McBell
Unbound
You're welcome??
i guess?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for Those that believe that the World is more than 1 second old. Prove it! No assumptions allowed!
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
i guess?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Your use of the word "whenever" implies a flow of time. Also, if I am to prove that the universe is more than one second old I will need more than one second to do so.
Are you suggesting that the universe is destroyed and recreated every second, each new second containing the changes made in the previous second? That sounds very much like a flow of time, maybe analogous to a movie with successive frames that appear to be a smooth flow.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is now, please keep up. Oh poop that was seconds again. Now what?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I'm thinking that having only one second of time is not a good analogy for the YEC claim. They don't say that time started 6000 years ago, lasted for 6000 years then stopped. I'm still organizing my thoughts on it, but it seems to me that having a single second time span can be refuted. Not so the idea that it started one second before some point in the recent past then continued.
Incidentally, once we introduce the idea that an omnipotent being set up the universe 6000 years ago to appear a lot older than that, we're essentially screwed as we can no longer use any observation to reach any conclusion.
Incidentally, once we introduce the idea that an omnipotent being set up the universe 6000 years ago to appear a lot older than that, we're essentially screwed as we can no longer use any observation to reach any conclusion.
One member here is making posts saying to "prove" knowledge claims without making any assumption. This OP is mostly about showing that proving something as basic as that the universe is more than an eye blink old can't be done without making assumptions. Thus I intend to show that no knowledge claim can be justified without making some assumptions/priors or the other.
I am doing it in a lighthearted way...but this conclusion is quite important in any epistemology.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Oh yes, that is clear and I agree. I was only challenging the analogy that the universe not only started one second ago but also only lasted for one second. (See, I used a word "lasted" that is incorrect. At the end of the one second duration there is no past, as all time has stopped).
The idea is much simpler than that actually.
The idea is to prove without assumptions that there was, is or will be anything other than this "now" that I am experiencing or you are experiencing. Talks about time, space universe etc are all memory based "assumed" whose existence become unjustifiable under the "no assumptions" slogan....does it not!
Forget the universe. Who says that this green looking thing out there is a thing called a plant...memory based concepts only which can only be granted as true only if we assume that memories point to a reality that "was experienced". Or that curved blue dome is something called the sky? Etc etc
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Oh, not a fixed duration of time then. That said, I have no disagreement.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should really check out some of the latest studies in memory. Let me get one done for you within the last second . .
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
For the same reason that there are still Europeans.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
They have.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Oldest spear points date to 500,000 years | ASU News
Collaborative study finds that human ancestors were making stone-tipped weapons 500,000 years ago – 200,000 years earlier than previously thought.
50.000 year old cave paintings
More silly denial in 3...2...1...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just false assumptions in the dating and there are no fossils of transitioning of chimps to people, just circular reasoning.View attachment 83791
Oldest spear points date to 500,000 years | ASU News
Collaborative study finds that human ancestors were making stone-tipped weapons 500,000 years ago – 200,000 years earlier than previously thought.news.asu.edu
View attachment 83792
50.000 year old cave paintings
More silly denial in 3...2...1...
what do you say to this? Impossible with evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! Of course there are no fossils of chimps transitioning to humans. Dude, I have to demote you to a third grade level of scientific illiteracy.
Sorry, you made the claim that it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you. How are you going to do that?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Told ya. My impeccable predictive capabilities confirmed, once again.
I'm guessing that is so because humans didn't evolve from chimps.
It's taken from a book that, among other things, explains how those things evolved.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just like the movie the Verdict I used your own experts to refute your own theory.Told ya. My impeccable predictive capabilities confirmed, once again.
I'm guessing that is so because humans didn't evolve from chimps.
It's taken from a book that, among other things, explains how those things evolved.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The movie Lord of the Rings says that there is this one ring to rule them all
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yeah you did not do that. A person cannot refute that which they do not understand and when it comes to the sciences you simply do not understand anything.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yeah, but they have a book. Checkmate atheist!