Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creat] L U C K

Expand Messages
  • Aldo Taffelli
    When dealing with existence, I, personally, do not believe in luck. My opinion is that every happening in the universe takes place thanks to a cause. Cause and
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 30, 2010
      When dealing with existence, I, personally, do not believe in luck. My opinion is that every happening in the universe takes place thanks to a cause.

      Cause and effect is one of the main laws that governs the universe. I am not able, in my reasoning, to go beyond the universal laws and to understand whether above all a God may exist nor what ever he may be, if anyone or anything, also vis a vis of the overwhelming apparently senseless universal suffering.

      I believe that the universe exists thanks to means of its own, though I would not be able to say which ones. But once you believe in creation, you could ask yourself who created the Creator, and the Creator of the Creator, and so on for the eternity without obtaining a reasonable answer.

      I believe that to rule out luck is "simple", is you follow backwards the foot prints of any happening. That is to say it is easy if you find your way back, otherwise it may become difficult or impossible.

      I never understood very much what it was expected to have happened with the big bang. One thing seams to me clear, however, it did not start anything, but it simply produced a change, one of the many the universe has always produced, produces and will produce. This assuming that, if the universe is not created, it, somehow, "acts" on its own.

      Certainly there is no present human explanation also to existence without creation.

      To make short a speech, which could never end, let me add that, in my opinion, the subject, creation or not creation, can be dealt with only emotionally and by wishful thinking, being it bigger then anyone's present means to properly understand it.

      It is not yet in the human ability to understand eternity: that is to say existence without beginning and without ending, as eternity is.

      If you believe in creationism, it easer to accept luck, as I doubt there is any reason neither for creation nor for a time of it to take place.



      Aldo Taffelli

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: goodvibrations99
      To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:33 PM
      Subject: [creat] L U C K



      I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a big different between creationism and science is the simple acceptance of luck?
      Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way the coin falls.
      For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not enough to form anything to speak of, we would have nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that there was a high enough proportion of matter to antimatter to create things we see today. If you say this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what are the odds of that, something must have intervened". So is the biggest problem something to do with the ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • goodvibrations99
      ... Hi Randy C. Yes I see your point. I still blame gremlins when my car wont start. That is until I find the real cause of course. I understand theres a huge
      Message 2 of 29 , Apr 30, 2010
        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
        >
        > >>> goodvibrations99:
        > >>> I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a
        > >>> big different between creationism and science is the
        > >>> simple acceptance of luck?
        >
        > >> Randy C:
        > >> I would say no.
        >
        > >> The big difference is that science uses evidence and
        > >> creationism doesn't.
        >
        > >> I've noticed that you distinguish science from creationism.
        > >> That's a good distinction to make.
        >
        > >>> Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer
        > >>> odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way
        > >>> the coin falls.
        >
        > >>> For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion
        > >>> years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti
        > >>> matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter
        > >>> was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter
        > >>> was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not
        > >>> enough to form anything to speak of, we would have
        > >>> nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that
        > >>> there was a high enough proportion of matter to
        > >>> antimatter to create things we see today. If you say
        > >>> this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it
        > >>> because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds
        > >>> were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this
        > >>> to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what
        > >>> are the odds of that, something must have intervened".
        > >>> So is the biggest problem something to do with the
        > >>> ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?
        >
        > >> No.
        >
        > >> First of all, I would say that your description of the
        > >> intervention of "something" - presumably a God - in the
        > >> Big Bang is a belief that is not generally associated
        > >> with creationism.
        >
        > >> For example, there are people called "theistic evolutionists".
        > >> Such people accept evolution, the Big Bang, etc. But they
        > >> largely believe that God initiated those things.
        >
        > >> But those people are not "creationists". Instead they are
        > >> people who accept scientific evidence but, in cases where
        > >> there is no scientific evidence one way or another, they
        > >> feel free to insert a supernatural being.
        >
        > >> But it is not necessarily a case of "luck" either.
        >
        > >> One hypothesis is that there are an infinite number of
        > >> universes, each with a slightly different set of physical
        > >> laws. We happen to be part of a universe that has physical
        > >> laws that allow complex life.
        >
        > > Goodvibes:
        > > But there is also the other hypothesis where our universe
        > > continually collapses and we have big bang after big bang,
        > > basically for eternity.
        >
        > Randy C:
        > Right.
        >
        > There's a lot of different explanations that have been
        > hypothesized. I don't know which one is right. It COULD
        > be the case that we are indeed quite lucky.
        >
        > But it could be the case that we are NOT "lucky" - depending
        > partially on how you define "luck".
        >
        > >> Are we therefore lucky?
        >
        > >> In this scenario it is impossible to be "unlucky". If the
        > >> physical laws didn't allow life, by definition, we wouldn't
        > >> be around to bemoan our bad luck. If there are NO unlucky
        > >> living things, does that make all living things lucky?
        >
        > >> I would say that "luck" is not the appropriate word.
        >
        > > how about favourable odds being the key words? You have
        > > to admit that the big bang event had lots of those.
        > > One example is the rate of expansion. From what I
        > > understand, the universe expanded in the first few
        > > seconds to quite a size and was incredible in high
        > > temperatures. Energy transformed into matter which
        > > Einsteins famous formula shows, and we had sub atomic
        > > particles. If the universe was expanding much faster,
        > > then sub atomic particles could not have formed atoms.
        > > If the rate of expansion was much slower, then the
        > > universe would have collapsed. So, lots of odds here
        > > which turned out favourable.
        >
        > No. I didn't explain my point very well. Let me try
        > again.
        >
        > Imagine that everyone who enters the lottery wins the
        > lottery - and wins the same amount.
        >
        > Are lottery winners then "lucky"?
        >
        > I say no. It's simply a matter of cause and effect. If
        > you enter the lottery - cause - then you win - effect.
        > "Luck" is not a factor. 100% of the people who enter
        > win. 100% of the people that don't enter don't win.
        >
        > If the laws of any particular universe were sufficiently
        > different such that no complex life could exist, then
        > there would be no one that you could call "unlucky"
        > because, by definition, no one would exist in such a
        > universe.
        >
        > It's like entering the lottery and always winning if
        > you do. 100% of the people who live in a universe that
        > allows for complex life are entering the lottery and
        > they exist ("win) as a result. 100% of the people that
        > don't enter the lottery - because they cannot exist -
        > don't "win".
        >
        > But that is NOT luck!
        >
        > In my view, in order to call someone "lucky" you must have
        > someone else whose outcome is "unlucky" or at least "less
        > lucky". That's not the case here. By definition there
        > cannot be anyone in any alternate universe that is "less
        > lucky" because no such can being can possibly exist.
        >
        > > This is a hugely important thing to my religious friends
        > > who say that this couldn't happen by chance. I know
        > > science looks at evidence and tests, but science cannot
        > > say 'why' the big bang had just the right amount of
        > > energy other than "it just did". This is what I mean,
        > > people like us can just live with the fact that it was
        > > correct in the beginning, but religious people like my
        > > friends cannot accept that.
        >
        > Well science can't explain it....yet.
        >
        > People like Stephen Hawking are trying to find answers.
        > They might find some.
        >
        > But fundamentally the arguments of your religious friends
        > are no different from the arguments of Native Americans,
        > and members of many other cultures, that insisted that
        > rain gods were responsible for rain. A few centuries ago
        > no one understood what caused rain - just as no one can
        > currently explain what caused the Big Bang. There was no
        > "why". I think that we can agree that the proposed
        > "solution" of a "rain god" who did it is becoming less
        > and less convincing over time.
        >
        > To contend that one or another God must be invoked whenever
        > there is something that we can't explain RIGHT NOW is a
        > fallacious argument called the "God of the Gaps".
        >
        Hi Randy C.

