How do you know that?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Young Earth or Old?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Logic, that's how!
Put some Cool-Aid inside a pitcher before anyone makes the pitcher. Take a photo of it and post it here. Go ahead, give it a shot.
Whatever you do, don't drink the Cool-Aid!
Do you agree that our math and physics breaks down somewhere before the actual start of the universe as we know it?
Derf
Well-known member
Why does that matter? If the universe existed before it existed as we know it, then you're merely positing an eternal universe. That's possible, I suppose, since our physics says energy is neither ceated nor destroyed, but you've just stated that you don't trust our physics long-term.
Doesn't it make more sense to consider an eternal being who can design a universe such as we have than an eternal, impersonal universe that remakes itself on occasion?
Entropy defeats an eternal universe.
You mis
You misread what I wrote, I did not say I distrusted physics.
Derf
Well-known member
You misquoted what I wrote. I was referring to your post where you asked for agreement with you in the idea that our math and physics break down at a certain point, that point being before our universe as we know it began to exist. In other words, you do not believe that "our physics" is able to describe how the pre-universe worked. And I pointed out that you don't trust "our physics" long-term. How is that misreading you?
You might notice that I made no mention at all how you seem to think our math doesn't work either in the pre-universe either, as if 2+2=5 before matter exists, or something, but that seems like an important thing to discuss at some point.
As i understand it. current theories in physics/math, perhaps just physics breakdown shortly after the big bang. So our physics does not let ise address issues before the big bang. I imagine if you wished, you could investigate this on your own. Find a real expert
Does entropy provide evidence for God? Please explain
No. I would agree that math and physics (i.e. logic/sound reason) breaks down if you presuppose your theories about the start of the universe. That's a statement about your theories, not the start of the universe.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That's hilarious! "Real expert" about what, exactly? Name some "real expert[s ]" you have in mind, here.
Derf
Well-known member
A real expert that believes 2+2=5 prior to the big bang? does logic break down shortly after the big bang, too?
If I understand your post, you have no reason to believe anything about current science except that a "real expert" told you about it, and from him you found out that sometime in the past 2+2=5? On that basis then, you question a real "real expert" that actually talked to God directly about some of this stuff?
I'm fine with listening to experts when they have real expertise in a matter, but I question (and you should too) anyone who says math doesn't work at some point in time. Or logic. Physics, too, but you have to understand what conditions you're dealing with. I.e., normal (our current) conditions here on the earth (somewhere near standard temperatures and pressures) vs conditions before the earth existed. Comprehensively physics deals with all of that, but to make problems simpler, some conditions are ignored at times (like frictionless conditions presumed when calculating a ball's path through the air).
Derf
Well-known member
They believe 2+2=5 was true at one point in time?
These guys are not experts in how God created the world, so their info is suspect.
oh, well yeah, the God issue is a problem. So your experts need to believe in your God? Tends to limit what you consider to be expertise, so stop pretending you have any real interest in learning about the physics of the early universe
And enough of the 2+2=5 nonsense, your point has been made. you purposefully do not attempt to understand my post.
Have a nice day. But hot here in the northeast— when you use your meat thermometer to get the temperature in the kitchen- oh well
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh, like how, because of your presuppositions, you call things "evidence" that aren't evidence, and you call things "not evidence" that are evidence.
Derf
Well-known member
I suppose it would be for you.
Better than merely believing in experts, that's for sure. Experts act on their beliefs in whatever they consider to be authoritative. Tyson and Cox have merely studied what others have said, so they are at best second hand experts.
Appropriately. Are you suggesting your beliefs don't limit what you consider to be expertise? Why did you choose Cox and Tyson as your experts? Random selection, I suppose.
Learning about physics of the early universe from you?? Are you serious? You've already said our physics breaks down in the early universe. What exactly do you think you have to offer on the topic?
It is up to you to explain why you think our math would break down in pre-big bang timeframe. Since you haven't, but instead appealed to experts that probably don't agree with you, I see no reason to abandon the line of questioning.
And this is how you handle any serious questioning of your beliefs? Didn't you enter this thread by questioning our beliefs, then you bail out?
You asked for experts. If you want to learn whar science suggests about the early universe, you read or listen to what people who study and try to understand that topic. You throw out what seems to be a request for information and then ignore the suggestion because it does not fit with your particular religion.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
►What're some other [words] or terms for 'captured' in the sense of organizational or regulatory capture?
GPT-4o mini
In the context of organizational or regulatory capture, several terms and phrases can be used as synonyms or related concepts. Here are some alternatives:
- Co-opted: This term refers to the process of taking control of an organization or system for one's own purposes, often by integrating it into a larger framework.
- Domination: This implies a strong influence or control over an organization or regulatory body.
- Infiltrated: This term suggests that individuals or groups have entered an organization with the intent to influence or control it from within.
- Subverted: This refers to undermining the authority or power of an organization or regulatory body, often through deceptive means.
- Influenced: This term indicates that an organization or regulatory body has been swayed or affected by external interests.
- Manipulated: This suggests that an organization or regulatory body has been controlled or directed in a way that serves the interests of a particular group.
- Captured: While you are looking for alternatives, it's worth noting that "captured" itself is often used in this context to describe the process of an organization being taken over by special interests.
- Seized: This term can imply a forceful or aggressive takeover of an organization or regulatory body.
- Controlled: This indicates that an organization or regulatory body is under the influence or authority of a particular group or interest.
- Regulatory Capture: While this is a specific term, it is often used to describe the phenomenon where regulatory agencies are dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate.
►Whatever you have to tell yourself. :/
GPT-4o mini
I apologize if my response didn't meet your expectations or if it was frustrating. If there's something specific you'd like to discuss or if you have further questions, please let me know. I'm here to help!
@Avajs,
You keep appealing to science and to experts as if that settles something, but what you are actually doing is outsourcing thought. You are invoking authority, not applying reason. That's not science, that's scientism, which is an issue I became familiar with back in the 80's when Carl Sagan was what one might have called the Chief Priest of Scientism. It is the premise upon which the Discovery Channel was created and it is the "gospel" preached by every "science" program you've ever heard of (e.g. Cosmos (both the old one and the new one), Nova, How the Universe Works, Nature, etc)
Science (i.e. real science) is built on logic. It requires causality, consistency, intelligibility, and the moral obligation to follow wherever the evidence requires. None of that comes from the scientific method itself. It comes from REASON. So when you dismiss logic or shrug off philosophical arguments as if they are somehow less legitimate than mathematics or a lab result, you are undermining both mathematics and experimental observation. When you ignore or blow off sound reason, you are undermining the very foundation that makes science possible. You simply do not get to accept what science "experts" say AND ignore the field of epistemology and still get to consider yourself scientific, or even honest for that matter. Science and epistemology are, in fact, two aspects of the same subject. They are two sides of the same coin. You don't get to have one without the other.
You want to talk about what the experts say, but you avoid the harder task of evaluating what makes their claims coherent (or incoherent). You defer, but you do not discern and thereby allow someone else to become your surrogate brain. That is not thinking, that's following! The very thing you think that Christians are guilty of.
P.S. I wrote a post one time about (or in response to) the idea of Carl Sagan being the prophet of scientism. If anyone can find that post, I'd love to see it!
P.S.S. Found it!
You keep appealing to science and to experts as if that settles something, but what you are actually doing is outsourcing thought. You are invoking authority, not applying reason. That's not science, that's scientism, which is an issue I became familiar with back in the 80's when Carl Sagan was what one might have called the Chief Priest of Scientism. It is the premise upon which the Discovery Channel was created and it is the "gospel" preached by every "science" program you've ever heard of (e.g. Cosmos (both the old one and the new one), Nova, How the Universe Works, Nature, etc)
Science (i.e. real science) is built on logic. It requires causality, consistency, intelligibility, and the moral obligation to follow wherever the evidence requires. None of that comes from the scientific method itself. It comes from REASON. So when you dismiss logic or shrug off philosophical arguments as if they are somehow less legitimate than mathematics or a lab result, you are undermining both mathematics and experimental observation. When you ignore or blow off sound reason, you are undermining the very foundation that makes science possible. You simply do not get to accept what science "experts" say AND ignore the field of epistemology and still get to consider yourself scientific, or even honest for that matter. Science and epistemology are, in fact, two aspects of the same subject. They are two sides of the same coin. You don't get to have one without the other.
You want to talk about what the experts say, but you avoid the harder task of evaluating what makes their claims coherent (or incoherent). You defer, but you do not discern and thereby allow someone else to become your surrogate brain. That is not thinking, that's following! The very thing you think that Christians are guilty of.
P.S. I wrote a post one time about (or in response to) the idea of Carl Sagan being the prophet of scientism. If anyone can find that post, I'd love to see it!
P.S.S. Found it!
Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism
Last edited: