Printable View
just to return to one of the early issues in the thread, Zain, i was just wondering if you still hold the position that the bible is a word for word as-it-happened book?
And if so, why? I know a large number of christians who have studied scriptures and don't feel the way you do.
And though you criticise science's explanation, isn't your own explanation just as open to those same criticisms?
But improbable ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
I believe that the bible is the real Word, but it's not word for word. Just look at Revelations and you will see, there's no way it's word for word. It uses many metaphors and parables.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
I do not believe it's word for word. But it is true, all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
Yes, they are definently open to criticisms. But, if you think about it. If you compare the bible to scientific studies, the Bible was composed by a divine God. Scientific studies were composed by humans, who will never be perfect, and are hardly correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
-ZainDustin
Then, maybe, just maybe, the sory of the Creation is one of those parables/metaphores and not an historic account? Call me crazy and all... :dizzy2:Quote:
I believe that the bible is the real Word, but it's not word for word. Just look at Revelations and you will see, there's no way it's word for word. It uses many metaphors and parables.
You see, things don't fall because of gravity. God pushes them down (Intelligent Falling). He chose not to push Jesus down.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
you're crazy... :smile: :laugh2: Just kidding.
I think that How he created the universe wasn't explained, but he Did create it.
But it is explained in the Bible... The story of the Creation gives a pretty detailed explanation of how Jewish Bronze age priests believed that God created the universe... do you believe this account literally, or have you come round, as it were, to believing that the story of the Creation is a mere allegory or metaphore to a process which God started which created the universe...
I personally believe that he just simply created the Universe.
-ZainDustin
As described in the Bible?:dizzy2:
Yes. He SPOKE the Universe into existance.
hmm.. this begining to get all spaghetti monstery...
So humans should all be able to do what Jesus did...Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
[QUOTE=ZainDustin
Yes, they are definently open to criticisms. But, if you think about it. If you compare the bible to scientific studies, the Bible was composed by a divine God. Scientific studies were composed by humans, who will never be perfect, and are hardly correct.[/QUOTE]
this is circular logic though... it's using the bible's divinity as being evidence for it's truth. I'm sure you see the problem.
If a human had enough faith in God, and God wanted him to, he could walk on the water. Paul walked on the water, towards Jesus.
It's divinity is because it is the Word of God.
Prove it.
I, myself, can't. But, neither can YOU disprove it.
Disprove the existence of Santa Clause if you can...Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Why should I disprove something that doesn't exist?
And you can't disprove dragons, fairies, other gods, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
So which is more real leprachauns at the bottom of your garden or God? You cannot disprove either...
Leprechauns can be disproven. Of course, I don't know much about them anyway. If they are supposed to be living on Earth, they can be disproven, or proven. Although, these things were made up before actual evidence of their existance was found.
-ZainDustin
Go on then. Disprove them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Although, these things were made up before actual evidence of their existance was found.
a lot like God then.
My god, who's existance is proven by this holy book He sent me, says your god doesn't exist.
He also supports chocolate ice-cream being a compulsary food.
My god, who's existance is proven by this holy book He sent me, says your god doesn't exist.
He also supports chocolate ice-cream being a compulsary food.
what God do you serve BDC?
there's that circular logic again. here is the word of god, in the form of the bible. how do we know it's the word of god? because the bible tells us it is the word of god...Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
as i said, i'm sure you see the problem
clearly, he serves the god of double posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Indeed.
SEE YOU THERE BIG DADDY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
If hell existed, then humanity should not exist. Why? I love my unborn children enough not to have them in order to save them from even a
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of going to hell.
Let's look at the relationship between risk and benefit, shall we:
Chance of going to hell: .000000000000000000000001%.
Time spent in hell:99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999 to the power of 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years. And then some.
Point being, even a teeny tiny risk of damning my children to hell makes it worthwhile not to have them in order to spare them from eternal suffering.
THUS, the concept of hell is contrary to human survival. Becaue my this logic, no would ever have children and the human race would end.
People always think that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is only a joke. I think that's unfair and rather ignorant.
-Our prophet.Quote:
Apparently we are seen as more of a joke - satire, if you will - than a real religion. I, for one, am offended. I feel that my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious belief is being unfairly discriminated against.
This is the time that I reveal my real religion: I'm a pastafatiran(sp?). We beleive that if schools teach ID, then they should also give an equal amount of time to our theory.
We even have a chart that shows that the number of pirates is related to the amount of global warming. In other words, the rising global temperature is a direct result of not enough people dressing in his holy garb.
But I'm sure that most of you have heard this already. Why do you think that our God is the false one?
What an arrogant condescending thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
1) You should not tell people how they may or may not practice their religion without expecting a broadside in return.
2) It is fundamentalist claptrap like that, that gives religions such a bad reputation.
3) I know plenty of Christians who have the intellectual ability to understand the Big Bang and the internal belief structure to believe in God.
4) Also most of the Christians that I know talk about have a personal relationship with their saviour Jesus Christ and that a lot of the bible is allegorical... Even Jesus uses allegorical tales... he talks about seeds finding the right ground to grow in... rocks being to barren, soil being too thin... he wasn't giving a gardening lesson, he was talking about faith.
5) The bible lists what is most important: Love... and it never lists creationism.
I've never heard of that religion. What does it believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoose
-ZainDustin
Creationism isn't the most important thing, as you have said. It is about having a relation ship with your Lord, Jesus Christ. But it is a very fun thing to debate about. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
-ZainDustin
Hmm, thought that the FSM was known by almost all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
http://www.venganza.org/
It's not so much anti religion, so much as it's anti-religion-being-taught-as-science.
I'm trying ever so hard not to get involved in this debate, but the pedant in me can't overlook this one. :saint:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
It wasn't Paul who allegedly walked on water and sank because of a lack of faith, it was Peter. Paul never met Jesus (not while alive, anyway).
It is exactly small typos/scribing errors like this that have been incorporated for millenia into the Bible, and add them to the translation errors and you have a very shaky basis for claiming the Bible as the actual word of God. Unless you can read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (with a smattering of Coptic and hieroglyphs) and have access to the original books/scrolls, any claim of the unreconstructed Word of God is flawed.
Just something to think about. ~D
Haruchai you cheeky divil! ~;)
I'm trying ever so hard not to get involved in this debate, but the pedant in me can't overlook this one.
Don't ya just love Zealots that don't know scripture :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible.
So Zain , you believe in giant aliens who come to earth because they liked the food and the sex .
Slavery is the natural role for certain people because their forefather saw his dad when the old fella was drunk and naked . And oysters are bad , very bad . Rape is good , as long as you don't sell the woman afterwards . If you lose a bet then it is OK to go killing and robbing to repay that debt . Oh and genocide and ethnic cleansing are Gods will .
Do you follow the correct proceedures if you discover mildew in your house ?
So do you beleive in and follow Everything in the bible ? Or are you not really a Christian by your own definition ?
It was just a typo, I knew the man that walked on water had a "P". No big deal, I guess it would be though if it was in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No, I don't do all those things because the laws and procedures changed when Jesus died on the cross. He died on the cross my everyone's sins so those things don't have to happen. The laws changed after the crusifixion, that's why the temple's cloth tore from the top to the bottom.
-ZainDustin
[IMG]https://img233.imageshack.us/img233/...eoflife6lk.jpg[/IMG]
Like this?Quote:
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad,
Other things just make you swear and curse,
When you're chewing life's gristle,
Don't grumble,
Give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the light side of life.
[whistle]
If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle.
That's the thing.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the right side of life,
[whistle]
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.
Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So,...
Always look on the bright side of death,
[whistle]
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
[whistle]
Life's a piece of shit,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
Always look on the right side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Or maybe this?
:laugh4:Quote:
One of the most controversial, and some would say, scurrilous films
of the last year has been the box-office blockbuster, The General
Synod's _Life of Christ_. Sarah Gould talked to Lawrence Vironconium
- Bishop of Wroxeter, the director of the film, and Alexander Walker,
one of its stoutest critics.
The film deals with the story of the rise of a humble carpenter's
son, one Jesus Christ, to fame and greatness, but many people have
seen in the film a thinly disguised and blasphemous attack on the
life of Monty Python. Python worshippers say that it sets out to
ridicule by parody the actual members of Monty Python who even today,
of course, are worshipped throughout the Western World.
NOT!: Alexander Walker, can I ask you first, what did you think of
the film?
