| 23 June 2003 at 14.51.23 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Alcyonian [203.97.2.242 - netcache1-acld.auckland.clix.net.nz] on 23 June 2003 at 14.51.23 ZuluTime:
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: Re:
There is a huge discrepency in trying to allocate variables to God, which First cause and Kalam's variant attempt to do. Hmm I'll outline key points in this email.
1. First Cause.
2. Kalam's Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig.
3. Mass and Time.
4. Dimensions.
1. First Cause.
This is assuming something absolute, in the fact that one feels they can take it back to a first cause. A lot of problems occur when people believe that the Big Bang (Inflationary Theory) was the first cause of the Universe. As we can witness with Quantum Foam and Black Holes, that a state of something is not necessarily cemented. First Cause with the implication that God is the Cause, is pure presupposition.
2. Kalam's Cosmological Argument.
William Lane Craig assumes the First Cause argument, and in doing so invalidates his own argument as he proceeds through it. Wes Morriston accurately points out the entirety of the flaws prevelent in Craig's argument. Again "presupposition" is tagged to this.
3. Mass.
From Dictionary.com "property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight."
I don't understand your implication attributing mass, sorry.
4. Time.
Time is a dimension that runs irrelevent to human perception. An example would be Entropy (standard statistical Entropy). Take a glass of water, drop in some blue ink, and the ink begins to spread. What this means is that the motion is measurable as it proceeds over a distance. Similar to the Universe and Doppler Effect and Hubbles Time are great indicators. Time is a dimension that occured at 10^-43 when the atomic nucleus opened into 3 space dimensions. Their expansion actioned time dimension into effect.
Alcyonian aka Begs_to_be_Sodomized aka Pertinacious_Slut.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
BD says >Perhaps there are discrepancies... But I hope you don't just summarily write off anything you think at a glance is a discrepancy until paying due diligence to it? You strike me (granted I don't you from Mrs. Claus), as someone who has heard so many lame brained comments from my side of the discussion, that you might assume sometimes. I think it's understandable, AND I'm not ready to say I know you would do that. I'm just, uhhh, mentioning it at the onset in hopes of avoiding it?
Alcyonian says> The foundation of science is that it remains fallable. If it suceeds the stages of scientific method, I'm fine with it, as long as I can play with it myself.
BD says> Actually, I've never heard of this name... I may know his argument or follow it, but to be honest I don't read a lotta study into something unless there is some reason to validate it to me.
Alcyonian says> There are about 5 arguments for the Cosmologicaly Argument. William Lane Craigs - Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the most popular among theists.
BD says> So, basically IF god created...
He is outside of Mass,
Thus outside of time,
thus in a different dimension our physical laws won't even apply most of the time,
so defining him to fit into our natural laws is a frustrating impossibility by definition of that dimension.
And, thus comprehending him in totality in our brains is admittedly beyond our comprehension.
BD says > "Nothing exists outside the universe." This just ignores any of einstiens thoughts on 4th dimension. That would be like saying there is no 3rd 2nd or 1 dimensional concepts. I find this a very unfair and (unintentional I suspect) dishonest way to ignore the issue. The 4th dimension deals with a place of NO TIME. Thus no mass. OR at the very best a mass so different from OUR cosmos/universe's laws that our natural laws could no more define a God than a 2d stick figure could understand rubbing a curvaceous butt. With the expansion of space from the atomic nucleus, came time. Time is motion, and inflation dictates that motion and that motion is time dimension. But again ignores all 4th dimension theory. As recently as last week MSBC in the science portion discussed this, of possible other worlds that exactly paralell our own. It is the scientific theories I'm using here, that are thrown in our faces as believers to disprove God that prove in one instance, and strongly create doubt in the other that God would exist in the 3rd dimension. What occurred before 10^-43 j/s is irrelevent. Since we have not way to measure "before" time, then it either did not exist (which is not the accepted theory) or it was eternal. When you take it before time came into efffect, you basically have NOTHING because you have NO measure. You have no measure that current science can determine except in theory. To require an absolute proof would by definition mean Gravity does not exist. Gravity can not be measured directly, only it's EFFECTS can be measured. 4th Dimension can't be seen, but mathmetically I believe Einstein theorized it and wrote the proof for it. There have been other stuff since then that I've read about. I'm only mentioning it because you disregarded all of that as if it were nothing. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't just chuck an argument cause you couldn't answer it.... but at this point, you've only ignored it.
Have a great day!
bd
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
Einstein SUGGESTED that the existence of the 4th dimension (time) was in the Robertson-Walker Model, which suggested the shape of the Universe itself, being a sphere. I have not invalidated GR in any form, in fact, I am USING GR in stating that nothing exists outside our Universe, including Parellel universes, because we have NO measure beyond what is present. Now back to Einsteins assertion, which you seem to be WARPING. Einstein's "sphere" radius is "time" and the surface itself is space. Humans only stand on the surface, whereas the universe continually expands (the radius/time) increasing the volume of the sphere. Using the model and the analogy of the model, "spacecraft trying to travel to another galaxy would normally go around the sphere, along the surface, to reach it's destination. If the surface could be "pinched" so that the opposite ends meet, it would make it easier to cross". This assertion has been used for "worm holes" not for "God exists out of time" as Einstein postulated that the radius of the Universe itself IS time and he stated nothing outside it. So I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. Also you said "You have no measure that current science can determine except in theory. To require an absolute proof would by definition mean Gravity does not exist. Gravity can not be measured directly, only it's EFFECTS can be measured. " Incorrect. We have measure, we have that with Spin Physics, whose research are unfolding the processes of nucleosynthesis, especially with RHIC project and the colliding of atoms at GeV. And Kalimara is starting on the mathematics for quantum gravity. And still neither of this proves your assertion that "God is existant outside of time".
Alcyonian.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Dickey
To: Alcyonian
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
I really don't see any explanations or refutations here. I see you put a lot of explanations of things down, but not apply them to the arguments I put forth to start with. This is much like the last note.
If it's getting on your nerves, we can drop the convo, I'm certainly not set out to run things into the ground and have a conversation turn into a fight or anything.
The life we exist in, the 3rd dimension has an x,y,z axis. In the fourth dimension you'd have a new axis, your PINCH example. It's the results of the pinch that I think gives you troubles. It would not be to Pinch when wanted, it would be a constant pinch.
IF an entity lived in this dimension and witnessed OUR dimension, everything from creation/big bang to apocalypse/bigger bang, and right now would be happening continusously, simultaneously etc...
I find you an extremly well read and studied person. I put great value in that part of you. I hope the nature of this chat hasn't annoyed you to the point of having a bad flavor associated with me. But, I have to say, the applications of your knowledge isn't meeting my needs to dismiss the thoughts I put out there. Read the attachment, it was a conversation with someone else and is shared with permission.
Be well,
BD
**attached reply**
the possiblity of extra universes was mathmetically suggested as recent as last week. If science is a standard to accept to discredit my Faith as I hear constantly in this chat room, then by golly it should go both ways. I'm told the evolutionary theory holds, so why can't the other theories, be consistent. (like the by golly part???)
I'll accept that as a choice of belief. But not as an absolute. Reason being, science changes weekly and we can measure more and more.. That is not to say that something only exists when we can measure it. For example we still can't measure gravity directly... We can only measure it's effects and work backwards.
Just because Einstein didn't mention doesn't discredit the application. Especially since his intent wasn't to create a religious debate. TIME is only a measure of Mass... With no mass you have no time. So stop thinking of TIME as some concrete pillar of the universe when all it does is observe and record the universe. So with that in mind saying the universe it's self IS time is only an oversimplifed version of all that implies.
Your only comments here were a refutation of regurgitated comments explaining the process. WIthout applying your quotes you do not refute anything I said. I can agree to disagree if we need to get there but I had hoped you'd address the issues more directly. Maybe I'm just not making much sense in a way that you will follow. That's NOT saying you are stupid, just saying we come from different mindsets, and I need to put it in a way that is more appealing. I dunno.
Educate me on this maybe. But the only measurements I've seen for Gravity, anywhere, are to measure it's effects. In other words we can measure how fast an object falls to earth, or how much light bends around a black hole, we can determine a ratio to judge by. But we can't see, touch, feel, hear, smell, taste gravity to measure it. Reverse measurement like that is not the abolute proof that folx demand for God. Period. If it applies one way, it needs to apply both ways. That is all I was saying there.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
You state: I really don't see any explanations or refutations here. I see you put a lot of explanations of things down, but not apply them to the arguments I put forth to start with. This is much like the last note.
Me: I'm not making a refutation, I am correcting you on your Sheldrake/Hovind/Polkinghorne/Davies/Craig application of "science". Also, I'm not one for long dialogue, so I snip out what I think are the least relevant portions. Also, what I see is you trying to present a hypothesis in favour of a deity, when science has not done that, nor has Einstein, being pantheistic and adherring to Spinoza. And you insert "oscilation" which rests on Critical mass vs. Critical density - that's a whole other discussion.
the possiblity of extra universes was mathmetically suggested as recent as last week. If science is a standard to accept to discredit my Faith as I hear constantly in this chat room, then by golly it should go both ways. I'm told the evolutionary theory holds, so why can't the other theories, be consistent. (like the by golly part???)
You state: I'll accept that as a choice of belief. But not as an absolute. Reason being, science changes weekly and we can measure more and more.. That is not to say that something only exists when we can measure it. For example we still can't measure gravity directly... We can only measure it's effects and work backwards.
ME: I have mentioned that previously, science is fallable and bound by scientific method, so that is just repititious in comment from you.
You state: Just because Einstein didn't mention doesn't discredit the application. Especially since his intent wasn't to create a religious debate. TIME is only a measure of Mass... With no mass you have no time. So stop thinking of TIME as some concrete pillar of the universe when all it does is observe and record the universe. So with that in mind saying the universe it's self IS time is only an oversimplifed version of all that implies.
ME: What is the measure of weight of the universe, exactly? As the Universe expands, it's reduced, and as the weakest force (re: mass) I'm interested to know how you assert mass/time? And let me re-verify all my previous statements, time gives measure to the motion of the universe. That is, time complies with statistical entropy that with space expanding (being a dimension and dimension is point A to point B) that time is allocated between A and B. I still have no idea how you solidify into something that requires a mass subject to a force which is only partial in composition to the unification of all the forces.
You state: Your only comments here were a refutation of regurgitated comments explaining the process. WIthout applying your quotes you do not refute anything I said. I can agree to disagree if we need to get there but I had hoped you'd address the issues more directly. Maybe I'm just not making much sense in a way that you will follow. That's NOT saying you are stupid, just saying we come from different mindsets, and I need to put it in a way that is more appealing. I dunno.
ME: My statements are complying with current physics, without the verbiage of presupposition of applying physical properties to an hypothesis that stands outside of current scientific variables. I have been VERY clear in how I apply physics - the conflict is, it's not what you wish to hear as you continuously add presupposition ontop of scientific properties.
You state: Educate me on this maybe. But the only measurements I've seen for Gravity, anywhere, are to measure it's effects. In other words we can measure how fast an object falls to earth, or how much light bends around a black hole, we can determine a ratio to judge by. But we can't see, touch, feel, hear, smell, taste gravity to measure it. Reverse measurement like that is not the abolute proof that folx demand for God. Period. If it applies one way, it needs to apply both ways. That is all I was saying there.
ME: Agreed, it is difficult to construct instruments to measure the anomalies of gravity, as small as 1 part in 40,000,000, but the falling body measurement, the pendulum motion and mass on spring measurements, suffice adequately to negate the existentialistic interpretation of 'gravity' as you are applying. But a friend has brought to my attention "you have ashtekar's version that says space time is a lattice of "loops " at the planck scale" and "you have penrose saying it's really a product of "twistors" ( or maybe gravitons)" (J.E 2003).
Alcyonian
Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company