Tentmaker Forum

That, or actually "that anything possible within the universe (being as big as it is) would have to eventually happen somewhere in the universe, no matter how unlikely" was a statement that I saw as pure fallacy.  A new version of the "infinite monkeys typing" fallacy?

This was being used as an argument for abiogenesis.  I didn't join the discussion, didn't feel like registering.  I did want to ask about the probability of element atomic number googol, to see a response. Maybe then posit that by his statement, since it is possible that a supreme being COULD exist and create life, etc.....it MUST have happened, like on earth, maybe?
Seriously, are statements like this really being used today as arguments against creation?

 :Chinscratch: hmmm, I was just hearing something about abiogenesis in another forum..

Quote
"Maybe then posit that by his statement, since it is possible that a supreme being COULD exist and create life, etc.....it MUST have happened, like on earth, maybe?"

Say! I like that!!

Now who was I listening to, who said "time is evolution's god" as they feel as you said, given enough time any and all things could happen.. But.. I believe scientists have pretty much come down on the side of space and time are not eternal.. which, to me, would apply..

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

Also popular and making the rounds these days is the claim that Jesus never existed. Yep, if it's said enough times, it surely must be true. No serious scholar would say this.. I did hear of it being said in Victorian times but it was debunked.. maybe I should look that up.. for the next time i come across the claim..

Top mathematicians, as far as I know, still say the whole universe and life thing by accident is so against the odds.. or the odds are so high that they figure it to be impossible..

"Time is evolution's god"..

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Good post!!

I've never heard of abiogenesis (and this computer's dictionary doesn't like it) so this thread is a bit left field to me. However it doesn't apply to God who is either an impossibility or an absolute certainty with precisely no room for maneauver.

However, fun as this idea is, it applies to many worlds science as well, and means that if your disappointed your team didn't win last night, never mind somewhere there's a universe they did. Nice idea but it produces problems like somewhere there is a universe where someone wins the jackpot on Deal Or No Deal everyday just because it's always mathematics possible. That doesn't  sound very likely; imagine how weird it would be if you were it that universe.

It doesn't work in single either, the point about probabilities is that 'likely' things happen more frequently than unlikely things. Likely things can repeat constantly because they're likely and force out improbable things. Making claims like this seems to go against the concept of probability.

Scientists, so called, try to debunk mysticism, but seem to get caught up in mysticism of their own:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
evolution
big bang

None of the above have been observed, yet they are "science." 

Quote from: CST on May 03, 2016, 02:27:20 PM
I've never heard of abiogenesis (and this computer's dictionary doesn't like it) so this thread is a bit left field to me. However it doesn't apply to God who is either an impossibility or an absolute certainty with precisely no room for maneauver.

However, fun as this idea is, it applies to many worlds science as well, and means that if your disappointed your team didn't win last night, never mind somewhere there's a universe they did. Nice idea but it produces problems like somewhere there is a universe where someone wins the jackpot on Deal Or No Deal everyday just because it's always mathematics possible. That doesn't  sound very likely; imagine how weird it would be if you were it that universe.

It doesn't work in single either, the point about probabilities is that 'likely' things happen more frequently than unlikely things. Likely things can repeat constantly because they're likely and force out improbable things. Making claims like this seems to go against the concept of probability.

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:

And if its not every choice and decision but just major - which i don't think is the theory - that's still at least a gazillion zillion universes.. and hey we haven't even decided yet (as humanity) if it's possible for one universe to spontaneously exist by chance, let alone millions..

Folks can believe something like that though, but cannot conceive of there being God.. or a god, if on suspends opinion on what sort of god (but that's really where the debate should move on to, man's theory of origins is actually getting a bit behind the times.. or a lot behind depending on how one looks at it.

....And how did all these universes come about. all at once.. or are they birthed at the 'time' of decisions/choices -I suppose the theory says it's all begun outside of time?

All interesting to think about and makes for great science fiction (of which I have recently become a fan of) but nevertheless!! :wacko2: pretty much wacko stuff.. the truth, of course, is infinitely better!!
:Peace2: :gsmile:

Quote from: Lazarus Short on May 03, 2016, 04:53:17 PM
Scientists, so called, try to debunk mysticism, but seem to get caught up in mysticism of their own:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
evolution
big bang

None of the above have been observed, yet they are "science."

"Scientific mysticism"! You are so right! :thumbsup:

...are there wormholes?  :dontknow: ..it's on my list to google one of these days..  :thumbsup: :Peace2:

Quote from: Lazarus Short on May 03, 2016, 04:53:17 PM
Scientists, so called, try to debunk mysticism, but seem to get caught up in mysticism of their own:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
evolution
big bang

None of the above have been observed, yet they are "science."

Not correct black holes do appear to have been observed but I understand your position because I do find that quite surprising and aren't sure other scientists don't dispute the findings. There have also been claims of observing dark energy. Evolution has been observed but only in very artificial conditions not historic ones.

Obviously the Big bang has never been observed no one was here to observe it. I don't know why you're mentioning it here though as a concept it's far more favourable to the idea of God than harmful.

Quote from: marie glen on May 03, 2016, 07:56:26 PM

Quote from: CST on May 03, 2016, 02:27:20 PM
I've never heard of abiogenesis (and this computer's dictionary doesn't like it) so this thread is a bit left field to me. However it doesn't apply to God who is either an impossibility or an absolute certainty with precisely no room for maneauver.

However, fun as this idea is, it applies to many worlds science as well, and means that if your disappointed your team didn't win last night, never mind somewhere there's a universe they did. Nice idea but it produces problems like somewhere there is a universe where someone wins the jackpot on Deal Or No Deal everyday just because it's always mathematics possible. That doesn't  sound very likely; imagine how weird it would be if you were it that universe.

It doesn't work in single either, the point about probabilities is that 'likely' things happen more frequently than unlikely things. Likely things can repeat constantly because they're likely and force out improbable things. Making claims like this seems to go against the concept of probability.

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:

And if its not every choice and decision but just major - which i don't think is the theory - that's still at least a gazillion zillion universes.. and hey we haven't even decided yet (as humanity) if it's possible for one universe to spontaneously exist by chance, let alone millions..

Folks can believe something like that though, but cannot conceive of there being God.. or a god, if on suspends opinion on what sort of god (but that's really where the debate should move on to, man's theory of origins is actually getting a bit behind the times.. or a lot behind depending on how one looks at it.

....And how did all these universes come about. all at once.. or are they birthed at the 'time' of decisions/choices -I suppose the theory says it's all begun outside of time?

All interesting to think about and makes for great science fiction (of which I have recently become a fan of) but nevertheless!! :wacko2: pretty much wacko stuff.. the truth, of course, is infinitely better!!
:Peace2: :gsmile:

It was always meant to be infinite, that was the point and the problem. And who would decide what a 'major' event was. I think it's meant to be a 'quantum event' but again it's hard to see what you would exclude given how involved the universe it.

All universes are meant to be born from the same moment which would be fine except it doesn't solve anything even though they want it to resolve the Goldilocks problem.

It doesn't because the real problem involves asking the question about the chicken and the egg but replacing the component parts with the term 'physical matter' and 'the laws of nature'. This should cause a huge problem for materialists. But they seem to be ignoring it.

But yeah, it all makes great sci-fi.