WALKER: It apalled me. I find it deeply offensive that, in what is
still, after all, basically a Python-worshipping country, fourteen-
year-old children can get to see this film. They get little enough
proper Python these days, without having this distorted garbage paraded
about.
NOT!: Bishop, you directed the film. Did you expect this kind of
reaction?
BISHOP: Well, I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! Yes.
Yes, I did direct the film. And what I feel I _must_ emphasise at
once, is that it is not an attack on Python. I'm not a Pythonist
myself, but obviously I have enormous respect for people, like
Alexander, who are.
WALKER: Oh, come now bishop. The central figure in the film...
this... er...
BISHOP: Jesus Christ.
WALKER: ... thank you, this "Jesus Christ" is quite clearly a
lampoon of the comic messiah himself, Our Lord John Cleese. I mean,
look, even the initials are the same!
BISHOP: No. No, absolutely not. If I may try and explain. The Christ
figure is not meant to _be_ Cleese, he's just an ordinary person who
happens to have been born in Weston-super-Mare at the same _time_
as Mr Cleese.
WALKER: No. No, really, Lawrence, that's too...
BISHOP: And ... and, if I may finish... he is _mistaken_ for the
comic messiah by credulous people of the sort that can see something
"completely different" in anything, and who then follow him around
in vast crowds... ah... doing silly walks, and chanting No, No, Not
The Comfy Chair, and other slogans from the Good Bok itself.
NOT!: Alexander Walker - your comments on that?
WALKER: No, I'm sorry, whatever the Bishop may say, this is a highly
distasteful film. Have people forgotten how Monty Python suffered
for us? How often the sketches failed? I mean these men died for us.
Frequently.
NOT!: Bishop, turning back to you, do you not agree that the film
may affect the position of Monty Python in our spiritual life?
BISHOP: No, I hardly think so. If Python _is_ immortal (as
Pythonists believe), I'm sure a mere film...
WALKER: A tenth rate film.
BISHOP: ...I'm sure a mere film is not going to stop believers.
Remember the words of John cleese: "When two or three people are
gathered together in my name, they shall perform the Parrot Sketch..."
NOT!: Indeed. "It is an Ex-Parrot..."
ALL: "...it has Ceased To Be"
NOT!: Well, the final scene in the film has perhaps attracted the
most attention of all. Alexander Walker, a last word from you.
WALKER: Yes, well, the final scene is... is the ultimate blasphemy.
It... it is set in a hotel, in Torquay, where literally hundreds of
Spanish waiters are being clipped about the ear by this "Jesus
Christ" bloke in a ghastly cartoon of the Comic Messiah's
Greatest Half-Hour.
NOT!: Alexander Walker, thank you.
WALKER: Thank you.
NOT!: Bishop, thank you.
BISHOP: Thank you. Actually, it's not Torquay, it's Torbay.
WALKER: Oh, Torquay, Torbay, whatever. I really don't see...
NOT!: Alexander Walker, Bishop, thank you.
BOTH: Thank you.
NEXT WEEK: The Islamic New Wave.
Not! goes on location with "47 Brides for 7 Brothers"
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Fairies, leprauchuns live in the 'Realm of Faerie', and only visit the waking world briefly. They can't survive here long, and when they die they return to the realm of faerie.
Disprove their existence... After all, thousands of people believed in the existence of fairys long before JC came along.
What I don't understand about Genesis is that God lies and the Serpent tells the truth. (not defined as 'Satan' then - Satan being a Zoroastran word)
God says 'don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die'. The Serpent says 'This isn't true, you can eat it and you won't die'.
Which is the truth and which is a lie?
both are selective truths.
God leaves out the intervening time between eating the fruit and death, and the serpent leaves out the eventual death.
Was the universe really ever created? And what is the definition of universe - matter and energy, only matter, or only energy? Or is it the very concept of space in which we can be positioned, or the concept of time, or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
If God is defined as the creator of the universe, the universe was created by God. But why would that mean that that God concept will be the same as the God concept you pray to? And would they ever be able to be the same being? Or would the word God be defined as a collection of several distinct abstract and non-abstract phenomenons and concepts bunched together in a collection (and therefore have no function other than classifying distinct things into a group, rather than being a result of those distinct things being the same thing in reality) like classification of animals is done: every ape and human is a primate, but a primate shouldn't be comprehended as a single being. And if the universe was never really created, God would be a concept referring to something that doesn't necessarily exist, but doesn't necessarily not exist either, combined with phenomenons that might exist. Could God then be a comprehensible concept to model as a single being when you think of it?
