Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> --snip--

>

> >TERRY

> >Evidently you did not understand what I was saying.  God is who I am

> >applying the statement to in the first place.  Anything eternal cannot be

> >verified by something that is finite, regardless of whether it is God or

> >the Universe.

>

> RON

> Why not? There was a theory, now discredited, called the steady state

> theory of the universe. It said that the universe was eternal, and that

> new

> matter formed out of nothing at a rate so as to allow the constant

> formation of new stars and galaxies. (This idea had nothing to do with

> virtual particles. The idea here is that once matter forms from nothing,

> it

> stays around forever.) The strongest prediction of the steady state theory

> is that the universe will look the same everywhere and at all times. So if

> we look far back into the past, we'll see the same sort of stuff - stars,

> galaxies, gas clouds, etc., that we have in our own neighborhood. The main

> reason we don't accept the steady state theory today is that this

> prediction has been falsified. When we look far away and far back in time,

> the universe looks noticeably different.

>

> But suppose the prediction was born out. As far back in space and time as

> we can see, the universe looks just like it does around here. This would

> be

> strong evidence for an eternal universe, one without beginning or end. We

> finite humans would have verified an eternal universe.

>

> TERRY

> Now this takes the cake, did I hear you right, "this prediction has been

> discredited" and yet you are still trying to use it.  Yes I know this

> prediction is no longer accepted as accurate.  Therefore, there is no need

> of supposing than, since this prediction has been discredited.

>


Walt Loy

This was a counterexample, Terry.  You claimed that finite man could not
verify an infinite thing, and he gave you a situation where a theoretically
infinite universe gave a usable _and verifiable_ prediction.  The fact that
the prediction did not pan out means that the universe does not conform to
that theory, but it's still a valid counterexample to your assertion.

--snip--


>

> TERRY

> I have went over this before.  If something is eternal nothing created it,

> its as simple as that as far as I am concern.  If he can prove that the

> universe is eternal then perhaps there would be a little more validity to

> what he is saying.  However , I do not believe anything can be verified as

> eternal, only verified as not being eternal.


Walt Loy

And here we have a non sequitur argument.  If the Universe is eternal, it
didn't need to be created.  Fair enough.  The universe has been verified to be
finite in time.  Check.  Unfortunately, the second point does not constitute a
proper negation of the first point.  Since the universe is not eternal, we
cannot verify that it is eternal.  This has no bearing on whether or not the
universe required an external 'cause' to start it.

• Previous message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)
• Next message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]