[quote]espenl wrote:
Clearly, the story was put in the bible for people to discuss quantum mechanics some 1600 years later, they thought of everything back then. I wonder what other facts become morals or metaphors a few hundred years from now. Or maybe then, Scientology will be the ruler of all :p[/quote]
Lol. That is a good one.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?
And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]
A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]
Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]
No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]
you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?
to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]
Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.[/quote]
You sir, are a blithering idiot.[/quote]
I was dying to “WTF?!” that post…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?
And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]
A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]
Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]
No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]
you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?
to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]
Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.[/quote]
You sir, are a blithering idiot.[/quote]
That’s the best you can do? You can’t prove your point so you name call? nice job…
Push using the phrase “intellectual prowess” in a thread where he tries to convince everyone the world flooded and an decrepit old man took 2 of every animal on to a boat… Ohhhh I get it you were being ironic, right?
Push using the phrase “intellectual prowess” in a thread where he tries to convince me that the world flooded and a decrepit old man took 2 of every animal on to a boat to save them all. Ohh I get it, your being ironic right? Hah it was mildly funny.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?[/quote]
Creationist 1: Nothing exists without a Creator!
Creationist 2: He’s right! The universe didn’t just poof itself into existence!
Rationalist: So who created God?
Creationist 1: You idiot, God doesn’t have a creator! Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]
It’s formatted as a joke here, but the absence of the meta-divine is a key aspect of monotheism, and a significant part of what separates it from monolatry (or hennotheism, if you like).
Ok so Noah’s Ark is bullshit according to push. He is not trying to convince anyone such a ridiculous story happened.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?
Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
This answer is for those that have faith in the Bible, in God and Jesus. Those that do not have faith or only believe in parts of the Bible need not respond to this.
If you have faith in Jesus then you should believe that Noah’s Arc DID happen. Jesus was in heaven during the time period the Bible states that the flood took place. In the Gospels Jesus himself mentions the flood event at Matthew 24:37-39 which states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
God also inspired Peter to write about the flood event at 2 Peter 2:5 and 6 which states:
“and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; and by reducing the cities Sod´om and Go·mor´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come.”
And 2 Peter 3:5-7 which states:
“For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.”
So if you’re a man of God and believe that God inspired the Bible then the flood and Noah’s Arc is and actual event that did happen.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?
And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]
A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]
Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]
No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]
you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?
to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]
Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.[/quote]
You sir, are a blithering idiot.[/quote]
That’s the best you can do? You can’t prove your point so you name call? nice job…[/quote]
Because the minute you start talking about “first cause” you have stepped into the very time trap you claim to avoid. Eternal, without time, does not have to have a “first cause”. If you want to believe in a God or architect, it does not require a “first cause”. You can neatly have eternity, with no beginning and no end, and either accept everything always was, or at some point, your architect put in place rules for everything to follow and thus be on the path it is now. But again, I didn’t favor you with a reply because you cannot see beyond your own trap. What’s the point? You’re just going to retort about “first cause” again and something can’t come from nothing? How many times do I have to suffer that? You’re trapped in the concept of time, not me. It’s not as if you’re going to concede even an inch and reply, “I see your point”. Nope. So, my reply was the best I could do for you at the time. I apologize for the insult - unecessary.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s the best you can do? You can’t prove your point so you name call? nice job…[/quote]
Anytime the strict out and out name calling begins you know your opponent is on the canvas.[/quote]
Have you always been a “me too” kinda guy? Were you always last on the tackle, only good enought to jump on the pile or get there second? Only talented enough to clap, but not don the uniform and score? I just gave him a reply. My face has never touched the canvas but I’m pretty sure your feet haven’t either. Don’t infect this thread with your SAMA speak and habits. You have proven you have something to contribute, so why not continue.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?
Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
This answer is for those that have faith in the Bible, in God and Jesus. Those that do not have faith or only believe in parts of the Bible need not respond to this.
If you have faith in Jesus then you should believe that Noah’s Arc DID happen. Jesus was in heaven during the time period the Bible states that the flood took place. In the Gospels Jesus himself mentions the flood event at Matthew 24:37-39 which states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
God also inspired Peter to write about the flood event at 2 Peter 2:5 and 6 which states:
“and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; and by reducing the cities SodÃ?´om and GoÃ?·morÃ?´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come.”
And 2 Peter 3:5-7 which states:
“For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.”
So if you’re a man of God and believe that God inspired the Bible then the flood and Noah’s Arc is and actual event that did happen.[/quote]
And somewhere in all that, I think we were supposed to bring a virgin girl to the mouth of the volcano and to appease the gods, sacrafice her.
Sorry, but the OT and NT are very disconnect and describe two very different gods. If you cannot see the hand of man there, I’m sorry for you. The bible does not even describe the same god. The stories are unoriginal, including a savior, and a resurrection after 3 days. If you think a perfect, benign, loving God would resort to jealousy, vengeance and anger, I feel sorry for you. Those are the emotions and traits of man, and they corrupt the biblical text clearly. The god of the OT is too busy smiting, plaguing, flooding, hell and other destructive acts that you will excuse me if I want to believe in something a bit less man made and a bit more divine.
Using the bible to prove the bible is the depth of desperation and fallacy.
Isn’t an ark a big boat and an arc a mathematics term?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?
And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]
A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]
Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]
No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]
you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?
to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]
Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.[/quote]
You sir, are a blithering idiot.[/quote]
That’s the best you can do? You can’t prove your point so you name call? nice job…[/quote]
Because the minute you start talking about “first cause” you have stepped into the very time trap you claim to avoid. Eternal, without time, does not have to have a “first cause”. If you want to believe in a God or architect, it does not require a “first cause”. You can neatly have eternity, with no beginning and no end, and either accept everything always was, or at some point, your architect put in place rules for everything to follow and thus be on the path it is now. But again, I didn’t favor you with a reply because you cannot see beyond your own trap. What’s the point? You’re just going to retort about “first cause” again and something can’t come from nothing? How many times do I have to suffer that? You’re trapped in the concept of time, not me. It’s not as if you’re going to concede even an inch and reply, “I see your point”. Nope. So, my reply was the best I could do for you at the time. I apologize for the insult - unecessary.
[/quote]
The correct term is “Uncaused-cause”… However, timelessness, does not necessarily mean ‘no order’.
For instance the speed of light is time=0, correct? Technically an unabated beam of light is infinite in it’s existence, yet it has origin.
Second, nothing just “is”. You cannot point to one thing in the entire universe that exists unaffected. If you can fill me in, I am dying to hear about it.
If ‘just is’ was a sufficient answer that fact that relativity breaks down in to infinities wouldn’t be a problem, same with QM. Physicists realizes the same things as philosophers, an infinite regress begs the question and is a fallacy. You cannot infinitely disassemble the universe, there is a stop somewhere. That’s why string theory came in to existence, that’s why TP’s are on a quest for a ‘theory of everything’.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Clearly, the story was put in the bible for people to discuss quantum mechanics some 1600 years later, they thought of everything back then. I wonder what other facts become morals or metaphors a few hundred years from now. Or maybe then, Scientology will be the ruler of all :p[/quote]
Well obviously you’ve never read Noah or you would have realize he was the top quantum physicist of his day…How else did he build a boat big enough to house two of every animal? He had to compress their atomic structures so they’d all fit.
And just where do you think the flux capacitor came from anyway??? Noah, Duh…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?
Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
The story is about 7000 years old…Who knows really? My best guess is that there was a dude named Noah, there was a flood, he weathered the storm on the boat and he had live stock with him.
It’s possible, but I am pretty sure liberties were taken with the story telling. Especially since it started as an oral tradition. Like most stories it probably is based on something real, but like most stories, the point is what counts more so than the balls-on accuracy of the told events. The moral of the story is why it’s in the bible.[/quote]
Good to see you’ve moved from absolutely butchering physics, defaming a PT or two with the atheist label, and moved on to a more reasonable position.
[/quote]
What physics did I butcher precisely? Please cut and paste and explain exactly how…
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Ok so Noah’s Ark is bullshit according to push. He is not trying to convince anyone such a ridiculous story happened.[/quote]
He said neither. So what’s you fucking point?
[quote]pat wrote:
The correct term is “Uncaused-cause”… However, timelessness, does not necessarily mean ‘no order’.
For instance the speed of light is time=0, correct? Technically an unabated beam of light is infinite in it’s existence, yet it has origin.
Second, nothing just “is”. You cannot point to one thing in the entire universe that exists unaffected. If you can fill me in, I am dying to hear about it.
If ‘just is’ was a sufficient answer that fact that relativity breaks down in to infinities wouldn’t be a problem, same with QM. Physicists realizes the same things as philosophers, an infinite regress begs the question and is a fallacy. You cannot infinitely disassemble the universe, there is a stop somewhere. That’s why string theory came in to existence, that’s why TP’s are on a quest for a ‘theory of everything’.[/quote]
You are truly exhausting and can’t see past your own problems with time and this discussion is circular!
The speed of light is not time. We attach time to it. It’s an artificial construct! It’s the language of humans, not physics. That various theories break down when confronted with infinite is a direct result of the attempt to start from a first cause!
You keep hounding about nothing just “is” and you want me to point to some example. I have - repeatedly. If the universe always existed, if it is eternal, then it just “is”. You cannot imagine just “is”, because you again are trapped in the articifical construct of time and the need for a first cause beginning or prime mover.
Allow me to flip this back on its head at you, and ANSWER the questions! If God is eternal, why not the universe? Is God not eternal? If he is not eternal, what was there before God? Who created God? Is not a God that is not eternal then a God that came from nothing? And according to you, something cannot arise from nothing? If the universe is not eternal, what existed outside the big bang? Where did the material come from? You’re trapped in the visible universe, constrained by artificial time. I believe there was ALWAYS something, and that the universe is ALWAYS changing - whether that change is according to a plan or is random, I do not have an opinion.
In a place where there is no time, there does not have to be a “stop somewhere”. And PTs have realized that time in fact is poorly understood and may in and of itself be the problem. I believe this is what Hawkings was getting at, in my very own limited understanding of his very brilliant mind. The thought that time does not truly exist as we “experience” it, is not new. And perhaps the theory of everything will come together when we eliminate it, among other discoveries.
I hope you realize that with every retort, you are firmly in the time trap - you cannot talk about regression, first cause, big bang, etc., without being in that paradigm. At least acknowledge that simple fact! If you want to hold onto the time dogma, fine. We agree to disagree. You will not convince me that we understand what we call “time”. You will not convince me that you have a better handle on the problem of time than some of our greatest minds! You cannot come here and name drop various theories, but ignore that which really confounds our greatest minds - TIME!
You cannot even imagine just “is”, a universe that always existed, without time. That’s why you received my earlier, curt and offensive reply.