Don't worry about it, i figured you'd catch up to that on your own, but i couldn't resist the line, (mea maxima culpa!).
And more seriously, it also shows us how crazy things get when we change the speed of light by a factor of a million.
It is difficult to conceptualise.
Let's look into that. In order to have the same energy, the radiation currently emitted from stars, in the form of visible light, would need a wavelength a million times longer, in order to make up for the increase in the speed of light.
This means that stars would cease to emit visible light, and instead would emit mostly radio waves!
Let me state the conditions that i was alluding to:
First, a speed of light that is graphed on a time ("x"-axis), speed ("y"-axis) scale.In that i have not cracked open a text book on Ordinary and Partial differential equations in well over 10 years, i am not as able to describe this senerio as adequately as i should, my apologies. None the less, small decreases in the speed of light, measured by the same techniques (so as to eliminate or reduce measurement error) have been observed. i stress again, a linear rate of change is not postulated.
Second, the resulting function is asympotic from "infinite" speed to "infinite" time.
Third, we are currently on the "flat" end of the time (x-axis) asympote, where the dirivative of the function (rate of change) is getting smaller.
Concerning your citation of scripture, the time vs. speed function would undoubtably fit within the senerio if you graph the function.
Unless, that is, you also want to make an argument for arbitrarily changing the nuclear binding energy of all of the atoms in the universe.
Doesn't the "big bang" theory do just this and more as expired time from the "event" approaches zero?
We can go round and round like this, but it really isn't necessary. Consider:
God must be pretty darn smart, right? Divinely smart, even. So He knew about all of this stuff we're talking about, and more, from day one - He understood the mechanisms behind all the processes in the universe, having created them.
i believe the word you are alluding to is "omniscient"...It is also helpful if one is able to ordain the process from all eternity.
But He also knew that, if He went and tried to explain astrophysics to everybody a couple thousand years ago, that it would simply confuse people and obscure His central message. It's like giving a good talk - You want to keep things simple, to the point, and at an appropriate level for your audience. So He uses metaphor to explain what happened. What's the problem?
Since God is, by definition, perfect, He must therefore be the perfect scientist, and be perfectly able to apply the scientific method in all cases. If Dr. Dini wants us to do the same, then, why is this then so problematic?
It is hardly neccessary to explain astrophysics to anyone! It does not follow that one must use metaphor in order to explain phenomena. After all, we were able to adequately (for our purposes) explain the motion of the heavenlies long before relativity were we not? Did we then have to rely on metaphor? No, we simply acknowleged inconsistencies until such a time as they could be explained.
Here is the problem:
First, as you have said, God is perfect.
Second, it does not follow that He is the perfect scientist, or a scientist at all!
(a)Being by definition omniscient, He has no need to seek knowlege.
(b)He is under no obligation to explain His actions in creation to that creation.
(c)Finitus Non Caprux Infinitum, exhaustively explaining processes of creation by an Infinite Being to a finite creation is a fool's errand!
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
Finally, you are making a comparrison in motivation and attribute between God and Dr. Dini that i am certain that Dr. Dini would not make, namely the idea of application of the scientific method in all cases.
i rather hope that you can see that there are difficulties between science and biblical revelation. If pushed to Reducto Ad Absurdum we end up questioning epistomology, and have no basis for any knowlege. i do agree that those tensions must be recconcilled, and that cannot happen by mutually exclusive claims, no matter how "reasonable" they may seem.
:) No problem.
Let me state the conditions that i was alluding to: Second, the resulting function is asympotic from "infinite" speed to "infinite" time. Third, we are currently on the "flat" end of the time (x-axis) asympote, where the dirivative of the function (rate of change) is getting smaller. First, a speed of light that is graphed on a time ("x"-axis), speed ("y"-axis) scale.
Got it - I see what you mean. Interesting idea, certainly...
...small decreases in the speed of light, measured by the same techniques (so as to eliminate or reduce measurement error) have been observed.
I was not aware of that. Can I have the reference? :)
i stress again, a linear rate of change is not postulated.
If I go back to your initial point, which is valid, we only know the value of the speed of light (with any degree of accuracy) over a very, very short period of time. Therefore, even if this measurement was performed accurately and what are presumably very small changes are actually occurring, and not due to measurement error, that still doesn't tell us anything about times outside the measurement period. Therefore, we cannot make the leap to saying that it proves the asymptotic nature of the speed of light vs. time that you refer to - That would be an unsupported postulate, and one of many possible explanations for these observations.
Again, it's an interesting idea, and I do not deny the possibility, but I need more information before I can reach any conclusions.
It is hardly neccessary to explain astrophysics to anyone! It does not follow that one must use metaphor in order to explain phenomena.
If God wanted to explain the origins of the universe to people living thousands of years before us, and if those origins were consistent with our current scientific theories, he still would not do so using the language of 20th century scientific inquiry, or he would confuse the hell out of everyone. He would make basically the same description, then, whether or not what science currently tells us is truly the case. This means that we cannot conclude which of these two situations took place, from the description in the Bible, because in the end the description would not change. See what I mean? In short, we cannot assume that the Bible was meant to be taken literally. In certain specific instances, we must explicitly take a non-literal intrepretation, or risk denying what we observe (i.e. the earth is round, it goes around the sun, for instance). This shows that we cannot take a 100% literal view of the entire Bible. Is there a way around this logic that I am not seeing?
After all, we were able to adequately (for our purposes) explain the motion of the heavenlies long before relativity were we not?
Depends on what you mean by "adequately", "long before", and "for our purposes" :) In general, though, if you mean pre-Galileo, then the answer seems to be "no".
Did we then have to rely on metaphor? No, we simply acknowleged inconsistencies until such a time as they could be explained.
Sure, we must keep working on our best explanation 'til a better one comes along, explaining more than the old one. We're now in the process of acknowledging inconsistencies - In this case, between a literal reading of Biblical Creation and what is accepted based on scientific inquiry combined with physical evidence. I am attempting to explain these inconsistencies by postulating that the Bible was not meant to be taken completely literally, and I am offering evidence of this (cases where it cannot be taken litearlly and still have relevance to physical observables). While I don't expect that everyone will agree with me, I hope the logic I use, at least, is clear.
Here is the problem:
First, as you have said, God is perfect.
Second, it does not follow that He is the perfect scientist, or a scientist at all!
(a)Being by definition omniscient, He has no need to seek knowlege.
True. He should, however, be able to apply the scientific method, if He so chooses, better than any scientist ever could. This is what I mean when I describe him as being the perfect scientist. This does not mean he is actively practicing science - But if He felt the need to illustrate his ability to reason objectively based on evidence, I'm sure He could do so :)
...right, so expecting that he has done so for us, and in a very literalist sense, too, would be foolish.
(c)Finitus Non Caprux Infinitum, exhaustively explaining processes of creation by an Infinite Being to a finite creation is a fool's errand!
Absolutely! Which is an excellent argument against the supposition that He has done so, in the Bible or anywhere else. Therefore, we are relegated to relying on what we can divine from the descriptions in the Bible - Which, by your logic, will not be at all clear or precise, as we cannot know the mind of God, nor expect him to explain everything. Therefore we must combine this with what we can learn about the natural world, based on the scientific method (as it is the best way we've found so far to figure things out) and using our God-given talents in doing so.
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
I'm certainly not questioning God's existence, and anyway that can't be disproven. Since, as you say, God has never explained to us the full details of his Creation, and we have only accounts written and edited by men to understand it by, if we find that our interpretation of those accounts does not jibe with scientific inquiry, that hardly means that we need doubt God's special revelation to us - That is not what's unreliable. It's the people who wrote down and edited what we read, and our own interpretations, that must clearly be at fault, since we agree that God is perfect, and we are not. The metaphors we refer to are man-made.
Finally, you are making a comparrison in motivation and attribute between God and Dr. Dini that i am certain that Dr. Dini would not make, namely the idea of application of the scientific method in all cases.
As I have been told before: "With all due respect, there is no way you could possibly know that."
i rather hope that you can see that there are difficulties between science and biblical revelation.
All is not simple in life, no, but we should strive to find solutions to such difficulties, not deny their existence by being inflexible with respect to alternate interpretations, no matter what we believe or our level of scientific training and knowledge.
I am willing to entertain the idea that the speed of light has changed, and I will accept it if it is properly supported.
I must therefore count on you to entertain the idea of biblical metaphor, and at least address my argument, especially with respect to known discrepancies between literaly-interpreted descriptions in the Bible and what we have observed of the world.
I'm not asking anyone here to agree with me - By all means, make up your own minds - But if I am wrong, show me how I am wrong, so that we both may learn something.
If pushed to Reducto Ad Absurdum we end up questioning epistomology, and have no basis for any knowlege. i do agree that those tensions must be recconcilled, and that cannot happen by mutually exclusive claims, no matter how "reasonable" they may seem.
My argument has two major tenets:
I'm offering such a description - I don't claim it's the only one, but if you agree with the tenets of this argument, and I think you do, I think we have some common ground here, and I certainly welcome alternatives.
Thanks for reading,
DFS