[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

And for the sake of the debate, "God" is quicker to type than "absolute reference frame".

Yeah, what he said.

[Black Wolf]

Argh. There's a lot I wan to add to this thread, but I fear I'm out of my depth in the physics.

Firstly -

Originally posted by Sandwich


Neither has the Bible been proven wrong. Indeed, and slightly OT, the very existance of the nation in which I live is a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.

Not knowing an awful lo about Israeli History, I wonder if this would have occured had the prophecy not been written at all? My (admittedly vague) understanding of the subject seems to make me believe that the formation of Israel had been something the Jews had wanted for hundreds of years, primarily to fulfil that prophecy. Basically it comes down to a question of whether it's really a prediction being fulfilled, or an order being carried out if people have to actively make it their mission to fulfil it.

Also, does this theory address the age of the earth as well as the age of the universe? Through scientific procedures such as carbon and other forms of radiological dating, we can prove scientifically the earth has existed longer than 5760 years - even relatively short term Carbon dating takes us back tens of thousands of years, and that's from the POV of the earth, where time as we experience remains constant (I think... As I said, the kind of physics being discussed here really isn't my forte). In my opinion at least, justifying a single part of the biblical timeline while disregarding the rest doesn't seem to have much of a point.

However, my major contribution would eb to actually challenge the very basis of the theory itself- the text of the bible that are being dealt with here. As has been touched on before, what we read today as the bible is not something "Of God", at least not any more. It has gone through several translations, copies, and even blatant rewrites (The King James Version As I recall). Ultimately, trying to use the specific wording of the bible as a basis for a scientific theory is pointless. Not saying religion is pointless - despite all the rewrites and suchlike, I doubt the overall message of the bible has changed much. Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.

It's this that pisses me off about organized religion mainly - they're basically forcing peoples faith into a mould that doesn't really reflect more than the germ of the idea that was written down all those years ago. Go Quakerism.

[HotSnoJ]

Not knowing an awful lo about Israeli History, I wonder if this would have occured had the prophecy not been written at all? My (admittedly vague) understanding of the subject seems to make me believe that the formation of Israel had been something the Jews had wanted for hundreds of years, primarily to fulfil that prophecy. Basically it comes down to a question of whether it's really a prediction being fulfilled, or an order being carried out if people have to actively make it their mission to fulfil it.

Good point.

Also, does this theory address the age of the earth as well as the age of the universe? Through scientific procedures such as carbon and other forms of radiological dating, we can prove scientifically the earth has existed longer than 5760 years - even relatively short term Carbon dating takes us back tens of thousands of years, and that's from the POV of the earth, where time as we experience remains constant (I think... As I said, the kind of physics being discussed here really isn't my forte). In my opinion at least, justifying a single part of the biblical timeline while disregarding the rest doesn't seem to have much of a point.

Most carbon dating starts with the assumption that the earth is very old in the first place. So the tester assumes what the ammount of stuff was in the object in the first place and calculates from there. So it is circular thinking. Using an assumption to prove that same assumption.

However, my major contribution would eb to actually challenge the very basis of the theory itself- the text of the bible that are being dealt with here. As has been touched on before, what we read today as the bible is not something "Of God", at least not any more. It has gone through several translations, copies, and even blatant rewrites (The King James Version As I recall). Ultimately, trying to use the specific wording of the bible as a basis for a scientific theory is pointless. Not saying religion is pointless - despite all the rewrites and suchlike, I doubt the overall message of the bible has changed much. Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.

You're right that the basic message is kept intact during the translation, but a NIV Bible wasn't translated from the KJV. It's translated from the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek. And the argument that the bible has been translated so many time as a reason not to believe it isn't a good argument. It's been translated into other langauges so other people can read it. There are different versions (NIV and KJV for instance) of the Bible because they change the english text to fit current knowledge of the Bible's original langauges. Wouldn't it be smart to retranslate a text to fit the meaning it has in the original language? Especially when you find out something new about the origianal langauge.

Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.

