|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:57 am
Is it possible for the world to be infinitately old? No. If the world has been going on for forever, then we never would have gotten to today. Somehow something must have created time.
Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:57 am
Time is a very human thing though. It's something very necessary for us to function the way we do- so that we can survive as a community. For us to be able to cooperate efficiently in the long term we need the ability to look past into the "past" and, the important part, forward into the "future"- an impossible feat for an animal- this would be impossible without an understand of time and how where we are now relates to how we will be later.
Therefore, when it comes to argueing and thinking about time in the scale of the universe- where it doesn't follow the same basic rules that we live by, us humans have massive failings. We need things to start somewhere, to have a middle and to end. Infinity is a difficult concept to truely hold on to, even if you understand the logic perfectly.
To summarise, I think we are only able to cope with the idea of an infinate universe by not thinking about it. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:12 pm
Our planet is a couple hundred billion years old, and the universe itself is much older. Before that was the Big Bang, and before that, many physicists and astronomers theorize that the universe was a clump of carbon, helium, hydrogen, and other such basic elements. But nobody knows for certain. Time as an infinite amount is almost impossible to concieve, but existence admittedly had to begin somewhere. If humanity can find that, we will eventually. If we can't, we'll have to be content with not knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D_Marx generated a random number between
1 and 1000000000 ...
397514090!
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:46 pm
I try not to think that far back. My head hurts enough in this time period. This does not, however, change the fact that I study time travel on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:48 pm
Time comes in discrete amounts. Maybe that helps. I don't know. If you are curious, you should study physics. Instead of making up answers from ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:44 am
The point I was trying to make was the universe must have a beginning, and everything that has a beginning must have a cause. The only cause that makes sense to me is a creator.
Thoughts?
ficklefiend - I agree with your summary. But perhaps you should think about it instead of ignoring it... and you will realize it is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:00 am
A "first mover" is one possibility, but even if we are left with this as the only answer, it tells us nothing more than that there was an first mover. Not that it still exists, or that it created anything, or that it is intelligent, or benevolent, or that it is in any way one of the deities that is worshipped on earth today. And, given that, there is no reason to call it God, or to worship it, or to look at it as anything other than a violation of causality. Which in itself may simply be flawed in some manner we are unaware of. That's assuming there is a first mover.
Which we don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:38 pm
A "first mover"? What is that? It doesn't sound very scientific...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:48 am
Tarik Keyhand A "first mover"? What is that? It doesn't sound very scientific... It's a philosophical description of the property that you are describing. The first mover, or the uncaused cause. In other words, the one thing that did not need to have something else act on it to make it work. The discussion you are engaging in is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:35 pm
redem The discussion you are engaging in is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical one. So you are saying there is no scientific explaination to the supernatural event of the creation of time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:55 pm
Tarik Keyhand redem The discussion you are engaging in is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical one. So you are saying there is no scientific explaination to the supernatural event of the creation of time? No, I'm saying that a discussion on the existence of a creator is not an scientific discussion, as it is dealing with a proposal that is outside of what we consider the natural realm, and is thus beyond what is inside the purview of scientific discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:40 am
So do you agree that something must have begun time? You brought up an event outside of the natural realm, so I take it you have no scientific explainations. It sounds like you do agree with my last statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:30 am
Tarik Keyhand So do you agree that something must have begun time? You brought up an event outside of the natural realm, so I take it you have no scientific explainations. It sounds like you do agree with my last statement. Your proposed solution is beyond the natural realm. Which makes it unscientific. Whether it is correct... I don't know. But I find the god of the gaps to be an unsatisfactory answer to any question. We don't know that time ever began, and we don't know if there was any natural cause for it if it did begin. So no, I don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:25 am
redem We don't know that time ever began, So basically the discussion is could an infinite number of days have passed before today. Can I have an opinion on the Big Bang, the Theory of General Relativity, and the 2nd Law of Thermonatics (spelled wrong). These all seem to point to a definite beginning of time, space, and matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:37 pm
Tarik Keyhand So basically the discussion is could an infinite number of days have passed before today. Not exactly. Tarik Keyhand Can I have an opinion on the Big Bang, the Theory of General Relativity, and the 2nd Law of Thermonatics (spelled wrong). These all seem to point to a definite beginning of time, space, and matter. No. All three point to a time when the universe was small and dense, and before which we have no way of seeing beyond. At this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
