And what’s with all of these derogatory remarks about the French, all of a sudden? Was a French person mean to you this morning, or something?

Yeesh.

Whoa! This explains a lot about the “consensus” concerning the global warming hoax , folks. Here’s the math: Take 1 (ENORMOUS) part humorless opinion. Add 2 parts hysterical superstition. Mix in bowl with political (agenda) blender and, VOILA! Instant horse manure for the masses.

If that’s how they get to humanity being a bunch of apes’ ancestors and “proving” that the Universe, and life, in essence, has no purpose but the one(s) our current structure of chemical (im)balance determines, then they can have it.

Now all we have to do is figure out how the French duex it and do the exact opposite.

re: “insults” Someone, I think Mr. Ryan (sorry if that’s wrong. no time to go back and read every post but, you guys do seem to be on the same page w/ each other on most everything else.), earlier on this thread stated that Mr. Turek was being dishonest. I have read a lot of what Mr. Turek has written and I’ve never found him to be disingenuous. I find you guys very sincere and heart felt in your communications. (I’ll chose to look at this misrepresentation of what I said “who are all those jerk Greek philosophers anywayz” as you just being sloppy and not dishonest. But don’t let it happen again) So we don’t have the same sense of humor, big deal. I still enjoy the discussion and regret any inference you may have perceived indicating my disrespect for you. Where I come from, you tease people you’re fond of, and the only funny thing I read above (beside my own, madcap, zany, Tomfoolery) was, “If he takes THIS as an insult (which I guess would make him French…)”. Now THAT’S funny. I will chose to view that comment as the “spaceless, timeless energy and matter ‘in a suitcase’ -before your sense of humor existed- which now need only a ‘catalyst’ for it to ‘big yuck’ into existence.”

Anyway, it is my birthright to mess w/ uptight people. And, it is ESPECIALLY my responsibility, when I like them, so as to encourage a less “bunched” attitude in the position of there panties (QUICK, point up the spelling again. Everyone was rolling on the floor last time.). WITTICISM ALERT! WITTICISM ALERT! Ducharme made a funny, HA-HA! HA-HA! So go ahead, loosen up, but it won’t be as much fun for me anymore.

re: Mr. Tureks’ statement on infinity (my take)
Since analogies are fun, try this one: You stand at the precipice of (imagine echoing voice here) “The Elevator to Infinity-ty-ty-ty….!” Down the shaft is endless and it stretches above w/ no end as well. You hold “today” in your hand. You drop it (YES! Gravity works in this scenario. Stop trying to confuse me!). When today finally lands (hopefully not too jarringly) at the beginning of time…..Wait just a cotton pickin’ eon here. How are we ever going to get back home ? I mean, you just dropped “today” into a bottomless pit.

God gave us time. W/O time, everything would be “happening” at once. How can one possibly fathom how that works? One can. His name is God. I call him Jesus.

Bottom line: Part Deux
Secularists require proof (or something that passes for it) for everything, oui?
Christians believe the greatest questions of the origins of the Universe and life can only be answered by God. There’s so many other great mysteries to busy ourselves with, why bother trying to explain the unexplainable?

Don’t make me start quoting scripture now, y’all. Or should I just schedule you for root-canal at the dentist whose p.a. plays “Fingernails and Chalkboards: The Very Best of Celine Dionne” exclusively ?

–Young Frankenstein

That’s actually a good example of a contradiction right there. If a god existed forever then there would be no beginning to its existence because it would have always existed. And if its all powerful and infinite, then there would be no end.

And as for infinite points in space. Yes there are. It doesn’t mean that you can’t get from one to the other, it just means that there are an infinite number of ways you can go to get there. Take your two index fingers and put the tips some distance apart on the table in front of you. If you could move one finger tip towards the other an inch at a time. But you could also move it by a half inch, third, a quarter, an eight, and so on and so forth down and down smaller and smaller increments, each spot being a discreet point in the line from one finger to the other. There that’s my finger analogy. Watch out or some of these other posters will give you a finger too.

Did you get the other irony that someone is trumpeting the importance of critical thinking skills, while dismissing the Greek philosophers with lines like:

“Philosophers say dumb things. It’s there job” and ” …or whatever it was that Plato posited.”

Obviously Mark never got taught about the debt any critical thinker today owes to the Greeks. I know that Frank would back me up on that, because he’s said as much elsewhere on this site.

And Mark’s fine education? I guess he must have missed the lesson where they taught the difference between ‘there job’ and ‘their job’.

How so? I thought it was a good example of an infinite number of finite things which actually exist (points in space). I think you’re just Disccusing Discussion again.

Oh, and to answer your question: God has existed forever (which “began” at point alpha and will “end” at point Omega w/ both points being determined by Him.)

This is impossible. No entity can determine the parameters of its own existence; that is a contradiction. Its parameters must be defined in order for it to exist — i.e. before it exists — and so it makes no sense that they could be determined by the entity (which is only possible once the entity exists).

Because something is old and famous it is legit?

AH! HAH! HA! HA. Ha. Ha, ha, ha, hee ho ha hee ho hum.

Hmm.

Irony.

Therefore I am not really sure that you did answer my question (though it’s probably my pitiful education shining through). Could you please restate the answer in mathematical terms?

It’s not your fault; he actually didn’t.

So sorry I missed your geographic location. Still more sorry for the lack of critical thinking taught wherever it is you are from but judging by the thin skinned, effete reactions above it seems likely to be France.

Cheap shot. And prejudiced, to boot!

Just FTR, Luke, in the America I’m from, we don’t greet foreigners so disrespectfully (even under debatable circumstances such as these). So apologies from “Americans” on my behalf.

An infinite number of points cannot exist between two defined points simply because you have an ancient philosopher who says so (not that I think he did, he was just asking a question. but then, if you half that question and ask the reverse, and then half it again and pose the original premise, and then….silly, isn’t it?).

The fact that it is entirely possible for infinite points to exist between two finite points is true has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that “a philosopher said so.” Nobody said it did. The only reason that philosopher was mentioned in the first place was because he was the first one to posit it. Nobody has ever disproved it since then, yourself included, and so it stands that people will still reference it.

Silly? Maybe to you. Maybe that’s because of those critical thinking skills you learned in college (or, god forbid, high school?)

Oh wait.

I don’t think he even knows the meaning of the insults/accusations he’s making, so it’s pointless trying to address them. The ‘fractal wrongness’ will kick in - no matter how far you zero in on anything he asserts, you’ll bump up against something that makes no sense. If he takes THIS as an insult (which I guess would make him French…) then my reply is that he abandoned any argument several posts ago.

And you did, so… good for you. :/

It’s too bad that you didn’t pile them onto anything substantial.

Oh right, you’ve given up trying to make any point at all and are now just trying to be a hard-ass. Neither of us are French, but congratulations for displaying your small-mindedness again. I’m guessing everything you know about French people was learned from watching Americans put on gallic accents in sitcoms.

We’re not being thin-skinned chum, just astonished at how quickly you resort to lame insults in lieu of reasoned argument. From your earlier posts I genuinely believed you were someone who at least TRIED to think about stuff.

Now I see that you’re just another boorish luddite who delights in his own ignorance. Congratulations, you’ve earned it.

Mark, if I’ve contradicted myself then I apologise. But before you mow, please tell me if I’m following your reasoning properly with regards to my contradiction.

You’re saying that I’m contradicting myself because saying
a) “God does not answer the question”,
is the same as saying
b) “I hold that God can be explained”?

That’s the only interpretation I can put on how you reasoned that I contradicted myself. If so, then are you saying that ‘God can be explained’ is the same as ‘God provides an explanation for a given phenomena’?

In which case, are YOU saying that your own position - ‘God cannot be explained’ - is the same as ‘God does not provide an explanation for a given phenomena’?

If so, then your argument appears to be self-defeating.

If your explanation for one thing is to say it’s caused by another thing than you can’t explain, it really does seem that you haven’t in fact explained the first thing at all.

At any rate, Luke’s invocation of Zeno’s paradox, and his question of how many days God has existed, were brought up specifically to address Frank Turek’s assertion than an eternal universe was impossible, because you can’t have something existing for an eternal number of days. However, if you or Frank believe than God has existed for an eternal number of days, then you cannot believe Frank’s assertion to be a sound one.

It’s the same old logic:
* Something cannot have existed forever, therefore I believe it was created by something that existed forever
* We are too complicated to have evolved, therefore we must have been created by something even more complicated.
* Everything has a cause, therefore they must have been caused by something causeless.

Each of these statements are self-refuting. And your get-out is to posit something not subject to logic, reason, or understanding…

So sorry I missed your geographic location. Still more sorry for the lack of critical thinking taught wherever it is you are from but judging by the thin skinned, effete reactions above it seems likely to be France.

Anyway, Welcome to America! Where people say things and decorum is not always observed in lieu of speaking ones mind. Philosophers say dumb things. It’s there job. They are willing to suffer the slings and Zeno’s arrows from jerks like me for saying stupid things like, “Does an arrow really go anywhere in space…” or, “Are we all just the imaginings of an other, higher being…” or whatever it was that Plato posited. I mean, seriously, sometimes it seems as though all of this pontificating leads to one missing the forest for the nose on his face. If you know what I mean. If you don’t, just ask and I while elucidate.

I don’t mean anything personal, those were just 1) an absurd statement by Luke and 2) a contradiction by Andrew. An infinite number of points cannot exist between two defined points simply because you have an ancient philosopher who says so (not that I think he did, he was just asking a question. but then, if you half that question and ask the reverse, and then half it again and pose the original premise, and then….silly, isn’t it?). And Andrew, that was an observation of what you said. You may have made a simple mistake, but it WAS contradictory. Don’t take it so personal.

Well, gotta go back to work, gentlemen. Those lawns aren’t going to mow themselves after all! I look forward to talking more w/ you all and sincerely hope that I haven’t permanently damaged the lines of communication (don’t trust him fellas, it might be a trap!). Shut up, Marks alter ego!

Mark,

I don’t know why you feel the need to insult me. (It doesn’t seem very Christian, if anything.)

I guess I will take your lashing out at my silliness and poor education (which as Andrew pointed out you know nothing about), as evidence that you don’t have a proper response to what I said. (This typically seems to be the case when insults go flying, I think we can all agree.)

Mark:You give an example of finite, and then you illustrate how infinity is “synonymous” w/ it.

You may claim that you did follow your insults with this “proper” response, but I honestly don’t know what you’re saying here (my silliness at work again, I’ll bet).

I presented an example, and I am not sure what your critique is. So let me ask this way: how many points exist (in other words, how many points must be traversed) between my house and the park (or any other two locations)?

If you would like to expand your critique (feel free to pile on more insults if you find that necessary), I’ll gladly read it.

Mark:Oh, and to answer your question: God has existed forever (which “began” at point alpha and will “end” at point Omega w/ both points being determined by Him.)

Mark,

My question was: How many days has G-d existed?

An answer to this might be 12 or 1,449 or 1,836,972 or 4,737,982,789 or “an infinite number of days.”

Therefore I am not really sure that you did answer my question (though it’s probably my pitiful education shining through). Could you please restate the answer in mathematical terms?

By the way, I just can’t wait until my daughter uses that line.

Me: What time did you get home last night, your curfew was 23:00.
Her: *sigh* No offense, but you’re silly (Au fait, merci beacoup pour me permets de aller à la Sorbonne. Les universités américaines sont absurdes.); my night “began” at point alpha and “ended” at point Omega w/ both points being determined by Me.

Mark, I don’t want to be rude - although that appears to be YOUR intent with your constant smart-arse digs - but have you ever considered that the problem here is not the education of Luke or me (neither of whom are American), but your own reading comprehension?

Your posts aren’t saying anything we haven’t already answered, and I haven’t got the time to explain it all to you again in simpler language.

“How about the one about “the tree in the forest” ? That is even more famous. Does that make of it a deeply profound question?”

Nothing is profound if you dismiss it as ’silly’ without even thinking about it.

And yes, the Greek philosophers were all a load of hacks, eh Mark, nothing at all to teach your wise head… What a glowing testament you are to whatever education system you arose from.

Because something is old and famous it is legit? How about the one about “the tree in the forest” ? That is even more famous. Does that make of it a deeply profound question? I fail to see your point, Andrew.

