed down through generations. This doesn't make it "always right," it just makes it more stubborn and less useful.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's a nice try. Because we know through evidence that the events of the Bible are true. We know that Jesus existed was crucified and resurrected. The Bible is corroborated by evidence.

There is no evidence of the resurrection outside the Bible.

What evidence do you have that your fancy carbon dating actually works and it isn't just a demon trying to trick you?

We have discussed the evidence supporting 14C dating at great length on the Lake Suigetsu thread but it has nothing to do with the resurrection. Along with your assumption that the Bible is "unfalable" you are also assuming that your interpretation is the correct and "unfalable" one and not the interpretation of any of the various types of Old Earth Creationists or the Theistic Evolutionists. It is interesting that a supposedly "unfalable" text is so open to different interpretations. You might think that an all powerful being who was having his book "unfalably" produced by inspiration would have made its "unfalable" meaning a bit more clear.

 

[Morcova]

God and the Bible are two different things.

Not to some people. We've got a poster here who acts like the King James version of the bible IS his god.

 

[dad]

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.

I know, but what we actually observe and what you assume are different. I observe decay now, I don't assume a same state past of decay, and you don't observe it either! Etc etc.

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.

What do you mean? Take an example. Say, a rock decaying. I do not say that it decayed the same amount at all in the past. So, what are you saying?

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.

You do not observe the age of the universe, it is assumed based on assuming the past and future are the same as now. That is assumption, a far cry from observing anything.

The burden of proof lies with those who are advocating more complicated hypotheses - such as the different past model.

The different past is far simpler. Also, you have a science claim, so it has to be backed up. Let's see you back up a same past. Name anything.

Principles such as evidence, observation and parsimony contribute to good science (although they are not the only criteria).

True, so? You have none of those for a same past.

Thus I feel confident in my labelling of the "same past" hypothesis as "scientific."

Prove it.

 

[dad]

I assume you mean "fallible" and "infallible."

Human scientists are fallible, and this is why they command more respect. They consider the evidence, come up with theories to fit the evidence, and when new evidence turns up that doesn't fit their theory, they find a better theory. That is how science works, in a nutshell.

"God" or the Bible or whatever, on the other hand, are not infallible. The difference is that their mistakes are not corrected, and are instead passed down through generations. This doesn't make it "always right," it just makes it more stubborn and less useful.

The only mistake was passed down to you, thinking that God made mistakes.

 

[WilliamduBois]

That's a nice try.

Thank you.

Because we know through evidence that the events of the Bible are true.

We know that some things in the Bible are based on real events, yes. That does not mean we have to accept everything at face value.

Even Tom Clancy's novels have real places, but it doesn't mean that there was a kamikaze of a JAL airliner in Washington DC.

We know that Jesus existed was crucified and resurrected.

Really? How do we know this?

The Bible is corroborated by evidence.

Some things are, others aren't.

What evidence do you have that your fancy carbon dating actually works and it isn't just a demon trying to trick you?

See FB's post.

 

[RedAndy]

I know, but what we actually observe and what you assume are different. I observe decay now, I don't assume a same state past of decay, and you don't observe it either! Etc etc.

No, but we have good reasons for this assumption, as I have suggested and will repeat.

What do you mean? Take an example. Say, a rock decaying. I do not say that it decayed the same amount at all in the past. So, what are you saying?

What do you mean, a rock "decaying?" If you're talking about weathering or erosion, that is down to the environment at the time, which means it will not have eroded or weathered at the same rate throughout the past. Weathering or erosion are not caused by constant physical processes and it is ridiculous to draw an analogy between an eroding rock and decaying radioactive elements.

Radiometric decay, however, is governed by the constants of physics. By measuring the wavelengths of gamma rays emitted by Supernova 1987A, we can conclude that over the 160,000 years it has taken for those rays to reach us, radiometric decay rates have been constant. This is not an assumption, it is an observation!

You do not observe the age of the universe, it is assumed based on assuming the past and future are the same as now. That is assumption, a far cry from observing anything.

An assumption that appears to be validated by observations such as Supernova 1987A.

The different past is far simpler. Also, you have a science claim, so it has to be backed up. Let's see you back up a same past. Name anything.

Name anything? How about Supernova 1987A, as I explained above?

I disagree that the different past is simpler than the same past. In fact, I fail to see how it can be so. Can you clear that up for me?

