[mikhael]

Cervantes' Don Quixote? Absolutely. But in this case, I tilt not at windmills, but my dear friend Sandwich.

Me and Sandwich are having fun. I'd certainly never get into this one with Rampage or his ilk.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by mikhael

You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility. For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.

By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.

You have effectively proven that the theory cannot stand up in the face of scientific inquiry without introducing an element (God) which can violate the framework specified by the theory. Therefore the theory fails to be internally consistent and cannot be used in any sensible way and must be dismissed.

The theory is interesting and, indeed, could be used as the basis of a great story, but it is not consistent with the science or the Universe, despite what the guy claims. I will not argue about the Creation of the Universe itself, mind you. I will only claim that this guy's theory is broken and invalid.

But you forget, He (God) made it (the universe). Soooo if he made it then he decides what to do with it.

BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God. Duh!

[neo_hermes]

God = good and evil

there's my two cents

[mikhael]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But you forget, He (God) made it (the universe). Soooo if he made it then he decides what to do with it.

BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God. Duh!

Instead of flaming you, I will direct you back to the subject at hand: a theory proposing to join the six days of Old Testament (more accurately, the Torah) Creation with modern science.

Go back, read, understand. If you do no understand why your response is utterly and completely off topic and irrelevant, be silent.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by mikhael

Instead of flaming you, I will direct you back to the subject at hand: a theory proposing to join the six days of Old Testament (more accurately, the Torah) Creation with modern science.

Go back, read, understand. If you do no understand why your response is utterly and completely off topic and irrelevant, be silent.

I was on topic. You stateted "You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics." my respense "BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God.  Duh!". I can see your confusion about the first part or my post but not the second.

If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.

I'd like to point to a fish bowl. Lets say our laser is inside the fish bowl. Inside the fish bowl is the universe. I can watch the laser and move it around, but I'm not in the "universe". We could expand shrink, whatever, the inside of the fish bowl (think relitive stuff here), but my ruler would be an absolute. (remember God is all powerful and metaphysical).

Since God is eturnel then time doesn't really have much meaning. Going from this we can assume that time itself is relative within eternity. Or baiscly time tells us when something happened so there must be an event as a reference point.

Well I need to go to work and my brain is overheating. I think I need to install another heatsink.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael

You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility.

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. Whether you view that fulfilment as simply something that, given enough time, would be inevitable or not is another matter entirely.

Originally posted by mikhael
For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.

By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.

Ahh, but on the other hand, the assumtion under consideration here is that God is the one who dictated those laws of physics in the first place. Besides, if God is outside of our universe, then how can you even attempt to argue against the theory by saying that God would have to be immune to those laws. It's like saying that a deadly airborne virus has broken loose on Neptune. Yeah, perhaps if we were actually affected in any way shape or form by the composition of Neptune's atmosphere it would be something to take into consideration before going out for a stroll. But, thank God, the composition of Neptune's atmosphere has absolutely no effect on life here on Earth.

So... you can't prove that there isn't a God existing outside of our universe, unaffected by time and our laws of physics. Since science deals with the space-time continum around us, attempting to disprove the existance of a being outside of our sphere of observation is pointless.

This leaves us at an impasse - or it would be an impasse, were it not for the Bible. Without the Bible, people could say "Oh, God's out there somewhere", and not be able to prove or even give a semi-convincing argument for their position. But the Bible, ostensibly (and I believe actually) inspired and dictated in part by God, is the only thing we have "of God" that can be compared and measured against science.

So what proof does the Bible claim to offer towards God's existance? As far as I know, only prophecy. And current events are pretty convincing for me... Israel is a nation, Jews are returning from the four corners of the Earth, and Jerusalem is a "stumbling stone" to the rest of the world. I can give you scriptural references to those prophecies if you'd like.

Face it. Neo is The One.

Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?

[Ace]

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. Whether you view that fulfilment as simply something that, given enough time, would be inevitable or not is another matter entirely.



Ahh, but on the other hand, the assumtion under consideration here is that God is the one who dictated those laws of physics in the first place. Besides, if God is outside of our universe, then how can you even attempt to argue against the theory by saying that God would have to be immune to those laws. It's like saying that a deadly airborne virus has broken loose on Neptune. Yeah, perhaps if we were actually affected in any way shape or form by the composition of Neptune's atmosphere it would be something to take into consideration before going out for a stroll. But, thank God, the composition of Neptune's atmosphere has absolutely no effect on life here on Earth.

So... you can't prove that there isn't a God existing outside of our universe, unaffected by time and our laws of physics. Since science deals with the space-time continum around us, attempting to disprove the existance of a being outside of our sphere of observation is pointless.

This leaves us at an impasse - or it would be an impasse, were it not for the Bible. Without the Bible, people could say "Oh, God's out there somewhere", and not be able to prove or even give a semi-convincing argument for their position. But the Bible, ostensibly (and I believe actually) inspired and dictated in part by God, is the only thing we have "of God" that can be compared and measured against science.

So what proof does the Bible claim to offer towards God's existance? As far as I know, only prophecy. And current events are pretty convincing for me... Israel is a nation, Jews are returning from the four corners of the Earth, and Jerusalem is a "stumbling stone" to the rest of the world. I can give you scriptural references to those prophecies if you'd like.

Face it. Neo is The One.

Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?

When politics and religion are joined... aww crap I've read too much Dune

But hey, it is a valid warning

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Ace


When politics and religion are joined... aww crap I've read too much Dune

But hey, it is a valid warning

Ah, but you see they are more intertwined then you could possibly imagion! Religion/Worldview rules your ideals/values which rule what you do in politics.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?

This theory breaks down Relativity if it is correct. I've already stated that farther back in the thread (I think).

If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.

Hotsnoj, I am trying to stay strictly within the realm of scientific inquiry to argue my point here. You can say "God can do anything, He's God!", naturally. Likewise, I can say He cannot. That is matter of faith and faith cannot be proven--indeed, most of the faithful I know or have read have said that if you could prove faith, it wouldn't be faith. Sandwich shows a theory in which God's creation of the universe is consistent with the observed physical laws of the universe.  The theory is presented scientifically,  and argued scientifically.  Let's not break down into a frothing, "God can do anything!" "No He can't!" "Yes He can!" "Can't!" "Can!" rant-counterrant cycle.

Please, focus on the science of the articles in question and try not to interject your faith.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by mikhael
If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.

Hotsnoj, I am trying to stay strictly within the realm of scientific inquiry to argue my point here.

Okay, I'll take up something here. Humour me - why must it be within the universe to be valid? Because I think one of the points Sandwich is putting forward here is that God's reference is absolute precisely because He's outside the universe, and that this itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry - so science can only go so far, and I think we may have passed that limit.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael


This theory breaks down Relativity if it is correct. I've already stated that farther back in the thread (I think).

Yeah, you did, but I don't see how it goes against relativity. It's like saying that there's not a single mountain in the whole world higher than Mt. Everest. To which I respond "Correct, but Olympus Mons on Mars is higher."

Doesn't relativity deal with everything scientifically measurable - our whole reality? That's fine, but how can relativity dictate whether there can or can't be something beyond it's sphere of "influence"?

Originally posted by mikhael
If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.

No absolute reference frames in the same universe, you mean (don't you?). Go beyond this universe, and there's nothing wrong with an absolute reference frame (relative to it's relation with our universe - it could very well be a relative reference frame of other things in it's realm). On the contrary. Everything beyond this universe is - in regard to observations of our universe - an absolute reference frame.

EDIT: Setekh beat me to it.

[Setekh]

Sorry buddy, you know how great minds think alike... also, fools never differ.

[mikhael]

None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.

Look at it this way: for something to observed, data has to travel from the target of the observation to the sensory apparatus of the observer. Generally, we're talking about light. What does it travel through to get to the observer? It must be within the universe.

You could answer this question with "God sees all, everywhere." but that's meandering off into faith, and away from scientific inquiry.

[TheCelestialOne]

You people assume too much. You don't even know whats outside this universe.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by mikhael
None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.

What I'm about to say also borders on what's inconceivable, but I'll offer it anyway. I'm aware it's a very poor analogy, but hey... anyway. An artist and his painting. The painting itself could be an entire universe. Clearly interaction is possible. But that doesn't make the artist part of the painting. However, this analogy breaks down immediately because the artist and his painting are in the same universe, but... is that worth anything to you? How the universe can exist without God being a part of it?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Setekh


What I'm about to say also borders on what's inconceivable, but I'll offer it anyway. I'm aware it's a very poor analogy, but hey... anyway. An artist and his painting. The painting itself could be an entire universe. Clearly interaction is possible. But that doesn't make the artist part of the painting. However, this analogy breaks down immediately because the artist and his painting are in the same universe, but... is that worth anything to you? How the universe can exist without God being a part of it?

It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.

[mikhael]

Obligatory Response: If God-the-Painter is a Cubist, all bets are off.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by mikhael
It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.

That is a predicament. But then, we are talking about much more than just a regular lifeless painting, and much more than a regular light-seeing eye. I wish I understood it all myself, but I think it's getting to the bits where human minds can't fold themselves around it without getting more confused than when they started... kinda like imagining more dimensions.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Setekh

... but I think it's getting to the bits where human minds can't fold themselves around it without getting more confused than when they started... kinda like imagining more dimensions.

That's why I try to avoid arguing-from-faith.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by mikhael
None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.

Look at it this way: for something to observed, data has to travel from the target of the observation to the sensory apparatus of the observer. Generally, we're talking about light. What does it travel through to get to the observer? It must be within the universe.

Ok, but remember God is metaphysical. So he can be in the universe. In fact I don't really know how we got into this thing about God not being in the universe in the first place. I guess we must assume that either the universe is infinite of finite. If it's finite then what's beyond it? How come in that beyond-ness the place where our universe has the laws it does? What defines the boundries? Why are the boundries the way they are?

Originally posted by mikhael
You could answer this question with "God sees all, everywhere." but that's meandering off into faith, and away from scientific inquiry.

Ah, but it is a matter of faith. You see if you prove that God can't exist then my faith is pointless. And if it's pointless then why bother to believe it? I must hold to my faith that God exists and you must hold to your's that says He doesn't/can't. If you are correct that evolution and so on is true. Then life has no meaning, everything is pointless. Even this very discussion! And if it is pointless then why are you even arguing with me?

Just some points to think about.

Sorry buddy, you know how great minds think alike... also, fools never differ.

How true, how true.