        Yes I see your point. I still blame gremlins when my car wont start. That is until I find the real cause of course.

        I understand theres a huge accelerator underground (In switzerland?) where they collide sub atomic particles in order to try and understand the processes immediately after the big bang? But do you think we will ever be able to discover the cause of the big bang? I mean where it came from and why? The one thing I find very difficult to understand is where the dense energy was actually being held? If there was no space, no universe, no nothing, what was this energy actually sitting in ready to explode?

        Regards
        Goodvibes
      • goodvibrations99
        ... Yes the good old loop which short circuits the brain. I have pondered on this more than anything since looking at religion. I can see how perhaps a being
        Message 3 of 29 , May 1, 2010
          --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Aldo Taffelli" <aldotaffelli@...> wrote:
          >
          > When dealing with existence, I, personally, do not believe in luck. My opinion is that every happening in the universe takes place thanks to a cause.
          >
          > Cause and effect is one of the main laws that governs the universe. I am not able, in my reasoning, to go beyond the universal laws and to understand whether above all a God may exist nor what ever he may be, if anyone or anything, also vis a vis of the overwhelming apparently senseless universal suffering.
          >
          > I believe that the universe exists thanks to means of its own, though I would not be able to say which ones. But once you believe in creation, you could ask yourself who created the Creator, and the Creator of the Creator, and so on for the eternity without obtaining a reasonable answer.


          Yes the good old loop which short circuits the brain. I have pondered on this more than anything since looking at religion. I can see how perhaps a being can exist forever, not in this universe obviously but the bible plainly states he isn't of this universe. However, to try and imagine how a being could come into existence in the first place having not been created is mind blowing. I am often told by my friends that such things are well beyond our ability to understand and that he has always existed, he has no beginning. I suppose this is our problem in this universe. From birth, we witness beginnings and ends all the time, so to suddenly try and imagine someone with no beginning immediately falls into the realm of impossibility.
          >
          > I believe that to rule out luck is "simple", is you follow backwards the foot prints of any happening. That is to say it is easy if you find your way back, otherwise it may become difficult or impossible.
          >
          > I never understood very much what it was expected to have happened with the big bang. One thing seams to me clear, however, it did not start anything, but it simply produced a change, one of the many the universe has always produced, produces and will produce. This assuming that, if the universe is not created, it, somehow, "acts" on its own.
          >
          > Certainly there is no present human explanation also to existence without creation.
          >
          > To make short a speech, which could never end, let me add that, in my opinion, the subject, creation or not creation, can be dealt with only emotionally and by wishful thinking, being it bigger then anyone's present means to properly understand it.
          >
          > It is not yet in the human ability to understand eternity: that is to say existence without beginning and without ending, as eternity is.
          >
          > If you believe in creationism, it easer to accept luck, as I doubt there is any reason neither for creation nor for a time of it to take place.
          >
          >
          >
          > Aldo Taffelli
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: goodvibrations99
          > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:33 PM
          > Subject: [creat] L U C K
          >
          >
          >
          > I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a big different between creationism and science is the simple acceptance of luck?
          > Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way the coin falls.
          > For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not enough to form anything to speak of, we would have nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that there was a high enough proportion of matter to antimatter to create things we see today. If you say this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what are the odds of that, something must have intervened". So is the biggest problem something to do with the ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Randy C
          ... Randy C: Yes. It s in Cern Switzerland, on the border with France. It s called the Large Hadron Collider or LHC. ... I think that someone will develop a
          Message 4 of 29 , May 1, 2010
            > GoodVibes:
            > Hi Randy C.

            > Yes I see your point. I still blame gremlins when my car
            > wont start. That is until I find the real cause of course.

            > I understand theres a huge accelerator underground (In
            > switzerland?)

            Randy C:
            Yes. It's in Cern Switzerland, on the border with France.
            It's called the Large Hadron Collider or LHC.

            > where they collide sub atomic particles in order to try
            > and understand the processes immediately after the big
            > bang? But do you think we will ever be able to discover
            > the cause of the big bang? I mean where it came from
            > and why?

            I think that someone will develop a hypothesis that will
            appeal to the majority of scientists. But I'm not sure
            that they will develop a hypothesis that is fully testable.
            In that case we would never know with any degree of
            certainty. In that case we cannot show that some God
            didn't create the universe.

            > The one thing I find very difficult to understand is
            > where the dense energy was actually being held? If there
            > was no space, no universe, no nothing, what was this
            > energy actually sitting in ready to explode?

            Here's something that your countryman Stephen Hawking
            said:

            "There are something like ten million million million
            million million million million million million million
            million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes
            after it) particles in the region of the universe that
            we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer
            is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out
            of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But
            that just raises the question of where the energy came
            from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe
            is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out
            of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting
            itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to
            each other have less energy than the same two pieces a
            long way apart, because you have to expend energy to
            separate them against the gravitational force that is
            pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational
            field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that
            is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this
            negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive
            energy represented by the matter. So the total energy
            of the universe is zero."
            - Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p. 129

            Counter-intuitive, isn't it?

            Some scientists believe that the universe has existed
            forever. Each black hole that forms in any universe,
            including ours, starts another universe somewhere.
          • Randy C
            ... Randy C: I don t know how to define luck , but it is generally well accepted that there are things that are pure chance events. Quantum physics has
            Message 5 of 29 , May 1, 2010
              > Aldo Taffelli:
              > When dealing with existence, I, personally, do not believe
              > in luck. My opinion is that every happening in the universe
              > takes place thanks to a cause.

              Randy C:
              I don't know how to define "luck", but it is generally well
              accepted that there are things that are pure chance events.

