On Apr 4, 2019, tommy wrote:
[W]hile models may not be hard evidence they are often used in courts of law as evidence.

On Apr 4, 2019, tommy wrote:
Claiming misuse of models can also be evidence but the weight given to it is a matter for the jury to decide.

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, magicfish wrote:
1. No replacement. Just a belief that something created our known physical world/universe.

You still haven’t given a definition of this “Divine catalyst”.

Quote:

2. I understand the reverse engineering of the expanding universe into an eternally dense singularity. Still doesn't matter. How is it possible? Gravity may be what held it together, but doesn't come close to explaining how it is conceptually possible.

It’s possible with gravity. You can’t conceptualize condensed matter? And how is that any less conceptually possible than a “Divine catalyst” (whatever that is)?

Quote:

3. Correct. Nobody knows what created it.

As I said, “created” might not be the correct word. “Formed” may be the better term. At any rate, it’s true that nobody knows. Nobody. The mistake would be to fill that gap of ignorance with one’s pet theory in order to avoid the discomfort of not knowing.

Quote:

4. As a human, it will always make sense to ask, what was before it. Time or no time. How can there be no time? Nobody knows.

IF there was no time, then it absolutely makes no sense to ask what was before time. It’s almost like asking who played chess before there was chess. Makes no sense.

Quote:

5. I disagree. I opine that it is unknowable.

Are you referring to the origin of the universe?

Ron

1.oh I can conceptualize condensed matter just fine. But that isn't just it is it? There is plenty of condensed matter at my workplace, but it isn't about to explode and start an impromptu universe. Larry from shipping and receiving may argue to the contrary.

That’s a false equivalence. The state of the matter at your workplace is not the same as the highly compressed matter of a singularity. I bet even Larry understands that.

Quote:

2. We don't know if there was time before it as you admit, hence the question, what was before it? This will be a logical,valid question until we can prove (which we never will) that there was no time before the big bang. (Again, conceptually unfathomable to primates on a speck of dust).

Again, IF there was a ‘before’, then nobody knows what those conditions were.

How do you know we will never be able to prove that there was no time before the Big Bang? You may be right of course, but I want to know how you KNOW it.

And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”?

Ron

On Apr 3, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Oh. And we have no idea how efficiency in nature works or why.

On Apr 4, 2019, TomBoleware wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, TomBoleware wrote:

I’m confused.

Apparently so. I suggest you go back and reread the thread. Better yet, there are plenty of good books out there on cosmology/Big Bang Theory. It would make more sense to get your science from more authoritative sources than a magic forum. Enjoy.

Ron

As usual when you can’t answer a simple question you dodge and run hide. Oh well, you didn't know anyway.

Tom

On Apr 4, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, R.S. wrote:
What was before it? Again, it doesn’t make sense to speak of a ‘before’ prior to the beginning of time itself.

You're assuming that time began at the moment of the Big Bang.

As far as I know, there's no evidence to support that assumption.

As some models suggest, yes time and space began with the Big Bang.

Models aren't evidence.

No, but the evidence aids in constructing the model.

True, but irrelevant.

I said that as far as I know, there's no evidence to support the assumption that time began with the Big Bang.

You offered that some models suggest it, as if that were evidence.

It isn't, as you concede.

So, as far as I know, there's still no evidence to support that assumption.

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
R.S. wrote, "And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”? 
Ron, a catalyst is something that makes something else happen, for example if an invasion caused a mass exodus, the invasion would be the catalyst for the exodus.
A military catalyst. A nutritional catalyst might be an increase in vitamin intake which is a catalyst to start an exercise program. A divine catalyst would be something divine acting as a catalyst to ignite a process or make a change.
Spiritual catalyst, financial catalyst etc. All different types.

On Apr 4, 2019, TomBoleware wrote:
Speaking of evidence, J. Warner Wallace a longtime homicide detective, who has investigated a number of high-profile cold-case murders and sometimes featured on
Dateline (NBC) has several good books and videos on the subject.

https://www.coldcasechristianity.com/

Tom

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 3, 2019, magicfish wrote:
1. No replacement. Just a belief that something created our known physical world/universe.

You still haven’t given a definition of this “Divine catalyst”.

Quote:

2. I understand the reverse engineering of the expanding universe into an eternally dense singularity. Still doesn't matter. How is it possible? Gravity may be what held it together, but doesn't come close to explaining how it is conceptually possible.

It’s possible with gravity. You can’t conceptualize condensed matter? And how is that any less conceptually possible than a “Divine catalyst” (whatever that is)?

Quote:

3. Correct. Nobody knows what created it.

As I said, “created” might not be the correct word. “Formed” may be the better term. At any rate, it’s true that nobody knows. Nobody. The mistake would be to fill that gap of ignorance with one’s pet theory in order to avoid the discomfort of not knowing.

Quote:

4. As a human, it will always make sense to ask, what was before it. Time or no time. How can there be no time? Nobody knows.

IF there was no time, then it absolutely makes no sense to ask what was before time. It’s almost like asking who played chess before there was chess. Makes no sense.

Quote:

5. I disagree. I opine that it is unknowable.

Are you referring to the origin of the universe?

Ron

1.oh I can conceptualize condensed matter just fine. But that isn't just it is it? There is plenty of condensed matter at my workplace, but it isn't about to explode and start an impromptu universe. Larry from shipping and receiving may argue to the contrary.

That’s a false equivalence. The state of the matter at your workplace is not the same as the highly compressed matter of a singularity. I bet even Larry understands that.

Quote:

2. We don't know if there was time before it as you admit, hence the question, what was before it? This will be a logical,valid question until we can prove (which we never will) that there was no time before the big bang. (Again, conceptually unfathomable to primates on a speck of dust).

Again, IF there was a ‘before’, then nobody knows what those conditions were.

How do you know we will never be able to prove that there was no time before the Big Bang? You may be right of course, but I want to know how you KNOW it.

And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”?

Ron

1. Of course it's false.

But Larry understands the concept of compressed matter at work because there is a world around it that he can see, touch, feel, experience.
The compressed matter in the singularity is everything that ever existed and exists now, including an eternal, unfathomable large universe and everything in it, with nothing around it. By nothing, I mean well, nobody knows. Not me, not you, not Hawking, not Einstein, nobody. Humans cannot comprehend nothing. That is why it is conceptually less fathomable.

Not so much because of the gravity or the density, although that seems tricky too. A billion quintillion quintillion quintillion planets or so seems tricky to fit into a tiny ball with nothing around it.
2. How do I know we will never know?
Well, it is my opinion. We have no idea why zebras have stripes or how fireflies synchronize their lights or how baby sea turtles find the ocean or why life exists or how to live long enough to travel to the closest star, or...well let's just say finding out how the universe began or why seems a touch more difficult. Ymmv.

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
R.S. wrote, "And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”? 
Ron, a catalyst is something that makes something else happen, for example if an invasion caused a mass exodus, the invasion would be the catalyst for the exodus.
A military catalyst. A nutritional catalyst might be an increase in vitamin intake which is a catalyst to start an exercise program. A divine catalyst would be something divine acting as a catalyst to ignite a process or make a change.
Spiritual catalyst, financial catalyst etc. All different types.

Thank you magicfish. And where did this “Divine catalyst” come from?

And, “are you implying that my beliefs are randomly determined, as if by a coin flip?”

Ron

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

J. Warner Wallace is a Christian apologist. His books and videos relate specifically to Christianity. Given that you have agreed that some faiths could be wrong about the creator, rules, etc., is there a reason you’re not promoting Muslim detectives? Or Hindu detectives? Or Mormon detectives? Why should we take HIS faith seriously?


Ron

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
R.S. wrote, "And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”? 
Ron, a catalyst is something that makes something else happen, for example if an invasion caused a mass exodus, the invasion would be the catalyst for the exodus.
A military catalyst. A nutritional catalyst might be an increase in vitamin intake which is a catalyst to start an exercise program. A divine catalyst would be something divine acting as a catalyst to ignite a process or make a change.
Spiritual catalyst, financial catalyst etc. All different types.

Thank you magicfish. And where did this “Divine catalyst” come from?

And, “are you implying that my beliefs are randomly determined, as if by a coin flip?”

Ron

1. Where did what divine catalyst come from?

2. I never mentioned your beliefs.

On Apr 4, 2019, TomBoleware wrote:
Ron,

I just now noticed, my link didn’t point to the article, actually a podcast, that I wanted to share. It’s more with keeping to the topic here. Sorry about that, but anyway here it is.

‘Why the fine-tuning of the universe points to the existence of God’

https://coldcasechristianity.com/podcast......podcast/

Tom

On Apr 5, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
R.S. wrote, "And what’s your definition of a “Divine catalyst”? 
Ron, a catalyst is something that makes something else happen, for example if an invasion caused a mass exodus, the invasion would be the catalyst for the exodus.
A military catalyst. A nutritional catalyst might be an increase in vitamin intake which is a catalyst to start an exercise program. A divine catalyst would be something divine acting as a catalyst to ignite a process or make a change.
Spiritual catalyst, financial catalyst etc. All different types.

Thank you magicfish. And where did this “Divine catalyst” come from?

And, “are you implying that my beliefs are randomly determined, as if by a coin flip?”

Ron

1. Where did what divine catalyst come from?

The Divine catalyst that you mentioned earlier.

Quote:

2. I never mentioned your beliefs.

I said:
"As some models suggest, yes time and space began with the Big Bang. So if that’s the case (IF), then it would not make sense to speak of a ‘before’. That being said, It’s not like I’m married to that idea either. I’m willing to go wherever the most compelling evidence leads."

And then you replied:
"If by compelling you mean a coin flip, I agree."

Implying that my beliefs are determined as randomly as coin flips.


Ron