Prove it.

Explain how Supernova 1987A is observed in the way it is - without appealing to God or striking coincidences - and I may have some more work to do. Until then, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

[dad]

No, but we have good reasons for this assumption, as I have suggested and will repeat.

Belief based.

What do you mean, a rock "decaying?" If you're talking about weathering or erosion, that is down to the environment at the time, which means it will not have eroded or weathered at the same rate throughout the past.

No, I meant like a chunk of uranium, in radioactive decay.

Radiometric decay, however, is governed by the constants of physics.

Of course it is at present, I think any school kid would know that. So? The trick is to show us that the same rules applied in the far past.

By measuring the wavelengths of gamma rays emitted by Supernova 1987A, we can conclude that over the 160,000 years it has taken for those rays to reach us,

No, nothing at all like that. It simply is far away, and the present light woulda coulda shoula might if it had time, etc take that long to get here.

radiometric decay rates have been constant. This is not an assumption, it is an observation!

No, the universe is PO even far away, that is an observation. No time in there, sorry, that is in your head.

An assumption that appears to be validated by observations such as Supernova 1987A.

No, being far away or close by, and in decay, and otherwise subject to PO laws is no surprise whatsoever.

Name anything? How about Supernova 1987A, as I explained above?

Nothing about it says the universe was in the same state, that is assumed. Yes, it is far away, and decaying, that means nothing.

I disagree that the different past is simpler than the same past. In fact, I fail to see how it can be so. Can you clear that up for me?

Original creation, then a temporary change into this PO state, then a restoration of the universe one day again as it was meant to be. That we could explain to a child im moments. Your convoluted, belief based ideas take many years to learn, and even then, many seem to have somewhat less than a good understanding! 'Oh, the universe was in a teensy hot soup, one day it will fall back into a little soup, and expand again. Whoops, we changed our mind, cabcel that one, it will keep expanding. blah blah'

Explain how Supernova 1987A is observed in the way it is - without appealing to God or striking coincidences - and I may have some more work to do. Until then, the burden of proof lies with you.

The split process, or seperation process, apparently started in some areas, and the information was carried here, on the still different fast light, or a good part of the way, before the light between here and there also was PO. That way, we get the info just as we do.
Basically, a different universe covers anything you could dream of, one way or the other, face it. It means we cannot hold the future or far past to present state laws. Period.

 

[Contracelsus]

That we could explain to a child im moments. Your convoluted, belief based ideas take many years to learn,

Gotta agree with Dad here! If you can teach it to a child it is a pretty fair approximation of truth. If you have to take time to learn it, well, we all know how much the devil likes details. Learning sux!

That's why I get all my science here!

The split process, or seperation process, apparently started in some areas, and the information was carried here, on the still different fast light, or a good part of the way, before the light between here and there also was PO. That way, we get the info just as we do.
Basically, a different universe covers anything you could dream of, one way or the other, face it. It means we cannot hold the future or far past to present state laws. Period.

INDEED! Bravo! That's it! Only 165 years ago the earth was created. At 158 years ago there was a spiritual-physical split. Prior to 158 years ago (1848 according to our OP calendar systems) everything moved at or near the speed of light, including the entire universe, which caused time-dilation in our universe frame. This allowed for super-hyper-ultra fast processes, like trees growing in a day or radioactive decay at alarmingly fast rates. Of course pre-split the massive dosage of radiation generated and absorbed by all living bodies was not a problem since the bodies healed so very fast!

I think Dad and I are well on track here. You are unable to disprove our hypothesis. (Dad might say far-out numbers like 6000 years ago, but he can't support that, but surely 165 years ago is something we can all agree on when we look at the data in an unbiased manner and with knowledge and truth on our side).

Selah!

 

[dad]

Gotta agree with Dad here! If you can teach it to a child it is a pretty fair approximation of truth. If you have to take time to learn it, well, we all know how much the devil likes details. Learning sux!

That's why I get all my science here!

Same past guessing the past isn't science. The fact remains that the different past and future are much simpler. Much much. Very much.

INDEED! Bravo! That's it! Only 165 years ago the earth was created. At 158 years ago there was a spiritual-physical split. Prior to 158 years ago (1848 according to our OP calendar systems) everything moved at or near the speed of light, including the entire universe, which caused time-dilation in our universe frame. This allowed for super-hyper-ultra fast processes, like trees growing in a day or radioactive decay at alarmingly fast rates. Of course pre-split the massive dosage of radiation generated and absorbed by all living bodies was not a problem since the bodies healed so very fast!

