tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post2094679224357870183..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: A Time Dilemma for NaturalistsRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-34057553219885694242013-05-20T21:36:43.625-04:002013-05-20T21:36:43.625-04:00I don't think there is a mathematical model th...I don't think there is a mathematical model that describes leprechauns creating the universe; there are at least two that describe cycles of big bangs and big crunches. It seems to me that if cyclic Big Bang theories were really no more scientific than leprechauns, it would be very hard to explain why there are actual scientists who promote the former but not the latter.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-23288384818433155772013-05-20T19:05:21.879-04:002013-05-20T19:05:21.879-04:00Steven J,
Since we're limited to linear time,...Steven J,<br /><br />Since we're limited to linear time, we really have no words to describe points of “time” in eternity. I apologize if you object to the word, “moment” but I feel it is adequate to convey my point. Since God is not limited to time, I don't understand on what logical grounds you claim He isn't able to interject time “whenever” the mood strikes Him.<br /><br />I understand that the Big Bang does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of time/matter/space. Rather, it only proposes that it all once existed in a single point. I didn't mean to say that the The Big Bang isn't deserving of the term, “theory.” I was referring to the philosophical (and unscientific) explanations of the existence before the Big Bang like those proposed by Dr. Goldberg in the article I linked.<br /><br />Certainly, there has been some criticism of the idea of time as a 4th dimension. Some people view time as more of a mathematical formula used to measure the relative frequency or velocity of physical objects. But most of the objections to time as a 4th dimension really boil down to semantics. I've never read anyone who actually claims that any physical thing can exist outside of time.<br /><br />Your argument that you don't have to count all the negative numbers in order to start counting from zero is rather weak. If the “history” of the universe “before” the Big Bang were counted in reverse – year “BT” as it were (Before Time) – then you would necessarily have to count ALL of the negative numbers before reaching zero. Of course, it's impossible to count all of the negative numbers so you would NEVER reach zero (the starting point of time).<br /><br />Finally, suggestions like the bang-crunch-bang-crunch model of the universe not only don't solve your dilemma, they're no more scientific than saying the universe was created by leprechauns. If you reject the possibility that God created the universe on the flimsy grounds that it's not scientific, why would you even entertain such ridiculous alternatives? I ask rhetorically because I already know why – any natural explanation (no matter how far fetched) is preferable to the supernatural one. You may not know how the universe began but you KNOW God didn't do it!!<br /><br />God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-69603965847540581492013-05-20T16:39:52.524-04:002013-05-20T16:39:52.524-04:00Actually, there's a logical problem with creat...Actually, there's a logical problem with creating a beginning at any moment the Creator desires: there are no moments until time is created, and so the only possible moment for a beginning is the very first one. The idea of God existing outside of time (which you don't raise explicitly but which I think is implied in your argument) would seem to imply that God didn't wait some suitable period of time to enact creation: there was no time, no duration, till He created it (which raises a question for finite beings in Heaven: how do you have experiences in a timeless realm?).<br /><br />Anyway, the Big Bang is supposed to explain [a] the pattern of redshifts of distant galaxies, [b] the relative cosmic abundances of hydrogen and helium, and [c] the cosmic microwave background (an actual succcessful prediction of the theory: it was not observed until after the theory was devised). It's very good at this; that it doesn't answer every possible question one can dream up does not distinguish it from other theories.<br /><br />With some exceptions (such as, apparently, Lee Smolin), physicists tend to regard time as an illusion ("albeit a stubbornly persistent one"). The Big Bang, on this view, is a boundary in space-time in a universe that, modeled properly, is just "there": it has existed for all time, for all that time extends only finitely into the past.<br /><br />Likewise, the cyclic universe model might or might not imply an infinite number of cycles, but if it implies infinite cycles, that doesn't mean we need to worry about whether we've had enough time to get to this point (although, on that assumption, we've had an infinite amount of time; isn't that enough for you?); you no more have to "get through" infinite billions of years to get to here than you have to count through an infinity of negative numbers to get to zero on a number line. On either the finite-age or infinite-age model, all that time is just an aspect of how we experience the universe; it isn't how the universe essentially is.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com