Again, I must question modern, “higher education” and it’s ability to teach critical thinking. You contradict yourself, blatantly, here. You say, “I never said ‘I hold that God can be explained’” and immediately follow it up w/, “God does not answer the question.” We Christians hold that God is the answer and we cannot presume to understand or even be capable of understanding Him. You can call that faith, but it is not blind faith. At least it is not if you have ever had an audience w/ Him. I suspect that you would claim such an experience to be a chemical reaction to certain outside stimuli, resulting in blah,blah, blah. But if that is true, then all of our ponderings are a meaningless exercise that only separates us from the life of hedonism we were “meant” for.

Bottom line: conventional, secular science still has no, and will never have any, rational explanation for the original “uncaused cause” known as the Universe. It never has and it never will. Something cannot come from nothing, scientifically speaking, and that is where science will remain stuck forever. Christians do not presume to know the origins of God, we are simply overjoyed at the notion that He chose to create us. (that’s the “pass” He gets for being the everlasting Father. it’s a supernatural thing. we’ll probably never get it) Also, we are quite content knowing that a million scientists could spend a million lifetimes answering trillions of substantive questions and never even bother w/ the origins of God. Which would be silly, anyway, seeing as how He IS the answer. (how’s that for “circular”, eh friends?)

Go ahead w/ the insults, folks, but no one has even answered MY humble queries w/ a viable, less “mystical” answer than God let alone explained Him (or His universe) themselves.

And that’s the truth.

It’s a quite famous, millennia-old philosophical problem, Mark. Look up Zeno’s arrow paradox.

And you haven’t answered why positing an eternal God is less problematic than positing an eternal universe.

We can do this, finding more and more finite points, into… infinity.

I hope this isn’t what passes for critical thinking in college today. If so, America is in trouble. No offense, Luke, but that is silly. You give an example of finite, and then you illustrate how infinity is “synonymous” w/ it.

Oh, and to answer your question: God has existed forever (which “began” at point alpha and will “end” at point Omega w/ both points being determined by Him.)

I’m not sure if the rest of that video is on youtube or not. I’ve never been able to find it. Perhaps the show’s website would have a full version.

In the videos called Before The Big Bang he begins discussing thermodynamics at the beginning of video 3 and into video 4.

I’m not sure where to read more about string theory. Probably brian green’s book The Elegant Universe. I don’t know if Penrose’s book The Road To Reality expresses his idea of cyclical universes or not (it was published in 2005; just got it from the library . . . very math heavy). You can try to read some of Neil Turok’s papers on his website, but they’re nearly in a foreign language with all of the complex math talk.

Here’s an article:
http://www.space.com/scienceas.....verse.html

Apparently Turok and Steinhardt have a book called Endless Universe from 2007.
http://www.actionbioscience.or.....hardt.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com.....=1&c=y

And so on and so forth.

Be interesting to see what the Planck satellite will add to the discussion.

Let me start by saying that I am not a physicist and I know very little about cosmology. All of these arguments sound interesting, but they don’t mean a whole lot to me.

That said, I’d like to point something out to Dr. Turek.

The whole premise of this website is to fight against the 75% problem. When I was reading through your responses, something really jumped out at me. Here is where I think you run into some problems when dealing with people (especially curious people who are in the midst of getting a college education).

You said: First, there’s no evidence for the cyclical universe theory.

Honestly, you loose me when you say things like this, and I think you likewise lose a lot of those 75%.

There is no evidence?

When you say this, you are basically calling a lot of very smart people who’ve devoted their lives to the study of physics and cosmology — and are pursuing these theories — idiots. I mean, if there is no evidence for these theories, and these people are devoting their lives to studying them, what else could they be?

Common sense tells me, however, that these people are not idiots. They have PhDs in a very difficult subject and they have some of the best physics departments in the world supporting their work.

So common sense tells me there is more than “no” evidence (there may not be a lot — I don’t know — but that’s not what you said).

So, what I am left with, is wondering why are you so defensive. Why do you have to go out and state so strongly that “there is no evidence” when common sense tells me, and many others reading this, that there must be (at least) “some” evidence?

Quite honestly, it just seems like you’re trying to hide something or hide behind something. It seems that you’re so unsure of your position that you can’t allow for there to be even “some” evidence; it has to be nothing. You show a deep lack of confidence. That’s not something that is likely to inspire confidence in those 75%.

On another note, I’m just curious about what you said here:
If there were an infinite number of days before today, today never would have gotten here.

What do you mean by this, and why is it necessarily true?

and there can’t be an infinite number of finite things anyway.

Why not?

An example comes to mind for both of these things.

Sometimes I walk across the street to the park with my daughter.

We walk from point A to point B. Both finite points and things (there is a physical representation of point A).

To do this, we have to cross point C (let’s just say that’s halfway between point A and B).

To get to point C, we have to cross point D, which is halfway between points A and C.

To get to point D, we have to cross point E, which is halfway between points A and D.

We can do this, finding more and more finite points, into… infinity.

When I get to the park, I know that there are an infinite amount of points between the house and the park.

We know it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to say “if there were an infinite number of points before before this one, I never would have gotten here.”

So why does it make sense when we discuss days?

I think the idea of infinities is extremely hard to grasp and understand, but it does not mean that no such thing exists in reality. (It does not mean that it does either, but I think my park example shows that an infinite number of things can exist.)

(Time itself is very different from the way that we usually imagine it. Just look at the twin paradox. I think if we look at time in the way a physicist might, what Tim says here makes a lot more sense. It may seem paradoxical if our understanding of time is an alarm clock.)

As I said at the beginning, I don’t have enough knowledge to fully critique either side here, so those are just some random thoughts.

One more question though, that I think may pierce through some of the more technical ideas. Dr. Turek and Mr. Ducharme: how many days has G-d existed?

Excellent post regarding the You Tube interview with Penrose. Do you know if that interview is continued somewhere else on You Tube? It was going along nicely and then it seems to stop abruptly.

Also, I would like to read more about how the cyclical model (or String Theory for that matter) deals with the 2nd Law. Have you come across anything in writing? (String theory doesn’t seem to solve the problem because they are still matter.)

With regard to current cosmological theories, Dr. William Lane Craig covers the waterfront very well in his books. Here’s a short section on his website about them here: . He says that according to Alexander Vilenkin’s and Allan Guth’s recent work, all current theories (including the cyclical universe theory) require an ultimate beginning at some point. Are you familiar with Vilenkin (who, by the way, is a proponent of the Multiverse)?

Blessings,

Frank

Anyway, I’m interjecting here why the cyclic model appeals to me (even before I heard about the debates between the theologicals and scientists on sites like these and books like Tureks and Dawkins and so forth). A cyclical model of the universe is quite attractive.

Something that caught my eye above in TIm D’s post is his use of the word catalyst as what could have began the big bang. I wondered what this could be and remembered an article I read months ago about a computer simulation of a neutron star (you can find it on MSN’s tech and science news–search for Neutron Star crust is stronger than steel). These dead stars can have “starquakes” which is the result of the massive gravity and eletromagnetic activity of the cores.

I’ve always imagined the universe bangs and crunches over and over. Supposing the universes matter collapses into a singularity, what could be a catalyst to make it explode? Perhaps the quake mentioned above or perhaps it’s just that one last atomic particle coming to join the singularity party and tips the scale and causes the reaction. HEre’s a quote from the neutron star article:

“Neutron stars are so dense that if you could dip a teaspoon into one of them and scoop out some of its neutrons the spoon would weigh 100 million tons. If you were to hold that empty teaspoon just one yard above the star’s surface and drop it, it would strike the surface at 4.3 million mph.”

Many will site thermodynamics in arguing against a cyclical universe, but watch the Roger Penrose lecture video on youtube called Before The Big Bang - Roger Penrose. The video is long, in many segments, and the quality is low, but he his theory does address the second law and doesn’t violate it. Also in another video with him on youtube he states that his theory is observationally testable and could be tested when the LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) program gets off the ground in the next 10 or 15 years.

A warning: Roger Penrose is a super-intelligent man, but not a super-organized speaker.

Also look up Neil Turok for cyclical universe theory.

Also look up loop quantum cosmology for cyclical universe theory.

And I’ve always considered this and you might as well:

If all of the matter in the universe is condensed into one place, one spot, then size has no meaning. So you could say it was the size of an atom or say that it’s the size of a million times our sun, but with no space there is no size.

Another thing to consider: Frank Turek says that god is timeless, immaterial, and spaceless. So essentially this would be . . . nothing. So he claims that nothing took nothing, and made our universe. But this would lead to Aristole’s Paradox of Place “if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum”. So then his god exists in another dimension. Looks like Frank should look into string theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._universe/

What you folks don’t seem to understand is that there’s no need to constantly reassure yourself that my case has been “destroyed~”

Secondly, you’re entirely wrong here….

You can’t say that there was no time or matter or space “such that there is essentially none”, except to the extent “needed” to cause the BB.

That’s not what I said at all. Read it again if you will.

If a purely mechanical BB happened, as you describe it, it would need some sort of nudging

And there are many theories which attempt to explain this purported “nudging” (to use your misleading term).

But, to say that all matter was condensed into a timeless, spaceless “place”? just waiting to explode is to require cyclicality which doesn’t account for an actual beginning.

Hence, the cyclical universe theory….

Just saying that every thing, space and time was so minuscule that “there (was) essentially none”

You are obviously not reading my posts very well. I never said “it was so miniscule that there was essentially none.” What I said was:

because the matter is no longer condensed into a single point, thus “occupying all space” such that there is essentially none).

I was referring to space, not time. And I use the word “essentially” because there still remains the question: if all matter is condensed into one single point, and there exists no space outside of that point, then is there space? There could be said to be a “theoretical” space that is simply occupied by the matter — we could say that space “exists” but is not visible because it is completely occupied. Or we could define space as a lack of matter, in which case, no, there is no space if all matter is condensed into the only available point in space.

I think the reasons you find the straw-man cases you’re putting into my mouth to be lacking are twofold; (1) They are strawman cases and are not based on what I’ve said in barely any way at all, and (2) there is no one unifying scientific answer to all of your problems; there are several equally valid theories that attempt to explain the beginning of the universe from differing angles, none of which are technically wrong. Welcome to science….

If there was no change, what was “it” “waiting” for?

A catalyst.

You see, for the BB to happen in the first place is to quantify the “time” before it happened.

Not at all; that’s a misunderstanding of this cosmological use of the word “time;” if time = change, and there is no change in the system, then there is no time. If change begins at some point, then it doesn’t make sense to say that time (change) begins “after” a point at which there was no time (change); you’re flip-flopping on your use of the word time, here.

(last one. I promise…for now) If the Universe is singular the “time before time” could not occur, as such a powder keg would be set off by “the slightest touch” which would be, in all reality, “the change of matter and its flow through/interaction with space” which cannot “happen” in a timeless, spaceless…um, “environment”?

From talkorigins.org:

Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called “cosmic evolution” or “cosmological evolution”; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins — the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc.

* The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

Long story short….the universe still existed “before” the big bang. The big bang simply accounts a change from one form to another — some might argue (depending on the theory being addressed), “The beginning of change.”

Oh, and regarding my jab at evolution: never read “Origin of Species” but I took it from the title that it was an explanation for the origin of species. If that is wrong, my mistake.

It is exactly that, an origin of species, not an origin of “life.” Species being specific divisions of living organisms; the origin of species refers to the origin of the division, adaptation, and diversification of differing organisms across time — the change and development of life.

“If there was no change, what was “it” “waiting” for?”

This is an interesting question Mark, but don’t you have the same question if you believe in a God who existed for eternity before deciding to create the universe?

“Oh and Mr. Ryan, you seem to hold a premise that I do not. That being that God can be explained.”

I never said ‘I hold that God can be explained’. But again, what’s the difference between saying ‘we can’t explain God’ and ‘we can’t explain the universe’? It’s another situation where positing a God does not answer the question. As with so many other ‘this makes no sense without a God’ situations, Inserting a God just moves the question back a step and then you’re back to square one.

I’d enjoy discussing our views on the origins of life w/ you. If we ever finish this one, that is.

If there was no time, then change could never happen. Because you could never get to that specific “point in “time”". Which leads to the “fact” that something HAD to come from nothing for your hypothesis to work (which also destroys it, by the way). You can’t say that there was no time or matter or space “such that there is essentially none”, except to the extent “needed” to cause the BB. To say so suggests a decision. If a purely mechanical BB happened, as you describe it, it would need some sort of nudging. But, to say that all matter was condensed into a timeless, spaceless “place”? just waiting to explode is to require cyclicality which doesn’t account for an actual beginning.

