Proof of God

[kurious_kathy]

Why do people have a problem with a universe coming from so-called nothing, but have no problem with a so-called all-powerful and all-knowing god always existing.

Paul

I think it's because it's more a built in knowledge that we were made by our creator to worship him and not his creation.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy all God has created too, but I don't want to get hung up on worshipping anyone or anything but God.

So what's up with all those bless mother earth bumper stickers anyway?

 

[RandFan]

It's called logic.
Things happen over time. No time. Nothing happens.

Actually that is not called logic, that is called assumption. In order for it to be logic you would have to include some actual logic.

Since when did assumptions become alogical? Assumptions are a big part of logic. You could say his statement is illogical (fallacy) but you can't say that it is alogical. Billy's statement contains a proposition, a premise, inference and a conclusion.

Proposition: things happen over time (change)
Premise: No time.
Conclusion: No change.

You want logic? How about Einstein?

Einstein said that time was basically what a clock reads; the clock can be any action or change.

Einstein, like everyone else, defines time as change. BTW, that's what clocks do, they change

{snipped snide remarks} sorry.

 

[Robin]

Since when did assumptions become alogical? Assumptions are a big part of logic. You could say his statement is illogical (fallacy) but you can't say that it is alogical. Billy's statement contains a proposition, a premise, inference and a conclusion.

Proposition: things happen over time (change)
Premise: No time.
Conclusion: No change.

You want logic? How about Einstein?

Einstein, like everyone else, defines time as change. BTW, that's what clocks do, they change

{snipped snide remarks} sorry.

I think it is a stretch to make a modus ponens of BJ's statement, but if you say so. Normally you would have to include some sort of implications in the proposition.

 

[Belz...]

And I commmend this as an example to Belz, who seems to think the more detailed your explanation the murkier things get.

Actually, YOU'RE the one who thinks that the shorter an answer is, the least worthy of a response it is.

Time, in my opinion, is a circle not a sphere.

Your opinion poses no problem at all.

Unlike space where you can move up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards (even though the sphere represents only two of these three dimensions), time only moves forwards (hey, maybe backwards as well, I'll give you that one) and hence should be represented as a circle.

Yet time isn't apart from space, it's part of the same continuum.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's because it's more a built in knowledge that we were made by our creator to worship him and not his creation.

For a "built in" knowledge, it sure gets past most people on Earth.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy all God has created too, but I don't want to get hung up on worshipping anyone or anything but God.

I prefer not worshipping non-existent entities.

So what's up with all those bless mother earth bumper stickers anyway?

Some people have faiths that are not the same as yours. Live with it.

 

[Paulhoff]

I think it's because it's more a built in knowledge that we were made by our creator to worship him and not his creation.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy all God has created too, but I don't want to get hung up on worshipping anyone or anything but God.

So what's up with all those bless mother earth bumper stickers anyway?

Why would a so-called all-powerfull, all-knowning god need to be worshiped, is your so-called god that INSECURE.

It seems that worshiping is all you do, and that is to worship a so-called god, and again why does a so-called god need worship.

Earth is here, where is you so-called god, kids with cancer what to know.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

Just what central problem is it that you imagine I am avoiding?

Facing eternity.

Just illustrates my point. Did you think I would not notice the part you didn't bold?

What? I quote it but fully expect you not to notice? What sort of sense does that make? I didn't quote the source, so I could just as well have left that bit out. Apart from that, the unbolded bit doesn't even matter! Left out or not left out. I was demonstrating to you that my use of the word "origin" was totally appropriate.
Here is that quote again - so that you can notice it again. But properly this time:

or·i·gin
n.

1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.

Now read that again and notice will you please that little word "or". You do know what that means don't you? It means that or·i·gin: The point at which something comes into existence can stand on it's own as a meaning of origin. The meaning I was intending. The meaning you were denying me!

God strike me!

and answer the question I posed, if something "was not there", where was there? If something "was there" and it was the first thing ever to come into existence, where was "there"?

You really do have trouble with language, don't you?

"something was not there" clearly means that that something did not exist.
"something was there" clearly means that that something now does exist.
"something was not there, then something was there"
"there" clearly refers to wherever that something came into existence.

I'd be very surprised if any one else didn't clearly understand this.

You said, did you not, "time without beginning" or "something from nothing"? You asked anybody to suggest another alternative. When I suggested "something from something else" you rejected this. So in other words you rejected my suggestion that time had a source. And now you are denying that you rejected my suggestion.

I really don't believe you still haven't grasped this simple point.

If something came from something else, that something cannot be the origin of the universe (because - it - came - from - something - else !). It could also not have always been there.
So we are back to.... EITHER "something from nothing" OR "time without beginning".

So can I take it now that you accept that time may come "from something else"?

You have no idea what this discussion is actually about, do you?

So now we are onto the question of what that source might be. I have also answered that friggin' question - we don't know.

So what is your point

That, by saying that time could be circular, you are pretending that you do know.

 

[BillyJoe]

And I commmend this as an example to Belz, who seems to think the more detailed your explanation the murkier things get.

Actually, YOU'RE the one who thinks that the shorter an answer is, the least worthy of a response it is.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Time, in my opinion, is a circle not a sphere.

Your opinion poses no problem at all.

It was an opinion backed up with an explanation.
Did you even attempt to do likewise?

Yet time isn't apart from space, it's part of the same continuum.

Yep, that's what spactime means alright!

 

[Belz...]

Smilies do not an argument make, Billy bob.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've found the following model of spacetime to be very helpful.

The problem with trying to conceive of spacetime is that our brains aren't equipped to deal with more than three dimensions. But we can back everything down a dimension as in the flatland model. Imagine that we experience only two spacial dimensions and time, rather than being a fourth dimension, is actually the third. So spacetime is a sphere. We inhabit a universe that seems to be only two dimensional, composed of "slices" of spacetime that are perpendicular to the time dimension (which runs parallel to the sphere's axis). The Big Bang in this universe would be the point at the pole opposite the direction in which we perceive time to flow. So a little circle living in his flatland would seem to all the other inhabitants to be a two dimensional circle. But add the time dimension and the circle becomes a long cylinder running along the direction of the time dimension. So we can see a model universe in which spacetime is finite and self contained and yet the questions "what came before time?" or "where did time come from?" are meaningless. This is what Hawking means when he asks "What is north of the North Pole?".

 

[Robin]

You really do have trouble with language, don't you?

Imprecise, messy language. Yes.

"something was not there" clearly means that that something did not exist.
"something was there" clearly means that that something now does exist.
"something was not there, then something was there"
"there" clearly refers to wherever that something came into existence.

No. You are simply being unclear in order to derive the "something came from nothing". Why not just say "something did not exist" in the first place.

And why did you chuck a hissy when I suggested "began to exist"? I don't see how it is much different from "came into existence". And the "something did not exist" is, in any case, superfluous since it is implied by coming into existence. All you need is "came into existence" or "began to exist". Shorter, clearer and more precise.

I really don't believe you still haven't grasped this simple point.

If something came from something else, that something cannot be the origin of the universe.

Er... why cannot something come from something else and also be the origin of the universe? Do you mean it cannot be the origin of existence itself? Does existence begin with the universe?

You have no idea what this discussion is actually about, do you?

Well let's see what close attention you have been paying.....

That, by saying that time could be circular, you are pretending that you do know.

Uh. That wasn't me who said that time could be circular. Try to keep up.

 

[Z]

I had a thought, and I wanted to bounce it off this thread.

IF spacetime is infinite - and I'm not saying it is - THEN it is inevitable that time, at least, would have to be circular. Because in an infinite spacetime, any probability that can exist will exist - including the incredibly small non-zero probability that the current arrangement of all matter will occur again in the precisely same arrangements. Unless spacetime has no curvature, in which case the laws of entropy should prevent such a reassimilation of matter from ever occuring.

But we have some evidence that spacetime is curved, in fact. So there's a chance, at least, that time is necessarily 4-D spherical.

In fact, in the usual torus model of spacetime (I may be using the wrong term), the Big Bang will continue to expand, until the edges meet each other on the other side of the torus, which will cause matter to begin to contract. That would be one model of spacetime in which time would have to be 4-D circular, since eventually all matter and energy would return to the exact same patterns all over again.

Granted, we're talking googolplex upon googleplex cycles before they would reconfigure exactly the same way again, and many powers more before the cycles themselves would repeat exactly the same way again... but in an infinite spacetime, under a torus-like model, they would have to eventually - unless they somehow settled into maxiumum entropy, which I'm not sure is even possible under the torus model.

So we might very well live again, with all our current memories and thoughts and everything, by sheer random chance...

Mind you, I have no idea if I have any of this right. Just reading Hawking gives me a headache. It could be 100% cowdroppings.

Still... thoughts?

 

[RandFan]

I think it is a stretch to make a modus ponens of BJ's statement, but if you say so. Normally you would have to include some sort of implications in the proposition.

It couldn't be simpler or more straight forward.

Let T = Time
Let C = Change

If T, then C
T.
Therefore C.

((T ® C ) Ù T) ⊤ C)

 

[volatile]

Still... thoughts?

I'm reminded of a recent (and therefore not full online) article in New Scientist about Boltzmann Brains, which is the theory that in infinite spacetime, there is a non-zero probability that self-aware observers will pop into existence spontaneously...

 

[Mangafranga]

It couldn't be simpler or more straight forward.

Let T = Time
Let C = Change

If T, then C
T.
Therefore C.

Except that the move was from ~T to ~C, not from T to C.

 

[Damien Evans]

ugh, you're STILL going at this?

 

[Mangafranga]

ugh, you're STILL going at this?

You speak as though this thread has been going on a long time or something. There has been no change, and hence no time has passed.

 

[Belz...]

ugh, you're STILL going at this?

Still doing what ? This thread's been on a standstill for weeks.

 

[BillyJoe]

Smilies do not an argument make, Billy bob.

Hmmm....never thought of you as a smilie.

 

[BillyJoe]

I've found the following model of spacetime to be very helpful.

The problem with trying to conceive of spacetime is that our brains aren't equipped to deal with more than three dimensions. But we can back everything down a dimension as in the flatland model. Imagine that we experience only two spacial dimensions and time, rather than being a fourth dimension, is actually the third. So spacetime is a sphere. We inhabit a universe that seems to be only two dimensional, composed of "slices" of spacetime that are perpendicular to the time dimension (which runs parallel to the sphere's axis). The Big Bang in this universe would be the point at the pole opposite the direction in which we perceive time to flow. So a little circle living in his flatland would seem to all the other inhabitants to be a two dimensional circle. But add the time dimension and the circle becomes a long cylinder running along the direction of the time dimension. So we can see a model universe in which spacetime is finite and self contained and yet the questions "what came before time?" or "where did time come from?" are meaningless. This is what Hawking means when he asks "What is north of the North Pole?".

Sorry, Foster Zygote, but I have read this three times now and I still don't get it. I know I am exposing myself to ridicule by those far greater in intelligence than me, but there we are....