ID wrote

Why would we expect it to be much older? If I was to buy a ticket every day of the week for our state lotto and started at the day I was born how long would it take till I won the jackpot? Could there be a chance that I would never win?

Yes, but there is also the chance you could win it on the first try.

Bob Dewoody wrote

Another thought on what God did before the big bang. He presided over an infinite number of previous big bangs.

Waiting for his numbers to come out (i.e. Life to emerge) ?

:-)

T.A.

At the first try the odds are even more unlikely.

Once again down the road of pure speculation. There is only one universe and only one can be tested. Prove more then one verse.

I have only said that an intelligent agent is outside of our timeline. It would seem to be logical being that it was created, not from within, but from without.

It would seem logical to acknowledge that there is no reference to the 1 in 10^10^123 in the Holye article you referenced earlier after being provided a link to said article. Unless, of course, you wish to conceal the error. The error was to ascribe the comment to Hoyle, when it came from another atheist, Roger Penrose. Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID wrote

Why would we expect it to be much older? If I was to buy a ticket every day of the week for our state lotto and started at the day I was born how long would it take till I won the jackpot? Could there be a chance that I would never win?

Yes, but there is also the chance you could win it on the first try.

Bob Dewoody wrote

Another thought on what God did before the big bang. He presided over an infinite number of previous big bangs.

Waiting for his numbers to come out (i.e. Life to emerge) ?

:-)

T.A.

At the first try the odds are even more unlikely.

Once again down the road of pure speculation. There is only one universe and only one can be tested. Prove more then one verse.

I have only said that an intelligent agent is outside of our timeline. It would seem to be logical being that it was created, not from within, but from without.

ID, where is this intelligent agent, where did it come from, what evidence is there but your muses?

---

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

I do like reading peoples 'arguments' on these subjects, watching the cut, thrust and parry of the intellectual jousting as it unfolds page after page.

Normally I just read and enjoy but I do have to say, as it has been mentioned a few times, I find it so difficult to think of the Bible as a 'history of the creation of the human race'. It has been used so often to explain things but I feel it lacks real pedigree.

It is incomplete, in that so many contemporary writings were left out. Not to mention, recently, we have fragments that have 'come to light', which mention the wife of Jesus!
It was written way after the events it describes and so open to fabrication. We can't even get our own history right!
It has been pieced together to entwine Christian beliefs and practices with pre-existing pagan beliefs to cleverly encourage the people to switch to a Christian 'one' God.
It is inconsistent as Chris points out as it struggles to describe events. We have these problems today with various ideas of what happened on 9/11.
It wasn't written in English (American or otherwise!) and so suffers from translation misconceptions.

As a historical document it is 'useful'.
As a guide to 'living' it's admirable (the getting along with each other bits I mean).
But as a basis of scientific debate it's not a complete or reliable data source.

The description of the 'creation', seems more like a rhetorical preamble to set us up for the rest of 'the book'. Bit like a film pitch to get us in the mood!

To come even part way towards an understanding of who and what we are through our 'religions', we'd have to read the many writings most of us have never even heard of (Pyramid texts which are supposed to be the oldest at 2400 years old for example) as well as many other 'teachings' which were transmitted orally for centuries).

To me, the Bible is just one tool for trying to understand humanity. It is not a tool for divining what happened, perhaps, some 40 billion years ago.

As I understand it, we have only seen the light from about half the universe so we still do not have all the data to make a definitive statement on what, if anything, was out there before our universe existed.

We always seem to be so self-orientated and scared, imagining Gods who'd care two hoots about the little experiment, Earth, amongst all the other much bigger stuff that is out there, "on the other side of the air".

You're entitled to your opinion about the Bible.

You're not entitled to your facts. I have not used the Bible in the science I have used here. I have applied it to people here.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about not being entitled to my facts?

Firstly my comment was in response to one Chris made refering to biblical events etc. so sorry if it caused you any offence.

I'm afraid I haven't read or understood all of your 'scientific' comments so I'll have to keep dipping into them from time to time.

I do have one little niggle though.

My attitude towards the Bible is not an opinion, it is a conclusion based on irrefutable facts relating to it's creation and content.

This means that any application of the Bible alone, as a difinitive, accurate, complete work to any argument, whether scientific or otherwise, would not be very er... scientific or even logical!

ID wrote

Why would we expect it to be much older? If I was to buy a ticket every day of the week for our state lotto and started at the day I was born how long would it take till I won the jackpot? Could there be a chance that I would never win?

Yes, but there is also the chance you could win it on the first try.

Bob Dewoody wrote

Another thought on what God did before the big bang. He presided over an infinite number of previous big bangs.

Waiting for his numbers to come out (i.e. Life to emerge) ?

:-)

T.A.

At the first try the odds are even more unlikely.

Once again down the road of pure speculation. There is only one universe and only one can be tested. Prove more then one verse.

I have only said that an intelligent agent is outside of our timeline. It would seem to be logical being that it was created, not from within, but from without.

It would seem logical to acknowledge that there is no reference to the 1 in 10^10^123 in the Holye article you referenced earlier after being provided a link to said article. Unless, of course, you wish to conceal the error. The error was to ascribe the comment to Hoyle, when it came from another atheist, Roger Penrose. Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

I don't deny the source of the number, indeed an atheist. As is Fred Hoyle. There was no error, he was commenting on the number and came up with as he said..."...common sense interpretation..." Strong evidence of design.

Hence, the mountain out of the molehill.

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

Id have to say football/rugby ball. I wouldn't say spherical, nope, that's not spherical...

There is no proof one way or the other as to infinite or Big Crunch. And no way to test it yet as to one or the other.

ID wrote

Why would we expect it to be much older? If I was to buy a ticket every day of the week for our state lotto and started at the day I was born how long would it take till I won the jackpot? Could there be a chance that I would never win?

Yes, but there is also the chance you could win it on the first try.

Bob Dewoody wrote

Another thought on what God did before the big bang. He presided over an infinite number of previous big bangs.

Waiting for his numbers to come out (i.e. Life to emerge) ?

:-)

T.A.

At the first try the odds are even more unlikely.

Once again down the road of pure speculation. There is only one universe and only one can be tested. Prove more then one verse.

I have only said that an intelligent agent is outside of our timeline. It would seem to be logical being that it was created, not from within, but from without.

It would seem logical to acknowledge that there is no reference to the 1 in 10^10^123 in the Holye article you referenced earlier after being provided a link to said article. Unless, of course, you wish to conceal the error. The error was to ascribe the comment to Hoyle, when it came from another atheist, Roger Penrose. Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

I don't deny the source of the number, indeed an atheist. As is Fred Hoyle. There was no error, he was commenting on the number and came up with as he said..."...common sense interpretation..." Strong evidence of design.

Hence, the mountain out of the molehill.

You seem to be crediting Hoyle with clairvoyance, Penrose's paper is from 2006, Hoyle's is 25 years older (from 1981). Perhaps you have an earlier source for Penrose's number? Still, who said what and when is not particularly interesting compared to what you believe Penrose's number indicates. I did ask you to synopsize the context of the Penrose number, I'm still waiting.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I do like reading peoples 'arguments' on these subjects, watching the cut, thrust and parry of the intellectual jousting as it unfolds page after page.

Normally I just read and enjoy but I do have to say, as it has been mentioned a few times, I find it so difficult to think of the Bible as a 'history of the creation of the human race'. It has been used so often to explain things but I feel it lacks real pedigree.

It is incomplete, in that so many contemporary writings were left out. Not to mention, recently, we have fragments that have 'come to light', which mention the wife of Jesus!
It was written way after the events it describes and so open to fabrication. We can't even get our own history right!
It has been pieced together to entwine Christian beliefs and practices with pre-existing pagan beliefs to cleverly encourage the people to switch to a Christian 'one' God.
It is inconsistent as Chris points out as it struggles to describe events. We have these problems today with various ideas of what happened on 9/11.
It wasn't written in English (American or otherwise!) and so suffers from translation misconceptions.

As a historical document it is 'useful'.
As a guide to 'living' it's admirable (the getting along with each other bits I mean).
But as a basis of scientific debate it's not a complete or reliable data source.

The description of the 'creation', seems more like a rhetorical preamble to set us up for the rest of 'the book'. Bit like a film pitch to get us in the mood!

To come even part way towards an understanding of who and what we are through our 'religions', we'd have to read the many writings most of us have never even heard of (Pyramid texts which are supposed to be the oldest at 2400 years old for example) as well as many other 'teachings' which were transmitted orally for centuries).

To me, the Bible is just one tool for trying to understand humanity. It is not a tool for divining what happened, perhaps, some 40 billion years ago.

As I understand it, we have only seen the light from about half the universe so we still do not have all the data to make a definitive statement on what, if anything, was out there before our universe existed.

We always seem to be so self-orientated and scared, imagining Gods who'd care two hoots about the little experiment, Earth, amongst all the other much bigger stuff that is out there, "on the other side of the air".

You're entitled to your opinion about the Bible.

You're not entitled to your facts. I have not used the Bible in the science I have used here. I have applied it to people here.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about not being entitled to my facts?

Firstly my comment was in response to one Chris made refering to biblical events etc. so sorry if it caused you any offence.

I'm afraid I haven't read or understood all of your 'scientific' comments so I'll have to keep dipping into them from time to time.

I do have one little niggle though.

My attitude towards the Bible is not an opinion, it is a conclusion based on irrefutable facts relating to it's creation and content.

This means that any application of the Bible alone, as a difinitive, accurate, complete work to any argument, whether scientific or otherwise, would not be very er... scientific or even logical!

It is your conclusion, you don't speak for everyone. As I said you're entitled to your opinions. But for the majority of people their Faith is true and correct. It is in the disrespect of that Faith by not looking at the proof provided.

I have bothered to look at the other side of the argument of no God. I disagree. And provide what I believe it truth. And just like you and others add science as part of that proof.

The logic is so simple, who made who? You work backwards in history from that question.

The Bible is accurate in dates of battles. And much, much more.

But, I'm not here to discuss any of this. What did God do before creation.

What makes sense to me is that the intelligent agent/God must stand outside of our timeline.

All of us are on the inside looking out. We are not on the outside looking in.

All information about the intelligent agent/God will be incomplete and will always be incomplete because of the simple fact that our perspective is and will always be, from the inside looking out.

We have only one timeline that we can test, our own. That's limits any real science to our own. And I do believe this is called a working theory?

[smile]

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

Id have to say football/rugby ball. I wouldn't say spherical, nope, that's not spherical...

There is no proof one way or the other as to infinite or Big Crunch. And no way to test it yet as to one or the other.

You do understand the the WMAP picture is a 2D projection of the data it has collected from a "map" of the sky, don't you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID wrote

Why would we expect it to be much older? If I was to buy a ticket every day of the week for our state lotto and started at the day I was born how long would it take till I won the jackpot? Could there be a chance that I would never win?

Yes, but there is also the chance you could win it on the first try.

Bob Dewoody wrote

Another thought on what God did before the big bang. He presided over an infinite number of previous big bangs.

Waiting for his numbers to come out (i.e. Life to emerge) ?

:-)

T.A.

At the first try the odds are even more unlikely.

Once again down the road of pure speculation. There is only one universe and only one can be tested. Prove more then one verse.

I have only said that an intelligent agent is outside of our timeline. It would seem to be logical being that it was created, not from within, but from without.

It would seem logical to acknowledge that there is no reference to the 1 in 10^10^123 in the Holye article you referenced earlier after being provided a link to said article. Unless, of course, you wish to conceal the error. The error was to ascribe the comment to Hoyle, when it came from another atheist, Roger Penrose. Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

I don't deny the source of the number, indeed an atheist. As is Fred Hoyle. There was no error, he was commenting on the number and came up with as he said..."...common sense interpretation..." Strong evidence of design.

Hence, the mountain out of the molehill.

You seem to be crediting Hoyle with clairvoyance, Penrose's paper is from 2006, Hoyle's is 25 years older (from 1981). Perhaps you have an earlier source for Penrose's number? Still, who said what and when is not particularly interesting compared to what you believe Penrose's number indicates. I did ask you to synopsize the context of the Penrose number, I'm still waiting.

LOL, waiting for what? I do not believe in clairvoyance.

Fred Hoyle was talking about the narrow band of parameters required for advanced life. He had numbers of his own and others he was working from. The latest was indeed from Penrose. The numbers have only gotten larger.

And--I should fully disclose Fred Hoyle, "The Universe:Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science. November 1981.

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

Id have to say football/rugby ball. I wouldn't say spherical, nope, that's not spherical...

There is no proof one way or the other as to infinite or Big Crunch. And no way to test it yet as to one or the other.

You do understand the the WMAP picture is a 2D projection of the data it has collected from a "map" of the sky, don't you?

Yes. I was taught my shapes at age 3 and around 4 it took.

Would you like to see a photo of a oval and that of a circle? Both can be seen as round--depending on your point of view. Yes? Do you see the futility of this type of argument? Really, do you?

Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

[No synopsis of the context of the Penrose number provided]

I did ask you to synopsize the context of the Penrose number, I'm still waiting.

LOL, waiting for what?[snipped]

Snipped to make it obvious what it is I'm waiting for. You have used the Penrose number in support of your ideas in a number of places without (to my recollection) referring to its source. Now the source is known, and the context of the number available for others to read for themselves, I'd like for you to say what it is you believe the number means.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Snip
But for the majority of people their Faith is true and correct.

What price faith now?

catholics denied church services if refusal of church tax made

---

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

Id have to say football/rugby ball. I wouldn't say spherical, nope, that's not spherical...

There is no proof one way or the other as to infinite or Big Crunch. And no way to test it yet as to one or the other.

You do understand the the WMAP picture is a 2D projection of the data it has collected from a "map" of the sky, don't you?

Yes. I was taught my shapes at age 3 and around 4 it took.

Would you like to see a photo of a oval and that of a circle? Both can be seen as round--depending on your point of view. Yes? Do you see the futility of this type of argument? Really, do you?

Very good, though the pictures of a circle and of an oval are 2D pictures of 2D objects, the WMAP picture is of a 3D object projected onto 2D.

Perhaps this animation might help you understand the point of this type of argument.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID, you state "All information about the intelligent agent/God will be incomplete and will always be incomplete because of the simple fact that our perspective is and will always be, from the inside looking out." which I interpret to mean that you do not know yet you claim to know. My feeble mind only sees a logical conflict in your reasoning.

---

Perhaps you could synopsize the paper in which Professor Penrose provides the context for the number, as far as I can tell, it does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.

[No synopsis of the context of the Penrose number provided]

I did ask you to synopsize the context of the Penrose number, I'm still waiting.

LOL, waiting for what?[snipped]

Snipped to make it obvious what it is I'm waiting for. You have used the Penrose number in support of your ideas in a number of places without (to my recollection) referring to its source. Now the source is known, and the context of the number available for others to read for themselves, I'd like for you to say what it is you believe the number means.

The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose.

Now, I have answered your question fully.

Now you will answer mine. The Anthropic Principle believes in a linkage between the fine tuning of various physical parameters of the universe and at the same time the various physical needs of human existence. Why do you ignore it?

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

Hoyle, in his writings, echos the same thoughts. Why do you ignore it?

I did ask in my previous, but is there an outside?

I made my point on this issue. What is your point? You cannot prove other verses. You are not in theory with this thought all you have is speculation, and that is ALL you have.

That didn't answer the question.

So lets ask a slightly different question. Is the univere limited, and therefore probably spherical (ball shaped) or is it infinite?

Id have to say football/rugby ball. I wouldn't say spherical, nope, that's not spherical...

There is no proof one way or the other as to infinite or Big Crunch. And no way to test it yet as to one or the other.

You do understand the the WMAP picture is a 2D projection of the data it has collected from a "map" of the sky, don't you?

Yes. I was taught my shapes at age 3 and around 4 it took.

Would you like to see a photo of a oval and that of a circle? Both can be seen as round--depending on your point of view. Yes? Do you see the futility of this type of argument? Really, do you?

Very good, though the pictures of a circle and of an oval are 2D pictures of 2D objects, the WMAP picture is of a 3D object projected onto 2D.

Perhaps this animation might help you understand the point of this type of argument.

And as expected you would ignore the point of view. I'm not surprised.

ID, you state "All information about the intelligent agent/God will be incomplete and will always be incomplete because of the simple fact that our perspective is and will always be, from the inside looking out." which I interpret to mean that you do not know yet you claim to know. My feeble mind only sees a logical conflict in your reasoning.

The very point of 2D or 3D and points of view should tell you the answer to your question.

I claim to know what we can know. That is by testing what we can and therefore know.

That is not by hypothesis. The road of pure speculation is not knowing what we can know by testing. Testing is a workable theory. Hypothesis is speculation----------yes, hypothesis is speculation?

ID, you do not communicate well. Your speculations are mind bending.

---

They are only pictures of the bit we can see, we cannot see further because the universe has only been in existance for 13.75 Billion years. If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Shape of the Universe - 101 fm NASA