I don't know what your view on God is, but if you're athiest... If you believe that God wasn't involved in the making of the Bible then why are somethings good while somethings are bad (think Ten Commandments). As Bill Jack says, "You're stealing lumber from my worldview to build your's. And that's a no-no, unless you're a secular-humanist that is." (or something along those lines)

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Most carbon dating starts with the assumption that the earth is very old in the first place. So the tester assumes what the ammount of stuff was in the object in the first place and calculates from there. So it is circular thinking. Using an assumption to prove that same assumption.

Not True. Like all scientific principles, Carbon Dating begins not with an assumption, but with repeated observation, and a testable theory. We can observe the rate of C14 breakdown, we can test this rate to see if it remains relatively constant. We can also observe the proportions of C12 and C14 in the atmosphgere and in living organisms, and find them to be the same, no matter how many times we look. This is the basis for a scientific theory that has not one shred of evidence against it. Denying it because it doesn't help your faith makes no difference.

To use your own terms, we're using the scientific method, reputable observations and tried and tested theories toprove an assumption.

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You're right that the basic message is kept intact during the translation, but a NIV Bible wasn't translated from the KJV. It's translated from the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek. And the argument that the bible has been translated so many time as a reason not to believe it isn't a good argument. It's been translated into other langauges so other people can read it. There are different versions (NIV and KJV for instance) of the Bible because they change the english text to fit current knowledge of the Bible's original langauges. Wouldn't it be smart to retranslate a text to fit the meaning it has in the original language? Especially when you find out something new about the origianal langauge.

[/b]

Just out of curiosity, do you know when the bible was written in relation to the stories it portrays? And there is no evidence to suggest the basic originals that are used to translate modern versions (Of which most follow the basic KJ Mould) were even the first written down. The bible is a third hand account - not a bad thing if you're after a moiral or theological guidebook, but not exactly ideal if you want a word for word copy of Gods Autobiography.

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I don't know what your view on God is, but if you're athiest... If you believe that God wasn't involved in the making of the Bible then why are somethings good while somethings are bad (think Ten Commandments). As Bill Jack says, "You're stealing lumber from my worldview to build your's. And that's a no-no, unless you're a secular-humanist that is." (or something along those lines)

Just so you know, Christianity doesn;t have a monopoly on "Be a good bloke and don't kill people". I happen to think a healthy respect for ones parents is a good thing. I also think random murders tend to coarsen ones nature and so should be avoided. Fooling around with another mans Girl is also a no no. I donlt believe these things because the bible told me to. I believe them because of my own personal code of ethics and morality. The essential message of the bible (see "good Bloke" comments above) pretty much fits those morals, and while it doesn't precisely match the way I believe life should be lived, they also don't fall far enough away that I have a problem with people who follow them, as long as they don't act like retards or try to cram it down my throat.

Anyway, as Mik's said, this is primarily a physics/Religion thread, so we probably shouldn't continue the blatant OTness.

[mikhael]

I give up. Sandwich, we've been threadjacked.

[Sandwich]

Yeah, well I'm surprised it stayed on topic as long as it did. So just tell me one thing. Does relativity rule out an absolute...err, God existing outside of our universe/dimension/plane of existence?

[Kamikaze]

Science only deals with naturalistic concepts. If science can theorize about it, then by definition it would be natural. So, no.

Unless you accept the multiverse theory, and are talking about out of our universe.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Yeah, well I'm surprised it stayed on topic as long as it did. So just tell me one thing. Does relativity rule out an absolute...err, God existing outside of our universe/dimension/plane of existence?

Well, it has problems. No, it doesn't rule out anything existing somewhere else in the manifold that is not in our Universe.

However, nothing from outside the universe can interact with or observe anything inside the universe. If data can transfer between points A and B they are within the same universe or the data is passing through a wormhole (see Hawking and/or Coleman for explanations of the interconnectedness of universes in the manifold). Such wormholes, however, are on the order of the Planck length, though, making transit impossible. You might get data passing from universe to universe via quantum tunneling. In that case, however, only bits of information would get through, and the entire 'message' would be scattered across multiple universes, with most remaining in our universe.

The only way God is observing an event in our universe is if he is IN our universe. If He is not, he breaks physics pretty badly (breaking stuff that we know is not broken because of experimental data). Even if He is in our universe observing, his frame of reference cannot be absolute, because, yet again, he breaks physics badly (see above).

