Creation Story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Sure, I dont mean argue like a heated argument, just that you are making a point. Your point has been noted so I'll reword my stance.

My deductive reasoning works with "nature as we know it". Nature as we know it breaks down in one way or the other, it doesnt allow for self creation. First cause under context of nature as we know it points to supernatural event.

I think my assumption is fair for the same reason I think it's fair to assume lions weren't herbivores, but I'll give you that, it is still indeed an assumption which I am applying.

We don't KNOW that in regards to first cause. Whatever the **** that means...



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

So a self creating universe would seem to be counterintuitive. But many scientific discoveries often start out just like that. It's why all bets are off and all possibilities are on the table until a working model can be demonstrated and replicated.

Will that ever happen in out lifetime. Doubtful. But we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fanofclendennon

So a self creating universe would seem to be counterintuitive. But many scientific discoveries often start out just like that. It's why all bets are off and all possibilities are on the table until a working model can be demonstrated and replicated.

Will that ever happen in out lifetime. Doubtful. But we'll see.

---

It's not that its counter intuitive, it's that it is literally impossible according to nature as we know it.

Theres no reason for me to believe that natural parameter was diff before in order to account for the limits I defined of space and time. I believe these limits are absolute, and the weakness behind any argument to try and argue otherwise only reinforce this idea to me.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

No, the thought is not physical, so why would you think a thought if a cloud means that it is a literal cloud?

Here is a good explanation for what I’m referring to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop


A strange loop most certainly does not have to be physical.

I don’t know how else to say this: loops are not only possible for physical things.

---

I do believe the physical universe is in a strange loop.

Actually, it MUST be.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

It's not that its counter intuitive, it's that it is literally impossible according to nature as we know it.

Theres no reason for me to believe that natural parameter was diff before in order to account for the limits I defined of space and time. I believe these limits are absolute, and the weakness behind any argument to try and argue otherwise only reinforce this idea to me.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

It's only "literally impossible" because you can't possibly imagine any way it could happen. The point you keep stumbling over is that natural law and the laws of physics are 2 different things.

The laws of physics applies to the known universe. That doesn't mean we know everything there is to know. Perhaps the answer lies in quantum mechanics or string theory? Obviously I'm making that up now but the point is that just because it's a difficult problem that needs to be solved doesn't mean it's "literally impossible."

As I've yet to hear an academically credentialed astrophysicist or theoretical physicist say it is "literally impossible," you can understand why I have a hard time swallowing it from a theist in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fanofclendennon

It's only "literally impossible" because you can't possibly imagine any way it could happen. The point you keep stumbling over is that natural law and the laws of physics are 2 different things.

The laws of physics applies to the known universe. That doesn't mean we know everything there is to know. Perhaps the answer lies in quantum mechanics or string theory? Obviously I'm making that up now but the point is that just because it's a difficult problem that needs to be solved doesn't mean it's "literally impossible."

As I've yet to hear an academically credentialed astrophysicist or theoretical physicist say it is "literally impossible," you can understand why I have a hard time swallowing it from a theist in this forum.

---

Sure, because my argument isnt strictly scientific, it's kinda philosophical too.

Also, it is impossible. By definition. You dont need an astrophysicist to tell you that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Sure, because my argument isnt strictly scientific, it's kinda philosophical too.

Also, it is impossible. By definition. You dont need an astrophysicist to tell you that.

---

Well none of them would. This entire conversation is you saying all scientists are incorrect because you can't fathom what they can. It's incredibly conceited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I do believe the physical universe is in a strange loop.

Actually, it MUST be.

---

But you are still stuck on this idea that time is a line that can only move from point a to point b at a constant rate. You have an inability to think that time could behave in any other way. This inability to comprehend other possibilities is the root of the problem. Not a single actual scientist thinks this is the only way time must behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well none of them would. This entire conversation is you saying all scientists are incorrect because you can't fathom what they can. It's incredibly conceited.

---

No, scientists are not incorrect because much like how you cannot prove a negative, same way, I cannot disprove that time moves in a circle, a figure 8, or a triple loop.

In regards to the loch ness and flying spaghetti monster, you have no issue assuming them to be fiction, but with "circular time" (wtf does that even mean?) you do.

I'm just assuming your circular time **** to be the same exact thing as the flying spaghetti. You're the one making a distinction.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

But you are still stuck on this idea that time is a line that can only move from point a to point b at a constant rate. You have an inability to think that time could behave in any other way. This inability to comprehend other possibilities is the root of the problem. Not a single actual scientist thinks this is the only way time must behave.

---

Time doesn't go backward or replay itslef.

Also it doesn't move at a constant rate, we know this, its not even up for debate. Time is relative. ??

