The greatest irony...

Quote:

I never have been able to understand where some people think a people in God automatically cancels out a belief in science.

I think pretty much the same.

It surprises me that, when the bible says it's inspired by God...people think it's dictated by God. The bible isn't perfect, has never claimed to be perfect, and yet there's a plethora of people out there that think it is.

If one believes in God, and that he created this world, then one should have no problem with what is found in fossil records.

Instead, they put their faith in a creation story that was passed down verbally over thousands of years before it was first written down.

A combination of Common sense and fossil records says there is no need to accept that the Genesis is literally how the world was created (including it's age).

0 Replies

I might not reach the stars, but I'll never stop trying.

Christianity does indeed teach that the mind of man can never comprehend the nature of god, but christianity is made by man. Not the brightest representatives either, judging from that statement.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

real life wrote:
Chai wrote:
real life wrote:
So if energy is 'eternal' then a state of maximum entropy should have been reached.

Why should that state have been reached?

According to who? You? How did you reach that conclusion? Or, are you just expressing what "should" happen.

You're the one placing limits, not I.

What would prevent the universe from reaching a state of maximum entropy if it had existed 'eternally' (i.e. not just a 'very long time') ?

How does this answer my questions to you?

I'll take the high road and answer yours though....I did not say anything would prevent the universe from......very long time)? As I also quoted before, While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

I asked you what led you to believe this "should" have happened already?

You're up.

Because of the definition of 'eternal'. I thought that was obvious.

Nearly everyone agrees that the universe will reach maximum entropy in (fill in the blank, everyone seems to have a different number) years.

These answers all have one thing in common. They are FINITE periods of time. Though very long, they are still finite.

Your view , as stated, was that energy was 'eternal'. Therefore any FINITE period of time will have been lllllllllllllllllloooooooooonnnnnnnnngggggggggg surpassed in the 'eternity' that you have proposed.

Therefore, maximum entropy should have been achieved if indeed energy existed 'eternally'.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

christianity is made by man. Not the brightest representatives either

I wouldn't throw too many rocks at others , since you can't even figure out if you exist or not.

0 Replies

Real life....are you not reading what I (now for the 3rd time) have quoted?

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

0 Replies

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

0 Replies

Cyracuz
I say we blow this pop stand and go get a cup of joe.

0 Replies

sounds good. lead on

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

Real life....are you not reading what I (now for the 3rd time) have quoted?

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

It would've saved you the trouble if you had read my response after the first time you posted it.

I agreed with you.

http://able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3012991#3012991

SINCE entropy continuously increases, the universe will AT SOME POINT reach 'maximum entropy'. Nearly everyone agrees this is so . (If you don't then let's discuss this point.)

If the energy has existed 'eternally' , then any finite period of time in which maximum entropy must occur has already passed.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

These are pretty dogmatic statements about the existence and properties of the universe, wouldn't you say?

Especially since you can't even determine if YOU exist.

How do you know that your statements are so?

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

You've got a pocketful of assumptions, yourself.

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

That is, unless you have PROOF that any of this is true. (Save your pixels, you don't.)

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, at least I understand--and agree with--you.

By the way, regarding time and eternity, what's your response to the phrase: "Time is our moving image of eternity."

0 Replies

It's not a matter of what actually is. It is a matter of our concepts, what they mean to us and how we relate to them. Simple, really, my young padawan.

0 Replies

Thanks for your support JL.

That padawan remark was directed at real life, in case you wondered. Smile

But my response to this...

"Time is our moving image of eternity."

Off the top of my head, it gets me thinking about how we percieve ourselves as traveling along a linear time, since we have concepts like before and after. If we didn't have these concepts there would be no point in dividing eternity into pieces...

0 Replies

Also, the concept of eternity is most often thought of as a very long time. For myself, I pretty much equate "eternity" with "now".

0 Replies

real life wrote

Quote:

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

Here's a good example of the incomprehension of "the poolside spectator." Smile

(Talking about "truth" is another immediate indicator of this level)

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It's not a matter of what actually is. It is a matter of our concepts, what they mean to us and how we relate to them.

As I said previously, anyone would be a fool to go into business with someone who had such a fluid view of reality. Laughing

Cyracuz wrote:

Simple, really, my young padawan.

Or who takes his view of reality from a movie. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

anyone would be a fool to go into business

....now that part is worthy of serious contemplation according to Hesse's account of Siddhartha. :wink:

0 Replies

The greatest irony...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know