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.
It has proven that a system cannot be proven from within that system, you must get information from outside that system to prove it. So it is with Nature. You cannot explain nature just from within nature, you must go outside it to the "super" nature.
At times people ponder a reason for believing in the one and only God (consider Isa. 45:5-6). Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are; and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit. Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say ---though they will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.
A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.
B. If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.
C. One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.
D. God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).
E. Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.
See above.I have heard about scientific speculation regarding a second arrow of time, and to my knowledge it did not refer to what you write above. Do you have a source to back this up? Because otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you are just making that up.
eudaimonia,
Mark
See my previous post.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The evidence points to two possibilities, He either created it from nothing or He created it from nothing detectable by humans, ie neither matter or energy.
eud: What evidence? But thank you for saying that you don't actually know which of those alternatives is correct.
eud: The problem, though, is that this clouds your argument regarding causality.
ed: The law of Causality is a metaphysical law, so it is not tied to just physical entities. Non-physical entities like ideas can cause things.
eud: Ideas have to do with the functioning of the brain. The reason that "ideas" can cause anything is because material brains can cause things.
eud: Regardless, the law of causality could not fail to apply to a physical universe. It is not something imposed on physical reality, but something that must be true of any physical reality.
ed: Well the same thing occurred with atoms. At one time we didn't know that atoms existed or how they behaved. So when we discovered that they existed we assumed that they behaved according to the laws of physics, and it turned out to be correct. So it is more rational to assume something that is metaphysical will operate according to metaphysical laws, ie laws of logic.
eud: Atoms are part of the natural universe. That is why one assumes that they may be understood in the same way as anything natural. That says nothing about anything "metaphysical" (or outside of nature), about which one can't say really say anything. One might surmise that something like that would conform to logic, but it is difficult to say. I'll agree that ideas conform to logic, but ideas are produced by a physical brain, and are (generally) about a physical reality, regarding which logic makes good sense.
ed: Besides the evidence from causality for such a place
eud: Of which there is none. That is just a philosophical or theological speculation.
ed: Godels Incompleteness Theorem also points in that direction.
eud: How? I'd really like to hear how GIT allegedly "points in that direction".
ed: In order to resolve the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics, according to many physicists a second time dimension must exist.
eud: Okay, so how does that relate to this issue, when it is simply about mathematically modelling gravity and quantum mechanics in our universe? IOWs, about a form of time similar to the one that we are familiar with in the macro-world?
Material brains can only cause things if they contain non-physical minds with non-physical ideas.
No, it is metaphysical law. It applies to everything that exists including all of physical reality.
No, at the time that we didn't know atoms existed so we didn't know that they were part of the natural universe.
Yes, a form of time similar to ours that intersects ours.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, our current understanding of physics confirms everything I have been saying including evidence for a second dimension of time from which God can create our universe.
tm: Citation required.
tm: What you say is simply not true.
ed: Not necessarily, time is just the relative positions of objects in space, nothing in that prevents causal events.
tm: no space-time = no time.
ed: But see above about there being another dimension of time
tm: Bare assertion with no evidence.
ed: It can also be understood atemporally, ever hear of the concept of contingency?
tm: Causality is a temporal phenomena. There is no way around that.
ed: Causality is a law of logic
tm: No. It's a phenomena of physics as it applies in space-time.
And even within space-time it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
Like in quantum physics, for example.
ed: therefore it is also a metaphysical law
tm: It's not. It's a physical phenomena where physical causes produce physical effects.
There's not "metaphysical" about that.
No, see above.ed: and does not need anything physical to be valid
tm: Except that it does. Because physical causes produce physical effects.
ed: Non-physical entities can cause things. Such as ideas.
tm: No, they can't.
Concepts don't produce physical effects.
Not according to the majority of cosmologists. The majority agree that space time and matter came into existence at the BB.ed: Yes, you can say that but it would go against the evidence, the BB theory has confirmed that the space time continuum has all the characteristics of an effect, a beginning and it is changing.
tm: The big bang isn't actually a theory of origins. More a theory of development.
tm: But anyway... you know what has a beginning within that model? Space and time.
That is what I am doing in this thread.ed: But God's existence is demonstrable.
tm: Then demonstrate it.
