"How old do you think the Earth is?" Marco Rubio: "I'm not a scientist, man."

[stormkroe]

I don't find this alleged law of causality in that page. I did find a description of non-causal phenomena, however. That shouldn't be if there is a "law" against it, right? Please, educate me how that can be.

"Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics."
First sentence of the article."
Or
"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."

It feels like you might be trolling a little because I didn't find one reference to non-causal phenomena on that page. I could have just missed it, sorry if you're not trolling.

That's not what the big bang model describes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

It most certainly is exactly what it describes. What part do you disagree with?

No, I will agree that the universe is.

Then you don't agree with prevailing science and big bang which states the Universe began. You are, of course, allowed to do so.

So where are those revisions in the text?

If you're asking why subsequent translations of the Bible haven't changed the word 'Day' to 'Long periods of time', the answer is simple. Day DOES mean 'long periods of time', just as much as it means 'a 24 hour period', or 'the time of the Earth's rotation that we are facing the sun'.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

[It feels like you might be trolling a little because I didn't find one reference to non-causal phenomena on that page. I could have just missed it, sorry if you're not trolling.

Read the paragraph that describes radioactive decay. Perhaps you should read the links you cite.

It most certainly is exactly what it describes. What part do you disagree with?

The big bang model describes an event horizon beyond which our inferences lose meaning. It literally has nothing to say about what may or may not exist beyond the event horizon.

Then you don't agree with prevailing science and big bang which states the Universe began.

Certainly false. Please review, for example, ekpyrotic cosmology or Tegmark's many worlds.

You are, of course, allowed to do so.

I'm sure the totality of theoretical physics is grateful for your permission.

If you're asking why subsequent translations of the Bible haven't changed the word 'Day' to 'Long periods of time', the answer is simple. Day DOES mean 'long periods of time', just as much as it means 'a 24 hour period', or 'the time of the Earth's rotation that we are facing the sun'.

"Day" is a well defined term, and relative to cosmological time scales, it certainly does not amount to a "long" period. Care to try again?

 

[Lonbjerg]

You're looking at it wrong. God simply is not a part of the universe. The idea is that the universe and everything that is in it and all that has ever happened or will happen is like a book. God can see all the pages at once while not being contained within the "book" or something like that.

"god" is a imaginary creature made by ignorant men.
Unless you have edvidence to the opposite...STFU.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're looking at it wrong. God simply is not a part of the universe. The idea is that the universe and everything that is in it and all that has ever happened or will happen is like a book. God can see all the pages at once while not being contained within the "book" or something like that.

This view, of course, presents a whole variety of eschatological and soteriological problems, but Christians aren't exactly notorious for critically examining their ideas.

 

[Tom]

"god" is a imaginary creature made by ignorant men.
Unless you have edvidence to the opposite...STFU.

So you don't believe in God, but you believe that imagination is real ?

 

[cKGunslinger]

So you don't believe in God, but you believe that imagination is real ?

I'm genuinely curious where you're going with this. Do go on.

 

[sandorski]

I'm genuinely curious where you're going with this. Do go on.

ditto

 

[stormkroe]

Read the paragraph that describes radioactive decay. Perhaps you should read the links you cite.

You mean the part that basically says non-causal decay is part of an older model that is debunked? You're being facetious now, unless you really didn't know what causality was.

The big bang model describes an event horizon beyond which our inferences lose meaning. It literally has nothing to say about what may or may not exist beyond the event horizon.

Actually it does. The most recent, and accurate, model incorporates dark matter and not just expansion, but accelerating expansion. This negates any possibility of the universe re-collapsing, only to bounce back again. The only thing you can definitely say was that the singularity may have existed eternally, as time only began at the AT the 'big bang'

Certainly false. Please review, for example, ekpyrotic cosmology or Tegmark's many worlds.

So you had to quickly google search for something to post against what I explicitly stated as 'prevailing' science? You grabbed ekpyrotics, which is a joke to modern astrophysicists because it argues against expansion? Something a kid with a big telescope can observe? And this 'many worlds' theory (which belongs to Hugh Everett, not Tegmark), which is pure theory with no observable evidence.

I'm sure the totality of theoretical physics is grateful for your permission.

You're welcome, representative of (strangely outdated) theoretical physics.

"Day" is a well defined term, and relative to cosmological time scales, it certainly does not amount to a "long" period. Care to try again?

Keep beating this horse. Maybe if you spent more time thinking about what we're saying here and less time trying to find big word to use in your sentences you could move forward instead of repeating yourself. Let me get that for you. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Day

I'm genuinely curious where you're going with this. Do go on.

I agree, this could be epic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You mean the part that basically says non-causal decay is part of an older model that is debunked? You're being facetious now, unless you really didn't know what causality was.

I do, indeed. I do not know of this "law of causality" which you have yet to support.

Actually it does.

What does it say, then?

The most recent, and accurate, model incorporates dark matter and not just expansion, but accelerating expansion. This negates any possibility of the universe re-collapsing, only to bounce back again.

What does this have to do with inferences beyond the event horizon of the big bang singularity?

The only thing you can definitely say was that the singularity may have existed eternally, as time only began at the AT the 'big bang'

We began to observe time after the big bang. It is irrational to believe that things begin to exist when we begin to observe them.

So you had to quickly google search for something to post against what I explicitly stated as 'prevailing' science? You grabbed ekpyrotics, which is a joke to modern astrophysicists because it argues against expansion?

It is a model which hypothesizes real events which could have caused the big bang. The model would not exist if it were a decided fact that nothing could exist beyond it.

Something a kid with a big telescope can observe? And this 'many worlds' theory (which belongs to Hugh Everett, not Tegmark), which is pure theory with no observable evidence.

You are confused. I'm talking about Tegmark's Many Worlds. My specification of his name was no accident.

Keep beating this horse. Maybe if you spent more time thinking about what we're saying here and less time trying to find big word to use in your sentences you could move forward instead of repeating yourself. Let me get that for you. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Day

And yet, your arguments remain unsupported.