Anything possible must eventually happen?

[CST]

Unfortunately that would actually result in a lot of 'not saved' stuff. It also invites questions like. 'Is Satan in the universe?' 'Was he in the universe when he rebelled or was he outside and came in (or was thrown in)? 'If he was why'd he ahve to be thrown into our universe?' The problem of Satan was big enough already.

[eaglesway]

I am a huge science fiction fan and have been for 50 years, but the one genre that never caught my imagination or allowed me a healthy "suspension of disbelief" is the "multiply generating" universes after every divergent event thing. Always gave me a "who cares" feeling towards discovering the core event or the purpose, logic, or pay-off of so many extrapolations.

In a universe where every event has a cause and an effect applying to a unified outcome, the story I am reading just has way more impact.

:2c:

[WhiteWings]

since it is possible that a supreme being COULD exist and create life, etc.....it MUST have happened, like on earth, maybe?

With that statement they agree the existence of God is possible. That kinda undermines their argument of evolution because now they have to prove God isn't involved in evolution, big bang etc

Seriously, are statements like this really being used today as arguments against creation?

Depends on how you look at it.
Infinite is a rather odd concept. If you cut it in two the two halves are both infinite but in total they are 1x infinite and not 2x infinite.
It proves there is an infinite small chance God exits but at the same time it proves there is an infinite big chance God exists. Even an infinite large amount of gods but at the same time an infinite small amount of Gods.
So everyone can find something good in that view.


It's a bit like the question: Can God create a rock He can't lift?
If He can lift anything, then He isn't able to create things that are to heavy.
If He can create a something to heavy to lift his muscles are limited in power.

With our, at least my, understanding of science/math infinite universes can't exist. Just as with the rock example it's beyond the power of God. No matter how fast and how many universes God creates it's never infinite because He could always create an extra one.


In the end abiogenesis solves absolutely nothing. Assume that every person on earth believes in abiogenesis then the debate still rages on. Is our universe a "God universe" or an "evolution universe"?

On top of that it still doesn't prove where the energy sustaining those universes come from or why they aren't infinitely old.

[WhiteWings]

there's really just the two ideas.. space and time always was.. or there was nothing. And it became every thing.

That's not what science claims. There was neither time and space before the big bang.

Maimodes a 11th century Jewish scholar said something like "Everything was small as a mustard seed and then time took hold."

Obviously he lived long before the big bang theory but yet he describes it perfectly. Not just that big bang happend but that the first split second the universe did have size but no time.
I always wondered where he got that info. Just as his view that there are two calendars. The calendar that started at the creation of Adam. And the calendar of old/God before that time. That could be viewed as a very old universe.

One thing doesn't exclude the other. We only are told God created. We aren't told how exactly. We are told certain creation steps (plants, animals, man) on earth but not about the rest of the universe.


So I see it as possibility God used a big bang event.

[WhiteWings]

Somehow,  I can't grasp how amino acids equate as "life".  I understand the importance of them in living things, but they are not living things.
Replicating chemical structures present in living things is not the same as creating life.  Chemistry is chemistry.  What abiogenesis is about is denying that Creation needed a Creator, reducing God to a thunderstorm in a brackish swamp, in a manner of speaking.
As an aside, I have to wonder, if creation of amino acids is hailed as creating life, or self-replicating RNA created in a lab is life, or spores or bacteria from Mars, why isn't a developing yet unborn child (fetus)?

There was 'life' created in a lab. But it was a bit of cheating. Certain processes can create something. The big flaw in that experiment was that those processes also create lethal by-products. Tar iirc. So there model proves that every life created by the process is instantly killed by the very same process.

All those mutations (which began when earth was 3 billion years old and so vastly reducing time) require 'food'. Infinite mutation require infinite food...


A nice and simple book on (flawed) evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462624918&sr=8-1&keywords=icons+of+evolution

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishliick_icons_critique_complete.pdf

http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

[CST]

It's a bit like the question: Can God create a rock He can't lift?
If He can lift anything, then He isn't able to create things that are to heavy.
If He can create a something to heavy to lift his muscles are limited in power.

To me yes, maybe, but why would He want to? The implication of the question cancel each other out because everything about God is supposed to be self-entailing which people frequently forget or fail to understand.

So in this instance maybe God who is infinitely powerful could create such a rock, upon on doing so, of course, He would stop being all powerful but it doesn't mean He wasn't all powerful before He did it.

But here's the thing, as well as being infinitely powerful God is also supposed to be infinitely wise and since doing such a thing would mean Him completely undermining Himself He would recognize it as being incredibly stupid and wouldn't do it.

There a loads of flaws in that argument against the existence of God that can be found if you really consider the logical implications of what's beings suggested, it's not really meaningful at all.

there's really just the two ideas.. space and time always was.. or there was nothing. And it became every thing.

That's not what science claims. There was neither time and space before the big bang.

Maimodes a 11th century Jewish scholar said something like "Everything was small as a mustard seed and then time took hold."