Quote from: marie glen on May 03, 2016, 07:58:13 PM

Quote from: Lazarus Short on May 03, 2016, 04:53:17 PM
Scientists, so called, try to debunk mysticism, but seem to get caught up in mysticism of their own:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
evolution
big bang

None of the above have been observed, yet they are "science."

"Scientific mysticism"! You are so right! :thumbsup:

...are there wormholes?  :dontknow: ..it's on my list to google one of these days..  :thumbsup: :Peace2:

Also great sci-fi. I'm not sure if anyone actually believes real wormholes can exist in the actual world by chance. They certainly couldn't be all that helpful.

Quote from: marie glen on May 03, 2016, 07:56:26 PM

Quote from: CST on May 03, 2016, 02:27:20 PM
I've never heard of abiogenesis (and this computer's dictionary doesn't like it) so this thread is a bit left field to me. However it doesn't apply to God who is either an impossibility or an absolute certainty with precisely no room for maneauver.

However, fun as this idea is, it applies to many worlds science as well, and means that if your disappointed your team didn't win last night, never mind somewhere there's a universe they did. Nice idea but it produces problems like somewhere there is a universe where someone wins the jackpot on Deal Or No Deal everyday just because it's always mathematics possible. That doesn't  sound very likely; imagine how weird it would be if you were it that universe.


It doesn't work in single either, the point about probabilities is that 'likely' things happen more frequently than unlikely things. Likely things can repeat constantly because they're likely and force out improbable things. Making claims like this seems to go against the concept of probability.

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:

And if its not every choice and decision but just major - which i don't think is the theory - that's still at least a gazillion zillion universes.. and hey we haven't even decided yet (as humanity) if it's possible for one universe to spontaneously exist by chance, let alone millions..

Folks can believe something like that though, but cannot conceive of there being God.. or a god, if on suspends opinion on what sort of god (but that's really where the debate should move on to, man's theory of origins is actually getting a bit behind the times.. or a lot behind depending on how one looks at it.

....And how did all these universes come about. all at once.. or are they birthed at the 'time' of decisions/choices -I suppose the theory says it's all begun outside of time?

All interesting to think about and makes for great science fiction (of which I have recently become a fan of) but nevertheless!! :wacko2: pretty much wacko stuff.. the truth, of course, is infinitely better!!
:Peace2: :gsmile:

When Shrodinger came up with the cat in the box,  he actually meant it to underscore  the absurdity of the concept!

How does that work, I understood we didn't have the concept until Schrodinger presented us with that, admittedly, obviously ridiculous cat. Anyone for Irony?

I.M.O all this speculation by the world of there being "something out there" is so that when the heavens are literally rolled away and the spiritual world takes over that will  expose the "real " aliens; -the heavenly beings that are currently not visible to the naked eye.
Sci-fi films are also used to give the awareness of other life existing.

The Lord's prayer states that His will be done on earth As it is in heaven. Heaven must be a thriving metropolis.
Christ went to prepare a place for us. There is a new heaven and earth. Major changes which will re-enforce God is greater than man's understanding.
That will eventually happen.

Or it could be pretty empty at the moment. Multitude does not qualify how much God's will is being done. If there are five beings in Heaven and they all obey God then the statement is true, if only one disobeys then the statement isn't met.

 A few angels did sing when Christ was born.
Hebrews 12;22 " On the contrary, you have come to Mount Zion, even to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
                         and to innumerable angels, to a joyful assembly...."

QuoteCST
Also great sci-fi. I'm not sure if anyone actually believes real wormholes can exist in the actual world by chance. They certainly couldn't be all that helpful.

..they traveled throughout space using them on the three stargate series :laughing7: (I've long thought after this issue of good & evil (life &death) has been thoroughly proven (and engraved on all hearts and minds) that God our Father will stretch life out throughout the universe.. I know Rev 21 says there will no longer be the seas on earth (separating land masses) but still all the people who have ever lived, that's quite a few people.. somehow (after watching the Stargate series :laughing7: , I can't see Yahweh being so limited as to just one planet!

Another thing I learned though? Watching the three series, no matter how far (like with the Star Treks) they traveled way out there in space, it was the same problem... flawed human nature. The 3rd Stargate series illustrated this rather well..

Quote
Obviously the Big bang has never been observed no one was here to observe it. I don't know why you're mentioning it here though as a concept it's far more favourable to the idea of God than harmful.

I thought maybe i was the only one that thinks that!

Quote
It was always meant to be infinite, that was the point and the problem.
       All universes are meant to be born from the same moment

..which is kind of weird.. whether they are infinitely forming or whether all came into existence at once.. makes the question of "how?" (I think) even bigger!

Quote
          ..the real problem involves asking the question about the chicken and the egg but replacing the component parts with the term 'physical matter' and 'the laws of nature'. This should cause a huge problem for materialists. But they seem to be ignoring it.

But yeah, it all makes great sci-fi.

:thumbsup: :gsmile:

The chicken or the egg - 'physical matter' or 'the laws of nature'..? :idea2: I never thought of that! :gimmefive:

              :Chinscratch: I have the tendency to view "the heavens" where Yahweh resides as being beyond the physical universe.. a higher heavens if you will.. and that the travel of angels is something much faster and beyond the speed of light.. ?? :dontknow: :smile:

I agree.  Since astronomers are zeroing in on the point of the "big bang's" beginning, the point where He touched His metaphoric finger to the void, this universe is not where He resides.  The way between the two realms is His secret to reveal

Quote from: Reverend G on May 04, 2016, 05:29:30 PM
I agree.  Since astronomers are zeroing in on the point of the "big bang's" beginning, the point where He touched His metaphoric finger to the void, this universe is not where He resides.  The way between the two realms is His secret to reveal

Quote from: Reverend G on May 04, 2016, 05:29:30 PM
I agree.  Since astronomers are zeroing in on the point of the "big bang's" beginning, the point where He touched His metaphoric finger to the void, this universe is not where He resides.  The way between the two realms is His secret to reveal

Quote from: Ross on May 04, 2016, 03:01:31 PM
A few angels did sing when Christ was born.
Hebrews 12;22 " On the contrary, you have come to Mount Zion, even to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
                         and to innumerable angels, to a joyful assembly...."

Yeah, but I don't know what angels are. There's a touch of Sci-Fi on this thread maybe they'll turn out to be us one day. I wasn't making a point about a specific number I was making a point that the will of God being done does is not modified by the number of beings doing that will so far as I know, it's only modified by those that aren't.

Quote from: marie glen on May 04, 2016, 04:39:04 PM

QuoteCST
Also great sci-fi. I'm not sure if anyone actually believes real wormholes can exist in the actual world by chance. They certainly couldn't be all that helpful.

..they traveled throughout space using them on the three stargate series :laughing7: (I've long thought after this issue of good & evil (life &death) has been thoroughly proven (and engraved on all hearts and minds) that God our Father will stretch life out throughout the universe.. I know Rev 21 says there will no longer be the seas on earth (separating land masses) but still all the people who have ever lived, that's quite a few people.. somehow (after watching the Stargate series :laughing7: , I can't see Yahweh being so limited as to just one planet!

Another thing I learned though? Watching the three series, no matter how far (like with the Star Treks) they traveled way out there in space, it was the same problem... flawed human nature. The 3rd Stargate series illustrated this rather well..