There was no radiation then.

I think Dad and I are well on track here. You are unable to disprove our hypothesis. (Dad might say far-out numbers like 6000 years ago, but he can't support that,

4400 years, and the bible supports it at 100 years after the flood. The earth was divided, or split in the days of Peleg, the same time as Babel. What support do you have?

but surely 165 years ago is something we can all agree on when we look at the data in an unbiased manner and with knowledge and truth on our side).

Selah!

Trying to sillify the different past doesn't work. We know the state of the pastfor many many centuries. We know lifespans, and growth rates, and light, and etc etc. You can't wish all these things, including history away.

 

[WilliamduBois]

Dad, he has the same support you have. None at all. Nothing indicates a different past, except for you trying to desperately squeeze your holy book into reality.

So, unless you can provide some real evidence that the past was different from the now, it's only logical to assume it was the same.

Or actually, that is supported by observations, as RedAndy has said.


I've asked myself many times now how much you really believe yourself. And if you really think you're convincing anyone... Do you?

 

[dad]

Dad, he has the same support you have. None at all. Nothing indicates a different past, except for you trying to desperately squeeze your holy book into reality.

No, he doesn't. I don't go against actual history, or evidence. There is evidence, no doubt that the stars were the same 200 years ago, and gravity, and decay, etc. He is busted.

So, unless you can provide some real evidence that the past was different from the now, it's only logical to assume it was the same.

Assume what you want, remember it is just that, and assumpption, and the reason you have to resort to assumptions is that you have no support.

Or actually, that is supported by observations, as RedAndy has said.

We don't observe the past or future, and thinking you do is assumption based in the extreme.

I've asked myself many times now how much you really believe yourself. And if you really think you're convincing anyone... Do you?

Long as it is realized that no science supports your same past claim, you are welcome to believe the fairy tales all you like.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, unless you can provide some real evidence that the past was different from the now, it's only logical to assume it was the same.

Me and dad had very lengthy debate about this, the crux of my argument being:
'Logically, we assume no change unless otherwise implied. Thus, we assume immutable physical laws.'

To summerise dad's responses:
'But, there's no reason not to assume a different past!'
'PO logic! Not my ad hoc logic!'
'I forgot what you/I just said, so I'll ignore it and complain about the post lengths!'
'*Non sequitur*'
'*Gross/deliberate misunderstanding*'
'*Repetition of just-rebutted point*'

And yes dad, I will be happy to post examples.

 

[dad]

Me and dad had very lengthy debate about this, the crux of my argument being:
'Logically, we assume no change unless otherwise implied. Thus, we assume immutable physical laws.'

To summerise dad's responses:
'But, there's no reason not to assume a different past!'

We await your good reason, that rules out other beliefs. Funny you can't seem to find it. Maybe it was strapped to a broom someone flew off with?
Try to remember this much, you have no proof for a same past. None, not the smallest speck.
The rest doesn't matter.

 

[RedAndy]

There is evidence, no doubt that the stars were the same 200 years ago, and gravity, and decay, etc. He is busted.

By the same token, the evidence that radioactive decay and the speed of light were the same 160,000 years ago means you are equally "busted."

Assume what you want, remember it is just that, and assumption, and the reason you have to resort to assumptions is that you have no support.

There is infinitely more support for a same state past than for a different past. If the same state past is an assumption, so is a different past.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We await your good reason, that rules out other beliefs.

You ignore the very thing you quote.
We assume a same past unless otherwise implied. It is the default position.
I could also accuse you of the same thing: you offer no reason why we should even consider your beliefs.

So you should assume your personal beliefs,

The assumptions I make here are made by every other sentient organism in, on, and above the Earth. They are in no way 'personal', and are in no way 'beliefs'.

Maybe it was strapped to a broom someone flew off with?

Ah, the rather weak ad hominem against my faith. I'd counter, but the mods are obscenely biased against such things.

Try to remember this much, you have no proof for a same past. None, not the smallest speck.

I never claimed I did. I have always maintained that it is the most logical and, more importantly, the most probable assumption to make. Prove me wrong.

The rest doesn't matter.

Absurd. Utterly, utterly, absurd.