Obviously he lived long before the big bang theory but yet he describes it perfectly. Not just that big bang happend but that the first split second the universe did have size but no time.
I always wondered where he got that info. Just as his view that there are two calendars. The calendar that started at the creation of Adam. And the calendar of old/God before that time. That could be viewed as a very old universe.

One thing doesn't exclude the other. We only are told God created. We aren't told how exactly. We are told certain creation steps (plants, animals, man) on earth but not about the rest of the universe.


So I see it as possibility God used a big bang event.

It's kind of impossible for humans to imagine what you are describing here and another good reason to believe in God. Human can't imagine nothing because when we think of anything we always have something on our minds.

In the same way we don't imagine a mustard seed sized singularity existing without time, we imagine it existing over an unmeasurable period of time with changing until an event happens that causes it to change. Humans need time to think in. Even when were told God exists outside time it's hard to imagine Him not having time at all. God has existed forever we haven't. So there was a period which we can only describe as 'time' where God existed and we didn't because He hadn't made us and wasn't responsible for us and surely He must have known that and existed like that. And then He created us and thus formed a relationship with us and thus a different period in God's existence (which again we have really to call 'time') must have begun. It's  impossible to conceive otherwise even while we wonder if we could be wrong.

Somehow,  I can't grasp how amino acids equate as "life".  I understand the importance of them in living things, but they are not living things.
Replicating chemical structures present in living things is not the same as creating life.  Chemistry is chemistry.  What abiogenesis is about is denying that Creation needed a Creator, reducing God to a thunderstorm in a brackish swamp, in a manner of speaking.
As an aside, I have to wonder, if creation of amino acids is hailed as creating life, or self-replicating RNA created in a lab is life, or spores or bacteria from Mars, why isn't a developing yet unborn child (fetus)?

There was 'life' created in a lab. But it was a bit of cheating. Certain processes can create something. The big flaw in that experiment was that those processes also create lethal by-products. Tar iirc. So there model proves that every life created by the process is instantly killed by the very same process.

All those mutations (which began when earth was 3 billion years old and so vastly reducing time) require 'food'. Infinite mutation require infinite food...


A nice and simple book on (flawed) evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462624918&sr=8-1&keywords=icons+of+evolution

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishliick_icons_critique_complete.pdf

http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

That's a very big flaw and I think, in fact, it sounds like the definition of a fatal flaw.

[Reverend G]

Somehow,  I can't grasp how amino acids equate as "life".  I understand the importance of them in living things, but they are not living things.
Replicating chemical structures present in living things is not the same as creating life.  Chemistry is chemistry.  What abiogenesis is about is denying that Creation needed a Creator, reducing God to a thunderstorm in a brackish swamp, in a manner of speaking.
As an aside, I have to wonder, if creation of amino acids is hailed as creating life, or self-replicating RNA created in a lab is life, or spores or bacteria from Mars, why isn't a developing yet unborn child (fetus)?

There was 'life' created in a lab. But it was a bit of cheating. Certain processes can create something. The big flaw in that experiment was that those processes also create lethal by-products. Tar iirc. So there model proves that every life created by the process is instantly killed by the very same process.

All those mutations (which began when earth was 3 billion years old and so vastly reducing time) require 'food'. Infinite mutation require infinite food...


A nice and simple book on (flawed) evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462624918&sr=8-1&keywords=icons+of+evolution

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishliick_icons_critique_complete.pdf

http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

I disagree.  Life has never been created from non-living materials in a lab. Creating amino acids is creating an organic compound, not life.
Despite Urey-Miller spiking their premordial soup, the amino acids created had proper chemical make-up, but improper structure, so were useless for life.

[Ross]

'Is Satan in the universe?' 'Was he in the universe when he rebelled or was he outside and came in (or was thrown in)? 'If he was why'd he ahve to be thrown into our universe?' The problem of Satan was big enough already.

John 8;44 " You belong to your father the devil, and your will is to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from
                  the beginning and never did stand in the truth because there is no truth in him."
1 John 3;8 " The one who continues to sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God
                  appeared for this purpose- that He might destroy the works of the devil."

Job;1 Points out the accuser discussing Job with Yahweh and being allowed to attack/test Job  with limitations on how far he could go.
God  is greater than satan.
Christ recognised that satan is the ruler of this age.
"My Kingdom is not of this age" John 18;36
I.M.O satan has been put there with a task. He will be dealt with appropriately by God when the time is right.

* Angels were used to give the law to the Jews.
Acts 7;53 " You who received the law by decrees given by angels and did not keep it."
Gal 3;19 " Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the descendant should come, to whom the
                promise had been made. It was established through angels by a mediator."
AN angels discussed things with Moses via a burning bush.
Jacob wrestled an angel, which caused hip displacement for him.
Angels visited Lot.
Angels discussed Christ with Mary.
Hebrews points out Christ being made a little lower than angels, then raised to be above them.
We will be like Christ and above angels in the resurrection.
Demons were cast out By Christ. They are supposed fallen angels.
Plenty of reading material in book shops about this topic.
Worth comprehending and researching;
1 John 4 gives a point about recognising the true ones from the wrong ones.

[CST]

I think you've misunderstood the point here so it won't serve my main argument to go through each example you've given point by point.

The idea is that the being we know as Satan began an an angel in Heaven rebelled against God and then fell and was cast out of Heaven. So where was He cast out to? Well, the world, this world which we inhabit.

But we are debating here the matter of a multiverse where there are other worlds which branch off when people make choices for good or ill, so if one choice is made in world A, another one is made in world B.

But what of Satan? If Satan fell from Heaven into this world, (and there's only one God so it's implausible that there are multiple realms of God) why this world? And what happens in the other worlds where Satan isn't present to influence the choices of humans to be bad one's, leading to the next bad one and the next bad one?

It seems that of all the worlds there are we're the unfortunate schmucks who have to deal with Satan and thus the only one that needs saving. But God's got an infinite number of ideal copies of us in all the other ones to choose from in order to populate His kingdom on Earth. So why would He bother we any of us failures?

I'm trying to underline the problems with both the concept of the multiverse and the concept of Satan at the same time.

[marie glen]

Life has never been created from non-living materials in a lab. Creating amino acids is creating an organic compound, not life.
Despite Urey-Miller spiking their premordial soup, the amino acids created had proper chemical make-up, but improper structure, so were useless for life.

oh!  thanks! I for one, was not completely aware of that! .."improper structure, so were useless for life."

[marie glen]

I'm trying to underline the problems with both the concept of the multiverse and the concept of Satan at the same time.

:laughing7: :thumbsup:

The only thing that remotely makes sense to me concerning multiverses.. is a personal one.. that any and all lives or existence, I could live, apart from Yahweh, would only fail.. Each and every one.. providing yet again simply contrast once we find ourselves in His perfect kingdom.. But, I think human (and angel) history alone will suffice for contrast.. :mshock: :faint:

[CST]

Hmm, I'm no longer sure that the second part of my sentence there is true, I feel I may have retroactively revised my position.

I should point out there are either no universes without YHWH or there are no universes with YHWH, this is just a logical find, something the Ontological Argument shows if it shows nothing else.

[eaglesway]

YHWH would see no need to create a system of universes spawning universes down multiple timelines, especially if they were populated by beings being duplicated along multiple lifelines, or histories, because YHWH is love. He loves each one in a personal way. He sent Christ to die once, for all, in this universe- the central event in all the moments in the cosmos- in all time, space and consciousness.

He is gathering, not scattering. He causes all things to work according to the counsel of His will, His kind intention which He purposed in Himself, an administration suitable to the fulness of times, the gathering together of all things into one in Christ.

He is a God of oneness. Communion. Union and harmony as opposed to division and chaos. The chaos that has already been is now passing away. The new creation in the fellowship of joy is what He is now fulfilling.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Behold(see, understand), I am making all things new!

In short: Anything possible must eventually happen? Cannot be in a cosmos where all things are working toward the counsel of His will.


:2c:

[greg]

The bible describes worlds and ages.  Only the Father and those who live in Him (namely the Son) continue perpetually. Psalm 102:25-27 – "You have laid the foundation of the earth of old. And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish but You shall endure. All of them shall become old like a garment. You shall change them like clothing, and they shall be changed. But You are He, and Your years shall not be ended."

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

Modern cosmology loves infinities because they are pitching the 'multiverse', where they claim God is a myth because infinitely glorious things exist simultaneously, and at the same time God does not do justice because infinitely unspeakable and unjust things also exist simultaneously.

This is why Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt rebuked his colleagues for a good reason, "Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society."

Infinities are not real to humans in 3D or even 4D because they do not describe measurable reality. Physicists know this:

"[A]s we will see, infinities are the plague of all field theories, classical and quantum. Consider the case of a vibrating string. We can think of it as a string of beads, each bead bobbing up an down in simple harmonic motion like a mass on a spring. No problem there, as long as the number of beads is finite. But now consider the motion of a violin string. We treat it as a infinite string of infinitesimal beads, even though we know that the string is in fact composed of a huge but still finite number of atoms. Please keep note of the fact that the assumption of continuity is what leads to the infinity. If we were simply to view a vibrating string as composed of the finite number of beads it really is, in the atomic picture, we would never have to introduce infinities or infinitesimals into the description. So why do physicists make themselves all this trouble? They do so, not because the string really is continuous, but because this allows us to use calculus––a calculational method without which we could not solve many problems with even the speediest modern computer. Solving problems with a finite number of elements when that number is very large, like the number of atoms in a violin string, is in practice usually impossible using finite techniques. But thanks to the mathematical geniuses of Newton and Leibniz, we have the marvelous tool of calculus that enables us to get answers for many problems that would otherwise be unanswerable. In calculus, we replace noncalculable sums over large numbers of discrete elements with integrals over an infinite number of infinitesimal, continuous elements. And in a significant number of cases, those integrals are solvable. That is, we can sum the infinite series of terms that appear in our equations. And that is what the student of calculus is trained to do. But remember, a large finite number is not infinity." http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Timeless/07-qed.pdf

See also Hilbert: "[T]he infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to..."