Quote
Obviously the Big bang has never been observed no one was here to observe it. I don't know why you're mentioning it here though as a concept it's far more favourable to the idea of God than harmful.

I thought maybe i was the only one that thinks that!

Quote
It was always meant to be infinite, that was the point and the problem.
       All universes are meant to be born from the same moment

..which is kind of weird.. whether they are infinitely forming or whether all came into existence at once.. makes the question of "how?" (I think) even bigger!

Quote
          ..the real problem involves asking the question about the chicken and the egg but replacing the component parts with the term 'physical matter' and 'the laws of nature'. This should cause a huge problem for materialists. But they seem to be ignoring it.

But yeah, it all makes great sci-fi.

:thumbsup: :gsmile:

The chicken or the egg - 'physical matter' or 'the laws of nature'..? :idea2: I never thought of that! :gimmefive:

My point was, as I suspect you really appreciate despite your teasing is that a wormhole existed in reality quite my chance it would probably be too small for any of us to go through too far away for anybody to and connect too completely random points in space time. It's not like you could go through it with a plan and make daft efforts to change the past as they might be inclined to do in Sci-Fi.

I'm still considering the no sea thing, I'm pretty sure it's just symbolic (Hebrew sees the sea as symbolizing chaos and disorder). The most interesting thing about it is that we now know that the world used to be one solid land mass which seems to be what the Bible describes in Genesis and may be what is actually being described here. Not that there is no sea but that's it's really far away and no-one has much need to go find it.

I read in Anthony Flew's book "There Is No A God" how until very recently the prevailing thought was that the universe had simply existed forever and mot everyone believed this and it didn't do well for argument for God. And then the Big bang was 'discovered' and it looked like the universe had a beginning and suddenly the idea of God seemed more plausible.

Good point I'd have to say it would be human (scientific) inclination to think that the multiverse all the universes came into existence at a moment in the past and then moved forwards and diverged at some point and diverged again and diverged again and now it's diverged so much it's infinite to all intents and purposes even though it must somehow be finite. But again just with this one universe Sci-Fi can have a lot of fun we the other concept.

Here's your '$5" don't spend it all at once. oh wait you can't, it isn't physical matter and doesn't conform to the laws of the physical universe but rather the electronic one. Sorry about that.

Quote from: marie glen on May 04, 2016, 04:43:25 PM

              :Chinscratch: I have the tendency to view "the heavens" where Yahweh resides as being beyond the physical universe.. a higher heavens if you will.. and that the travel of angels is something much faster and beyond the speed of light.. ?? :dontknow: :smile:

Yeah, obviously it's really even bigger than that. God transcends the universe He was higher than the universe even more there was such a thing.

Quote from: Reverend G on May 04, 2016, 05:29:30 PM
I agree.  Since astronomers are zeroing in on the point of the "big bang's" beginning, the point where He touched His metaphoric finger to the void, this universe is not where He resides.  The way between the two realms is His secret to reveal

They say they are, in practice it might be quite difficult given what they are trying to pin down. An event supposedly preceded by no events.

I agree, RevG, marieglenn.

The creation account gives us the "waters" above being separated from the "waters" below and the waters above called "heavens". Paul gives us a lil trip to the third heaven. Revelation gives us the veil of the heavens being rolled back like a scroll, and the ark of the covenant appearing in the heavens- which is similar or perhaps the same as the "sign of the son of man appearing in the heavens". On top of that you have the angels gathering"from the four winds of the heavens" all the elect of God, as well as the angels "gathering out of His kingdom all things that offend".

All of these things, to me, are testimonies. Mortality is the veil for mankind. Life is the "treshing floor" where the wheat is separated from the chaff and the chaff is burned with unquenchable fire as the wheat is gathered into the barn.

Ecclesiastes poetically addresses this as well....

Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, "I have no delight in them"; 2before the sun and the light, the moon and the stars are darkened, and clouds return after the rain;

Notice how in referring to His return Jesus uses the words,"the sun and the moon will be darkened". This is a common phrase in the scriptures referring to the "coming" of God- when He intervenes the prophets use these words routinely. The ultimate experience of this for all mankind is death.. The veil is torn by death- "Every eye will see Him even those who pierced Him"....." Hide us from the wrath of the Lamb and the One who sits on the throne".... the Ancient of Days  Notice also that He is "coming in the clouds with 10,000s of 10,000s of His holy ones" and look to Hebrews 12...

we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses- myriads of angels, spirits of righteous men made perfect, the general assembly of the first born registered in heaven....

God is building a temple in the highest heavens, preparing it to "come down" to earth, even as Jesus was the "living manna coming down out of the heavens"-

All the nations will go in and out of it- a house of prayer for all people. The house of the throne of God is the innermost chamber but it will eventually swallow everything as God becomes all in all as every veil between man and angel and the highest heaven is torn(which is the heart of God for His creation, Romans 8.... we cry "ABBA!")

back to Ecclesiastes....

For man goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street. 6Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; 7then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. 8"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"

God has created the earth and our time in life to be His threshing floor,

and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and [t]exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children

and the more we seek Him and grow in Him the more deeply we can see into the heavens and the less it becomes about "knowing" and the more it becomes about "being"- yet the beauty is that the more we "become" like Him the more we "understand" His wisdom.

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

"Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 1 Cor 2

The depths of God are the highest heavens- it is His pleasure to give us the kingdom....He earnestly desires to cause His Spirit to dwell in us, to make His abode in us, and to make us an abode for all.

So on the threshing floor He separates us and on the Potter's Wheel He forms us, vessels fit for the Master's use, an inheritance for the ages to come.

and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus......

...... For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Eph 2:7

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy, He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for you, 5who through faith are protected by God's power for the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.... 1 Pet 1:4

Reserved in heaven? Ready to be revealed in the last time?

The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God! Romans 8

It will "come down out of the heavens" like the glory spilling out of the holy of holies until it fills the whole tabernacle....

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are ALL Things....Ro 11:36"

But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.. 2 Pet 3

It will be "adorned as a Bride for the Bridegroom". It will come "in the clouds" - Christ crucified, the ark of the covenant, the sign of the son of man.....

The sun will be darkened and the moon will be turned to blood. He will come on the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him ;o)

But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

O death where is thy sting.... For death will be swallowed up by immortality, the last adversary abolished, God will be all in all, and (imo)the highest heaven will run like a river throughout all creation

Abiogenesis, for those unfamiliar with the term, is about creation of life from non-living material.  The idea that the proper chemical envionment, temperature, and influx of energy, will produce living material, and is how life began on earth.
From a few amino acids (all that the experiments have produced) to imagining a bacteria, evolving into all life extant today. 
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)?

You seem to be making an objection to hypocrisy there G, understandable but doesn't further the argument really. The point scientist are really trying to show is that amino acids are life form enough to develop into a creature even the most stringent opponent would have to acknowledge as life entirely by natural chemical processes and thus not need God. I don't really mind if it doesn't as you can always invoke God somewhere along the line. As I said above the physical matter/laws of the universe bit seems to be a pretty good place at present especially the laws of the universe which of course don't exist physically they simply act on actual physical things.

Quote from: Reverend G on May 05, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
Abiogenesis, for those unfamiliar with the term, is about creation of life from non-living material.  The idea that the proper chemical envionment, temperature, and influx of energy, will produce living material, and is how life began on earth.
From a few amino acids (all that the experiments have produced) to imagining a bacteria, evolving into all life extant today. 
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)?

..that makes sense.. as to the name, or at least, bio-genesis.. what's the a for? do you know? (Usually it means anti? :dontknow: )

[A-men to that last sentence!! wow.. So true!!]

Is it true the 113? amino acids had to line up perfectly?I suppose some scientist might be able to line them up in a petri dish (or whatever! I may be a little behind the times!) but that is not spontaneous!

:Chinscratch: I wonder just what amino acids are.. may have to google that..

Quote
Abiogenesis - creation of life from non-living material.  The idea that the proper chemical envionment, temperature, and influx of energy, will produce living material, and is how life began on earth.

I'm posting this in my notes.. so I can be sure to commit it to memory.. and learn it :thumbsup: thanks!

Oh I see! the "a" is for the bio (dah)

Quote from: eaglesway on May 04, 2016, 08:01:04 PM
The creation account gives us the "waters" above being separated from the "waters" below and the waters above called "heavens". Paul gives us a lil trip to the third heaven. Revelation gives us the veil of the heavens being rolled back like a scroll, and the ark of the covenant appearing in the heavens- which is similar or perhaps the same as the "sign of the son of man appearing in the heavens". On top of that you have the angels gathering"from the four winds of the heavens" all the elect of God, as well as the angels "gathering out of His kingdom all things that offend".

It will "come down out of the heavens" like the glory spilling out of the holy of holies until it fills the whole tabernacle...

But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.. 2 Pet 3

O death where is thy sting.... For death will be swallowed up by immortality, the last adversary abolished, God will be all in all, and (imo)the highest heaven will run like a river throughout all creation

   Amen, amen!!  :banana: :dsunny:   shiver me timbers!!

Quote from: CST on May 04, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

we now know that the world used to be one solid land mass which seems to be what the Bible describes in Genesis

I didn't know that! (How interesting!)

Quote from: CST on May 04, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

Good point I'd have to say it would be human (scientific) inclination to think that the multiverse all the universes came into existence at a moment in the past and then moved forwards and diverged at some point and diverged again and diverged again and now it's diverged so much it's infinite to all intents and purposes even though it must somehow be finite. But again just with this one universe Sci-Fi can have a lot of fun

- it isn't physical matter and doesn't conform to the laws of the physical universe but rather the electronic one.

An event supposedly preceded by no events.

  oh! thanks! So it actually started out as one! ..So the theory goes.. ..."electronic" :Chinscratch:

"An event supposedly preceded by no events." ( ! )

Quote from: Reverend G on May 05, 2016, 02:10:09 PM

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)?

Great point RevG

Quote from: marie glen on May 05, 2016, 05:00:35 PM

Quote from: CST on May 04, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

we now know that the world used to be one solid land mass which seems to be what the Bible describes in Genesis

I didn't know that! (How interesting!)

Quote from: CST on May 04, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

Good point I'd have to say it would be human (scientific) inclination to think that the multiverse all the universes came into existence at a moment in the past and then moved forwards and diverged at some point and diverged again and diverged again and now it's diverged so much it's infinite to all intents and purposes even though it must somehow be finite. But again just with this one universe Sci-Fi can have a lot of fun

- it isn't physical matter and doesn't conform to the laws of the physical universe but rather the electronic one.

An event supposedly preceded by no events.

  oh! thanks! So it actually started out as one! ..So the theory goes.. ..."electronic" :Chinscratch:

"An event supposedly preceded by no events." ( ! )

That's how I understand it, kind of like Natural Selection but for universes. Presumably some universes turn corners that basically result in them either never forming or destroying themselves pretty quickly, although there's a theological instinct that God wouldn't allow this to happen.

Because who could end up with a universe where somehow physical evil was actually morally good which defies our sense of reason and of God's nature from which it comes.

The possibilities I would see would be alternate universes which preceded the choice of Eve (and Adam) to disobey Yahweh.. and every perfect choice after that.. or better yet no rebel thoughts forming in Satan.. (but I think sooner or later that first rebel thought somewhere within some rational creature was/is bound to occur)

And other than that, I would think of all universes, if they existed, as you said, either quickly self destructing.. or any time longer than that as all things not built on the Solid Rock cannot endure.. which sooner or later is revealed when self destruction occurs ("apocalypse", the "unveiling").

And all of their collapses being the contrast to God's Kingdom of paradise/perfection once good from evil (God/life/perfection from nonlife) has been deeply learned by all.. :2c: :smile:

..."to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules.." Daniel 4:17

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.

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:

Quote from: Reverend G on May 02, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: marie glen on May 02, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Reverend G on May 05, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: WhiteWings on May 07, 2016, 03:26:45 PM

Quote from: marie glen on May 02, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
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.

Quote from: WhiteWings on May 07, 2016, 03:45:23 PM

Quote from: Reverend G on May 05, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
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.

Quote from: WhiteWings on May 07, 2016, 03:45:23 PM

Quote from: Reverend G on May 05, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
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.

Quote from: CST on May 06, 2016, 07:29:45 PM
'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.

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.

Quote from: Reverend G on May 07, 2016, 06:36:54 PM

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."

Quote from: CST on May 10, 2016, 12:58:38 PM

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

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..

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM
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

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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:

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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:

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:27:29 PM

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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. 

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:15:11 PM

       :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. 

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:27:29 PM

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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.

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM
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?

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:27:29 PM

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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

Quote from: greg on May 12, 2016, 01:14:05 AM

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:27:29 PM

Quote from: greg on May 11, 2016, 09:19:33 PM

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.

Quote from: greg on May 12, 2016, 01:50:29 AM

Quote from: marie glen on May 11, 2016, 11:15:11 PM

       :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.

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

Quote from: greg on May 12, 2016, 01:50:29 AM

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:

Quote from: CST on May 06, 2016, 07:29:45 PM
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?

QuoteI 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?

Quote from: Lorenzo on May 13, 2016, 10:14:58 AM

Quote from: CST on May 06, 2016, 07:29:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Aerex on May 13, 2016, 01:46:14 PM

QuoteI 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.

Quote
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.

I think it is a generalization to say that people don't believe because they don't like the concept. I think some can't find any evidence outside of faith and personal accounts. You're right the belief in multiple universes does not prove or disprove the existence if God. However the proof of God still resides on those who believe and not the non believers because as I said we rely on faith and not necessarily on fact.

In regards to the heaven and rewards discussion, it is not a mistake but it not necessarily spiritual. You can do X Y and Z but your motives do not necessarily have any thing to do with X Y and Z. This is the problem . 

Quote from: Aerex on May 13, 2016, 01:46:14 PM
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?

Interesting thoughts, Aerex. 

A little known fact: a man named Hug Everett was the first to propose the multiverse (a many-worlds speculation) as he theorized the wave function doesn't actually collapse, but rather it just seems like does. Everett was virtually estranged from his family - his daughter's suicide note read that she was going to visit her dad in a parallel universe.  Might God have left a clue for us here about the children of those building towers of Babylon?

