(July 8, 2012 at 4:34 am)CliveStaples Wrote:(July 8, 2012 at 4:28 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Because the studies show that a much longer time has indeed passed.
And how do you know that these studies don't implicitly assume that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?
Quote:The article explains how a tree from Japan was discovered with 100 000 tree rings. The carbon in each ring matched the theoretical amount of carbon that should be there if we assume the time has indeed passed. So you end up with this discrete set of points on your graph where you can't deny the fact that the ring that should be 1 year old is actually 1 year old, that the tree ring that should be 2 years old .....that the tree ring that is x years old is actually x years old.
But how do you know that the tree didn't pop into existence 5 minutes ago with the proper number of rings and the proper amount of carbon that would be expected if the tree had been there longer?
Quote:I don't know if you want me to take this as explicitly being a philosophical question now. In terms of philosophy, I'm somewhat inclined to believe there is actually no present. One second ago is considered the past and one second from now is considered the future. 1 x 10^-99 seconds ago is considered the past and 1 x 10^-99 seconds from now is considered the future. The past and the future by definition take up all the space on the time line leaving what appears to be no single 'instant' that can be defined as 'now'. I obviously went on a tangent here.. but I just don't really understand how to make meaning of your question. I think there's more than enough evidence to show the universe wasn't 'created an instant ago'. Is 6 000 years an instant?
Wow, you're really not understanding my argument. Let me try to explain it better.
The things that you think of as "evidence" assume a continuity not only from instant to instant (which I'm not arguing about), and that there is a past.
For example, let's look at your tree example. Say you look at a tree and it has 100 rings, and experience has shown that every year a tree gets two rings (corresponding to a growth season and a winter season). Let's even assume that tree rings actually do accrue in such a fashion.
How do you know that the tree didn't come into existence just a second ago with 100 rings?
Ok, I think I get it now. You believe the past is practically non-existent. To this I say look at your watch for 5 minutes. You can then be absolutely confident that this memory of yourself looking at your watch wasn't some random memory implanted into you from who knows where, but that it was an historical truth that really did happen in the past.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