Read "Statistical Entropy of Four Dimensional Extremal Black Holes" by Maldacena and Strominger in Physical Review Letter July 15, 1996. pp 428-429.
See above.
True, but no time does not = no causality. There is nothing in causality that requires having certain objects in certain relative positions in space.
I guess that means no. If something is contingent and all the evidence points to the universe being contingent, then it requires something upon which its existence is based.
Not according to Aristotle, it IS a law of logic and metaphysics and that has never been disproven. Quantum uncertainty only applies at the microlevel, the existence of he universe is plainly at the macrolevel. But even quantum physics only appears to not need causes, we don't really know for certain. It could still be causal but we only understand it at probability levels.
See above about Aristotle. Non-physical entities can cause non-physical effects and physical effects. Such as your mind can produce ideas as well as physical events such as moving your arm. Both of which are non-physical.
No, see above.
Fraid so, ever hear of the laws of physics? They are non-physical but they control the behavior of the material universe.
Not according to the majority of cosmologists. The majority agree that space time and matter came into existence at the BB.
Yes, OUR space and time had a beginning at that point.
That is what I am doing in this thread.
No, Christianity itself is based on evidence and logical reasoning. The bible is just one big piece of the evidence. There is also scientific evidence and philosophical evidence.Actually, no. You might say that there are apologetics and theology that are based on evidence and logical reasoning, or at least strive to be. But Christianity itself is based on claims of divine revelation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
As a non-physicist, I can't explain all the math and physics, but I do understand the conclusion, ie that there is evidence for a second time dimension.IOWs, you don't understand it yourself, you can't explain how it supports your case, and you're telling me to go off on a wild goose chase. No, thank you.
eudaimonia,
Mark
As a non-physicist, I can't explain all the math and physics, but I do understand the conclusion, ie that there is evidence for a second time dimension.
No, Christianity itself is based on evidence and logical reasoning. The bible is just one big piece of the evidence. There is also scientific evidence and philosophical evidence.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
If you run the BB backwards you come to a point of no dimensions, ie nothing.
eud: That's not correct.
Initial singularity - Wikipedia
The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe...
It wasn't thought to be nothing, and the view is somewhat outdated anyway.
ed: It was not part of God, that would be a violation of logic. God cannot violate logic.
eud: I don't see how that is a violation of logic.
ed: You have failed to prove any of those and that the universe is NOT an effect.
eud: The burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying that the universe can't be an effect of something else, but that there is no good reason to think that it must be.
ed: It is possible but not logically possible. If the cause of the universe is internal to the universe that is a violation of the law of non contradiction. That means it would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.
eud: I didn't argue that the universe caused its own existence. I agree that would be contradictory.
ed: He said "It seems as though someone has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." This comes from his book "The Cosmic Blueprint".
eud: Note the words in bold. It's not even an argument.
ed: No, we did not know they even existed, so we could not have known that they were part of the physical universe.
eud: *facepalm*
Are you suggesting that we couldn't know that: if we exist in the physical universe, and we are made of atoms, then we couldn't know that atoms are physical???
Is that seriously what you are arguing? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Not according to many scientists.ed: It has proven that a system cannot be proven from within that system, you must get information from outside that system to prove it. So it is with Nature. You cannot explain nature just from within nature, you must go outside it to the "super" nature.
eud; That is a HUGE misunderstanding and misapplication of GIT. I don't have time ATM so I will get to that later.
No, at time=0 there were no dimensions and no mass or space-time.
Because the cause cannot be part of the effect. This is logic 101.
It is the most rational conclusion.
Well you claimed that the cause of the universe is internal to the universe.
No, you are not paying attention. I was referring to when scientists did not know that atoms existed, it was just a hypothesis, that was confirmed when they used logic to confirm an unknown, just as we can do with the unknown territory of "outside" this universe. It is rational to assume logic is valid outside the universe which is how we have always discovered things about the unknown.
Not according to many scientists.
No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.IOWs, you don't understand it yourself, you can't explain how it supports your case, and you're telling me to go off on a wild goose chase. No, thank you.
eudaimonia,
Mark
No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.
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?