Multiverse
I need to make it clear - the 'multiverse theory' is not based on observable physics, but rather is a theoretical speculation based on cherry-picked findings about cosmic inflation.  It's quite comical actually how many unobservable assumptions the multiverse theory is based on.  In other words, it is a house of cards.  For example:

• "It is worth mentioning that the many-worlds interpretation, apart from being hard to prove, comes across another serious difficulty. The very concept of probability loses its sense within such an interpretation. If all possible outcomes are real, why do any of the outcomes become more or less probable? Being statistical by its nature, quantum calculations show that during a repeated experiment, a particle would most likely appear in a certain place, however, the probability of some outcomes may be higher than others. So the particle will not necessarily appear in the most probable place, but it will get there more often. Nevertheless, with the mandatory execution of all outcomes the meaning of such probability – the foundation of quantum mechanics – vanishes." https://www.hse.ru/data/2015/06/05/1.../98HUM2015.pdf

In a multiverse theory, every single possibility is 'equally' likely because probability itself breaks down at infinity. So multiverse theorists are required to acknowledge that anything anyone says (so long as it complies with the current laws of physics, and regardless of constants) is just as plausible as anything else.  So the multiverse theory makes it impossible for a person to be a false prophet.

Plausibility is all that multiverse theorists ever attempted to claim, as even the multiverse proponent Alan Guth was forced to admit, "The multiverse is regarded either as an open question or off the wall."

Physicists will do well to acknowledge that their abstract theories are not facts, and vice-versa.  Indeed, even multiverse-leaning physicists acknowledge that these wave function collapse questions are mysteries: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.2192.pdf (note also the Penrose interpretation has not been tested empirically at the level of one graviton necessary to conduct the test).

Multiverse theorists manually inserted infinity-operators into their original equations, and then voila, found infinite results in their theory.  I have searched and I have not found any scientist who even disputes that the infinities were added from theory and not from experiment.

Origin of Randomness
Physicists show intrinsic randomness exists in finite systems. And if that system is cycling, then each cycle is likely to be different than the one before it. This allows for normal rules of entropy and randomness.

Randomness is inherently a statistical measure of obeying a probability law.

Quantum Physics can only predict the probabilities of events. Thus, the problem and solution for cosmology is that probabilities break down when the odds for and against anything are both infinite.

Regarding both finite and infinite sets, this mathematician concludes "most standard forms of argument used in cosmology to estimate the likelihood of the occurrence of various properties or behaviors of spacetimes have serious mathematical, physical and conceptual problems." [1509.01878] Measure, Topology and Probabilistic Reasoning in Cosmology

Multiverse Theory Is Likely To Cause Harm
In physics, the English word "infinity" is a mistranslation of experimental results (i.e., scientists presume their mathematical tool for abstract calculation actually represents reality). And if history repeats itself, then that mistranslation of 'infinity' in scientific research will result in physical harm to people.

For example, imagine a sample pool of 1,000,000 people in the year 2416. Transhumanism and biologic experimentation have been untethered, and 75% of the 'human' population believes in an infinite multiverse of both utopias and hells. 10% of that number (75,000 people) are scientists with unnaturally constructed transhumanist brains, and they acknowledge the multiverse allows moral relativism. Their experiments are dangerous.

It is dangerous to abandon nature's lessons.

Words Are Important
Something that a scientist calls 'infinite' is just a mathematical abstraction designed to ease his calculations. By contrast, 'perpetual system' is a more honest phrase for cosmological theory - a perpetual system should be measured in present & finite parameters in this universe. So, if something qualifies as 'perpetual' it would mean the system is measured in its current state as a sustainable one in this universe that would theoretically (1) continue growing (without ever incurring a bankruptcy of energy) and/or (2) collapse on itself but without destroying itself (i.e., surviving charge compression, creating seed).

Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) model is perhaps the most famous multiverse theory presented. And even CCC does not require infinite space or infinite time (and I feel the same about Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic models), because I inherently recognize the difference between 'infinite' and 'perpetual'.

Now, whether any 'perpetual system' (universe) actually does continue infinitely? -- that is beyond the horizon to any observer.

Therefore, the word 'infinite' should not be used to describe anything physical. Rather, 'infinity' is just a tool to assist abstract calculations that would otherwise be too data-heavy. That's really my key point here, rather than trying to figure out which cosmological theory is correct. Though I do see there is overlap in the questions.

I see nature is inviting us to study perpetual systems in the specific context of sustainability and regeneration, like breathing in and out, and in and out. Or, receiving energy to grow, and transferring energy to seed, etc.

Philosophically, the infinite multiverse theory is also fundamentally dangerous when we remember the focus of the observer is part of the equation. The multiverse theory strikes these two key words -- "in God" -- from this equation: "In God anything is possible". And the cost of that 'intellectual proposal' (i.e., the "infinite multiverse theory" without a just God) is the focus of human minds toward believing in 'infinitely' unjust and exponentially torturous universes - where things so unspeakable occur that they would 'shatter minds into infinite pieces'. That is not sustainable for minds. We must remember, in this universe, the focus of the observer is part of the equation. That's a huge clue to us as breathing, sentient thinkers who desire to be in harmony with nature and active participants in reality. A scientist who preaches with confidence something exponential that he cannot prove is engaged in something very similar to a certain type of priest. As evidenced by man's long history of preaching everlasting hell, there is a danger that real people in this real universe will believe in the multiverse and act upon the belief of moral relativism. It was the belief in everlasting hell that motivated medieval torturers during the dark ages -- the torturers thought they were actually 'helping heretics' avoid a worse fate in a presumed afterlife. So, history shows a tangible, practical danger from presenting 'everlasting torture' logic to sentient beings on earth.

I think the multiverse belongs in science fiction. It does not have a reliable mathematical footing, and it cannot be tested empirically, so it is not appropriate for physicists to present the multiverse as anything other than raw, unadulterated speculation. I would liken the theory to one saying that two parallel lines "meet at infinity" -- it's just raw, un-mathematical speculation. Or it is like saying the value of 0/0 has infinite answers -- that is just raw, un-mathematical speculation.

Bible
The bible has the oldest recorded cosmological theory. The evidence for it is found in the people who have devoted their lives to communicating with the Creator. Sometimes, signs and wonders follow. Science too has produced signs and wonders. It is important to acknowledge where the bible and science are in harmony. In Hebrew, the words for 'Messiah' (mShyKha) and 'probabilities' (mShykKha) come from the same root word meaning "possible" – indeed, they are routinely a wordplay for one another in the bible, as they sound almost the same when spoken.

In Steinhardt's and Turok's book, "For example, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the opening lines in the Book of Genesis do not make clear if they are describing the creation of the Earth and Sun or of the entire universe.  In other places, the word used for "creation" refers to molding the world from preexisting formless material."  The literal Hebrew word in Genesis (later translated into English as "day") was used initially in the fundamental sense of 'light' and 'regeneration', rather than in the sense of a partial rotation of the earth around the sun.

The ancient literal text of the bible provides a cosmological model that is cyclic, where only the Creator lives continually,

•     Isaiah 43:10, "Before Me there was no god formed, And after Me not shall be."
•     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."
•     1 Kings 8:27, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain You."
•     2 Chronicles 2:6, "But who is able to enclose a house for Him, since the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?"