Just saying that every thing, space and time was so minuscule that “there (was) essentially none” goes against any absolutist view and, when it comes to the origin(s) of the Universe, don’t you think one should be LESS forgiving of notions like, “essentially” or, “just about” or, “close enough for government work”, than more ? How else can one find the truth, but by being unflinching in ones adherence to an absolute accounting for all factors involved ? For instance, Americans are very precise when making nuclear weapons/engines/power plants. Therefore, we’re very proficient at it. In the former USSR, not so much and, they have a lot of dead submariners and other victims of their sloppiness.

Another way to say it: How do you get from, “There was matter but no change (pre-big bang), and thus no time as time in this sense would be a measure of the change of matter and its flow through/interaction with space;” to, ” then there is a big bang” ? If there was no change, what was “it” “waiting” for? You see, for the BB to happen in the first place is to quantify the “time” before it happened. But, if that was a timeless point in…er, “time”, then existence would still be in it.

(last one. I promise…for now) If the Universe is singular the “time before time” could not occur, as such a powder keg would be set off by “the slightest touch” which would be, in all reality, “the change of matter and its flow through/interaction with space” which cannot “happen” in a timeless, spaceless…um, “environment”?

I’m sure you’ve heard all of this before, I’m just fascinated by your responses. Looking forward to it,
Mark D.

p.s. Please feel free to ask for clarification if the above scribblings are incoherent in the least.

Official, unofficial disclaimer: the above arguments were assembled in no specific order for reasons not understood by their author. he seems to be afloat in time….

No, it’s not. There was matter but no change (pre-big bang), and thus no time as time in this sense would be a measure of the change of matter and its flow through/interaction with space; then there is a big bang. This is basically the birth of change, or “time,” as it is the starting point of movement, change, and space (because the matter is no longer condensed into a single point, thus “occupying all space” such that there is essentially none).

Matter and energy do not “take place”.

Correct. Matter and energy do not; the circumstances which allow them to function do, however, which is what I said.

Actually, that isn’t contradictory, it’s a full circle. Kind of like evolution:

1) How does that make evolution circular?
2) Evolution isn’t supposed to explain the beginning. That is a different field altogether; evolution is the study of change and adaptation throughout species and ecosystems. It is not a cosmological field. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or life, and it never has. Nor has it been stated to. That is a false criteria spread by creationists.

That is a contradictory statement. You say, “”Time” as we know it did not exist before the big bang, nor was it created”. Then, you say, “it is a component of the existence of other factors (matter and energy) which VERY LIKELY ALWAYS EXISTED BEFORE THE CIRCUMSTANCES (MATTER and ENERGY!!!) that allowed time to exist, took place.

Matter and energy do not “take place”. They exist in perpetuity (therefore, so does “time”, using your thought process. But you say it didn’t before the BB….Oh, I’m getting dizzy…) Unless He created them, of course. But then, that IS my point.(sorry for the YELLING, don’t know the HTML to make emphasis)

Actually, that isn’t contradictory, it’s a full circle. Kind of like evolution: it might explain changes/certain actions AFTER the beginning, but it does NOT explain the beginning. We still have no answer for “something from nothing”.

On the whole, “if there were an infinite number of days before today, today never would have gotten here” theory, it seems that that could be one explanation for black holes: the place(s) where infinity actually exists. they are where “something” becomes “nothing”, no?

1. “Incidentally, my preferred response to the caller who claimed that if the universe had existed forever we could never reach the present day would be to say, You’ve got the wrong intuition here. You’re thinking of time as something that passes, that it had to start somewhere, and so you’re begging the question. A better intuition is to think of the present day as a point on a continuous timeline stretching out to infinity in both directions. After all, we have no trouble visualizing an infinite plane or number line in space, at least in principle. There is no inherent contradiction in the idea of a timeline stretching out to infinity in the past, unless you assume the thing you’re trying to prove.”

2. Response: “There’s no problem with the past being infinite, because nothing has to “traverse” that infinite past to reach us in the present, any more than you have to traverse the infinite totality of negative numbers to reach 0.”

http://intrinsicallyknotted.wo.....a-problem/

I’ve heard this idea before. If today would never have gotten here, then what day SHOULD we be at? One ten thousand years before? Ten billion? And we’d never have got here from WHAT point? No matter how far back you go, it would take the same length of time to get to today.

