The dilemma of infinity

[Altfish]

Altfish That is just it.. "God always was" God lives OUTSIDE of time! WHO...

Altfish who created God? Answer is: God is the Creator of all things including Time!!

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Ah!

The special pleading defence. Everything must have a maker except for my god. Sorry that is a very poor argument. I just stop one stage earlier and cut out the god.

Intelligent Design is no more a scientific theory than intelligent falling as the alternative to gravity is a theory.

Surely you can do better than this, try reading a science book (Not by the Creation Institute) a proper one.

 

[Heyo]

It might be a language issue.
To some Christianophones, "science" means "Bible".

That makes it so difficult to speak to Christians. They have their own language that sounds like English but it isn't. For them
"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength."

 

[Heyo]

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes.

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
You are, by law, not allowed to call ID a scientific theory in a classroom.
You are allowed on RF but you only show your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
You are, by law, not allowed to call ID a scientific theory in a classroom.
You are allowed on RF but you only show your ignorance.

It does not even matter if legally that he cannot call it a theory. By the definition of a scientific theory it fails at being one.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…/the most recent religion on the scene/…

Sorry, you may have said it in OP but it was not obvious to me; what’s this most recent religion “on scene” called…? Just out of curiosity.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Polymath257]

Because we don't know if the same laws or math applies in a multi-universe, if they exist. We designed our math to work in our universe.

And the math we use is what leads us to the prediction of a multiverse.

 

[Polymath257]

What expanded?
What caused the expantion?
What did it expand into?
What did "it" exist in before the expansion?

There are too many unknowns to think we know.

Space is what is expanding.

The expansion is 'caused' by the details of the matter/energy density.

The closest thing to a correct answer here is that it expands 'into the future'. And that is technically correct.

Why do you think 'it' existed at all and that there *was* a 'before' the expansion?

You are making assumptions in your questions that we *know* are incorrect. Such things as 'anything expanding must expand into something' or 'there is always a before'. And 'everything has a cause'.

It is those assumptions that are the problem. For most of those questions, we already have answers, at least to some extent.

For example, in GR, spacetime is a single geometric structure. Slices at different times are what we call 'space'. As we move forward in time, the 'size' of those spatial sections increases.

A lower dimensional analogy is to look at the latitude and longitude lines on the Earth. Consider latitude lines as 'space' and different latitudes as representing different 'times'. Then the south pole would represent the 'Big Bang'. Space expands until we get to the 'time' of the equator, then contracts again until we get to the North pole, which is a 'Big Crunch'.

There is no 'before the Big Bang' in the same way there is no 'South of the South pole', space is 'expanding' and then 'contracting' into the future. ALL causes are within spacetime, so the BB did not have a 'cause'; the 'singularity' is simply a description of the geometry saying we cannot even talk about latitude 'south' of the south pole, and there was no 'Earth' south of the south pole, so there was no 'it' before.

 

[Polymath257]

Please define 'time', I define it as any change or activity ....is the geometry of spacetime ..non existence before the big bang?

You have to be very careful defining time that way or else it will be circular. For example, there is a 'change' as I move across my room, but that change represents different *places*, not different *times*.

Time is defined in terms of the geometry of spacetime. it is a LOCAL thing, with a direction of increased entropy. Alternatively, it is a coordinate that increases in the direction of causality.

Spacetime is ALL of space and ALL of time, together in one geometry. To even *talk* about 'before' means you want to have time outside of spacetime. So, no, there was no 'before' spacetime since spacetime has all time.

 

[Polymath257]

Can time exist without space?
Can space exist without time?
Have they both always existed?
Do we even know or just have ideas?

As far as we can tell, space, time, matter, energy, etc are ALL co-existent. None of them exist without the others. None of the theories we have have any of these without the others.

But, the only way to tell is to find some way to *test* these things.

What, precisely, do you mean by 'always existed'? Do you mean for an infinite amount of time into the past? or do you mean by all time (which might be finite)?

 

[firedragon]

Ah!

The special pleading defence. Everything must have a maker except for my god. Sorry that is a very poor argument. I just stop one stage earlier and cut out the god.

Intelligent Design is no more a scientific theory than intelligent falling as the alternative to gravity is a theory.

Surely you can do better than this, try reading a science book (Not by the Creation Institute) a proper one.

Your whole argument is not an argument, its just like a gossip piece narrated over the fence.

 

[firedragon]

Because we don't know if the same laws or math applies in a multi-universe, if they exist. We designed our math to work in our universe.

What?

 

[rational experiences]

The self assessed human man scientist theist. Inventive of all human discussed human science terminology.

A circular science human conscious identity. Man science creator is science of man. How he claimed science created man. Hence I am my own God.

Scientist himself.
Self possessed.

Instead of acknowledging. A human is only a human as a human. Aware human. Conscious human. Is a human.

No science first.

Only natural anything first.

Then you invent a theory.

You said how can I make force mass that sits within a held thin space plane react change.

To get energy myself.

Reasoning is mass first. Not consciousness or bio or the heavens gases.

For my human invention.

As cold and intensely hot bodies both sat within the same plane as mass.

He said held by phi.

State O the surround is cold Phi to own represent a number factor.

So space cannot contend to be named nothing plane it had to be given a state. As two forms existed sitting within the same body of space.

Phi was what a human man decided was how he would change form. As cold could support a heated conversion whilst holding cold within the same space.

Yet what he did not own personally was space in its natural status supporting two body comparisons totally opposing in the same moment.

The self destructive lesson that a man group of human brothers titled the satanist told you about as a confession. A human science confession.

Man changed his science title Satan ist into science ist. To proclaim the story of man and Satan is fake as he chose to continue destruction under a new title. With same intentions.

Is the natural life human aware conscious warning for all equal humans.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Because we don't know if the same laws or math applies in a multi-universe, if they exist. We designed our math to work in our universe.

Or math just is. And we discovered it (not invented/designed).

 

[Polymath257]

2+2=4 in our universe.
If there are muti-universes 2+2 may equal something different.

As I see it, math is a language. it is a language we can use to describe the universe around us.

So, to ask if math is the same in a different universe is akin to asking if English is the same there. We might choose different words, or perhaps even different sentence structure. But if we are trained in English, that is the language we would use. Math has more to do with how *we* describe things than it has to do with what is being described.

 

[danieldemol]

Your whole argument is not an argument, its just like a gossip piece narrated over the fence.

So ad-hominem instead of addressing the argument

 

[firedragon]

So ad-hominem instead of addressing the argument

To address an argument it has to be an argument.

But thanks for your commentary. Highly appreciated.

 

[danieldemol]

To address an argument it has to be an argument.

It is an argument, semantics won't further your cause in the mind of any rational person (assuming your ad-hominem was aimed at convincing the rational enquirer, perhaps that was my mistake).

But thanks for your commentary. Highly appreciated.

You're welcome, my pleasure to have been of assistance.

 

[firedragon]

It is an argument, semantics won't further your cause in the mind of any rational person (assuming your ad-hominem was aimed at convincing the rational enquirer, perhaps that was my mistake).


You're welcome, my pleasure to have been of assistance.

Very good. Thanks again. Highly appreciated.

 

[Dogknox20]

Since life is a process, not a thing, it requires time. hence, to 'live outside of time' is non-sense as far as I can see.

Polymath257 As far as you can see...?
If your sight is being hindered it does not mean God does NOT live outside of time!

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257 As far as you can see...?
If your sight is being hindered it does not mean God does NOT live outside of time!

What does it even mean to 'live outside of time'? What does it mean to be alive if there is no time?

And why do you think my sight is hindered?