If you remain in the Creator you live in Him from world/age to world/age perpetually,

•      Psalm 90:2 – "Before the mountains were born and you formed the land and soil, even from age unto age You are God."
•      John 10:28, "And I give, I am to them life that is to a world/age, and they will not perish to a world/age." This language is a very specific promise about the world/age to come. If the messiah was going to promise that someone will never perish ever, then the text should instead say "they will not perish ever".
•      John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even if he should die he will live. And whoever lives and believes in me to a world/age will not die." Once again we see the promise of life is very specifically in reference to the world/age to come. The indefinite form of the word is used in the original language "a world/age" rather than the definite form "this world/age".
•      Ecclesiastes 3:11, "He made all things beautiful in their time, and indeed gave the age to their heart, yet so that man might not find what God has made from the beginning even until the end."

If you depart from the Creator you will eventually die because that which is outside the Creator is destroyed in its appropriate season.

•      Proverbs 12:7, "The wicked are overthrown, and are no more, but the house of the righteous shall stand."
•      Matthew 10:28, "And awe not of them who slaughter the body and are not able to slaughter the soul: but awe of Him who is able to destroy soul and body in Gehanna, the Valley of Burning."
•      Probers 24:20, "The evil have no future. The lamp of the wicked will go out."
•      In the psalms, King David describes the wicked "like chaff that the wind drives away... the wicked will perish" (Psalm 1:4 and 1:6). And see how he describes the wicked as dead men that are not even remembered in Psalms 9:6 and 34:16. David explains that the wicked "fade like the grass, and wither like an herb" (Psalm 37:2). They "shall be cut off...and...will be no more; though you look diligently for their place, they will not be there. (Psalm 37:9–10). "The wicked perish...like smoke they vanish away" (Psalm 37:20). "The transgressors shall be altogether destroyed" (Psalm 37:38). The wicked are analogized to finite things like grass, and then the text explains that they are destroyed as finite things are destroyed.
•      Nahum 1:9-10, "What are you plotting against Yahweh? He will make an utter end; distress shall not rise up a second time. For as thorns are woven together, and as their drunkards are drunken, they shall be devoured like fully dried straw."
•      Malachi 4:1, "Behold, the day is coming, burning like a firepot; and all the proud, and every doer of wickedness shall be chaff. And the coming day will set them ablaze, says Yahweh of Hosts, which will not leave root or branches to them."

Existentialism
Theoretically, human faith, logic, and skepticism can all be manipulated beyond human comprehension. So, why should we trust our minds?  This is a kind of nihilistic question, and it often feels ignorant of experience. By contrast, it feels honest to say that people observe the power to think and tinker, and because humans did not create this world, the Authority that did is showing us something.

Our minds are fragile due to limited perspectives.  For example, no human can prove whether or not invisible powers (spirits, aliens, etc) may be fooling us about existence.  Consider hypothetically what spirits or aliens could orchestrate through mind control that relies on hidden physics... as we have limited perspectives, we must admit logically that the extent of the mind control is theoretically unlimited – time and space might be just the tip of some exponential iceberg of deception.  When faced with any classic 'alien powers' example, we are required to fix our minds in one kind of thing – uncertainty, doubt, speculation, human incapacity to answer – skepticism.  So in this example, we find yet another proof that we cannot define "capital G God", nor can we define "everything" or "truth".

A Logical Challenge for Anyone Here at Tentmaker
I consider this the most frightening issue in the known universe from the human perspective: we can rationalize that even the ultimate Authority of the universe (if any) would logically wonder whether it too was a created being, subject to the authority of Something 'invisible' still.  Yes, the concept of the Unknown is universally pervasive – to human logic, no divine being is immune from the Concept of the Unknown.  Accordingly, it is logical for mankind to wonder whether the ultimate Authority over us would ever try to satisfy its curiosity toward the Unknown by manufacturing extreme injustices in our worlds (i.e., unspeakable tortures) just to test if there really is a greater Authority out there in the Unknown willing to intervene in order to stop the horrific injustices.  In this hypothetical, the injustices grow exponentially more terrible as the Authority tries exponentially harder to test whether it is truly alone in the universe.  Frightening!!   I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority.

For example, the bible emphasizes 'do unto others because what you measure will be measured back to you'. See, Matthew 7:1-12.  And in the bible, exact measurements are deemed 'just', appointed times are 'essential to life', etc.  When the biblical Authority gives these laws to us created beings, we rationalize this Authority also respects these laws.  Some of us go farther – we like to assume the highest morality is inextricably bound with an  Inescapable Law of 'cause-and-effect'.  So when some of us humans observe 'cause-and-effect' laws described in our bible, we take comfort in our assumption by analogy: that the biblical Authority also would not engage in exponential injustice, for fear that it too would suffer reciprocity for its own injustices at the hands of a higher Power similarly constituted with a Universal Logic of cause-and-effect retribution.

Now for the surprising logic – the concept of an exponential forgiveness requirement is also frightening. Why?  Because logically, a law of forgiveness could theoretically be exploited as an 'exponential loophole' in the cosmic justice system to avoid exponential amounts of personal accountability for 'cause-and-effect'.  Ask: why would a truly Divine being ever need forgiveness; for if they do (or even if they wonder if they do), are they truly divine, and have they not already proven that they are capable of wondering whether they are truly divine? And if they are not truly Divine or are wondering so, then perhaps they indeed have the 'personality' in them to engage in torture-testing to explore the Unknown.  So, paradoxically, perhaps the most frightening Authority of all is one who claims to reign alone and creates a universal law of forgiveness.

In my opinion, anyone who can resolve this paradox will perform a great service to humanity, for this paradox is a great barrier to loving any Ultimate Authority. Alternatively, if the paradox cannot be resolved, then it sets a paradigm of universal experience in such a way that Greatness can be viewed as not subservient to Absolute Power, but rather paradoxically that Greatness is a product that is best described as the mutual balance of Power and Humility.

Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

Quote from: GodIsLove on May 13, 2016, 06:02:08 PM
Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

GIL, I think the answer is faith.  But let's explore this mathematically and logically, because that's what we're talking about in terms of 'probability'...

Infinity and probability go hand in hand (or scale in scale) when analyzing the universe, in my opinion. I'm sure it's been said that the most unlikely thing we humans can postulate is the absence of a first cause. Whereas the most likely thing we can postulate is absolute certainty of our present existence. Imagine these two extremes (likely and unlikely) are poles on an atom, or electricity and magnetism, or select your favorite polar example.  Now ask this:

What are two paradoxes about 'nothingness' that could theoretically create a 'charge' between them to compete for relative probability? And what are two paradoxes about 'certainty' that could theoretically create a 'void' as they compete for relative probability?

GIL, if you can answer that question scientifically for me, you will have contributed greatly to mankind in my opinion.

I think, to say there was never a 'possibility' would require 'certainty'. To abstain from the question leaves 'possibility' open. If there was always a possibility, then perhaps possibility is the first cause.

Imagine hypothetically that we found at the quantum level a 'plasma' of probability waves where causality and reverse-causality are indistinguishable (because anything is possible at the center of that torus), such that consciousness would be fairly defined as the attempt to observe the motion of plasma energy in a particular order.  The absence of random patterns would be the presence of causality, and the tension between these two (order and randomness) would be consciousness. Even a slight pattern inside the plasma would magnify trillions of times into the outer structure of the torus in which we experience classical reality.

'Possibility' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive. 'Possibility' covers all things but 'nothing' defines itself. It may be the tension between these two create a kind of first cause – competition for relative probability to the perspective of a holographic observer.

Quote from: Aerex on May 13, 2016, 02:42:39 PM

Quote
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.

I think it is a generalization to say that people don't believe because they don't like the concept. I think some can't find any evidence outside of faith and personal accounts. You're right the belief in multiple universes does not prove or disprove the existence if God. However the proof of God still resides on those who believe and not the non believers because as I said we rely on faith and not necessarily on fact.

In regards to the heaven and rewards discussion, it is not a mistake but it not necessarily spiritual. You can do X Y and Z but your motives do not necessarily have any thing to do with X Y and Z. This is the problem .

If you think it's a generalization than why did you open your post with the phrase "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?" That suggests that you are arguing people are leaning towards the muliverse because they don't like the 'tyrannical old man' concept of God.

Heaven cannot be a reward for anything in any real sense because the Bible makes it clear that God gives it a 'free gift' and cannot be earned by any works of hours so how can it be a reward? It's not that would suggest we could earn it by doing good which we can't because we are supposed to do good anyway but you don't and so risk depriving ourselves of our place in the city for a time. That's all of us, without exception. It's not a reward because we can never do anything to merit it but only to lose it to some degree.

Quote from: greg on May 13, 2016, 06:18:57 PM

Quote from: GodIsLove on May 13, 2016, 06:02:08 PM
Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

GIL, I think the answer is faith.  But let's explore this mathematically and logically, because that's what we're talking about in terms of 'probability'...

Infinity and probability go hand in hand (or scale in scale) when analyzing the universe, in my opinion. I'm sure it's been said that the most unlikely thing we humans can postulate is the absence of a first cause. Whereas the most likely thing we can postulate is absolute certainty of our present existence. Imagine these two extremes (likely and unlikely) are poles on an atom, or electricity and magnetism, or select your favorite polar example.  Now ask this:

What are two paradoxes about 'nothingness' that could theoretically create a 'charge' between them to compete for relative probability? And what are two paradoxes about 'certainty' that could theoretically create a 'void' as they compete for relative probability?

GIL, if you can answer that question scientifically for me, you will have contributed greatly to mankind in my opinion.

I think, to say there was never a 'possibility' would require 'certainty'. To abstain from the question leaves 'possibility' open. If there was always a possibility, then perhaps possibility is the first cause.

Imagine hypothetically that we found at the quantum level a 'plasma' of probability waves where causality and reverse-causality are indistinguishable (because anything is possible at the center of that torus), such that consciousness would be fairly defined as the attempt to observe the motion of plasma energy in a particular order.  The absence of random patterns would be the presence of causality, and the tension between these two (order and randomness) would be consciousness. Even a slight pattern inside the plasma would magnify trillions of times into the outer structure of the torus in which we experience classical reality.

'Possibility' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive. 'Possibility' covers all things but 'nothing' defines itself. It may be the tension between these two create a kind of first cause – competition for relative probability to the perspective of a holographic observer.

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Quote from: CST on May 13, 2016, 07:38:09 PM

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

The problem begins with our own thinking, being pretentious enough to think we can be rational when considering a subject so literally outside of our comprehension.
Verbosity and equations do not create understanding.

Quote from: greg on May 13, 2016, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: CST on May 13, 2016, 07:38:09 PM

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

Quote from: CST on May 14, 2016, 05:00:50 PM

Quote from: greg on May 13, 2016, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: CST on May 13, 2016, 07:38:09 PM

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

Isaiah 45:7, "Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Yahweh, doing all these things."

The paradox would be inside man's psychology --  that the most frightening Authority that men could face in the universe would be the Authority who offers forgiveness, because if forgiveness is indeed a universal law (i.e., fearful man wonders if he also must forgive God for "preparing evil"), then forgiveness is potentially an exponential loophole in the cosmic justice system.  While we might exploit that loophole in some small way to be forgiven of our little sins on earth, we also imagine that the Authority might exploit that loophole in exponential ways. 

In the language of the apostles in first century Israel, the root word for forgiveness is Shbq ("release").   Other words that inform this same topic are "destruction" and "transformation/exchange".

Imagine a universe without forgiveness -- a universe without 'release'.  Would a universe without release be a universe with 'exponential accumulation'?   And if the beings in that universe without release were flawed (i.e., us), then would any exponential accumulation of their flaws (and the consequences of those flaws, and the consequences of the consequences of those flaws...) start to look like an everlasting hell?

It seems to my limited mind that it is beneficial to have forgiveness/release, along with destruction and transformation -- all of these would theoretically prevent the exponential accumulation of flaws/sins.

But that's simply a defense/rationalization to the original human fear, the fear of a rigged system.  So the paradox remains -- the psychology of man experiences an obstacle to love in the form of forgiveness, because forgiveness looks like a breach of justice.

Luke 7:47, "On account of this, I say to you, that her many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, but he who is forgiven a little loves a little."

So which is it, the greater the forgiveness the greater the love, or the greater the justice the greater the love?

For me, the promise of the Messiah is that forgiveness and justice are reconciled -- and the manner of that reconciliation through Yahshua's sacrifice/exchange is a mystery. 

So in this example, faith is a talent of human psychology to defend against fear.  I'm not counting on human faith here to solve the psychological problem.  I'm counting on the Messiah to balance an equation where forgiveness is not unlimited, but is measured. 

Matthew 26:28, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed in exchange for the many for the release of sins."

Matthew 6:15, "If you will not forgive the children of men, neither has your Father forgiven you your faults."

Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Kapa approached him, and he said, 'My Lord, if my brother commits an offense against me, how many times shall I forgive him? Seven times?' And Yeshua said to him, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.'"

While I agree with your overall point Greg, I take some exception to your use and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, if I understand it properly.

The evil that God was speaking of, was in the context of judging Israel for persistent wickedness. IMO, to many people take that verse out of context with the surrounding passages to assert that God creates wickedness. He himself prepares no wickedness. In the context, the evil He is preparing is the removal of His protection over Israel because of their disregard for Him, and their love of wickedness, so that in this case, evil speaks of heavy disciplines and consequences that God is preparing for egregiously rebellious children. In this context, the flood of Noah's day was evil sent from the Lord to destroy wickedness.

Evil in this context refers to the coming judgment.

רע commonly called evil.
רשע commonly called wicked.
טוב commonly called good.

In Semitic thought-form, all רשע(wckdnss) is רע(evl), but not all רע(evl) is רשע(wckdnss). The Creator of all does both טוב(good) and רע(evl), but never רשע(wckdnss). When a father does רע to his son by grounding him for doing wrong, the fathers' discipline, although רע, is not רשע. In fact, it is טוב.

Quote from: eaglesway on May 24, 2016, 06:19:34 AM
While I agree with your overall point Greg, I take some exception to your use and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, if I understand it properly.

The evil that God was speaking of, was in the context of judging Israel for persistent wickedness. IMO, to many people take that verse out of context with the surrounding passages to assert that God creates wickedness. He himself prepares no wickedness. In the context, the evil He is preparing is the removal of His protection over Israel because of their disregard for Him, and their love of wickedness, so that in this case, evil speaks of heavy disciplines and consequences that God is preparing for egregiously rebellious children. In this context, the flood of Noah's day was evil sent from the Lord to destroy wickedness.