It seems a variant on Zeno’s arrow paradox that ‘proves’ that an arrow can never reach its target (when we know that actually it does).

Actually, there is. That’s why it exists in the first place; it explains all of the problems regarding the beginning of what we understand to be space and time, AND it addresses many aspects that the singular universe theory cannot.

Second, there’s not enough matter to bring everything back to a singularity as found in 2003 by the WMAP satellite (which also found that the universe is accelerating).

Matter (or amount thereof) isn’t what brings forth a singularity, gravity does. When the metric expansion of space is ultimately reversed due to the waning strength of the expansion itself, resulting in a “black hole singularity.”

As for if the CU theory is NOT true (which is always possible when discussing cosmological theories), that doesn’t negate the theory of the Big Crunch or the Big Bang, nor does it imply that a creator is necessary. The reverse of expansion leading to a big crunch could still occur. Likewise, the only reason that has been cited as to why a creator would be necessary is because of a fundamentally broken understanding of time on a cosmological scale; the universe “can’t have always existed” before the big bang as a singularity because that would be “an infinite regress of events.” Actually, it wouldn’t. In a singularity, there are no events, there is no space, and there is no time. Therefore, there is no infinite regress of events. Thus, an “infinite” pre-big bang singularity is entirely physically possible.

Third, the cyclical universe theory does indeed violate the Second Law.

No, it doesn’t.

Fourth, time had a beginning as GR proved (which is has been shown accurate to five decimal points).

1) If the cyclical universe theory is true, then this is irrelevant; what you call “the beginning of time” would just be the beginning of time after the most recent big bang, not the true “penultimate beginning.”

2) If it’s not, then it still doesn’t solve your problem. “Time” as we know it did not exist before the big bang, nor was it created; it is a component of the existence of other factors (matter and energy) which very likely always existed before the circumstances that allowed time to exist took place.

Fifth, if there were an infinite number of days before today, today never would have gotten here (and there can’t be an infinite number of finite things anyway).

1) That is philosophical wordplay and doesn’t mean anything; obviously today WOULD have gotten here, as it is here.
2) Nobody I’ve read about has ever claimed anything about an “infinite number of days;” that’s not what “eternal universe” means. See above.

Now many have not liked this conclusion (Einstein and Eddington were two great scientists who hated its implications).

Please, spare me your revisionist history lessons.

Something can be proved, but a person may not be persuaded by it. Perhaps that is the situation with you. We can agree to disagree.

Yep. You got me. It’s my secret conspiracy to believe in god but just deny it because “I don’t like it.”

That’s asinine and you know it. If I were going to just disblelieve in things I don’t like, I would pretend that hubs of gross misinformation like this one didn’t exist.

I profoundly agree Frank. Their findings do not contradict a belief in God. (Neither do Darwin’s or any other scientist’s, in my opinion).

Just wanted to repeat that as it makes one realize how profound God, and His love for us, really is. Also, to Tim and others, I must apologize for having the “default” or “crutch” of, “God did it” but, in the end (or was that the beginning? Oh yeah, He’s the alpha AND omega) that is my point. THE most pertinent evidence for God is when He enters your heart. Speaking materially, He is supernatural, therefore, He doesn’t obey or disobey laws - He makes them. He is timeless. He knew we would have this back and forth on this discussion board. He may even know our fates, but He can’t make up our minds for us.

Other than within the context of something already existing one cannot explain existence itself in any credible, scientific way. That is why God is not the thoughtless, default answer of the stump-toothed inbred but rather He is the answer from a mind that knows it cannot know all. Other than His origin, though, pretty much everything -in the mechanical Universe anyway- is understandable. I mean, seriously, does anyone feel compelled to tell the one they love that their deepest most heart felt desires to cherish them always is just based on some primal urge to procreate? I mean, besides you, Tim (kidding, kidding).

If that’s my choice, I’d rather be wrong. But it is very satisfying to know that I am not.

Oh and Mr. Ryan, you seem to hold a premise that I do not. That being that God can be explained. He cannot. His creation is another story. I’ll leave that to guys like you and Mr. Turek to hash out the details. I’m not that smart. Although, Franks’ comeback to your assertions to me seemed pretty credible. But thanks to all of you for including this non-academic in the discussion. It’s a very heady experience. Honestly. Thank you!

I yield the floor…