This reminds me of a BBC documentary I once saw. In it, scientists stated that, in order to learn more about our own history (but time machines being an impossibility), it would be very likely that future generations would ultimately develop a computerprogram that would be able to simulate the entirity of earth's (or the universe's) history and all of its components. The 'occupants' of this program would, of course, be totally oblivious of the fact that they are simulations of the real thing. Because this simulation would develop along the lines of the real world, in it there would be developed another simulation for exactly the same goal, in which simulation the same would happen again, ad infinitum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Therefore, the scientist reasoned, the chance of us ourselves actually being simulations is much, much greater than us being the 'real us', since there would be an infinite number of simulations and only one reality.
Thusly, the universe as we know it was most likely created by a computer programmer, who, for the sake of religion, shall henceforth be known as Bob.
(With regards to Old Thrashbarg).
God said: Let it blow! And so it was.
The laws changed after the crusifixion
So the Old Testament is thrown out of the window then , does that include the commandments ? It appears that you claim to believe in everything in the Bible , but are very selective about which parts you are willling to accept as Gods word . Why is that ?
Or could you point out the passages in the New Testament that specify which of the old laws are to be thrown out and which are to be retained ?
Also , if the O.T. is now "incorrect" then why are you sticking with Genesis ?:inquisitive:
I found your passage...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith. The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Curse is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."
-Galatians 3:10-14 NIV
The Old Testament is not thrown out the window, unless the bible says so. And occording to this passage, some of it is.
I do believe in the bible, all of it. But, in some cases the bible says to disregard some of the things, mostly the old laws changed by the crusifixion.
Sadly this doesn't say which laws are thrown out, but it's pretty self explanitory.
I hope this answers your questions (all of you).
-ZainDustin
Galatians So , a letter by a bloke who didn't walk on water ?~;)
ZainDustin, your treading a thin line, the statement i have qouted below is vergeing on judgemental which is a very serious sin. I don't agree that your as bad as Nav but you must understand that god is the only one who may judge others beliefs.
Don't forget this is a games forum, not many people here are being veryserious (apart from the aformentioned Nav) the bible has a great creation story that mirrors the big bang as much as any bronze age text could and more then you would expect it to. although the big bang is not a hole proof theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
There is not danger in debating trust me on this i have never lost my faith in a debate but i have gained perspective which is very important. You should know the difference between Peter and Paul they were different people with different perspectives.
evolution also fits in with the creation story in genesis, look at the order in which the species are created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
You've been following this discussion, haven't you? :detective:
As I have been talking with everyone, I realize now saying that was wrong, although I still see the Big Bang as wrong.
-ZainDustin
glad you acknowledge a mistake. it speaks well of you.
But can we investigate why you think the big bang is wrong? In the original form, the creation is in poetry, in figurative language, yes? and Jesus spoke in parables all the time... I don't see how the bible supports this creationism.
I'd just be interested to hear why?
im sceptical of the theory myself, heck i started a thread about it once:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59837
okay I haven't read the whole thread but anyway
I thought the Huble had made fotographs wich still shows some evidence about the theory. (And it's by Lemaitre, a Belgian, so it can't be wrong ~;).
And what about the cosmic microwave background radiation? WMAP has made pictues of this.
Tough I don't get all about this, and there might be some questions and perhaps some contra dictions there's a reason it is accepted by most Astronomors. And there seems to be some proof. (perhaps not much but still.)
Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.
It is true that the bible is poetic, and doesn't always mean what it says, in gramatical terms.
-ZainDustin
I can create a French Toast with a thought... that is the design process.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
The implementation process has to be done in order and has a time dependancy attached to it.
Souffle's are even harder... interrupt the process at the wrong point and you have a muffin.
A question to both big bang and God supporters: if the universe was created, what existed before universe?
Nothing.
So how could something be created out of nothing? That nothing must have caused the something in some way, and unless the nothing was a changing nothing, it couldn't have had built-in the potential of once giving rise to something.