              Quantum physics has confirmed that "chance" events happen,
              such as when a specific atom of a radioactive element
              decays,

              > Cause and effect is one of the main laws that governs the
              > universe. I am not able, in my reasoning, to go beyond the
              > universal laws and to understand whether above all a God
              > may exist nor what ever he may be, if anyone or anything,
              > also vis a vis of the overwhelming apparently senseless
              > universal suffering.

              > I believe that the universe exists thanks to means of
              > its own, though I would not be able to say which ones.
              > But once you believe in creation, you could ask yourself
              > who created the Creator, and the Creator of the Creator,
              > and so on for the eternity without obtaining a reasonable
              > answer.

              Exactly. The hypothesis of a "God" raises as many questions
              as it answers.

              > I believe that to rule out luck is "simple", is you follow
              > backwards the foot prints of any happening. That is to say
              > it is easy if you find your way back, otherwise it may
              > become difficult or impossible.

              Except for quantum events.

              > I never understood very much what it was expected to have
              > happened with the big bang. One thing seams to me clear,
              > however, it did not start anything, but it simply produced
              > a change, one of the many the universe has always produced,
              > produces and will produce. This assuming that, if the
              > universe is not created, it, somehow, "acts" on its own.

              > Certainly there is no present human explanation also to
              > existence without creation.

              > To make short a speech, which could never end, let me add
              > that, in my opinion, the subject, creation or not creation,
              > can be dealt with only emotionally and by wishful thinking,
              > being it bigger then anyone's present means to properly
              > understand it.

              > It is not yet in the human ability to understand eternity:
              > that is to say existence without beginning and without
              > ending, as eternity is.

              I couldn't agree more!

              I believe that people who yearn for an "eternal life" after
              they die on Earth have not really considered the implications
              of infinity. I cannot personally conceive of an infinite
              life that wouldn't ultimately become an unimaginable hell,
              simply because there is no end to it.

              > If you believe in creationism, it easer to accept luck,
              > as I doubt there is any reason neither for creation nor
              > for a time of it to take place.
            • goodvibrations99
              ... IF a being called God did exist, it makes you wonder how long he lived all alone before he created any company. But, perhaps in an eternity the concept of
              Message 6 of 29 , May 1, 2010
                --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                >
                > > Aldo Taffelli:
                > > When dealing with existence, I, personally, do not believe
                > > in luck. My opinion is that every happening in the universe
                > > takes place thanks to a cause.
                >
                > Randy C:
                > I don't know how to define "luck", but it is generally well
                > accepted that there are things that are pure chance events.
                >
                > Quantum physics has confirmed that "chance" events happen,
                > such as when a specific atom of a radioactive element
                > decays,
                >
                > > Cause and effect is one of the main laws that governs the
                > > universe. I am not able, in my reasoning, to go beyond the
                > > universal laws and to understand whether above all a God
                > > may exist nor what ever he may be, if anyone or anything,
                > > also vis a vis of the overwhelming apparently senseless
                > > universal suffering.
                >
                > > I believe that the universe exists thanks to means of
                > > its own, though I would not be able to say which ones.
                > > But once you believe in creation, you could ask yourself
                > > who created the Creator, and the Creator of the Creator,
                > > and so on for the eternity without obtaining a reasonable
                > > answer.
                >
                > Exactly. The hypothesis of a "God" raises as many questions
                > as it answers.
                >
                > > I believe that to rule out luck is "simple", is you follow
                > > backwards the foot prints of any happening. That is to say
                > > it is easy if you find your way back, otherwise it may
                > > become difficult or impossible.
                >
                > Except for quantum events.
                >
                > > I never understood very much what it was expected to have
                > > happened with the big bang. One thing seams to me clear,
                > > however, it did not start anything, but it simply produced
                > > a change, one of the many the universe has always produced,
                > > produces and will produce. This assuming that, if the
                > > universe is not created, it, somehow, "acts" on its own.
                >
                > > Certainly there is no present human explanation also to
                > > existence without creation.
                >
                > > To make short a speech, which could never end, let me add
                > > that, in my opinion, the subject, creation or not creation,
                > > can be dealt with only emotionally and by wishful thinking,
                > > being it bigger then anyone's present means to properly
                > > understand it.
                >
                > > It is not yet in the human ability to understand eternity:
                > > that is to say existence without beginning and without
                > > ending, as eternity is.
                >
                > I couldn't agree more!
                >
                > I believe that people who yearn for an "eternal life" after
                > they die on Earth have not really considered the implications
                > of infinity. I cannot personally conceive of an infinite
                > life that wouldn't ultimately become an unimaginable hell,
                > simply because there is no end to it.

                IF a being called God did exist, it makes you wonder how long he lived all alone before he created any company. But, perhaps in an eternity the concept of time is removed, perhaps God takes away your clocks including your body one.

                >
                > > If you believe in creationism, it easer to accept luck,
                > > as I doubt there is any reason neither for creation nor
                > > for a time of it to take place.
                >
              • goodvibrations99
                ... I thought that the path of galaxys with their speed had been used to calculate a point of origin? Does this contradict the possibility of the universe
                Message 7 of 29 , May 1, 2010
                  --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > GoodVibes:
                  > > Hi Randy C.
                  >
                  > > Yes I see your point. I still blame gremlins when my car
                  > > wont start. That is until I find the real cause of course.
                  >
                  > > I understand theres a huge accelerator underground (In
                  > > switzerland?)
                  >
                  > Randy C:
                  > Yes. It's in Cern Switzerland, on the border with France.
                  > It's called the Large Hadron Collider or LHC.
                  >
                  > > where they collide sub atomic particles in order to try
                  > > and understand the processes immediately after the big
                  > > bang? But do you think we will ever be able to discover
                  > > the cause of the big bang? I mean where it came from
                  > > and why?
                  >
                  > I think that someone will develop a hypothesis that will
                  > appeal to the majority of scientists. But I'm not sure
                  > that they will develop a hypothesis that is fully testable.
                  > In that case we would never know with any degree of
                  > certainty. In that case we cannot show that some God
                  > didn't create the universe.
                  >
                  > > The one thing I find very difficult to understand is
                  > > where the dense energy was actually being held? If there
                  > > was no space, no universe, no nothing, what was this
                  > > energy actually sitting in ready to explode?
                  >
                  > Here's something that your countryman Stephen Hawking
                  > said:
                  >
                  > "There are something like ten million million million
                  > million million million million million million million
                  > million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes
                  > after it) particles in the region of the universe that
                  > we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer
                  > is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out
                  > of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But
                  > that just raises the question of where the energy came
                  > from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe
                  > is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out
                  > of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting
                  > itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to
                  > each other have less energy than the same two pieces a
                  > long way apart, because you have to expend energy to
                  > separate them against the gravitational force that is
                  > pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational
                  > field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that
                  > is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this
                  > negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive
                  > energy represented by the matter. So the total energy
                  > of the universe is zero."
                  > - Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p. 129
                  >
                  > Counter-intuitive, isn't it?
                  >
                  > Some scientists believe that the universe has existed
                  > forever. Each black hole that forms in any universe,
                  > including ours, starts another universe somewhere.