Also, in a hypothetical 'infinitely dense singularity' we are just calculating that the probability of its density appears infinite because no measurements/focus have been placed upon it. (Without an observer, a wave does not reach its destination/purpose so it retains probability in order to function as a wave). To the extent that infinities appear on paper in our mathematics, they are signs that either the wrong tool has been used for the job/focus, or not enough tools have laid focus upon the probability spectrum in question.

For example, infinity and physics do not work in the fine structure constant. Physicist Niels Bohr commented, "People say that classical mechanics is the limit of quantum mechanics when h goes to zero," but then he shook his finger and walked to the blackboard and wrote the fine structure constant, and underlined the h three times, "You see, h is the denominator".

Indeed, both the speed of light (c) and Planck's constant (h) are both in the denominator of the fraction for the fine structure constant. The denominator in a fraction can never become zero because the result would be infinity. Likewise, we cannot make the speed of light infinite because then the fine structure constant would become zero. We have plainly observed throughout the known universe that the fine structure is never zero. It is always 1/137, a fundamental constant in nature.

The infinity problem and finite solution for cosmology and other sciences is that probabilities work for finite numbers but break down when the odds for and against anything are both infinite. And as QED predicts, probabilities inherently describe the very structure of light and matter.

Key point: in the original Hebrew bible language, the words for 'probability' and 'messiah' come from the same root. Ultimately, the bible is correctly teaching us who controls physics. But in point of fact, very few people even know how to read it. They simply read translations. It is the same with scientists today. They read translated physics.

[eaglesway]

Thank God for the Holy Spirit and the studies and works of honest scholars.

[marie glen]

oh yes, I love Yahweh's reality a whole lot more than any of man's theories!!! Though they can be rather creative.. But they're still left with the idea that life is an anomaly (odds being SO against it) instead of death being the anomaly..

The bible describes worlds and ages.  Only the Father and those who live in Him (namely the Son) continue perpetually. Psalm 102:25-27 – "You have laid the foundation of the earth of old. And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish but You shall endure. All of them shall become old like a garment. You shall change them like clothing, and they shall be changed. But You are He, and Your years shall not be ended."

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

Modern cosmology loves infinities because they are pitching the 'multiverse', where they claim God is a myth because infinitely glorious things exist simultaneously, and at the same time God does not do justice because infinitely unspeakable and unjust things also exist simultaneously.

oh yes, they are always judging God

This is why Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt rebuked his colleagues for a good reason, "Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Infinities are not real to humans in 3D or even 4D because they do not describe measurable reality. Physicists know this:

"[A]s we will see, infinities are the plague of all field theories, classical and quantum. Consider the case of a vibrating string. We can think of it as a string of beads, each bead bobbing up an down in simple harmonic motion like a mass on a spring. No problem there, as long as the number of beads is finite. But now consider the motion of a violin string. We treat it as a infinite string of infinitesimal beads, even though we know that the string is in fact composed of a huge but still finite number of atoms. Please keep note of the fact that the assumption of continuity is what leads to the infinity. If we were simply to view a vibrating string as composed of the finite number of beads it really is, in the atomic picture, we would never have to introduce infinities or infinitesimals into the description. So why do physicists make themselves all this trouble? They do so, not because the string really is continuous, but because this allows us to use calculus––a calculational method without which we could not solve many problems with even the speediest modern computer. Solving problems with a finite number of elements when that number is very large, like the number of atoms in a violin string, is in practice usually impossible using finite techniques. But thanks to the mathematical geniuses of Newton and Leibniz, we have the marvelous tool of calculus that enables us to get answers for many problems that would otherwise be unanswerable. In calculus, we replace noncalculable sums over large numbers of discrete elements with integrals over an infinite number of infinitesimal, continuous elements. And in a significant number of cases, those integrals are solvable. That is, we can sum the infinite series of terms that appear in our equations. And that is what the student of calculus is trained to do. But remember, a large finite number is not infinity." http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Timeless/07-qed.pdf

See also Hilbert: "[T]he infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to..."

Also, in a hypothetical 'infinitely dense singularity' we are just calculating that the probability of its density appears infinite because no measurements/focus have been placed upon it. (Without an observer, a wave does not reach its destination/purpose so it retains probability in order to function as a wave). To the extent that infinities appear on paper in our mathematics, they are signs that either the wrong tool has been used for the job/focus, or not enough tools have laid focus upon the probability spectrum in question.

For example, infinity and physics do not work in the fine structure constant. Physicist Niels Bohr commented, "People say that classical mechanics is the limit of quantum mechanics when h goes to zero," but then he shook his finger and walked to the blackboard and wrote the fine structure constant, and underlined the h three times, "You see, h is the denominator".

Indeed, both the speed of light (c) and Planck's constant (h) are both in the denominator of the fraction for the fine structure constant. The denominator in a fraction can never become zero because the result would be infinity. Likewise, we cannot make the speed of light infinite because then the fine structure constant would become zero. We have plainly observed throughout the known universe that the fine structure is never zero. It is always 1/137, a fundamental constant in nature.

The infinity problem and finite solution for cosmology and other sciences is that probabilities work for finite numbers but break down when the odds for and against anything are both infinite. And as QED predicts, probabilities inherently describe the very structure of light and matter.

Key point: in the original Hebrew bible language, the words for 'probability' and 'messiah' come from the same root. Ultimately, the bible is correctly teaching us who controls physics. But in point of fact, very few people even know how to read it. They simply read translations. It is the same with scientists today. They read translated physics.

       :goodpost: great info! (tho I don't think I understood it all, but that's okay! physics! I never even caught on to algebra! :laughing7: )

       I think I've read something about the number 1/137...  :Chinscratch: is it the number having to do with the "fabriconni spiral"? ("golden mean/ratio", "golden spiral"?) - that's a fascinating thing! Which, to me, is enough to convince anyone of the frailty of "chance" no matter how much time - and I guess 'infinity' is the greatest time they can give their selves.. for their theories.. :laughing7:

nope "The Golden Ratio: Phi, 1.618" - oh. :smile:

[marie glen]

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

A very good video.. except? for finding the difference in Revelation 20:14- (KJV) - "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Lake of fire... could just as well be translated pool of lightning..? :dontknow:

http://studybible.info/strongs/G3041
http://studybible.info/strongs/G4442

[greg]

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

A very good video.. except? for finding the difference in Revelation 20:14- (KJV) - "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Lake of fire... could just as well be translated pool of lightning..? :dontknow:

http://studybible.info/strongs/G3041
http://studybible.info/strongs/G4442

Thank you Marie.

Regarding the translation point, I do read "lake of fire" because it is literal.  I should also note that in the Aramaic, the word ymTha ("lake") refers to a small lake or shallow lake.   And the word "fire" can also mean "mirror" or "illumination" depending on the context.   And in the Aramaic the phrase "second death" also literally means "dragon death".  It's an obvious wordplay in the language spoken by the apostles, because "dragon" and "second" are the same word. Go figure!   

I do see where you found 'pool' and 'lightning' (figurative) in your greek study concordance.  That's interesting to imagine -- a pool of lightning.

In the bible, angels (including fallen) have been described like lightning. 

[greg]

       :goodpost: great info! (tho I don't think I understood it all, but that's okay! physics! I never even caught on to algebra! :laughing7: )

       I think I've read something about the number 1/137...  :Chinscratch: is it the number having to do with the "fabriconni spiral"? ("golden mean/ratio", "golden spiral"?) - that's a fascinating thing! Which, to me, is enough to convince anyone of the frailty of "chance" no matter how much time - and I guess 'infinity' is the greatest time they can give their selves.. for their theories.. :laughing7:

nope "The Golden Ratio: Phi, 1.618" - oh. :smile:

Right on.  Yeah, 1/137 is called "alpha".  It's a constant in nature, so you find it in everything from atomic spectral lines to sunflower seed arrangements to galaxies.  You can use phi to find alpha, and vice-versa.  It's all about ratio. For example, in a laboratory we see the spacing between the fine structure of spectral lines is determined by 1/137. 

The reason that the 1/137 ("alpha") equation is so important is because no one has ever discovered a way to tinker with this equation and come to a logical result, let alone tinker to infinity!  For example, we especially cannot make the speed of light infinite and Planck's constant zero. Increasing the speed of light to infinity would cause the relativity of time to disappear.  And reducing Planck's constant to zero would accomplish a similar illogical result in wave-particle duality. 

In the big picture or the small, YHWH is a mathematician teaching us about his Son Yahshua.  For example: 

1/7 = .142857...

In Hebrew gematria (where numbers are letters and vice-versa), this puts the word dbKhh ("His sacrifice") between aleph (1) and zayin (7).

The first letter aleph can represent Father, and the seventh letter zayin can represent Zion. So, Father reconciles Zion through "His sacrifice".  It is possible.  Food for thought, for those who enjoy that kind of thought.

The Messiah is the full expression of living probability in our world.  What we ask and believe in His name, He gives. 

The bible also specifies that there are many things the Father will not do, like flood the world again, so that answers the original question presented "Anything possible must eventually happen?"  The answer to that question is biblically no.  The Father controls what is possible.  He works His will.  And anyone who presumes His will is to accomplish perpetual torment simply because it is theoretically possible, does not know the Father.  And our world's saga is designed to fulfill that experience of navigating theories - learning how to know the Father.  He is Spirit.  He is faithful.  He is love. He is teaching His children to also be spiritual, and to be faithful.   I think He is also teaching us to be mathematical.