In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is. :dizzy2:
ah, the backroom is just that... it's a low ceilinged smokey bar and you can expect to take a few bruises. The thing to watch out for is people flogging their own point of view without listening. It's best not to debate with those that don't have open minds. You listened, you realised you were mistaken, you apologised. Good on you! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
So, back to the big bang.
but... if i can paraphrase something you said earlier in this thread.
"God exists outside time".
This answers your query with the big bang in one simple step. god didn't have to wait for anything. if he's outside time, then length of time means absolutely bugger all.
The elegant simplicity is astounding...
another counter intuitive answer, i'm afraid, but the thing we have to understand is that 'time' is a dimension...Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Since time is only a creation of the universe, there was no before! :dizzy2:
and no, i don't really get it, either
No wait! I meant that assuming the cause-and-effect system is true, every state is a result of the previous state. If the state just before big bang was "nothing", and "nothing" causally gives rise to "something", then "nothing" would have caused "something" immediately after it started existing. Which means if "nothing" was the state before big bang, then time can't have existed before big bang, and the state "nothing" only existed in an infinitesimal time period, which could be the same as saying it never existed. However, if "nothing" existed for a longer period of time, then the "nothing" must have been of different kinds all the time, otherwise the special "nothing" state that caused the "something" state would have caused the "something" state earlier. All this is assuming cause and effect principles are true, which I believe also the big bang theory assumes, and God theory also assumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.
Try and look at it like this. Where do your thoughts come from and what are they made of? Before you had the thought what was there before it. The thought only started to exist when you had it.
No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.
That's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them. The brain is a very complex thing and only now are we beginning to understand it.
Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?
Of course they were! To simplify things a lot, the system is very much equivalent to a module where you process data, and one module where you store it, and one module for receiving impressions (data) through senses. His theories stemmed from his fantasy, his prior knowledge in the subject, and his abilities to compare the memories he had to each other, drawing new conclusions. Then he had to store these new insights as memories, from which he could deduce new theories. His prior knowledge came from processing and storing the impressions from the outside. His processing ability came from earlier experiences (from the outside) and earlier thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Essentially the brain is actually built up much like a computer, the only difference is that it's a computer that is a million/billion/trillion times more complex than a normal computer, and that it can rewire its own hardware when needed, and that most of the constant wiring is part of a billions of years long evolutionary process. Can you really give example of a single thought that isn't built on memories, impressions and processing of those impressions and memories?
Either to the memory, or it reaches a dead end and is discarded, or it is transformed into output in the form of say a movement, something you say, or something else.Quote:
Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?
Time is a property of this universe. There is nothing to say it is an essential property of any other universe. For this universe, it was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no concept of before in relation to the creation of this universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Matter and energy are inter-dependent. Time as a dimension is a property of this universe, as are length and breadth. The Big Bang deals neatly with them all, insofar as the creation of the universe goes. It currently has nothing to say about before, because there is no before.
If you apply your own assumptions as detailed, of course the Big Bang doesn't seem to fit the observations. But your assumptions need to be changed if you want to understand - which is what cosmologists are finding right now. The maths is very hard to follow, but interesting when explained, even if counter-intuitive.
I'm a biologist by training, so physics makes my brain hurt. ~:eek:
Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?
Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model. Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.
well, for proof time is a dimension, well, it's a tricky one. But i'lll try.
we move through the universe in 4 dimensions. the normal 3 plus time. though for some reason we can only move in one direction in time. when we move faster and faster in three dimensions, then we are expending less of our 'energy' by travelling in time. this is, apparantly, even measurable at the speeds humanity can travel in, though it is infinitesimal.
as we move faster and faster, getting close to the speed of light, we are expending less and less of our energy to time- hence the time dilation effect so beloved by the sci-fi writers.
So it's demonstrably true that 'time' is an artefact of the universe... 'before' isn't a word that can ever be applied to the universe, since it only came into being with it.
I think that's pretty much the flavour of it.
No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.
Precisely. The Big Bang is a model that has, to date, explained most of the observations we can make of our universe. It does not consider what you call 'before'. Beyond that is the realm of pure mathematical models, to which we can try and fit new observations - which will either continue to support the consensus, or wreck it at which time we come up with a new model to be tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms. ~:cool:
Definately. Well said.Quote:
I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.
First of all I'm not supporting God theory just because I don't support the Big bang theory. Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God. But as I explained earlier in the thread, that God concept isn't necessarily the same concept as the concept religious people normally call God. For example, if the big bang theory would be true, then the Big Bang would be called God, and the word God would refer to Big Bang, but it wouldn't simulatenously imply that you can pray to Big Bang, and expect a response. It could also mean that the word God is defined as a classifying concept containing many concept, much like "primates" refer to all individual apes and humans. So God would then, in this example, mean "Big Bang AND some being you can pray to", without Big Bang being the same as the being you could pray to. And you wouldn't either have any proof of the being you can pray to exists, you might even have a situation where Big Bang exists and the being you can pray to doesn't, while you can still define the word "God" as both of them together. And because much religion define God as the creator of the universe, this circular proof isn't as bad as it might sound, the problem is that the religious seldom understand that God concept, and use it in a different meaning in other cases, without knowing it's a different concept in reality they are referring to. Apart from that I won't discuss the God model, except explain what I mean by this text above if it was unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
But the Big Bang theory isn't about the birth of the universe, is it? It's supposed to explain why matter is moving like it does today, split up the way it is today, and why exergy exists and we don't live in a thermal death-scenario. If you can show that the Big Bang theory explains the birth of dimensions too, then I could maybe believe in it. But as it is now the concept of matter and exergy is called universe when you try to prove the theory, and when you use it, the concept of matter, exergy, energy and dimensions are also involved in the concept. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just want to know if there, within the big bang theory, is really any explanation for these things too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
A theory derived theoretically by logic etc. is based on assumptions, like all logic. The problem is, if those assumptions are incorrect, the entire theory isn't necessarily true any more. That's why every statement about reality should rely as little as possible on as few assumptions as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
@mystic brew: Yes, I can support the statemetn that time can be a dimension, but I can't support that time wouldn't have existed always, or that the room dimensions wouldn't have existed always, unless there's some motivation for it. Which "universe" was created by big bang? Time and space and energy and exergy, or just exergy and some movement of matter? There's still no proof that those parts of the universe (time and space) hasn't existed always, and that it would have been created. Actually there's still no proof that both matter, energy, exergy, time and space hasn't existed always.
Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.Quote:
So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.
So if space and time didn't exist before this big boom, what sent out this light that was infrared or has become infrared when travelling through space? This infrared stuff however explains my own private 1 minute thought up theory hehe :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
Edit: and supposing you'd travel to the edge, would you "fall off the edge"?
:dizzy2: ~:confused: :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Erm... you lost me right there.
I surrender. ~:cool:
:surrender:
Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
Prove it. :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".
As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory. :book:
Which of the things did you mean? Or was it just teasing :grin: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
I would have checked it out, if I wasn't already forced to read some 2000 pages per month :wall:Quote:
Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".
As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory. :book:
Anyway I think these super strings and so on might just be a complicated and unintuitive way of saying something simple. Some examples of such situations:
- Einstein's theory of relativity says certain waves move straight through space, but space is bent. You could also say (easier to understand I think) that space is straight, but those certain waves bend off.
- Before Kepler it was said that the earth was the center of the solar system. Kepler stated the sun was the center. Both starting points could give pretty accurate models, but putting the sun in the middle made it easier to describe and understand the planet movements in few words.
So I think these super strings are just an overly complicated way of describing the universe. Some parts of it seem to just be assumptions - for example that not all dimensions have existed always...
Just teasing :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Absolutely. I'm all for simplicity in explanations, but not at the expense of accuracy. It might be easier to accept the earth as the centre of the solar system for those of us who live on it - it seems intuitive - but it's WRONG. It also means you don't understand the planet's orbits because their observed movements don't match the calculations. So science gets even more bent out of shape. :freak:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
The same as using the billiard balls/little solar system model to illustrate how electrons orbit atomic nuclei. Simple to understand, but ultimately wrong - and so all your scientific advances based on quantum mechanics are lost.
Once you have a better model, you discard the older less accurate one. That's progress. ~:thumb:
By the way, it was Copernicus that postulated the heliocentric theory (earth orbits the sun) and it was confirmed observationally by Galileo. Assumption, Theory, Observation, Validation. Beautiful, ain't it? :daisy: