Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)
Terry errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 09:39:24 -0500 (00928179564, 01beab73$61166940$5f99c1cf@terry.bluebonnet.net)
> --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.
TERRY
With all due respect Walt, How can he use it as a counter example to my
assertion.
The theory is no longer accepted as valid, so that would mean that the
universe does have a beginning. If you asks me a question about the flood
and I gave you an answer you did not view as correct you would attempt to
should me the error of my ways. However, if I answered the question and
then told you my answer was one no one considered as valid anymore, you
would probably fall out of your chair laughing. No matter how far one
looks back into time to see, they will never be able to look infinitely
back into time.
>
> 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.
TERRY
Now you are contradicting what he has said, >>"We don't know that our
universe IS finite".<<
Walt
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.
TERRY
I believe it does Walt, and the reason I believe this is because the
universe is very complex and very extraordinary in it perception and
balance and could not have cause itself. Professor Albert Einstein said
"The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous
amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of
such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and
acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection".
This intelligence, this creator I call God, and I have said this does not
mean it is the Bible God, but I certainly do feel there has to be some
kind of creator. I said I was not going to go into a long thread with
this and I have already gone further than I planned. If you would like to
continue talking about it then I would prefer to do it privately from now
on. I am going to move on to something else I said I was going to post on
the errancy list but have not gotten back to.
have nice day,
Terry