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by mikhael
The only way God is observing an event in our universe is if he is IN our universe.

How can you be sure?  We know that nothing inside the universe can interact with stuff outside the universe*, but is the reverse true?  Can we be sure that nothing outside the universe can interact with stuff inside the universe?

Take it this way.  We're confined to the universe, so we can't escape it.  But God, having created the universe and existing outside of and independent of it, can either choose to do stuff in his own continuum** or poke his finger into the universe and mess with something.

*Yes, I know interaction is a two-way process, but I'm simplifying the sentence here, since it's complicated enough already.  Take "x interacts with y" to mean "x initiates interaction with y".  If you want to be all formal about it, say "x transmits information to y with no assistance from y or any other agent, internal or external". :p

**This assumes God occupies and is bound by a continuum, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Goober5000


How can you be sure?  We know that nothing inside the universe can interact with stuff outside the universe*, but is the reverse true?  Can we be sure that nothing outside the universe can interact with stuff inside the universe?

*Yes, I know interaction is a two-way process, but I'm simplifying the sentence here, since it's complicated enough already.  Take "x interacts with y" to mean "x initiates interaction with y".  If you want to be all formal about it, say "x transmits information to y with no

Exactly. interaction is a two way process. You cannot "simplify" things by seperating action from reaction. To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect

If something from outside the universe could act on things within the universe, there would be a net addition to our universe in terms of energy or matter (most likely energy). Thermodynamics (another one of those theories that has been shown continually to be correct experiment after experiment) doesn't allow for this. The law of conservation of energy and mass does not allow for this either.

For an outside entity to muck about inside the universe (even just observing) would break fundamental physics in ways that would completely break science, particularly physics.

Consider it this way: if such interaction were possible and physics were indeed broken, the theory that Sandwich and I are discussing is invalid. The physics it depends upon are broken by this extra-universal interaction, invalidating the very physics upon which Sandwich's theory is based.

Either way, the theory is invalid. Either the necessary reference frame is impossible, or having the reference frame breaks the theory.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect

You've been watching Matrix reloaded again, haven't you?

And I'm far too tired to reply sensibly at the moment - it's 6:30am... BEFORE a "night's" sleep.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by mikhael
Exactly. interaction is a two way process. You cannot "simplify" things by seperating action from reaction. To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect.

Bah - I knew that would confuddle the issue.  I know very well what you mean here; the simplification was intended only for grammatical purposes and for clarity.  Here's the section rewritten with the definition substituted in...

We know that no agent inside the universe can transmit or convey information outside the universe of its own accord.  But is the reverse true?  Can we be sure that no agent outside the universe can convey information inside the universe?

Think of the universe as a large bubble.  It's a self-contained, self-sufficient, closed system.  Any information from inside the bubble directed outward will be unable to escape the bubble's border.  But anyone can come along and poke a hole in the bubble from outside - "open" the system, as it were.

Take the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18).  The burning of the sacrifice clearly involved the addition of heat energy in a way not consistent with physical law.  However, the law of conservation of energy was not violated per se because the energy was not created from within the universe - it was added into the universe by an external agent.  To say that the law of conservation of energy was violated here doesn't make sense, since our physical laws have no control over what happens outside the universe.  They are self-consistent, but they cannot prevent an external agent from interfering with them.

Compare this with the proverbial apple falling from a tree.  Gravity dictates that the apple will fall to the ground.  But if someone reaches out and catches the apple, this will not happen.  That doesn't mean the law of gravity is violated.  Some agent acted to interfere with it.

[Kamikaze]

The definition of "closed system" is a system that doesn't transfer matter, but just energy. I think you mean "isolated system". Anyhow, in an isolated system no energy can be added.

In the case of the biblical story you referenced, let's put the sacrifice as the system, and the universe as its surroundings. Now, you can have energy transfer from the surroundings to the system, and out of the system to the surroundings. However you can't "magicallY" insert energy into the system without it coming from the surroundings. In other words divine intervention of this sort violates thermodynamics (the 1st law).