In the gospel of John, the Messiah showed us well the character of the Father.  "Love one another; just as I have loved you, you should also love one another. Every person will know by this that you are my disciples, if you shall have love one to the other."  John 13:34-35.

In the gospel, the Messiah also highlighted repeatedly that the thing that needed to be fulfilled was the scriptures.  That is why Judas had to betray him.  That is why the authorities hated him for no reason.   The bible does not say that anything possible must eventually happen. 

[eaglesway]

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

A very good video.. except? for finding the difference in Revelation 20:14- (KJV) - "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Lake of fire... could just as well be translated pool of lightning..? :dontknow:

http://studybible.info/strongs/G3041
http://studybible.info/strongs/G4442

limnen tou pyros is pretty conclusively lake of fire... pyr/pyri/pyros is the same word used in every verse about "unquenchable fire" the tares, the threshing floor and the chaff, the vine branches that are withered, cut off and gathered by men to be thrown into the fire, the wood, hay and stubble - "for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. "

limnen is lake or sea everywhere it is used.

But I bet there is lightning in there LOL....

The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it.
Ez 1:13

Jesus said.....

"Every man will be salted with fire"(evryone who ever lived) and "Every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt" (every servant who has called upon His name- my interpretation)

Peter said,

But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

I pray(hesitantly, fearfully and even reluctantly) that God will keep the fire on until He has an acceptable offering among the firstfruits....

And I believe that the fire will have the same effect on those who wind up in it, as it has had on us us:o)

that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ 1 Pet 1:7

God has not withheld from us the proof of our faith, He will not withhold it from those who find their faith later either(imo) and we ought not begrudge them it- they will emerge from it pure as gold tried 7 times rejoicing in the name of God our Savior - just as we will, if we are faithful to the end.

[CST]

The bible describes worlds and ages.  Only the Father and those who live in Him (namely the Son) continue perpetually. Psalm 102:25-27 – "You have laid the foundation of the earth of old. And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish but You shall endure. All of them shall become old like a garment. You shall change them like clothing, and they shall be changed. But You are He, and Your years shall not be ended."

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

Modern cosmology loves infinities because they are pitching the 'multiverse', where they claim God is a myth because infinitely glorious things exist simultaneously, and at the same time God does not do justice because infinitely unspeakable and unjust things also exist simultaneously.

This is why Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt rebuked his colleagues for a good reason, "Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society."

Infinities are not real to humans in 3D or even 4D because they do not describe measurable reality. Physicists know this:

"[A]s we will see, infinities are the plague of all field theories, classical and quantum. Consider the case of a vibrating string. We can think of it as a string of beads, each bead bobbing up an down in simple harmonic motion like a mass on a spring. No problem there, as long as the number of beads is finite. But now consider the motion of a violin string. We treat it as a infinite string of infinitesimal beads, even though we know that the string is in fact composed of a huge but still finite number of atoms. Please keep note of the fact that the assumption of continuity is what leads to the infinity. If we were simply to view a vibrating string as composed of the finite number of beads it really is, in the atomic picture, we would never have to introduce infinities or infinitesimals into the description. So why do physicists make themselves all this trouble? They do so, not because the string really is continuous, but because this allows us to use calculus––a calculational method without which we could not solve many problems with even the speediest modern computer. Solving problems with a finite number of elements when that number is very large, like the number of atoms in a violin string, is in practice usually impossible using finite techniques. But thanks to the mathematical geniuses of Newton and Leibniz, we have the marvelous tool of calculus that enables us to get answers for many problems that would otherwise be unanswerable. In calculus, we replace noncalculable sums over large numbers of discrete elements with integrals over an infinite number of infinitesimal, continuous elements. And in a significant number of cases, those integrals are solvable. That is, we can sum the infinite series of terms that appear in our equations. And that is what the student of calculus is trained to do. But remember, a large finite number is not infinity." http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Timeless/07-qed.pdf

See also Hilbert: "[T]he infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to..."

Also, in a hypothetical 'infinitely dense singularity' we are just calculating that the probability of its density appears infinite because no measurements/focus have been placed upon it. (Without an observer, a wave does not reach its destination/purpose so it retains probability in order to function as a wave). To the extent that infinities appear on paper in our mathematics, they are signs that either the wrong tool has been used for the job/focus, or not enough tools have laid focus upon the probability spectrum in question.

For example, infinity and physics do not work in the fine structure constant. Physicist Niels Bohr commented, "People say that classical mechanics is the limit of quantum mechanics when h goes to zero," but then he shook his finger and walked to the blackboard and wrote the fine structure constant, and underlined the h three times, "You see, h is the denominator".

Indeed, both the speed of light (c) and Planck's constant (h) are both in the denominator of the fraction for the fine structure constant. The denominator in a fraction can never become zero because the result would be infinity. Likewise, we cannot make the speed of light infinite because then the fine structure constant would become zero. We have plainly observed throughout the known universe that the fine structure is never zero. It is always 1/137, a fundamental constant in nature.

The infinity problem and finite solution for cosmology and other sciences is that probabilities work for finite numbers but break down when the odds for and against anything are both infinite. And as QED predicts, probabilities inherently describe the very structure of light and matter.

Key point: in the original Hebrew bible language, the words for 'probability' and 'messiah' come from the same root. Ultimately, the bible is correctly teaching us who controls physics. But in point of fact, very few people even know how to read it. They simply read translations. It is the same with scientists today. They read translated physics.

Wow, if people are taking finite numbers out of equations and putting infinity in their place how can they possibly ever get the correct answer? They haven't put the correct numbers into the equation how can they get the correct numbers out?

And we still don't know what Pi is, do we?

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

A very good video.. except? for finding the difference in Revelation 20:14- (KJV) - "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Lake of fire... could just as well be translated pool of lightning..? :dontknow:

http://studybible.info/strongs/G3041
http://studybible.info/strongs/G4442

Oh, wow! That is interesting

Infinities are just a tool of calculus, but throughout time they have been misused by mathematicians and priests. For example, the Pharisees and Greek mystics believed every soul continued forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o6UD4z4Xc

A very good video.. except? for finding the difference in Revelation 20:14- (KJV) - "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Lake of fire... could just as well be translated pool of lightning..? :dontknow:

http://studybible.info/strongs/G3041
http://studybible.info/strongs/G4442

Thank you Marie.

Regarding the translation point, I do read "lake of fire" because it is literal.  I should also note that in the Aramaic, the word ymTha ("lake") refers to a small lake or shallow lake.   And the word "fire" can also mean "mirror" or "illumination" depending on the context.   And in the Aramaic the phrase "second death" also literally means "dragon death".  It's an obvious wordplay in the language spoken by the apostles, because "dragon" and "second" are the same word. Go figure!   

I do see where you found 'pool' and 'lightning' (figurative) in your greek study concordance.  That's interesting to imagine -- a pool of lightning.

In the bible, angels (including fallen) have been described like lightning. 

As is this, there's loads we can do with this.

       :goodpost: great info! (tho I don't think I understood it all, but that's okay! physics! I never even caught on to algebra! :laughing7: )

       I think I've read something about the number 1/137...  :Chinscratch: is it the number having to do with the "fabriconni spiral"? ("golden mean/ratio", "golden spiral"?) - that's a fascinating thing! Which, to me, is enough to convince anyone of the frailty of "chance" no matter how much time - and I guess 'infinity' is the greatest time they can give their selves.. for their theories.. :laughing7:

nope "The Golden Ratio: Phi, 1.618" - oh. :smile:

Right on.  Yeah, 1/137 is called "alpha".  It's a constant in nature, so you find it in everything from atomic spectral lines to sunflower seed arrangements to galaxies.  You can use phi to find alpha, and vice-versa.  It's all about ratio. For example, in a laboratory we see the spacing between the fine structure of spectral lines is determined by 1/137. 

The reason that the 1/137 ("alpha") equation is so important is because no one has ever discovered a way to tinker with this equation and come to a logical result, let alone tinker to infinity!  For example, we especially cannot make the speed of light infinite and Planck's constant zero. Increasing the speed of light to infinity would cause the relativity of time to disappear.  And reducing Planck's constant to zero would accomplish a similar illogical result in wave-particle duality. 

In the big picture or the small, YHWH is a mathematician teaching us about his Son Yahshua.  For example: 

1/7 = .142857...

In Hebrew gematria (where numbers are letters and vice-versa), this puts the word dbKhh ("His sacrifice") between aleph (1) and zayin (7).

The first letter aleph can represent Father, and the seventh letter zayin can represent Zion. So, Father reconciles Zion through "His sacrifice".  It is possible.  Food for thought, for those who enjoy that kind of thought.

The Messiah is the full expression of living probability in our world.  What we ask and believe in His name, He gives. 

The bible also specifies that there are many things the Father will not do, like flood the world again, so that answers the original question presented "Anything possible must eventually happen?"  The answer to that question is biblically no.  The Father controls what is possible.  He works His will.  And anyone who presumes His will is to accomplish perpetual torment simply because it is theoretically possible, does not know the Father.  And our world's saga is designed to fulfill that experience of navigating theories - learning how to know the Father.  He is Spirit.  He is faithful.  He is love. He is teaching His children to also be spiritual, and to be faithful.   I think He is also teaching us to be mathematical.

In the gospel of John, the Messiah showed us well the character of the Father.  "Love one another; just as I have loved you, you should also love one another. Every person will know by this that you are my disciples, if you shall have love one to the other."  John 13:34-35.

In the gospel, the Messiah also highlighted repeatedly that the thing that needed to be fulfilled was the scriptures.  That is why Judas had to betray him.  That is why the authorities hated him for no reason.   The bible does not say that anything possible must eventually happen. 

Whoa! I thought no one really took Gematria seriously any more except some 'sects' and people trying to show we've got the number of the beast correct. I also just understood it to be adding I didn't know it was so involved.

[marie glen]

Thank you Greg and EW for the lake of fire words info! :thumbsup:

I think He is also teaching us to be mathematical.

           ..that's awesome to consider! :iagree: thanks for the info on numbers! It's very interesting, and I love numbers! Even though I'm not very good with them. :laughing7:

[Lorenzo]

Unfortunately that would actually result in a lot of 'not saved' stuff. It also invites questions like. 'Is Satan in the universe?' 'Was he in the universe when he rebelled or was he outside and came in (or was thrown in)? 'If he was why'd he ahve to be thrown into our universe?' The problem of Satan was big enough already.

This is a philosophical thought called determinism. regardless the fact it has been shown to be scientifically false, how could it deny ur? can't God save all?

[Aerex]

I totally agree! The idea of multiple universe/dimensions has never made sense to me.. if every decision and choice results in another universe.. how many, considering everyone who lives and has ever lived, do we have any idea how many universes that would be?! A gazillion gazillion times gazillion? :laughing7:

To play devil's advocate here, you  think that a multiple universe is a harder pill to swallow than a tyrannical old man who controls a single universe? I don't believe God is such but that is how he has been described over the countless centuries. Let's also not forget that this being has all this power, unlimited power, yet it feels like this being does not exist with all the problems in the world. Furthermore, people do not need to have to believe in God to believe in good and evil. It seems most religious people do good things or adhere to suffering because they believe they will be rewarded. Keep in mind this is how animals behave. There is nothing spiritual about it. You give commands to a dog then you reward it with treats. The dog is not aware of or does not care about the commands. It only cares about the treats and later on those commands just become instinctual.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is an observable science that has been proven countless time whereas belief in God cannot. I think I made a thread about this not too long ago, but basically believing in something does not imply truth. People want truth not faith. If we mock those who believe in leprechauns, aliens, and fairies how can we not see why people mock us for believing in God. I am not saying God isn't real I just understand the opposing argument.

Also, if you don't believe in multiple universes/dimensions then where is Jesus? Do you believe that heaven is an actual place? Are spirits actual things? Are they of matter or light?

[CST]

Unfortunately that would actually result in a lot of 'not saved' stuff. It also invites questions like. 'Is Satan in the universe?' 'Was he in the universe when he rebelled or was he outside and came in (or was thrown in)? 'If he was why'd he ahve to be thrown into our universe?' The problem of Satan was big enough already.

This is a philosophical thought called determinism. regardless the fact it has been shown to be scientifically false, how could it deny ur? can't God save all?

I'm not sure that determinism has been shown to be scientifically false. I think Quantum Mechanics would show that it is false but Quantum Mechanics is also what gives us the multiverse theory which we are now questioning.

A singular universe could easily be very deterministic and in one sense a Quantum multiverse much be too. Just not in the same way. In a Quantum system it is determined that everything must happen, just not, necessarily, in which universe it will actually happen.

I totally agree! The idea of multiple universe/dimensions has never made sense to me.. if every decision and choice results in another universe.. how many, considering everyone who lives and has ever lived, do we have any idea how many universes that would be?! A gazillion gazillion times gazillion? :laughing7:

To play devil's advocate here, you  think that a multiple universe is a harder pill to swallow than a tyrannical old man who controls a single universe? I don't believe God is such but that is how he has been described over the countless centuries. Let's also not forget that this being has all this power, unlimited power, yet it feels like this being does not exist with all the problems in the world. Furthermore, people do not need to have to believe in God to believe in good and evil. It seems most religious people do good things or adhere to suffering because they believe they will be rewarded. Keep in mind this is how animals behave. There is nothing spiritual about it. You give commands to a dog then you reward it with treats. The dog is not aware of or does not care about the commands. It only cares about the treats and later on those commands just become instinctual.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is an observable science that has been proven countless time whereas belief in God cannot. I think I made a thread about this not too long ago, but basically believing in something does not imply truth. People want truth not faith. If we mock those who believe in leprechauns, aliens, and fairies how can we not see why people mock us for believing in God. I am not saying God isn't real I just understand the opposing argument.

Also, if you don't believe in multiple universes/dimensions then where is Jesus? Do you believe that heaven is an actual place? Are spirits actual things? Are they of matter or light?

Yeah, but this really conflates issues. They don't want to believe in God because they don't like the concept so they posit a multiverse to try and explain away certain observations of the universe that we're in that might be suggestive, even if they're not absolute proof, that God does exist. But that doesn't make the 'problem' of God go away. Either when creation began it contain the capacity to unfold and produce one universe or the capacity to unfold and produce infinite universes. That capacity is required before that fact and the existence of it doesn't explain the multiverse any more than the universe.

Yes, 'heaven' is presented as a reward for doing good but it shouldn't be that's a mistake of theology which UR proponents should challenge.

Where is Jesus? That's the easiest question of all and at the same same the hardest. Jesus is God and with God and wherever God is which isn't in any created reality be it universe or multiverse.