Science Proves Nature Was Created

[leibowde84]

Yes. That is the common thread throughout history. If I practice magick that could be explained with metaphysics, however it is explained not proven and as it is not proven I do not complelty understand it. Therefore it is magick.

Why do you think this, though? What is your reasoning for thinking that anything CURRENTLY unexplained by science is "magic"? Or, are you just saying that people erroneously make this assumption and have throughout history?

 

[leibowde84]

If I had to clocks perfectly in synch and I kept one on earth and sent one near the event horizon of a black hole and then compared them the times would be different.

This isn't magic though. This is caused by immense gravity.

 

[Shad]

No....my view only insists that time is a measure of motion.
It is not a force or substance.

Your view contradicts known science and experiments so it is untenable

 

[Thief]

Your view contradicts known science and experiments so it is untenable

Time is not a force or a substance.
Calculations on the chalkboard are Man's method and means for things of size and complexity.

Time is a quotient.
nothing more.

 

[Etritonakin]

From the perspective of evolution: If evolution happened without creative influence, it is not simply the result of a "nature" which has always existed in its present state. Its course would have been determined from "eternity", if you will -by the nature of nature before it was "nature". The "nature" we now see -based on the elements and forces which now exist -was produced by what we call the big bang -and the big bang would be the inevitable result of all that preceded it.
If such is the case, then the course of nature -and so life -was unchanged and unchangeable until that course inevitably produced beings which could comprehend it, manipulate it and alter its course by decision.
Without creative influence, the inevitable course of nature created creative influence.

From the perspective of creation: God would essentially be the mind of all that we could call "nature" -and nature itself -so the natural would reveal his nature (completely if seen completely). One who believes in the creator spoken of in the bible has no reason whatsoever to be against anything science might discover -or has discovered. One also has no reason to believe that the 7 days of Genesis is the very beginning of God's creative activity. He is credited with creating the entire universe -the worlds -and is the being by who all things consist. It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made -so if one believes the words of Genesis to be absolutely true, they should be of the view that scientific discovery could only explain them in more detail -or at least give an accurate background for the events described, because Genesis does not concern all that happened before those 7 days.... and, even according to the bible, much happened before those 7 days!
Can we really assume that we can have a complete understanding of what God has been doing forever by reading a few chapters? If those chapters are absolute truth, how can we fully understand what is written without gathering evidence?
If one believes all of Genesis -including the first line -happened in 7 Earth days, then not only would the Earth be about 6,000 years old, the entire universe would be of the same age.
It is apparent -by what was made -that that is not the case -but that's not even what it says -especially if you reference other books in the bible!
You cannot know whether or not God ordained the emergence of life on Earth -perhaps even elsewhere -from the very beginning of the universe.
You cannot know what changes he made to any thing after the very beginning of the universe.
You have a very few words and many assumptions about them.
Most importantly, scientific proof of God does not lead to eternal life or make you a better person. What good is it if you aren't striving to obey God?
God will make his own case. You should be prepared to give answer for your faith -but be sure you have a correct answer -and acknowledge that you do not know all things.
Science cannot accept things for which it has no evidence -so it is understandable to disagree with conclusions based on a lack of evidence -but futile to try to force science to see what it cannot see. Faith in God deals with many more kinds of evidences -but it does include scientific evidence, and such should not be ignored.

 

[Bunyip]

From the perspective of evolution: If evolution happened without creative influence, it is not simply the result of a "nature" which has always existed in its present state. Its course would have been determined from "eternity", if you will -by the nature of nature before it was "nature". The "nature" we now see -based on the elements and forces which now exist -was produced by what we call the big bang -and the big bang would be the inevitable result of all that preceded it.
If such is the case, then the course of nature -and so life -was unchanged and unchangeable until that course inevitably produced beings which could comprehend it, manipulate it and alter its course by decision.
Without creative influence, the inevitable course of nature created creative influence.

From the perspective of creation: God would essentially be the mind of all that we could call "nature" -and nature itself -so the natural would reveal his nature (completely if seen completely). One who believes in the creator spoken of in the bible has no reason whatsoever to be against anything science might discover -or has discovered. One also has no reason to believe that the 7 days of Genesis is the very beginning of God's creative activity. He is credited with creating the entire universe -the worlds -and is the being by who all things consist. It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made -so if one believes the words of Genesis to be absolutely true, they should be of the view that scientific discovery could only explain them in more detail -or at least give an accurate background for the events described, because Genesis does not concern all that happened before those 7 days.... and, even according to the bible, much happened before those 7 days!
Can we really assume that we can have a complete understanding of what God has been doing forever by reading a few chapters? If those chapters are absolute truth, how can we fully understand what is written without gathering evidence?
If one believes all of Genesis -including the first line -happened in 7 Earth days, then not only would the Earth be about 6,000 years old, the entire universe would be of the same age.
It is apparent -by what was made -that that is not the case -but that's not even what it says -especially if you reference other books in the bible!
You cannot know whether or not God ordained the emergence of life on Earth -perhaps even elsewhere -from the very beginning of the universe.
You cannot know what changes he made to any thing after the very beginning of the universe.
You have a very few words and many assumptions about them.
Most importantly, scientific proof of God does not lead to eternal life or make you a better person. What good is it if you aren't striving to obey God?
God will make his own case. You should be prepared to give answer for your faith -but be sure you have a correct answer -and acknowledge that you do not know all things.
Science cannot accept things for which it has no evidence -so it is understandable to disagree with conclusions based on a lack of evidence -but futile to try to force science to see what it cannot see. Faith in God deals with many more kinds of evidences -but it does include scientific evidence, and such should not be ignored.

Can you give an example of scientific evidence faith in God includes?

 

[Shad]

I think you just considered sufficiently.....

Time is not a force or a substance.
Calculations on the chalkboard are Man's method and means for things of size and complexity.

Time is a quotient.
nothing more.

Yet time dilation have experiments showing time can be effect by speed and mass. If time was an abstract then gravity would have no effect on it at all. Like I said you reject modern physics and physics of the last few decades.

 

[Thief]

Yet time dilation have experiments showing time can be effect by speed and mass. If time was an abstract then gravity would have no effect on it at all. Like I said you reject modern physics and physics of the last few decades.

movement and gravity affect each other.

the computation is done on chalkboard and the quotient is called time.

don't do the computation
reality will continue without the notation

 

[Etritonakin]

Time is like distance.... distance existed before we decided to name a certain distance a mile, etc. etc. -but is not a thing unto itself -it describes a relationship. We can not have distance without two things being separated.

Saying time can be affected by speed and mass is like saying the distance from one end of a pop can to the other can be affected by stomping on it.

 

[Thief]

Time is like distance.... distance existed before we decided to name a certain distance a mile, etc. etc.

Saying time can be affected by speed and mass is like saying the distance from one end of a pop can to the other can be affected by stomping on it.

distance is half of the quotient.

but if you were an ant crawling up the side of a pop can.....and someone stomped on it....
you sure would reach the top of the can.....quickly!

 

[Etritonakin]

distance is half of the quotient.

but if you were an ant crawling up the side of a pop can.....and someone stomped on it....
you sure would reach the top of the can.....quickly!

Don't really know what you're trying to say.

Also.... speed and mass affect time because the motion of something on some level is affected relative to something else -or a constant.

If you had two watches -sent one where it would slow down -then, essentially, something slowed the internal clocks of atoms or particles -or whatever -something -maybe everything -like adding resistance to a clock hand with your finger. Overall time would not truly be affected -but we really don't know the reference for overall time. At least I don't.

 

[Thief]

Don't really know what you're trying to say.

Also.... speed and mass affect time because the motion of something on some level is affected relative to something else -or a constant.

If you had two watches -sent one where it would slow down -then, essentially, something slowed the internal clocks of atoms or particles -or whatever -something -maybe everything -like adding resistance to a clock hand with your finger. Overall time would not truly be affected -but we really don't know the reference for overall time. At least I don't.

time is a measurement....not a force or a substance.
only the calculation shows the effect of motion to gravity to space.

like the measure of a foot.....was made up
a mile....made up
par sec....an approximation
seconds, minutes, years, eons, .......
all man made ideas.

 

[Etritonakin]

time is a measurement....not a force or a substance.
only the calculation shows the effect of motion to gravity to space.

like the measure of a foot.....was made up
a mile....made up
par sec....an approximation
seconds, minutes, years, eons, .......
all man made ideas.

Yet -the distance we call a mile was already there to be called a mile...
The relationship we call a second was there before we gave it a name.
The names are descriptions and subdivisions of that which is observed.
The idea could not have existed before there was a mind to have an idea -but the observable existed before it was observed, described, subdivided, etc...

 

[gnostic]

time is a measurement....not a force or a substance.
only the calculation shows the effect of motion to gravity to space.

like the measure of a foot.....was made up
a mile....made up
par sec....an approximation
seconds, minutes, years, eons, .......
all man made ideas.

Sure, man have given different labels to measurement of time.

Does it really matter if it was man-made or not?

The word "bible" is man-made, for the collection of text. Man, particularly Christians, have divided the bible as Old Testament and New Testament. Who else would label the book or sections of books with such.

According to Genesis 2, Adam named all the different types of animals and birds, but the Genesis wasn't written until the Iron Age. You could name these animals with different names, and that happened in any case, because of different languages being spoken, all of which are man-made labels.

Did your God name these divisions of time? I don't think your God exist, to give any label.

You are splitting hair because of time are given man-made labels with man-made measurement.

And you are wrong. Time may not have substance, but in physics, the measurement of force (unit N) is that mass of the substance, multiply by acceleration...

...and acceleration is rate of change (distance divided by time squared) in velocity (distance divided by time), so force is indirectly related to time.

Though time may not have substance, it is essential requirement in physics, especially with many different calculation and equations. Without time, you would still be back at stone age or dark age, where education is severely limited by ignorance.

 

[Thief]

Sure, man have given different labels to measurement of time.

Does it really matter if it was man-made or not?

The word "bible" is man-made, for the collection of text. Man, particularly Christians, have divided the bible as Old Testament and New Testament. Who else would label the book or sections of books with such.

According to Genesis 2, Adam named all the different types of animals and birds, but the Genesis wasn't written until the Iron Age. You could name these animals with different names, and that happened in any case, because of different languages being spoken, all of which are man-made labels.

Did your God name these divisions of time? I don't think your God exist, to give any label.

You are splitting hair because of time are given man-made labels with man-made measurement.

And you are wrong. Time may not have substance, but in physics, the measurement of force (unit N) is that mass of the substance, multiply by acceleration...

...and acceleration is rate of change (distance divided by time squared) in velocity (distance divided by time), so force is indirectly related to time.

Though time may not have substance, it is essential requirement in physics, especially with many different calculation and equations. Without time, you would still be back at stone age or dark age, where education is severely limited by ignorance.

Without calculation reality is beyond our reasoning.
Math is just another form of logic.
It does not create reality.
It can only describe it.
We make up the terms so we can communicate the idea.

The terms are all in your head.

Time is not a substance or a force.
It is only a quotient on a chalkboard.

 

[Thief]

Yet -the distance we call a mile was already there to be called a mile...
The relationship we call a second was there before we gave it a name.
The names are descriptions and subdivisions of that which is observed.
The idea could not have existed before there was a mind to have an idea -but the observable existed before it was observed, described, subdivided, etc...

nay.
We made up the nouns so we could discuss the events.

 

[Shad]

movement and gravity affect each other.

the computation is done on chalkboard and the quotient is called time.

don't do the computation
reality will continue without the notation

Experiments already proved you wrong decades ago and that time is not an abstract. You can put forward all the sophistry you want. You hold outdated views nothing more. Time is relative as per GR.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/twin.html#c2

 

[Thief]

Experiments already proved you wrong decades ago and that time is not an abstract. You can put forward all the sophistry you want. You hold outdated views nothing more. Time is relative as per GR.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/twin.html#c2

dude...really....
Time is not a force or a substance.
It is only a calculation.
one number divided by another.

 

[Shad]

Wrong, time is part of the universe, it is called space-time. If time is not real then gravity will have no effect. Movement would have no effect. The dilation experiments would have failed. However these did not. You hold outdated views, nothing more.

 

[Thief]

Wrong, time is part of the universe, it is called space-time. If time is not real then gravity will have no effect. Movement would have no effect. The dilation experiments would have failed. However these did not. You hold outdated views, nothing more.

Gravity is real....space is real....movement is real.....
time is a measure.
time is all in your head.