thesometimesaint Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Those are great changes, and who knows, maybe 50 years from now the "no blood" teaching will be a dusty relic of the past? Although we can then wonder if that's really the best way to deal with the incorrect teachings of our leaders (slowly remove them from publications and hope they fade over time). The OD1's and OD2's of the Church are pretty rare. But I'd like to see more of them. The down side is that they make us look too expedient.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (slowly remove them from publications and hope they fade over time). Yes, I think that is happening
Robert F. Smith Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 But he probably wouldn't have dedicated the Vatican's Physical Sciences building...Yeah. After all, Galileo and the scientific establishment (the Society of Jesus) did not get along at all. The Jesuits were died in the wool Ptolemaic geocentrists, while modern evidence showed conclusively that heliocentrism was the proper way to go in science. Ptolemaic epicycles just couldn't cut it any longer. The upshot is that Claudius Ptolemy was a pagan astrologer.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Well, God is eternal, but the Universe isn't. It is constantly in motion and undergoing change. Galaxies that were once near to ours are further away now, and in 4 billion years or so our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy and won't that be a pretty sight?..................................................And eventually, in a few hundreds of sextillions of years: Heat Death. Everything is a burnt-out cinder. But God will still be there.You might want to have a look at Lisa Zyga, “ No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning,” Phys.org, Feb 9, 2015, online at http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html , The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
thesometimesaint Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 It could have just as easily been a single Big Bang or a eternal series of Big Crunches followed by Bangs or even repeated Branes collisions. It should be interesting to find out which if any of those ideas pans out.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 It could have just as easily been a single Big Bang or a eternal series of Big Crunches followed by Bangs or even repeated Branes collisions. It should be interesting to find out which if any of those ideas pans out. Perhaps they are all wrong
Gray Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 You might want to have a look at Lisa Zyga, “ No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning,” Phys.org, Feb 9, 2015, online at http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html , The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once. It's an interesting idea, although I think the fact that the universe was once a singularity is very well demonstrated. Under conventional notions of the big bang, it's difficult to wrap one's head around what a beginning or past eternal might mean, though. There was no time before the big bang, so conventional notions of causality break down. Can we consider a big bang universe past-eternal because there was no time beyond 13.82 billion years ago? I don't know. Our language doesn't work well under such a scenario. If the universe IS past-eternal, I think the William Lane Craigs of the world will be disappointed. That would make the universe non-contingent and thus in no need of any prime mover/uncaused cause (cosmological argument). On the other hand, a past eternal universe might conceivably fit better with Mormon theology. There would be no ex nihilo creation. And God under Mormon theology is not an uncaused cause, although I'm not sure how a Mormon version of a William Lane Craig would argue for the probability of a contingent God. It probably wouldn't make for a good public debate.
thesometimesaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 It's an interesting idea, although I think the fact that the universe was once a singularity is very well demonstrated. Under conventional notions of the big bang, it's difficult to wrap one's head around what a beginning or past eternal might mean, though. There was no time before the big bang, so conventional notions of causality break down. Can we consider a big bang universe past-eternal because there was no time beyond 13.82 billion years ago? I don't know. Our language doesn't work well under such a scenario. If the universe IS past-eternal, I think the William Lane Craigs of the world will be disappointed. That would make the universe non-contingent and thus in no need of any prime mover/uncaused cause (cosmological argument). On the other hand, a past eternal universe might conceivably fit better with Mormon theology. There would be no ex nihilo creation. And God under Mormon theology is not an uncaused cause, although I'm not sure how a Mormon version of a William Lane Craig would argue for the probability of a contingent God. It probably wouldn't make for a good public debate. A multiverse would solve that problem, but am not sure how/if science could substantiate it.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 There was no time before the big bang, so conventional notions of causality break down. It depends, what model are you talking about? Fine universe models There was no classical time before the big bang, there was no before the big bang in our universe because our universe didn't exist, but it doesn't mean that nothing else existed.It just depends how you define the word "universe" Infinite Universe models There was a before the big bang. A multiverse would solve that problem, but am not sure how/if science could substantiate it.The multiverse is the universe, it just depends how you define the word universe. There is no empirical evidence for the multiverse, but the laws of physics do not contradict it. If the universe IS past-eternal, I think the William Lane Craigs of the world will be disappointed. There are philosophical arguments that challenge his first cause argument
thesometimesaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 True, but not really helpful. I tend to subscribe to a multiverse in the classical sense of the word. An infinite set of universes in a multiverse. With ours experiencing a Big Bang.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I tend to subscribe to a multiverse in the classical sense of the word. An infinite set of universes in a multiverse. With ours experiencing a Big Bang.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse multiverse is the universe by definition Universe - "All existing matter and space considered as a whole" some physicists do not like the word "multiverse" .
thesometimesaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 multiverse is the universe by definition Universe - "All existing matter and space considered as a whole" some physicists do not like the word "multiverse" . The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called "parallel universes" or "alternate universes" I'm not a physicist. Could's be a landscape pocket universe. I just think that it fits nicely within the LDS concept of eternity in both directions.
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Anytime anyone says something IS something else, run for the hills.That statement IS either a tautology or hopelessly ambiguous.Yes, I know.
Gray Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) A multiverse would solve that problem, but am not sure how/if science could substantiate it. Yes, I think if they exist we would never be able to detect them. Interesting, possible, but unfalsifiable. Edited May 12, 2015 by Gray
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. ons. That is the definition of the universe
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 That is the definition of the universe "is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes". Last I looked the "s" on the end of a word means more than one.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) "is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes". Last I looked the "s" on the end of a word means more than one. universes is a contradiction by definition because the word "Universe" means everything. It is like saying "everythings" Just semantics Universe - "All existing matter and space considered as a whole" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/universe How do you define the word universe? A) Everything B) A point that expanded and is expandingC) our observable universe Edited May 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 universes is a contradiction by definition because the word "Universe" means everything. It is like saying "everythings" Just semantics Universe - "All existing matter and space considered as a whole" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/universe How do you define the word universe? A) Everything B) A point that expanded and is expandingC) our observable universe "C" Would be the closest, but not actually how I would define it. I don't know how to define something that hasn't and probably can't be observed. So it is purely a theoretical construct. At most what we can say is that if we haven't observed it yet. It isn't in our known universe. In String Theory it is possible that there are an infinite number of dimensions resulting in a infinite number of universes. I don't know how science can resolve the issue being limited as we are to the 3 known dimensional space with time as an abstract called space-time. Anywho the math is far beyond my limited ability. But I do find the discussion fascinating.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Those are great changes, and who knows, maybe 50 years from now the "no blood" teaching will be a dusty relic of the past? I hope
Recommended Posts