Proof of God

[Robin]

EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.

Either way, with our present knowledge, it is impossible to explain existence.

And again I point out, this is not a problem, it is simply an incomplete enumeration, missing "something from something else".

Time could have an origin and that origin may be "God" or it may be something else.

What we know for sure is that at least one thing did not have an origin. But it does not follow that if something did not have an origin then it also possesses a purposeful intelligence, which would be the absolute minimum definition for any god, deistic or otherwise.

In any case, God or no God, it would be impossible to explain existence - why does positing the existence of a God explain existence? You have only altered the thing you have to explain the existence of.

Solve one problem by posing another.

 

[Belz...]

Something from something else, indeed. And if time DID "begin" with the universe, then that something else is timeless.

Quantum fluctuations, anyone ?

 

[sphenisc]

Something from something else, indeed. And if time DID "begin" with the universe, then that something else is timeless.

Quantum fluctuations, anyone ?

What are they fluctuating over, if not time?

 

[Belz...]

Can't fluctuate "over" something that doesn't exist, can they ?

Or do they create their own time ? I forget.

 

[Ali]

Why all this hocus-pocus?
God is available for anyone!!

 

[Paulhoff]

Why all this hocus-pocus?
God is available for anyone!!

Hocus-pocus = so-called god.

Paul



See, one sentence, and it is complete.

 

[Z]

EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.

Either way, with our present knowledge, it is impossible to explain existence.

Well, it is A statement...

But I don't think it's all-inclusive, either, because it fails to address the possiblility of time as a causal loop, in which time might well have a beginning and an ending, but that both are at the same point, leading to cyclic time.

Personally, I have no problem with time without a beginning. Makes the most sense to me. Of course, with infinite time, anything becomes probable, not just possible.

 

[Robin]

Something from something else, indeed. And if time DID "begin" with the universe, then that something else is timeless.

Quantum fluctuations, anyone ?

I am not sufficiently well grounded in the subject to say whether this specific phenonemon is the culprit or not.

But, yes, in general there is no reason to think that the question of what caused t ime is anything more than a gap to be filled.

 

[Robin]

Well, it is A statement...

But I don't think it's all-inclusive, either, because it fails to address the possiblility of time as a causal loop, in which time might well have a beginning and an ending, but that both are at the same point, leading to cyclic time.

Personally, I have no problem with time without a beginning. Makes the most sense to me. Of course, with infinite time, anything becomes probable, not just possible.

And of course "beginning" is in itself an ambiguous term that does not necessarily imply an origin.

For example does an ocean begin when planetary ecology creates the condition for the formation of large amounts of H₂0? Or does an ocean begin at the shore?

 

[Belz...]

Why all this hocus-pocus?
God is available for anyone!!

Who ?

 

[BillyJoe]

Thanks for proving my point. The fact that the only reason you can see for my statement is that _I_ love your posts shows how enamoured you are with your own mind.

Come on, Belz, I was having a little joke.

If you think so, then just watch the that will be used trying to explain away this unsolved, perhaps even unsolvable problem.

 

[BillyJoe]

And again I point out, this is not a problem, it is simply an incomplete enumeration, missing "something from something else".

Throw it in then as a third alternative.
It regresses back to one of the other alternatives anyway.

Time could have an origin and that origin may be "God" or it may be something else.

Pretty hard to argue with that one.

What we know for sure is that at least one thing did not have an origin. But it does not follow that if something did not have an origin then it also possesses a purposeful intelligence, which would be the absolute minimum definition for any god, deistic or otherwise.

I'm just leaving it as a possiblity.

In any case, God or no God, it would be impossible to explain existence - why does positing the existence of a God explain existence? You have only altered the thing you have to explain the existence of....Solve one problem by posing another.

You are correct.
But this doesn't prove that god does not exist.
Only that there would be a different thing to explain.
(Of course, it is possible that we might be as unable to explain god, as an ant is unable to explain quantum theory)

 

[BillyJoe]

Something from something else, indeed. And if time DID "begin" with the universe, then that something else is timeless.