                  I thought that the path of galaxys with their speed had been used to calculate a point of origin? Does this contradict the possibility of the universe having existed forever, and if so, why would some scientists ignore this?
                  So the black holes at the centre of each galaxy are basically sucking in all our matter to create a universe somewhere else? This does bring some intriging questions to mind. Does this mean that a black hole feeds a singularity until it's dense enough to form a new universe, in another big bang? or does it mean the black hole is continually feeding another universe in which case we should be looking for something feeding into ours. Surely it would also mean that all universes would just die out because the amount of material/energy is being divided up billions of times in each universe to create new ones. Eventually there will be nothing left to make a universe with.
                • Randy C
                  ... Randy C: My concerns may not apply to God. God may have an infinite brain (whatever that is). But we mere humans only have finite brains. So we cannot
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 1, 2010
                    >> Randy C:
                    >> I believe that people who yearn for an "eternal life" after
                    >> they die on Earth have not really considered the implications
                    >> of infinity. I cannot personally conceive of an infinite
                    >> life that wouldn't ultimately become an unimaginable hell,
                    >> simply because there is no end to it.

                    > Goodvibes:
                    > IF a being called God did exist, it makes you wonder how
                    > long he lived all alone before he created any company. But,
                    > perhaps in an eternity the concept of time is removed,
                    > perhaps God takes away your clocks including your body one.

                    Randy C:
                    My concerns may not apply to God. God may have an infinite
                    brain (whatever that is).

                    But we mere humans only have finite brains. So we cannot
                    survive for an infinity with those brains.

                    Let's say that you can read books in the eternal afterlife.
                    Because you have a lot of time, you will read them VERY
                    SLOWLY. Let's say that you read them at the rate of one
                    word per Earth year.

                    During that year you read the word, study its roots, language
                    of origin, common usage, etc. Then at the end of the year
                    you read the next word.

                    Even at that VERY SLOW rate, you will eventually read every
                    book that has ever been written and every book that ever
                    will be written because that is necessarily a finite number.

                    Then what?

                    At the end you will have precisely as much time left as you
                    had when you started. Effectively no time will have passed.

                    There are no human activities that I can imagine that would
                    not become pointless if given an infinite amount of time.
                  • goodvibrations99
                    ... But you have ignored my point entirely. What if all all perspective of time didn t exist? how would you relate anything to the passing of time? We
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 2, 2010
                      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >> Randy C:
                      > >> I believe that people who yearn for an "eternal life" after
                      > >> they die on Earth have not really considered the implications
                      > >> of infinity. I cannot personally conceive of an infinite
                      > >> life that wouldn't ultimately become an unimaginable hell,
                      > >> simply because there is no end to it.
                      >
                      > > Goodvibes:
                      > > IF a being called God did exist, it makes you wonder how
                      > > long he lived all alone before he created any company. But,
                      > > perhaps in an eternity the concept of time is removed,
                      > > perhaps God takes away your clocks including your body one.
                      >
                      > Randy C:
                      > My concerns may not apply to God. God may have an infinite
                      > brain (whatever that is).
                      >
                      > But we mere humans only have finite brains. So we cannot
                      > survive for an infinity with those brains.
                      >
                      > Let's say that you can read books in the eternal afterlife.
                      > Because you have a lot of time, you will read them VERY
                      > SLOWLY. Let's say that you read them at the rate of one
                      > word per Earth year.
                      >
                      > During that year you read the word, study its roots, language
                      > of origin, common usage, etc. Then at the end of the year
                      > you read the next word.
                      >
                      > Even at that VERY SLOW rate, you will eventually read every
                      > book that has ever been written and every book that ever
                      > will be written because that is necessarily a finite number.
                      >
                      > Then what?
                      >
                      > At the end you will have precisely as much time left as you
                      > had when you started. Effectively no time will have passed.
                      >
                      > There are no human activities that I can imagine that would
                      > not become pointless if given an infinite amount of time.
                      >
                      But you have ignored my point entirely. What if all all perspective of time didn't exist? how would you relate anything to the passing of time? We constantly look at clocks etc to keep track of time and society has grown in such a way that we have to keep to schedules. Would time be necessary? would there be a need to rush around in schedules?
                    • Dave Oldridge
                      ... Or ours is the result of a metauniverse that continually bubbles off new universes and it happens to be a fit because we happen to have evolved in it. --
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 2, 2010
                        On 30/04/2010 10:03 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge<doldridg@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >> On 29/04/2010 1:33 PM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                        >>
                        >>> I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a big different between creationism and science is the simple acceptance of luck?
                        >>> Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way the coin falls.
                        >>> For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not enough to form anything to speak of, we would have nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that there was a high enough proportion of matter to antimatter to create things we see today. If you say this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what are the odds of that, something must have intervened". So is the biggest problem something to do with the ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >> Some events are truly random. For eample we cannot in any way predict
                        >> when a particular single uranium atom will decay. The best we can do is
                        >> state a probability that it will decay in some specific time interval.
                        >> If that's what you mean by "accepting luck," then science has OBSERVED
                        >> phenomena where "luck" seems to be a governing factor. At root, these
                        >> events always seem to involve events at a very tiny scale. The thing
                        >> with the inception of the universe is that it did, indeed, take place at
                        >> such a tiny scale (though involving a massive object). It is not,
                        >> therefore, correct science to eliminate a quantum fluctuation of some
                        >> sort as the primary cause of the expansion. We certainly do not know
                        >> everything about the universe's beginning and subsequent behaviour, though.
                        >>
                        >> Religion approaches these matters from a different perspective--with
                        >> various revelations being cited. Sometimes those revelations are
                        >> general enough so as to not conflict with our scientific knowledge,
                        >> sometimes they are not and are clearly mistaken. And therein lies the
                        >> conflict. And, since revelations are subject to interpretation, some
                        >> sects have interpretations that are contraindicated by science and some
                        >> do not.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> --
                        >> Dave Oldridge
                        >> Skype: daveoldridge
                        >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                        >>
                        >>
                        > hello David, thank you for your reply.
                        >
                        > I think the way my religious friends class luck is the way everything in the young universe happened to occur within the limits for us to end up being able to exist. Things such as expansion rate to allow sub atomic particles to form atoms, temperature, gravity and in fact a whole huge list of things. They 'claim' that without an intelligent design behind this whole list of events then it wouldn't of happened the way it did.
                        >
                        Or ours is the result of a metauniverse that continually bubbles off new
                        universes and it happens to be a fit because we happen to have evolved
                        in it.



                        --
                        Dave Oldridge
                        Skype: daveoldridge
                        Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                      • Randy C
                        ... Randy C: Time passes even when there are no clocks. If you simply have cause-and-effect you have time passing because the effect takes place AFTER the
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                          > Goodvibes:
                          > But you have ignored my point entirely. What if all all
                          > perspective of time didn't exist? how would you relate
                          > anything to the passing of time? We constantly look at
                          > clocks etc to keep track of time and society has grown
                          > in such a way that we have to keep to schedules. Would
                          > time be necessary? would there be a need to rush around
                          > in schedules?

                          Randy C:
                          Time passes even when there are no clocks. If you simply
                          have cause-and-effect you have time passing because the
                          effect takes place AFTER the cause.

                          How can there be a place where there is no cause-and-effect?

                          If we have cognizant brains we have thoughts - an effect -
                          based on causes - interaction with our environment (whatever
                          that environment is). So how can there not be time? That
                          doesn't seem possible.
                        • goodvibrations99
                          ... Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > On 30/04/2010 10:03 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge<doldridg@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >> On 29/04/2010 1:33 PM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >>> I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a big different between creationism and science is the simple acceptance of luck?
                            > >>> Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way the coin falls.
                            > >>> For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not enough to form anything to speak of, we would have nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that there was a high enough proportion of matter to antimatter to create things we see today. If you say this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what are the odds of that, something must have intervened". So is the biggest problem something to do with the ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >> Some events are truly random. For eample we cannot in any way predict
                            > >> when a particular single uranium atom will decay. The best we can do is
                            > >> state a probability that it will decay in some specific time interval.
                            > >> If that's what you mean by "accepting luck," then science has OBSERVED
                            > >> phenomena where "luck" seems to be a governing factor. At root, these
                            > >> events always seem to involve events at a very tiny scale. The thing
                            > >> with the inception of the universe is that it did, indeed, take place at
                            > >> such a tiny scale (though involving a massive object). It is not,
                            > >> therefore, correct science to eliminate a quantum fluctuation of some
                            > >> sort as the primary cause of the expansion. We certainly do not know
                            > >> everything about the universe's beginning and subsequent behaviour, though.
                            > >>
                            > >> Religion approaches these matters from a different perspective--with
                            > >> various revelations being cited. Sometimes those revelations are
                            > >> general enough so as to not conflict with our scientific knowledge,
                            > >> sometimes they are not and are clearly mistaken. And therein lies the
                            > >> conflict. And, since revelations are subject to interpretation, some
                            > >> sects have interpretations that are contraindicated by science and some
                            > >> do not.
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >> --
                            > >> Dave Oldridge
                            > >> Skype: daveoldridge
                            > >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > > hello David, thank you for your reply.
                            > >
                            > > I think the way my religious friends class luck is the way everything in the young universe happened to occur within the limits for us to end up being able to exist. Things such as expansion rate to allow sub atomic particles to form atoms, temperature, gravity and in fact a whole huge list of things. They 'claim' that without an intelligent design behind this whole list of events then it wouldn't of happened the way it did.
                            > >
                            > Or ours is the result of a metauniverse that continually bubbles off new
                            > universes and it happens to be a fit because we happen to have evolved
                            > in it.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > Dave Oldridge
                            > Skype: daveoldridge
                            > Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                            >
                            Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                          • goodvibrations99
                            ... Im not speaking about that. If you sit there doing a boring job, you look at a clock and wonder how long there is to go. If you have an exciting job you
                            Message 13 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                              --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Goodvibes:
                              > > But you have ignored my point entirely. What if all all
                              > > perspective of time didn't exist? how would you relate
                              > > anything to the passing of time? We constantly look at
                              > > clocks etc to keep track of time and society has grown
                              > > in such a way that we have to keep to schedules. Would
                              > > time be necessary? would there be a need to rush around
                              > > in schedules?
                              >
                              > Randy C:
                              > Time passes even when there are no clocks. If you simply
                              > have cause-and-effect you have time passing because the
                              > effect takes place AFTER the cause.
                              >
                              > How can there be a place where there is no cause-and-effect?
                              >
                              > If we have cognizant brains we have thoughts - an effect -
                              > based on causes - interaction with our environment (whatever
                              > that environment is). So how can there not be time? That
                              > doesn't seem possible.
                              >
                              Im not speaking about that. If you sit there doing a boring job, you look at a clock and wonder how long there is to go. If you have an exciting job you wish time wouldn't pass. No matter what, we refer to the devices made by man to run our lives, good old time pieces. Without any need to think about time or measure it, would we realise how much time has passed. I have done jobs which seem like they have been going on for days but only minutes have passed. I've also done jobs where I feel like I've been doing them for minutes but I feel like I've been doing them for days. Our interpretation of time seems to vary considerably without clocks and so if our time pieces didn't exist, we didn't need to measure time, and our body clocks were stopped, would we worry about how long we have existed or how long there is left.
                            • Randy C
                              ... Randy C: But even fun things become tedious if given enough time. I really enjoy playing golf. I ve even played 36 holes in one day. But I didn t want
                              Message 14 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                                >> Randy C:
                                >> Time passes even when there are no clocks. If you simply
                                >> have cause-and-effect you have time passing because the
                                >> effect takes place AFTER the cause.

                                >> How can there be a place where there is no cause-and-effect?

                                >> If we have cognizant brains we have thoughts - an effect -
                                >> based on causes - interaction with our environment (whatever
                                >> that environment is). So how can there not be time? That
                                >> doesn't seem possible.

                                > Goodvibes:
                                > Im not speaking about that. If you sit there doing a boring
                                > job, you look at a clock and wonder how long there is to go.
                                > If you have an exciting job you wish time wouldn't pass. No
                                > matter what, we refer to the devices made by man to run our
                                > lives, good old time pieces. Without any need to think about
                                > time or measure it, would we realise how much time has
                                > passed. I have done jobs which seem like they have been
                                > going on for days but only minutes have passed. I've also
                                > done jobs where I feel like I've been doing them for minutes
                                > but I feel like I've been doing them for days. Our
                                > interpretation of time seems to vary considerably without
                                > clocks and so if our time pieces didn't exist, we didn't
                                > need to measure time, and our body clocks were stopped,
                                > would we worry about how long we have existed or how long
                                > there is left.

                                Randy C:
                                But even "fun" things become tedious if given enough time.

                                I really enjoy playing golf. I've even played 36 holes in
                                one day. But I didn't want to play any more when I had
                                completed those 36 holes.

                                I also like to read books. But I stop and take a break
                                after a while even while reading a really enjoyable book.

                                The problem is that given an ETERNITY, it is inevitable
                                that EVERYTHING would be tedious.

                                In my examples, the tedium passed. I went back and played
                                more golf and I go back to reading a book after my break.
                                But even that wouldn't work over an ETERNITY. Ultimately
                                no break would make me want to go back and continue that
                                activity because I would have done it for SUCH a long
                                period of time.

                                I used the example of reading books earlier. Wouldn't
                                anyone be tired of reading once they had read every book
                                that ever has been written and ever will be written 1000
                                times? How about a million times? How about a quadrillion
                                times?

                                If you had an eternity, you'd be able to do that.
                              • goodvibrations99
                                ... But is that due to fatigue? ... Well if there are an infinite number of universes being created, could you ever have enough time to explore them all? If
                                Message 15 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                                  --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >> Randy C:
                                  > >> Time passes even when there are no clocks. If you simply
                                  > >> have cause-and-effect you have time passing because the
                                  > >> effect takes place AFTER the cause.
                                  >
                                  > >> How can there be a place where there is no cause-and-effect?
                                  >
                                  > >> If we have cognizant brains we have thoughts - an effect -
                                  > >> based on causes - interaction with our environment (whatever
                                  > >> that environment is). So how can there not be time? That
                                  > >> doesn't seem possible.
                                  >
                                  > > Goodvibes:
                                  > > Im not speaking about that. If you sit there doing a boring
                                  > > job, you look at a clock and wonder how long there is to go.
                                  > > If you have an exciting job you wish time wouldn't pass. No
                                  > > matter what, we refer to the devices made by man to run our
                                  > > lives, good old time pieces. Without any need to think about
                                  > > time or measure it, would we realise how much time has
                                  > > passed. I have done jobs which seem like they have been
                                  > > going on for days but only minutes have passed. I've also
                                  > > done jobs where I feel like I've been doing them for minutes
                                  > > but I feel like I've been doing them for days. Our
                                  > > interpretation of time seems to vary considerably without
                                  > > clocks and so if our time pieces didn't exist, we didn't
                                  > > need to measure time, and our body clocks were stopped,
                                  > > would we worry about how long we have existed or how long
                                  > > there is left.
                                  >
                                  > Randy C:
                                  > But even "fun" things become tedious if given enough time.
                                  >
                                  > I really enjoy playing golf. I've even played 36 holes in
                                  > one day. But I didn't want to play any more when I had
                                  > completed those 36 holes.

                                  But is that due to fatigue?

                                  >
                                  > I also like to read books. But I stop and take a break
                                  > after a while even while reading a really enjoyable book.
                                  >
                                  > The problem is that given an ETERNITY, it is inevitable
                                  > that EVERYTHING would be tedious.
                                  >
                                  > In my examples, the tedium passed. I went back and played
                                  > more golf and I go back to reading a book after my break.
                                  > But even that wouldn't work over an ETERNITY. Ultimately
                                  > no break would make me want to go back and continue that
                                  > activity because I would have done it for SUCH a long
                                  > period of time.
                                  >
                                  > I used the example of reading books earlier. Wouldn't
                                  > anyone be tired of reading once they had read every book
                                  > that ever has been written and ever will be written 1000
                                  > times? How about a million times? How about a quadrillion
                                  > times?
                                  >
                                  > If you had an eternity, you'd be able to do that.
                                  >
                                  Well if there are an infinite number of universes being created, could you ever have enough time to explore them all? If there was an infinite number of things to do, and you had infinity, could you ever get bored?
                                • Randy C
                                  ... Randy C: Of course! But that s MY point. It was due primarily to mental fatigue. (I was riding in a cart and I was much younger then.) I claim that we
                                  Message 16 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                                    >> Randy C:
                                    >> But even "fun" things become tedious if given enough time.

                                    >> I really enjoy playing golf. I've even played 36 holes in
                                    >> one day. But I didn't want to play any more when I had
                                    >> completed those 36 holes.

                                    > GoodVibes:
                                    > But is that due to fatigue?

                                    Randy C:
                                    Of course!

                                    But that's MY point.

                                    It was due primarily to mental fatigue. (I was riding in a
                                    cart and I was much younger then.)

                                    I claim that we will ALL get mentally fatigued from ANY
                                    activity if we have an eternity in which to do it.

                                    >> I also like to read books. But I stop and take a break
                                    >> after a while even while reading a really enjoyable book.

                                    >> The problem is that given an ETERNITY, it is inevitable
                                    >> that EVERYTHING would be tedious.

                                    >> In my examples, the tedium passed. I went back and played
                                    >> more golf and I go back to reading a book after my break.
                                    >> But even that wouldn't work over an ETERNITY. Ultimately
                                    >> no break would make me want to go back and continue that
                                    >> activity because I would have done it for SUCH a long
                                    >> period of time.

                                    >> I used the example of reading books earlier. Wouldn't
                                    >> anyone be tired of reading once they had read every book
                                    >> that ever has been written and ever will be written 1000
                                    >> times? How about a million times? How about a quadrillion
                                    >> times?

                                    >> If you had an eternity, you'd be able to do that.

                                    > Well if there are an infinite number of universes being
                                    > created, could you ever have enough time to explore them
                                    > all?

                                    Would they be sufficiently different to make me want to do
                                    so?

                                    There are a finite number of books that can be written.
                                    Therefore I could read them ALL any number of times - as
                                    long as the number is finite - and still have an eternity
                                    left when I am done.

                                    Is that something to look forward to?

                                    Another thing I enjoy is amusement park rides. Nonetheless
                                    I can guarantee that there is SOME point for ANY ride where
                                    I would inevitably say "Enough"! I would never want to go
                                    on that ride ever again.

                                    That same sort of mental fatigue would inevitably, in my
                                    mind, make ANY activity unbearable.

                                    Since there are only a finite number of activities for humans,
                                    inevitably - if only one at a time - EVERYTHING would become
                                    completely intolerable.

                                    Then what?

                                    > If there was an infinite number of things to do, and you
                                    > had infinity, could you ever get bored?

                                    Yes.
                                  • goodvibrations99
                                    ... I can see where you are coming from on this and I doubt whether we will ever have an opportunity to test it anyway. I wonder if you might clarify something
                                    Message 17 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                                      Randy C:
                                      > Since there are only a finite number of activities for humans,
                                      > inevitably - if only one at a time - EVERYTHING would become
                                      > completely intolerable.
                                      >
                                      > Then what?
                                      >
                                      > > If there was an infinite number of things to do, and you
                                      > > had infinity, could you ever get bored?
                                      >
                                      > Yes.
                                      >
                                      I can see where you are coming from on this and I doubt whether we will ever have an opportunity to test it anyway.