Evil in this context refers to the coming judgment.

רע commonly called evil.
רשע commonly called wicked.
טוב commonly called good.

In Semitic thought-form, all רשע(wckdnss) is רע(evl), but not all רע(evl) is רשע(wckdnss). The Creator of all does both טוב(good) and רע(evl), but never רשע(wckdnss). When a father does רע to his son by grounding him for doing wrong, the fathers' discipline, although רע, is not רשע. In fact, it is טוב.

Good points.  I was using Isaiah 45:7 as an example -- and you're right, the context (i.e., regarding Cyrus and Israel) is key to understanding it.  I would say though that Isaiah 45 does expand into a far reaching context, as we see for example in 45:22, "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."

I liked your Hebrew insights -- I'll add that  רשע is a legal term, and often used in that context.  Indeed, I can't imagine anyone using that word to judge God.  It would be like calling God a murderer?  One simply can't do it biblically because there is no one above God to judge God a murderer.  Rather, God can only be called a killer or destroyer as one of His attributes.  I say this with respect of course -- it's a fine thing to destroy something that deserves it. 

As a side note, there is an amazing authenticity in the gospel on this point because a word's conjugation alone cannot bring about the legal conclusion "murder". In the gospel, you need a judge or judgment to do that. That is why we see the conjugation qtula ("murderer(s)") only when the judge appears in Matthew 22:7, but not earlier in verses 22:3-6 (where we see qtl ("kill"). See also John 15:2 (showing temporal retroactivity); Rev 22:14; John 10:10 (already judged a "thief"). It's a subtle point in the gospel, but an important point that can be easily overlooked.

Matthew 5:21, "You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones: la Thqtul ("not you murder/kill")." See also Mark 10:19 qtul ("murder"). After this, Yahshua describes that murder is really a matter of the heart! That's huge. For example, who will judge the heart? See 1 Samuel 6:17; See also, Matthew 19:18 Thqtul ("you murder/kill").

Perhaps there is some great cosmic corollary as well, where no one has the ability to forgive God, or release God, or destroy God? 

I've always wondered about this topic actually -- how on earth can we even have the perspective necessary to praise God by saying things like "God is Almighty" or "God is Holy" or "God is without sin"?  I mean, I'm 37-years old with ten fingers and ten toes on a planet called earth - how would I know?  Praise often feels like pandering to me :/ 

For some reason though, I feel differently about questions asked with respectful awe, such as, "How holy is the Father?"  I honestly don't know, but I enjoy wondering.   "How great is His love?"  ...

Children often proclaim big answers to questions beyond their perspective.  Sometimes its cute, sometimes funny.  Often wrong though.   Feels like earth is a learning and testing environment. 

Quote from: greg on May 24, 2016, 12:37:27 AM

Quote from: CST on May 14, 2016, 05:00:50 PM

Quote from: greg on May 13, 2016, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: CST on May 13, 2016, 07:38:09 PM

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

Isaiah 45:7, "Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Yahweh, doing all these things."

The paradox would be inside man's psychology --  that the most frightening Authority that men could face in the universe would be the Authority who offers forgiveness, because if forgiveness is indeed a universal law (i.e., fearful man wonders if he also must forgive God for "preparing evil"), then forgiveness is potentially an exponential loophole in the cosmic justice system.  While we might exploit that loophole in some small way to be forgiven of our little sins on earth, we also imagine that the Authority might exploit that loophole in exponential ways. 

In the language of the apostles in first century Israel, the root word for forgiveness is Shbq ("release").   Other words that inform this same topic are "destruction" and "transformation/exchange".

Imagine a universe without forgiveness -- a universe without 'release'.  Would a universe without release be a universe with 'exponential accumulation'?   And if the beings in that universe without release were flawed (i.e., us), then would any exponential accumulation of their flaws (and the consequences of those flaws, and the consequences of the consequences of those flaws...) start to look like an everlasting hell?

It seems to my limited mind that it is beneficial to have forgiveness/release, along with destruction and transformation -- all of these would theoretically prevent the exponential accumulation of flaws/sins.

But that's simply a defense/rationalization to the original human fear, the fear of a rigged system.  So the paradox remains -- the psychology of man experiences an obstacle to love in the form of forgiveness, because forgiveness looks like a breach of justice.

Luke 7:47, "On account of this, I say to you, that her many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, but he who is forgiven a little loves a little."

So which is it, the greater the forgiveness the greater the love, or the greater the justice the greater the love?

For me, the promise of the Messiah is that forgiveness and justice are reconciled -- and the manner of that reconciliation through Yahshua's sacrifice/exchange is a mystery. 

So in this example, faith is a talent of human psychology to defend against fear.  I'm not counting on human faith here to solve the psychological problem.  I'm counting on the Messiah to balance an equation where forgiveness is not unlimited, but is measured. 

Matthew 26:28, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed in exchange for the many for the release of sins."

Matthew 6:15, "If you will not forgive the children of men, neither has your Father forgiven you your faults."

Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Kapa approached him, and he said, 'My Lord, if my brother commits an offense against me, how many times shall I forgive him? Seven times?' And Yeshua said to him, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.'"

I think you may have misunderstood something rather fundamental here while talking around it which makes everything you have said meaningless. God does not instruct of to forgive evil He does not even demand that we forgive wickedness. The requirement is to forgive each others sin, because we all do it and we're all guilty.

God, however, as the Bible makes very clear is not guilty. He does not sin and has nothing to be forgiven for and that is a basic fact of what sin is and God will never be guilty of such.

Oh and 'seventy times seven' isn't 490 here, it's completely and forever and always.

QuotePerhaps there is some great cosmic corollary as well, where no one has the ability to forgive God, or release God, or destroy God? 

I've always wondered about this topic actually -- how on earth can we even have the perspective necessary to praise God by saying things like "God is Almighty" or "God is Holy" or "God is without sin"?  I mean, I'm 37-years old with ten fingers and ten toes on a planet called earth - how would I know?  Praise often feels like pandering to me :/ 

For some reason though, I feel differently about questions asked with respectful awe, such as, "How holy is the Father?"  I honestly don't know, but I enjoy wondering.   "How great is His love?"  ...

Children often proclaim big answers to questions beyond their perspective.  Sometimes its cute, sometimes funny.  Often wrong though.   Feels like earth is a learning and testing environment.

Yes!

We are children. The humility in that acknowledgment allows fellowship in disagreement because underneath our perspectives in the knowledge that we have a limited perspective.

"Unless you become as this little child you cannot enter the kingdom of God"

Big things cannot get through small openings. Samll openings become infinite portals to the lowly of heart.

"Who has known the mind of the Lord and Who has been His counselor for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things".

I also agree with you about praise and pandering. We have been(often) taught to pander.

I think true praise comes as a spontanoeous response to immensity and glory and beauty. Like a view of a great canyon that takes ones breath away, or that feeling I get standing by the ocean at night as a storm is blowing in and the beauty and strength of it cause my spirit to soar.

True worship is service and seeking, loving and forgiving, repenting, as in...

Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Isaiah 6

or

5"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; 6Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."

When we get near to awesomeness, the response is awe. Religious praise is something else-not to say we have to be having a spiritual epiphany to give glory to God, but to touch Him and be touched by Him, I think that empowers true praise.