Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Nobody Dies for a Lie
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostQuantum mechanics, ever hear of it? Actually it goes back even further than the quantum. Einstein himself said that the distinction between past, present, and future was just a persistent illusion.
So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.
As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.Last edited by JonathanL; 09-19-2018, 03:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostHow to induce the shift from timeless eternity, which seems to be an unchanging state, to creation, which isn't?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIf you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html
And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIf you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI don't hold that belief. I do hold that once something is in an unchanging state it will remain so unless there is some external interference. This would mean that something else must have impacted God's "timeless eternity".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html
And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/
ETA: To clarify, it's not what I and Roy are discussing at the moment.Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 06:45 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI do think there must be a reason for something to go from an unchanging state to a changed state. But I don't agree that the reason needs to be external. It could just as well be internal, in this case for example God willing/deciding to create the universe.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostIt it's internal, that means something in an unchanging state changed - which is a contradiction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostOh, I'm aware that the belief that Special Relativity has proven that the passage of time is just an illusion. I happen to disagree. SR has proven no such thing. There is a certain interpretations of SR which would imply that the passage of time is just an illusion, but there is also a fully valid interpretation of SR (the neo-Lorentzian interpretation) where the passage of time is preserved as a reality. If we pick Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation of SR, we see that they make exactly the same predictions for every experiment, so there is no experimental justification to pick Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.
So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.
As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.
Quantum Mechanics and time next. . .
In summary time in our universe is general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. At the Quantum level time is universal and absolute.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2018, 09:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYou'll have to unpack your assertion a bit more. There's no contradiction involved in the statement "Something in an unchanging state changed" as far as I can see.We've already established that unchanging != unchangeable, so you must be referring to something else.And as far as I can see there's no logical impossibility for an unchanged state/existence to contain within itself the conditions necessary for it to change.
It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.
Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI think there is. If something changes, it isn't unchanging, by definition.
Originally posted by Roy View PostSomething can be unchanging but not unchangeable if it's changeable by outside influence but won't change without outside influence.
If something changes solely due to something within itself, it clearly isn't unchanging.
It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.
Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.
Well no, it isn't unchanging(or perhaps unchanged is a better word for it?) any more. But it was unchanged prior to the change.
We might be operating under different understanding of the word. I'm simply taking unchanging to mean that no prior state of events exists where that something is different to what it currently is. I'm beginning to think the word "unchanged" captures the meaning I'm intending more accurately.
I don't think I can provide any non-controversial examples of something that is unchanging, but changes, at least not if you're looking for real world examples. I can only provide thought experiments and hypotheticals. I can for example, envision a state of existence that contain the sufficient conditions within itself to change, but are timeless in the sense that no state of existence exists prior to it. In other words, it has not undergone any change what so ever to get to the point to which it is, so it is by definition unchanged. But it will not continue being unchanged, since if the sufficient conditions for change exists, then that change will necessarily occur.
Let's say for example, that we imagine a state of existence which contained a ball, a slope and and everything else necessary for these objects to interact with each other like they do in the real world. If the ball sat on top of the slope then all the sufficient conditions for it to start rolling down the slope would exist. And if no prior state of events existed where the ball did not sit on top of the slope existed, it would by definition be an unchanged state of existence, as per the understanding I gave above.
Again, we might be talking past each other with the way we're using the word "unchanging". I'm simply using it in the sense of "unchanged" i.e if something is unchanged it hasn't undergone any change to get to the state it's currently in, but you're apparently using the word "unchanging" in a different sense.
On another note, my mind is getting so saturated with the words "change", "unchanging" and "unchanged" that they're starting to lose their meaning to me.Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 10:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe you are selectively misrepresenting Lorentz's view of time. Your conclusions are not necessarily so.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
391 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
681 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment