It's no game..
For example, do we assume that time has passed in a linear fashion from beginning of universe
until now?
Enemies of Reason P1
- Thread starter Naturalist
- Start date
For example, do we assume that time has passed in a linear fashion from beginning of universe
until now?
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Prove it!
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
Not proof .. but the fact the universe is constantly expanding suggests it.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
How does the fact that the Universe is constantly expanding suggest that time wasn't linear in the past?
..because the universe is a space-time continuum.
Space & time are interlinked .. it is only an ASSUMPTION that time is linear.
We have to make assumptions, in order to express the relationship between quantities/dimensions.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
Um, no. We define time based on something physical. So a day is based on the physical rotation of the Earth on its axis, a year the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. Those physical observations are linear.
Using these "clocks", we use the same intervals to look back in time, even before the Sun or Earth existed. It's the interval that matters.
Based on how we measure time, it's linear.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Well.. that was an uncomfortable read.
I'm just going to say that in the end we will all know the truth. My truth is that all knees will bow and all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord.
I'm just going to say that in the end we will all know the truth. My truth is that all knees will bow and all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
That's your fantasy. A sick fantasy.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Removed.. realized I had more to say
Last edited:
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Are you a troll? Or just a fool who says there is no God. My Bible talks about people like you that God will give up people like you to your delusions.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Ouch right?
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
No, absurd.
No sir! You have not made any measurements 10,000 years ago, never mind billions of years.
Your calculations are all based on extrapolation of recent calculations, using definitions that are ASSUMPTIONS.
Now, these assumptions might be right .. but we do not know that.
Without basic definitions of time/space/energy etc. , we cannot make any calculations.
We make these definitions out of necessity .. they are assumptions.
Of course, most people don't realise that .. they see science as an exact 'thing', rather than what it is..
..a tool.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of assumptions. And when we use those assumptions, we get results that are productive and useful. We can be confident that our assumptions are correct, not just wild guesses.No sir! You have not made any measurements 10,000 years ago, never mind billions of years.
Your calculations are all based on extrapolation of recent calculations, using definitions that are ASSUMPTIONS.
Now, these assumptions might be right .. but we do not know that.
Without basic definitions of time/space/energy etc. , we cannot make any calculations.
We make these definitions out of necessity .. they are assumptions.
Of course, most people don't realise that .. they see science as an exact 'thing', rather than what it is..
..a tool.
It's the Enemies of Reason who just make stuff up.
Circular reasoning .. start with an assumption .. make calculations .. the results show us that
the assumptions are correct.
No .. it is a case of ego blinding the "master reasoner"
Don't forget, you are the one who seems to think that religious people do not use reason.
I do not claim to be infallible .. nor do any scientists worth their salt.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
It's not just calculations, it's physical evidence, Genius.Circular reasoning .. start with an assumption .. make calculations .. the results show us that
the assumptions are correct.
No .. it is a case of ego blinding the "master reasoner"
Don't forget, you are the one who seems to think that religious people do not use reason.
I do not claim to be infallible .. nor do any scientists worth their salt.
Everyone uses reason at times, and everyone fails to use reason at times.
The difference is that when religious people are shown why they are wrong, they can't accept it. It causes cognitive dissonance, and they just continue to be wrong.
Mathematically, how could evolution happen without God? 3.8 billion years ago, single cell life emerged, it existed for around 1.5 billion years. A generation could be measured in hours or days. Possibly, billion or trillions of generations remained single, That should make single cell life incredibly strong and resilient.
Organisms then had to increase incrementally in size from single to thousands, millions, billions and to trillions of cells. Adjust these numbers in any way you like. Supposing it took a million increases, to go from single cell life to a species like a fish with a trillion plus cells. Each of the million increases in the growth of that organism would be responsible on average, for producing and arranging a million plus new cells.
How can millions or billions of new cells randomly become 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons and all the other body bits? The increase in organism size starts about two billion years ago from single cell life. Each and every increase in size has no goals. Cells don’t have to collaborate together to become teeth, jaws, stomach etc.
Random mutation is said to be responsible for adding new traits. The first bone might be made from millions of cells. Once that new trait has been introduced, natural selection has the opportunity to work. If this process was truly random, a million increases in size of a million cells at a time could only produce absolute chaos. Evolution needs a numerical path from single cell to the thirty trillion cells in our bodies. Or the approximate thirty thousand trillion cells that make up a blue whale. We can understand the beauty of mathematics. Numbers tell a story.
How could this amount of organisation happen by natural causes; and without God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen?
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
That's where a biology course or two would do you some good. Also, try not to commit the fallacy of incredulity.
It dawned on me this morning that @Naturalist's position is a version of the age-old and out-dated science v religion debate.
In fact his position is a mirror-image of the religious fundamentalist – there's no actual engagement in the debate of ideas, the dialogue is overshadowed by the misguided belief that there necessarily has to be a winner and a loser in the debate.
1.3 Taxonomies of the interaction between science and religion
The following is a précis of a lengthy article:
"Several typologies probe the interaction between science and religion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes between three views: the independence view (no overlap between science and religion),
the contact view (some overlap between the fields),
and a union of the domains of science and religion.
The most influential taxonomy of the relationship between science and religion remains Barbour’s (2000):
conflict,
independence,
dialogue,
integration."
As we can see from posts, @Naturalist seems wedded to the conflict position – the fallback position is to oppose rather than engage.
The conflict model holds that science and religion are in perpetual and principal conflict... (T)he conflict thesis needs to be contextualized in a liberal Protestant tradition of attempting to separate religion from theology, and thus salvage religion. Their work (John Draper’s (1874) History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s (1896) two-volume opus A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom) was later appropriated by skeptics and atheists who used their arguments about the incompatibility of traditional theological views with science to argue for secularization, something Draper and White did not envisage.
+++
In fact his position is a mirror-image of the religious fundamentalist – there's no actual engagement in the debate of ideas, the dialogue is overshadowed by the misguided belief that there necessarily has to be a winner and a loser in the debate.
1.3 Taxonomies of the interaction between science and religion
The following is a précis of a lengthy article:
"Several typologies probe the interaction between science and religion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes between three views: the independence view (no overlap between science and religion),
the contact view (some overlap between the fields),
and a union of the domains of science and religion.
The most influential taxonomy of the relationship between science and religion remains Barbour’s (2000):
conflict,
independence,
dialogue,
integration."
As we can see from posts, @Naturalist seems wedded to the conflict position – the fallback position is to oppose rather than engage.
The conflict model holds that science and religion are in perpetual and principal conflict... (T)he conflict thesis needs to be contextualized in a liberal Protestant tradition of attempting to separate religion from theology, and thus salvage religion. Their work (John Draper’s (1874) History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s (1896) two-volume opus A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom) was later appropriated by skeptics and atheists who used their arguments about the incompatibility of traditional theological views with science to argue for secularization, something Draper and White did not envisage.
+++