                                      I wonder if you might clarify something I commented on earlier with regards to other universes maybe being created by black holes. I have heard this hypothesis but I just can't get my head around it. From what I can gather, a black hole is usually created by a massive star, something like 400 times the size of our sun, going nova and exploding. I know there are larger ones at the centre of galaxies, but one thing at a time. This new black hole will suck in the surrounding gases etc but eventually it cannot cope with the volume and goes pulsar. This ejects lots of the energy back into our own universe. So, with an initial creation of a black hole from a single sun, is that enough to form a universe? Wouldn't it be a pretty tiny one? Obviously our universe has billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, so could all of this have come from one sun in another universe?

                                      Many thanks
                                      Goodvibes
                                    • Randy C
                                      ... Randy C: I agree. Not having personally experienced an eternal afterlife, my arguments are purely hypothetical. Others on this very forum have argued with
                                      Message 18 of 29 , May 3, 2010
                                        >> Randy C:
                                        >> Since there are only a finite number of activities for humans,
                                        >> inevitably - if only one at a time - EVERYTHING would become
                                        >> completely intolerable.

                                        >> Then what?

                                        >>> GoodVibes:
                                        >>> If there was an infinite number of things to do, and you
                                        >>> had infinity, could you ever get bored?

                                        >> Yes.

                                        > GoodVibes:
                                        > I can see where you are coming from on this and I doubt
                                        > whether we will ever have an opportunity to test it anyway.

                                        Randy C:
                                        I agree.

                                        Not having personally experienced an eternal afterlife, my
                                        arguments are purely hypothetical. Others on this very forum
                                        have argued with me. You've already met one of them: Dave
                                        Oldridge.

                                        My argument is based on an understanding of infinity.

                                        Most people I've met use this logical argument:

                                        Premise 1: I want to live for a very long time.

                                        Premise 2: The longest time possible is eternity.

                                        Conclusion: Therefore I would like to live for an eternity.

                                        The problem: "Eternity" is not just a "long time". It's
                                        FOREVER. The phrase "long time" should really be reserved
                                        for VERY LONG but finite times. Eternity is NOT a part of
                                        that.

                                        > I wonder if you might clarify something I commented on
                                        > earlier with regards to other universes maybe being
                                        > created by black holes. I have heard this hypothesis
                                        > but I just can't get my head around it. From what I can
                                        > gather, a black hole is usually created by a massive star,
                                        > something like 400 times the size of our sun, going nova
                                        > and exploding.

                                        Actually more like compressing.

                                        > I know there are larger ones at the centre of galaxies,
                                        > but one thing at a time. This new black hole will suck
                                        > in the surrounding gases etc but eventually it cannot
                                        > cope with the volume and goes pulsar. This ejects lots
                                        > of the energy back into our own universe. So, with an
                                        > initial creation of a black hole from a single sun, is
                                        > that enough to form a universe? Wouldn't it be a pretty
                                        > tiny one?

                                        Not necessarily.

                                        Remember that Stephen Hawking said that the total energy
                                        of our own universe is zero. If our entire universe
                                        requires NO additional energy, then surely adding some
                                        energy on top of that would make the universe even larger
                                        than our own!

                                        > Obviously our universe has billions of galaxies containing
                                        > billions of stars, so could all of this have come from one
                                        > sun in another universe?

                                        Yes.
                                      • Dave Oldridge
                                        ... We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like ours. The
                                        Message 19 of 29 , May 5, 2010
                                          On 03/05/2010 7:07 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                          >
                                          > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge<doldridg@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >> On 30/04/2010 10:03 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >>> --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge<doldridg@> wrote:
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>> On 29/04/2010 1:33 PM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>> I was wondering if anyone has thought that maybe a big different between creationism and science is the simple acceptance of luck?
                                          >>>>> Maybe this is not the correct word, maybe some prefer odds or chance but surely it's still luck which way the coin falls.
                                          >>>>> For example. When the big bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, there was a battle between matter and anti matter. Now, if the amount of matter and anti matter was equal we would have nothing. If the amount of matter was a very tiny amount larger than anti matter, not enough to form anything to speak of, we would have nothing in the universe. So it just so happens that there was a high enough proportion of matter to antimatter to create things we see today. If you say this to a scientist, usually they will just accept it because this is how it happened, it was lucky the odds were in favour of matter for us. However, you say this to a creationist and the response is usually "well, what are the odds of that, something must have intervened". So is the biggest problem something to do with the ability to accept LUCK or not accept it?
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>> Some events are truly random. For eample we cannot in any way predict
                                          >>>> when a particular single uranium atom will decay. The best we can do is
                                          >>>> state a probability that it will decay in some specific time interval.
                                          >>>> If that's what you mean by "accepting luck," then science has OBSERVED
                                          >>>> phenomena where "luck" seems to be a governing factor. At root, these
                                          >>>> events always seem to involve events at a very tiny scale. The thing
                                          >>>> with the inception of the universe is that it did, indeed, take place at
                                          >>>> such a tiny scale (though involving a massive object). It is not,
                                          >>>> therefore, correct science to eliminate a quantum fluctuation of some
                                          >>>> sort as the primary cause of the expansion. We certainly do not know
                                          >>>> everything about the universe's beginning and subsequent behaviour, though.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Religion approaches these matters from a different perspective--with
                                          >>>> various revelations being cited. Sometimes those revelations are
                                          >>>> general enough so as to not conflict with our scientific knowledge,
                                          >>>> sometimes they are not and are clearly mistaken. And therein lies the
                                          >>>> conflict. And, since revelations are subject to interpretation, some
                                          >>>> sects have interpretations that are contraindicated by science and some
                                          >>>> do not.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> --
                                          >>>> Dave Oldridge
                                          >>>> Skype: daveoldridge
                                          >>>> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>> hello David, thank you for your reply.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> I think the way my religious friends class luck is the way everything in the young universe happened to occur within the limits for us to end up being able to exist. Things such as expansion rate to allow sub atomic particles to form atoms, temperature, gravity and in fact a whole huge list of things. They 'claim' that without an intelligent design behind this whole list of events then it wouldn't of happened the way it did.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >> Or ours is the result of a metauniverse that continually bubbles off new
                                          >> universes and it happens to be a fit because we happen to have evolved
                                          >> in it.
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >> --
                                          >> Dave Oldridge
                                          >> Skype: daveoldridge
                                          >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          > Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                                          >
                                          We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that
                                          there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like
                                          ours. The parent space time need not actually contribute mass.

                                          What we see out there may well be gone by now, though galaxies tend to
                                          be very persistent objects, even surviving collisions.



                                          --
                                          Dave Oldridge
                                          Skype: daveoldridge
                                          Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                        • goodvibrations99
                                          Goodvibes :- ... Thank you for your reply. It does make sense what you say. Interesting what you say about galaxy collisions too, I wonder what happens to the
                                          Message 20 of 29 , May 7, 2010
                                            Goodvibes :-
                                            > > Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                                            > >
                                            > We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that
                                            > there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like
                                            > ours. The parent space time need not actually contribute mass.
                                            >
                                            > What we see out there may well be gone by now, though galaxies tend to
                                            > be very persistent objects, even surviving collisions.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > Dave Oldridge
                                            > Skype: daveoldridge
                                            > Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                            >

                                            Thank you for your reply. It does make sense what you say.
                                            Interesting what you say about galaxy collisions too, I wonder what
                                            happens to the black hole at the centre of each? would they join forces perhaps? I assume this would suck in a lot of the matter from both the joint galaxies but eventually allowing it to become stable?

                                            Good vibes
                                          • Dave Oldridge
                                            ... It seems to me that, unlesss on a direct collision course, two black holes might dance for a very long time before merging. -- Dave Oldridge Skype:
                                            Message 21 of 29 , May 7, 2010
                                              On 07/05/2010 11:29 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                              > Goodvibes :-
                                              >
                                              >>> Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                                              >>>
                                              >>>
                                              >> We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that
                                              >> there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like
                                              >> ours. The parent space time need not actually contribute mass.
                                              >>
                                              >> What we see out there may well be gone by now, though galaxies tend to
                                              >> be very persistent objects, even surviving collisions.
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              >> --
                                              >> Dave Oldridge
                                              >> Skype: daveoldridge
                                              >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              > Thank you for your reply. It does make sense what you say.
                                              > Interesting what you say about galaxy collisions too, I wonder what
                                              > happens to the black hole at the centre of each? would they join forces perhaps? I assume this would suck in a lot of the matter from both the joint galaxies but eventually allowing it to become stable?
                                              >
                                              It seems to me that, unlesss on a direct collision course, two black
                                              holes might dance for a very long time before merging.



                                              --
                                              Dave Oldridge
                                              Skype: daveoldridge
                                              Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                            • goodvibrations99
                                              ... According to a sir patrick moore program on tv here recently, the andromeda galaxy is headed straight for us and in the future we are in for one huge
                                              Message 22 of 29 , May 8, 2010
                                                --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > On 07/05/2010 11:29 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                                > > Goodvibes :-
                                                > >
                                                > >>> Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                                                > >>>
                                                > >>>
                                                > >> We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that
                                                > >> there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like
                                                > >> ours. The parent space time need not actually contribute mass.
                                                > >>
                                                > >> What we see out there may well be gone by now, though galaxies tend to
                                                > >> be very persistent objects, even surviving collisions.
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >> --
                                                > >> Dave Oldridge
                                                > >> Skype: daveoldridge
                                                > >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > > Thank you for your reply. It does make sense what you say.
                                                > > Interesting what you say about galaxy collisions too, I wonder what
                                                > > happens to the black hole at the centre of each? would they join forces perhaps? I assume this would suck in a lot of the matter from both the joint galaxies but eventually allowing it to become stable?
                                                > >
                                                > It seems to me that, unlesss on a direct collision course, two black
                                                > holes might dance for a very long time before merging.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --
                                                > Dave Oldridge
                                                > Skype: daveoldridge
                                                > Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                                >
                                                According to a sir patrick moore program on tv here recently, the andromeda galaxy is headed straight for us and in the future we are in for one huge collision.
                                                I am a bit confused over this though. I thought everything in the universe was spreading apart due to the initial big bang. It was my understanding that the milky way will one day end up in darkness with no other galaxies close enough to view. How can something suddenly change course and head towards us?

                                                Good vibes
                                              • Dave Oldridge
                                                ... The Great Nebula in Andromeda is the nearest other large galaxy to our own at about 3 million light years. It is close enoug that there is enough
                                                Message 23 of 29 , May 9, 2010
                                                  On 08/05/2010 10:37 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge<doldridg@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >> On 07/05/2010 11:29 AM, goodvibrations99 wrote:
                                                  >>
                                                  >>> Goodvibes :-
                                                  >>>
                                                  >>>
                                                  >>>>> Is that possible? Does our universe have enough matter to create several others and leave enough for us? If you start of with Y amount and keep dividing it off into millions of other universes, you won't end up with much left. This could pose another question. The light we see from distant galaxies, which is basically history, are the galaxies still there? how could we know?
                                                  >>>>>
                                                  >>>>>
                                                  >>>>>
                                                  >>>> We do not know what spawned the initial singularity but it could be that
                                                  >>>> there is a huge metauniverse that is continually spawning things like
                                                  >>>> ours. The parent space time need not actually contribute mass.
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>> What we see out there may well be gone by now, though galaxies tend to
                                                  >>>> be very persistent objects, even surviving collisions.
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>> --
                                                  >>>> Dave Oldridge
                                                  >>>> Skype: daveoldridge
                                                  >>>> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>>>
                                                  >>> Thank you for your reply. It does make sense what you say.
                                                  >>> Interesting what you say about galaxy collisions too, I wonder what
                                                  >>> happens to the black hole at the centre of each? would they join forces perhaps? I assume this would suck in a lot of the matter from both the joint galaxies but eventually allowing it to become stable?
                                                  >>>
                                                  >>>
                                                  >> It seems to me that, unlesss on a direct collision course, two black
                                                  >> holes might dance for a very long time before merging.
                                                  >>
                                                  >>
                                                  >>
                                                  >> --
                                                  >> Dave Oldridge
                                                  >> Skype: daveoldridge
                                                  >> Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                                  >>
                                                  >>
                                                  > According to a sir patrick moore program on tv here recently, the andromeda galaxy is headed straight for us and in the future we are in for one huge collision.
                                                  > I am a bit confused over this though. I thought everything in the universe was spreading apart due to the initial big bang. It was my understanding that the milky way will one day end up in darkness with no other galaxies close enough to view. How can something suddenly change course and head towards us?
                                                  >
                                                  The Great Nebula in Andromeda is the nearest other large galaxy to our
                                                  own at about 3 million light years. It is close enoug that there is
                                                  enough gravitational coupling to overcome the universe's expansion.
                                                  That is why it is blue shifted rather than red shifted.



                                                  --
                                                  Dave Oldridge
                                                  Skype: daveoldridge
                                                  Ham Radio: VA7CZ
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
                                                »
                                                «