Without time nothing happens.
Everything happens in time.
If you don't think so, explain exactly and clearly what can happen in a zero time interval.

Quantum fluctuations, anyone ?

We have been there.
There has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuations before quantum fluctuations can occur.
What gives rise to this possibility?
In other words, why are their quantum fluctuations instead of no quantum fluctuations?

 

[BillyJoe]

Can't fluctuate "over" something that doesn't exist, can they ?

Or do they create their own time ? I forget.

Regardless, it takes time for something to happen and nothing can happen in no time.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why all this hocus-pocus?
God is available for anyone!!

Self-delusions are available for anyone too.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

But I don't think it's all-inclusive, either, because it fails to address the possiblility of time as a causal loop, in which time might well have a beginning and an ending, but that both are at the same point, leading to cyclic time.

You will need to explain how in your cycling scenario, time has a beginning and an ending. In each cycle, the cycle time may have a beginning and an ending, but the universal time line keeps continuing on through successive cycles.
And we are still left the problem of whether the cyles had a beginning (something form nothing), or if the cycles have been going on for ever (time without beginning).
So, your alternative also regresses to one of the original two.

Personally, I have no problem with time without a beginning. Makes the most sense to me.

If by "I have no problem with time without a beginning", you mean you understand it perfectly well, I don't believe you.
I challenge you to explain to me the concept of eternity.
It is impossible to understand how time could have no beginning - that there was never nothing.

 

[BillyJoe]

I am not sufficiently well grounded in the subject to say whether this specific phenonemon is the culprit or not.

At least you're honest.
And, no, it is not. The question is why is there something (quantum fluctuations) instead of nothing (no quantum fluctuations).

But, yes, in general there is no reason to think that the question of what caused t ime is anything more than a gap to be filled.

And there is no reason to think that that gap will ever be filled.
In other words, it is entirely possible that that science is not capable of answering all possible questions.

 

[BillyJoe]

For example does an ocean begin when planetary ecology creates the condition for the formation of large amounts of H₂0? Or does an ocean begin at the shore?

(oops, I apologise if this wasn't meant as a joke)

 

[Z]

You will need to explain how in your cycling scenario, time has a beginning and an ending. In each cycle, the cycle time may have a beginning and an ending, but the universal time line keeps continuing on through successive cycles.

Wrong. There's no 'universal time line' involved, because in a cyclical scenario, time literally starts and stops at the same point, a point that is both beginning and ending, and you're back at the beginning again.

And we are still left the problem of whether the cyles had a beginning (something form nothing), or if the cycles have been going on for ever (time without beginning).

Not really. In this case, since time, itself, become cyclical, the cycles actually fit into neither category. They do go on forever in the sense that they go on for all time, but that's only because they consist of time itself. And being cycles of time, they have no beginning or ending themselves.

I think what you're striving to achieve is the idea of a metatime - and that's a concept as purely in the realms of fantasy as God itself.

So, your alternative also regresses to one of the original two.

Only for those who fail to understand time.

If by "I have no problem with time without a beginning", you mean you understand it perfectly well, I don't believe you.

Your belief or disbelief is irrelevant.

I challenge you to explain to me the concept of eternity.

Do you honestly think the challenge would prove my understanding of eternity... or your ability to understand eternity?

It is impossible to understand how time could have no beginning - that there was never nothing.

For you, perhaps. But don't project your personal limitations on others - that's rude.

 

[blobru]

...
There has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuations before quantum fluctuations can occur.
What gives rise to this possibility?
...

Sorry to butt in here.
Just curious BillyJoe: by "What gives rise to this possibility?" are you saying the law of quantum fluctuations precedes the behavior; that some sort of "logic" which encompasses any law "gives rise to this possibility" [of law]; that a medium must pre-exist for the law to operate in; that nothing can come from nothing without intention; any, all or none of these?
In other words, is this "possibility" prescriptive (for behavior), creative (other laws), descriptive (of behavior), directive (plan), or something else?
Thanks. {p.s. signing off -- will check back later}