I know to think of time we assume it to be a line on a graph, but that's just so we can quantify it. Really time is like a dimension. It just is. There is a past, a present, a future, so I guess it has to be linear in its nature.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, scientists are not incorrect because much like how you cannot prove a negative, same way, I cannot disprove that time moves in a circle, a figure 8, or a triple loop.

In regards to the loch ness and flying spaghetti monster, you have no issue assuming them to be fiction, but with "circular time" (wtf does that even mean?) you do.

I'm just assuming your circular time **** to be the same exact thing as the flying spaghetti. You're the one making a distinction.

---

Well it appears you know as little about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you do time since you have completely misunderstood the point of the FSM.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is to point out that we can't prove he doesn't exist, it's impossible. So no matter how much you assume he doesn't exist, he very well could, it's possible.

Now remember I'm not proving any of the theories I'm showing you, I'm saying they are possible, you are the one saying God has to exist because none of them are possible. But as you just said now, you can't prove any of them are impossible, meaning they are possible, meaning God is not the only possible answer.

Also, it is important to note that no physicists are studying the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whereas a great many are studying the elastic universe model I've described.

Again, I think this comes down to you simply not believing that actual scientists are saying these sorts of things are possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well it appears you know as little about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you do time since you have completely misunderstood the point of the FSM.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is to point out that we can't prove he doesn't exist, it's impossible. So no matter how much you assume he doesn't exist, he very well could, it's possible.

Now remember I'm not proving any of the theories I'm showing you, I'm saying they are possible, you are the one saying God has to exist because none of them are possible. But as you just said now, you can't prove any of them are impossible, meaning they are possible, meaning God is not the only possible answer.

Also, it is important to note that no physicists are studying the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whereas a great many are studying the elastic universe model I've described.

Again, I think this comes down to you simply not believing that actual scientists are saying these sorts of things are possible.

---

Scientists are saying moving backward in time is possible? And what's the evidence of this?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is to point out that we can't prove he doesn't exist, it's impossible. So no matter how much you assume he doesn't exist, he very well could, it's possible.
.

---

Ok, let me ask you this. What if I said the color green is not linear, it's circular. Or it COULD BE circular. What does that mean?

To me it means nothing. Just as you telling me time moving circular means nothing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Scientists are saying moving backward in time is possible? And what's the evidence of this?

---

First, I don't know if you're being intentionally stupid or unintentionally; all I know is you're being stupid. I never said that time moves backwards. Go back to the roundabout example: your car never needs to move backwards to go around it and hit the same points.

Second, now that you mention it, there are several scientists working on that very thing:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...oves-backwards

Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards

What's most interesting about this article is this excerpt from Scientific American:

Physicists have been struggling for decades over the fact that none of the fundamental laws of physics that govern the Universe state that time has to necessarily move forwards. "Whether through Newton’s gravitation, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, Einstein’s special and general relativity or quantum mechanics, all the equations that best describe our Universe work perfectly if time flows forward or backward," Lee Billings writes for Scientific American.


So right there they disagree in the most explicit possible terms with you and your assertion the laws of the universe state time has to move forward.


Here's another article where scientists show the second law of thermodynamics breaks down at the quantum level, which allows for the flow of time to move backwards or forwards:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/articl...um-experiment/

"the result shows that the arrow of time is not an absolute concept, but a relative concept. Different systems can have arrows of time that point in different directions. While the arrow was apparently reversed for the two quantum particles the researchers studied, for example, the arrow pointed in its typical direction in the rest of the laboratory."


Heck, there was just an entire movie that came out around this concept. I advise you to go see the movie Tenet by Christopher Nolan. First, it was excellent. Second, he actually consulted with physicist Kip Thorne on how such time manipulations may be possible. He previously worked with Kip Thorne on Interstellar to consult on how time is manipulated by gravitational fields.


But bottom line: your thinking on time is inelastic and you are simply incorrect regarding how time must function; and scientists all agree what you think is impossible is indeed very possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First, I don't know if you're being intentionally stupid or unintentionally; all I know is you're being stupid. I never said that time moves backwards.

---

Did you not mention an elastic universe theory that mentions all time and space contracting forward and backward?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Physicists have been struggling for decades over the fact that none of the fundamental laws of physics that govern the Universe state that time has to necessarily move forwards. "Whether through Newton’s gravitation, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, Einstein’s special and general relativity or quantum mechanics, all the equations that best describe our Universe work perfectly if time flows forward or backward," Lee Billings writes for Scientific American.


So right there they disagree in the most explicit possible terms with you and your assertion the laws of the universe state time has to move forward.

---

He's just saying that the math adds up forward and backward. Which is like, duh.

1 - 1 = 0
1 + (-1) = 0

Big whoop.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk