God can’t exist out side of time !

carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
God can’t exist out side of time !

 Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

 

 

Well I’d like to explain to the Christians the concept of existing out side of time , you see if something exists out side of time then it doesn’t exist at all.

 

 

Well something can’t exist OUT side of time ! Something can exist in a different time or a different timeline however it can’t exist out side of time (any type of time ).

 

 

Lets make a analogy every human , atom , existing thing interacts the BIG question is what is interaction ? Interaction is the ability (or the forced mechanism on us) to change in time if something exists out side of time then it can’t change in any aspect.

 

A ball can role just because before that a force hit it and the movement is only a interactive change in time. If a being exists out side of time it can as well  exist out side of existence (Don’t exist at all).

 

 

A god or a being out side of time cant respond to prayers , interact with us or have any conscious or plans for that matcher. A nice example is a data block on a hard drive (lets say a .jpg file ) its all ways the same and it doesn’t change however such a block can’t interact with any thing !   A program however interacts and changes to the impute if a program is giving a response or a question box that program is changing (by creating or interacting) with parts of itself. If such a block of data is to change its susceptible to time change.

 

 

Therefore the Christian synonym for “super magic” (existence out side of time ) disproves god  making him more a abstract data that cant interact or create any thing at all.

 

 

 

Waiting for responses.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Well put, Carx. The claim

Well put, Carx. The claim that God is outside time is another example of theists making up baseless, meaningless concepts in order to provide themselves with "outs" from impossible logical quandaries.

FYI I deleted a double posting of this thread. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Thanks I’m waiting for the

Thanks I’m waiting for the religious to try to answer this.  
 
Thanks for removal of post duplication .  

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Define 'time'.

Define 'time'.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Although I feel like you do

Although I feel like you do and what you say makes sense to me, saying that nothing can exist outside of time is not a scientific statement about the universe but a metaphysical one simply because we just don't know that.

 

 


 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Define

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Define 'time'.

Time well lets define hypothetical stuff …  
 
[  
WAIT It was the christens claming the definition of time and know why god can stand out side of it !  
]    
 
… lets imagine the smallest time unit as STU and our reality is a line on STU states think of is like a film line where STU is 1 frame. God existing OUT side of it gets 1 STU ( he exists but is not able to interact ) however since his completely out side of time he gets zero STU (he doesn’t exist) where the zero STU explanation makes more sense  

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
If you make certain

If you make certain assumptions about the nature of time then I suppose you have some valid thoughts. But are your assumptions about time correct?

 

Is time a perceptual thing or is it real?

Is time reversible or must it always move "forward"?

Is time a single dimension (3 space, 1 time dimension is a common view) or are there multiple dimensions to time?

Is time quantized, like energy and matter? 

What happens to time "before" the big bang? 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: If you

wavefreak wrote:
If you make certain assumptions about the nature of time then I suppose you have some valid thoughts. But are your assumptions about time correct?
A nice. I deducted this  statement about the STU similar like the ancient Greeks deducted the atom by saying there must be a smallest possible undividable part (the atom[Note I know there are smaller particles then  atoms ]).


wavefreak wrote:
Is time reversible or must it always move "forward"?

 

Note time always moves forward by definition if we define the default movement of a timeline as foreword  for instance if you hypothesizing a timeline that is moving in a opposite direction then ours however from the perspective of the other timeline we are moving backwards and they are moving foreword so every timeline is moving forward from its own point of view.


wavefreak wrote:
Is time a single dimension (3 space, 1 time dimension is a common view) or are there multiple dimensions to time?

if there are more dimensions of time I hypothesize they are alternative timelines by deducting what happens if we expand a 1D space in a 2D space we get a lot of 1D lines on the Y access. However god is out side of time all time by the definition of the religious I didn’t make  this argument I’m showing
the application of it

wavefreak wrote:
Is time quantized, like energy and matter?

What happens to time "before" the big bang?

I don’t know I’m not a expert nor a scientist I’m deducting some religious hypothesis here. Its like making the ” who created the creator”  argument I’m just playing along with this game.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: I don’t know

carx wrote:

I don’t know I’m not a expert nor a scientist I’m deducting some religious hypothesis here. Its like making the ” who created the creator” argument I’m just playing along with this game.

But this is exactly the point. Discussions about what created the creator are irrevocably tied to a strictly linear, uni-directional concept of time. But that concept of time is bound to our experience of this universe. There is no absolute certainty that such a view of time is indeed correct. 

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Hmm and the point is

Hmm and the point is ???

 


Well I’m not all knowing , however I bet some Christians love to play the god is out side of time card like a synonymy for god can do super magic (I define magic as bending the lows of physic/logic and super magic as completely breaking them and burning down.).

 


The point is (if you don’t belong to this group the try to understand this  )  if a Christian clams to know that the answer is putting god out side of time he supposed do know the consequences are and every Christian (who quoted this phrase ) supposed do try to redefine or start the discussion by showing his own definitions of being out side of time.

 


Besides the funny thing is that actually the phrase god is out side of time resolves all god problems by simply leading to the conclusion that such a being can’t exist (well at leas cant interact with us) and all religions are pure phantasis they by explaining every thing assuming the atheists explanations for the god dilemma.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hrrrrmmm. Well, I'm not

Hrrrrmmm.

Well, I'm not sure what how much effort Christians put into understanding the concept of time. But, if for the sake of argument we assume this unverse was created, then the creator MUST be outside of time. This unverse was 'started" somehow and in that process the 4 dimensional space time we experience came into being. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, I'm not sure

Quote:

Well, I'm not sure what how much effort Christians put into understanding the concept of time. But, if for the sake of argument we assume this unverse was created, then the creator MUST be outside of time. This unverse was 'started" somehow and in that process the 4 dimensional space time we experience came into being.

But this is question begging since the argument presupposes the very issue under consideration:

The Paradox of the Cosmological Argument Version 2.0

Now, pertaining to what time is, this is a different matter. According to the Lorentz Matrices, time, strictly speaking, is invariant, it has no direction and there is no reason it should. This is demonstrated by the light-cone experiments, which can be causal-chronological or chronological-causal. Time is not a thing unto itself, being relative to the observer, but absolute space-time is. The concept of time as we understand it is quite simple to begin with. In a 2D Euclidean manifold, with two vectors, the square of the displacement of a body will be equal to the squares of the sum of the vectors. This is Pythagoras' theorom: x^2+y^2=h^2. This can be extended to incorporate a Z axis: x^2+y^2+z^2=h^2.

Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold, than (and this fit perfectly into the contradiction Einstein found between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean Transformations), time could be included as being displaced as well, along a 4D manifold called Minkowski space. In this scenario, time simply becomes another unit of measurment, the same of length, width and breadth, which can be displaced. THe equation derived for this simply follows the same rule of transformation: x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=h^2. This works tidily since c is constant in all frames of reference, although it needs some righting since it is unhelpful to vector something to an imaginary number, i which is formally r(-1), and since squared, becomes: x&2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=h^2. In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways. Nonetheless, it is gibberish to speak of causality without the manifold (no values can be inserted into the equations).

For Christians, saying God is outside the causal structure of time would certainly be a death knell since their God is a mind-like entity, ie it has a mind, a mind entails thoughts and thoughts entail subsequence and causal structure and stimulus. We speak of such a being in Anthropomorphic terms, as if it were just a bigger version of us without a body. Barking mad. No causal structure entails nothing can be acted upon nor can the being without causal structure act upon anything else, for such a concept would presuppose the causal structure. (There are many other ways to phrase this argument, such as that the existence of God presupposes the mind being distinct from the body, which presupposes dualism, which presupposes epiphenominalism, which presupposes that mental events are causal dead ends, which means that no being can simply will the universe into being, as Christians would have believe). THis problem is superseded by the bigger problem of that even a dualistic mind (which has been refuted) still entails a causal structure in which and upon which it acts, otherwise it can do and is nothing:

On the Nature of Causal Structure and Its Implications for the Existence of the Theistic God

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: For

deludedgod wrote:

For Christians, saying God is outside the causal structure of time would certainly be a death knell since their God is a mind-like entity, ie it has a mind, a mind entails thoughts and thoughts entail subsequence and causal structure and stimulus. We speak of such a being in Anthropomorphic terms, as if it were just a bigger version of us without a body.

LOL. Your description of time is far more detailed than I could  ever offer, but actually helps to illustrate my point.  The Christian notion of a creator is deeply imbedded in a naive concept of time. And projecting an anthpomorphic version of our minds onto some uber-entity is futile. Again, just for the sake of argument, if an entity created this little region of space time calld our universe, it, IMHO cannot in any way have a "mind" akin to a human brain.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Christian

Quote:

The Christian notion of a creator is deeply imbedded in a naive concept of time. And projecting an anthpomorphic version of our minds onto some uber-entity is futile. Again, just for the sake of argument, if an entity created this little region of space time calld our universe, it, IMHO cannot in any way have a "mind" akin to a human brain.

Then you would be concurring with me that their doctrine is absurd since it explicitly makes such claims. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

The Christian notion of a creator is deeply imbedded in a naive concept of time. And projecting an anthpomorphic version of our minds onto some uber-entity is futile. Again, just for the sake of argument, if an entity created this little region of space time calld our universe, it, IMHO cannot in any way have a "mind" akin to a human brain.

Then you would be concurring with me that their doctrine is absurd since it explicitly makes such claims.

 

Maybe not quite that bluntly, but in essence, yes. Especially when relating to god properties (omniscient, etc). 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

a strictly linear, uni-directional concept of time. But that concept of time is bound to our experience of this universe. There is no absolute certainty that such a view of time is indeed correct.

 

Theres a good deal of evidence that it's not.

EDIT: ahh yeah... redundant point since DG posted.. LOL

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Define

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Define 'time'.

Here's my try: 

A method of organizing sense-data that involves comparing data-states and defining states that differ incrementally from other states as representing a dependent sequence.    

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold,   ....   In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways. Nonetheless, it is gibberish to speak of causality without the manifold (no values can be inserted into the equations).

 I didn't get that far in my physics and math courses. I took topology, and I learned special relativity at college. I also tried to learn general relativity on my own, but only got so far as learning a little beyond tensor calculus. Anyway, if you want (and if you can, seeing as you are busy with your biology essay), tell me more about this topology of spacetime stuff... sounds interesting (maybe in another thread?)!


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Well put,

Tilberian wrote:

Well put, Carx. The claim that God is outside time is another example of theists making up baseless, meaningless concepts in order to provide themselves with "outs" from impossible logical quandaries.


As far as I can see, when theists claim that their God is outside time then there are two possibilities.
They might mean outside 'our' time, but still existing in a time of some sort. A bit like how a timeline in a computer simulation exists within our timeline.

The other possibility is that they're speaking of something completely transcendent, but if such a concept is even meaningful then it certainly atleast rules out causal interactions with the physical world and saying that "God did so and so" can be at best metaphorical.

Although I think transcendence can be meaningful, I think that's a difficult topic. Besides, even if it can I'd bet the apologists aren't doing it right. The work of an apologist is to take an answer that sounds right at that moment in time, not really caring whether it truly makes sense or not.
I.e. they'll have no qualms in claiming God literally 'causes' thing one moment and then claiming God's transcendence in the next.

While we're on the topic, I'd like to have a crack at Wavefreak's questions:
wavefreak wrote:
Is time a perceptual thing or is it real?

It's a structure of reality as we experience.
There's a difference between the facts of reality and the structure of those facts. The structure determines the properties of the concepts involved. I guess it would be a matter of analysing our experience to see what geometrical structure best fits reality. The classic view was the Euclidean Geometry was perfect but that was gradually shown to be naive.

Quote:
Is time a single dimension (3 space, 1 time dimension is a common view) or are there multiple dimensions to time?

I guess that's a question of physics as to which geometrical structure fits reality best.

Quote:
Is time quantized, like energy and matter?

Well, you could say "I have a lot of time to get this job done" - that's an example of how time might be quantized.

Quote:
What happens to time "before" the big bang?

If the big bang is the beginning then there is no 'before' as before is a relation between two times, and if there's a time before the beginning then it's not the beginning.
However, there might be an 'external timeline' that has the big bang and our universe as an event and other events 'before' and 'after' that.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, you could say

Quote:

Well, you could say "I have a lot of time to get this job done" - that's an example of how time might be quantized.

Er, not quite. Quanization is assigning discrete to classical field functions in order to derive their quantum states. An example is the Electromagnetic field, whose quanta is the individual photon.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: As far as I

Strafio wrote:


As far as I can see, when theists claim that their God is outside time then there are two possibilities.
They might mean outside 'our' time, but still existing in a time of some sort. A bit like how a timeline in a computer simulation exists within our timeline.

I think that in order for this model to be true, the entities in the other timeline would still have to have mass, take up space, be subject to the laws of nature etc etc. So saying that such a being exists would beg the question "where is it?"

Strafio wrote:

The other possibility is that they're speaking of something completely transcendent, but if such a concept is even meaningful then it certainly atleast rules out causal interactions with the physical world and saying that "God did so and so" can be at best metaphorical.

Although I think transcendence can be meaningful, I think that's a difficult topic. Besides, even if it can I'd bet the apologists aren't doing it right. The work of an apologist is to take an answer that sounds right at that moment in time, not really caring whether it truly makes sense or not.
I.e. they'll have no qualms in claiming God literally 'causes' thing one moment and then claiming God's transcendence in the next.


I'm certainly leaning the other way on transcendence. I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how it could be a meaningful term at all, in the sense of possibly pointing to something that is not purely an invention of the imagination. It seems to me to be one of those word tricks that you can justify technically, but not get very excited about because the whole thing feels like a mental wank. Whip out the Razor and cut it away, I say. 

Of course, you are dead on that 99% of all apologists a) fail to give a coherent definition of transcendence and b) violate any coherent definition at every turn. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Well, you could say "I have a lot of time to get this job done" - that's an example of how time might be quantized.

Er, not quite. Quanization is assigning discrete to classical field functions in order to derive their quantum states. An example is the Electromagnetic field, whose quanta is the individual photon.

 


I see...
I didn't really know the word so guessed that it was to do with 'quantity'.
You win some, you lose some! Eye-wink

Tilberian wrote:

I think that in order for this model to be true, the entities in the other timeline would still have to have mass, take up space, be subject to the laws of nature etc etc. So saying that such a being exists would beg the question "where is it?"


I don't see why the other timeline would necessarily have to have a spacial structure, let alone laws of nature similar to ours. It happens that our perceivable universe has the space-time structure but if we're talking 'outside' then surely any structure is possible? Just if we want 'outside beings' to have temporal characteristics then they must 'live' within a temporal structure.

Ofcourse, any claim that there was a structure outside of our own would be subject to the razor unless there was evidence. As it happens, I think that such evidence is theoretically possible but doesn't actually exist.

Tiberian wrote:

I'm certainly leaning the other way on transcendence. I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how it could be a meaningful term at all, in the sense of possibly pointing to something that is not purely an invention of the imagination. It seems to me to be one of those word tricks that you can justify technically, but not get very excited about because the whole thing feels like a mental wank. Whip out the Razor and cut it away, I say.


That's certainly a position I sympathise with, reminding me what I thought when I first heard of transcendence. It's like it takes everything you know and says "not that", leaving you wondering what the hell it's actually supposed to be and what relevence it can have at all.

I think the best way to understand transcendence is to look at the people who are using the word and how they are using it. To 'transcend' something usually means to 'rise above' it. Two kids might get caught in a slanging match, each one hurling the insults back but getting angry with each return, when they could 'rise above' it. To do that would be to no longer find the insults relevent or insulting, so all the insults and arguments that used to matter to them is no longer relevent.
I think that this is was people tend to mean by transcendence.
A good example is numbers.
Numbers have sometimes been seen as transcendent entities as their truth doesn't depend on physical facts and conditions, so they transcend the material world in that respect - the material world isn't relevent to them.

Where this could relate to theism is as follows:
My view on religion is that although sometimes it involves claims about the world, it is first a foremost a practice. In early stages of faith the thinking is very simplistic and the claims about the world are taken seriously. However, as the faith grows these claims become less important until they find that their 'relationship' with God transcends all the literal attributes they used to try and give 'him'.

We are so used to mathematical concepts that we can think in terms of them in themselves. Compare this to when we first learnt them - we were perhaps shown physical examples, like a picture of two coconuts to learn what 'two' meant. You could say that once you get to our level of mathematics, we've grasped the abstract concepts well enough to transcend the need for physical examples.
Religion would be a practice/game equivalent to maths. In early stages the practitioner/believer has to relate it to the physical world to make sense it, but as they get used to applying these concepts in practice they gradually get used to taking the concepts as they are, and in doing so they transcend the physical examples that they were based on.


guanshi.edyo
guanshi.edyo's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: For

deludedgod wrote:

For Christians, saying God is outside the causal structure of time would certainly be a death knell since their God is a mind-like entity, ie it has a mind, a mind entails thoughts and thoughts entail subsequence and causal structure and stimulus. We speak of such a being in Anthropomorphic terms, as if it were just a bigger version of us without a body. Barking mad. No causal structure entails nothing can be acted upon nor can the being without causal structure act upon anything else, for such a concept would presuppose the causal structure. (There are many other ways to phrase this argument, such as that the existence of God presupposes the mind being distinct from the body, which presupposes dualism, which presupposes epiphenominalism, which presupposes that mental events are causal dead ends, which means that no being can simply will the universe into being, as Christians would have believe). THis problem is superseded by the bigger problem of that even a dualistic mind (which has been refuted) still entails a causal structure in which and upon which it acts, otherwise it can do and is nothing:

I am just playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't we conceive of thoughts as non-linear and non-causal? Suppose we understand thoughts to be a manifestations of a certain level of information entropy, rather than linguistic or neurobiological constructs. It seems plausible to imagine information (or something like it) could exist in a multidimensional environment where time is simply another variable dimension, and causality as we understand it does not exist. Obviously a mind containing information like this rather than thoughts as we understand them would be nothing like our own. I'm sorry if the answer to this can be found in your links, but I can't follow them.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

, but couldn't we conceive of thoughts as non-linear and non-causal?

What does this mean? It sounds like you are commiting a moving the goalpost fallacy, unless you want to rework the term"thought" such that it has no relation to what we mean when we speak of it. Not only that, but the theistic God has very much Anthropomorphic thought, that iti, it is described in very much human terms, like a human mind. Theists speak of this virtually intuitively, God hearing prayers and acting upon them with human-like empathy and so on.

Quote:

Suppose we understand thoughts to be a manifestations of a certain level of information entropy,

But entropy depends on causal structure, that is upon structure, temporality. Entropy is time invariant. Furtheremore thoughts are a result of information entropy, at least at a physical information level, neurobiological constructs are higher-tiered structures which are specific class of computational systems. All such systems will fall under the laws of information entropy.

Quote:

t seems plausible to imagine information (or something like it) could exist in a multidimensional environment where time is simply another variable dimension,

But that's what I just said. Time is just another displaced dimension in the Relativistic Causal structure. See above. My explanation of the causal-chronological structure still entails the causal nature I described.

Quote:

Obviously a mind containing information like this rather than thoughts as we understand them would be nothing like our own

But you are relying on confusing and incoherent terms juxtaposed against very vague statements to cover very vague ideas. "Information entropy" has an exact meaning, a meaning you are not applying correctly. "Time-displacement" also has an exact meaning, a meaning I described above. The principle concern is that whatever you are describing is

(a) not thought

and (b) could not be process

and (c) still requires a temporal causal structure. Its nonsense to speak of one without it. You yourself referenced a temporal structure. In fact, you referenced the Relativistic causal structure, which is still a causal structure, and in fact, far from supporting this very vague mind-like idea without causal structure, eviscerates it, because those same mathematics dictate that space and time are two sides of the same coin, and hence such beings existing within their manifold must be phyiscal.

"Information entropy" is not a vague, ad hoc term that can be used to cover for vague, confusing propositions. Information entropy is the entropy associated discrete random variables in an encoded message. All encoding functions have information entropy associated with them. The simplest example of this is the uncertainty associated with a coin toss, which dictates a two-variable outcome system, that can be graphed as a measure of uncertainty hence disorder, like this:


 

That is to say, the probability associated with any random variable will be a function of the number of variables. This underlies a great deal of systems (including DNA replication, which depends on the correct base-pairing between four nucleotides, in which there are, 4^2 possibilities hence the graph will be a lot sharper (except that DNA replication is not random).

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with some sort of thinking entity without causal structure... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


guanshi.edyo
guanshi.edyo's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

, but couldn't we conceive of thoughts as non-linear and non-causal?

What does this mean? It sounds like you are commiting a moving the goalpost fallacy, unless you want to rework the term"thought" such that it has no relation to what we mean when we speak of it. Not only that, but the theistic God has very much Anthropomorphic thought, that iti, it is described in very much human terms, like a human mind. Theists speak of this virtually intuitively, God hearing prayers and acting upon them with human-like empathy and so on.

I am not a theist, and so I do not have a theistic perspective in mind. However, playing the devil's advocate, I believe a theist could make the argument that a thought-containing mind could exist outside our spacetime. The mind that I am describing would not be an anthropomorphic mind like our own, in the sense that it would not experience thoughts as we understand them in our spacetime. In that sense, I am redfining "thought," yes. If you object to using the word "thought," call it n-thought, where we imagine an ordered piece of information that operates in a higher dimension, not subject to the arrow of time. I don't think that proposing that an analogue of "thought" as we understand it is a useless argument.

Of course, this hypothetical mind does not represent the kind of anthropomorphic creature evoked by scriptural passages and other religious documents that speak of a God who answers prayers or feels empathy. But there are certainly non-Atheists who believe in a vaguer "higher power."

Quote:
Quote:

Suppose we understand thoughts to be a manifestations of a certain level of information entropy,

But entropy depends on causal structure, that is upon structure, temporality. Entropy is time invariant. Furtheremore thoughts are a result of information entropy, at least at a physical information level, neurobiological constructs are higher-tiered structures which are specific class of computational systems. All such systems will fall under the laws of information entropy.

Forgive me, but I am not certain what you mean by time invariant. I understand that entropy as understood by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics increases with time, and that this relationship is irresistable in the observable universe. I understand that information entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. My mathematics is weak and maybe I am imagining information entropy to be analogous to thermodynamic entropy when it is not.

If it is true that we can imagine information to be some kind of ordered system, as opposed to a disordered one, why would it be wrong to say that this order could exist independent of time?

Quote:
Quote:

It seems plausible to imagine information (or something like it) could exist in a multidimensional environment where time is simply another variable dimension,

But that's what I just said. Time is just another displaced dimension in the Relativistic Causal structure. See above. My explanation of the causal-chronological structure still entails the causal nature I described.

I understand that if information is purely causal, and if time is simply another dimension, the idea of information in a multidimensional landscape becomes problematic. But why does information depend on causality?

Quote:
Quote:

Obviously a mind containing information like this rather than thoughts as we understand them would be nothing like our own

But you are relying on confusing and incoherent terms juxtaposed against very vague statements to cover very vague ideas. "Information entropy" has an exact meaning, a meaning you are not applying correctly. "Time-displacement" also has an exact meaning, a meaning I described above. The principle concern is that whatever you are describing is

(a) not thought

and (b) could not be process

and (c) still requires a temporal causal structure. Its nonsense to speak of one without it. You yourself referenced a temporal structure. In fact, you referenced the Relativistic causal structure, which is still a causal structure, and in fact, far from supporting this very vague mind-like idea without causal structure, eviscerates it, because those same mathematics dictate that space and time are two sides of the same coin, and hence such beings existing within their manifold must be phyiscal.

"Information entropy" is not a vague, ad hoc term that can be used to cover for vague, confusing propositions. Information entropy is the entropy associated discrete random variables in an encoded message. All encoding functions have information entropy associated with them. ...

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with some sort of thinking entity without causal structure...

Perhaps it was a mistake to reference information entropy. But the above mathematics does not seem to be time-dependent. My intention was to make the argument that information, or at least some kind of analagous ordered system could exist independent of time.

I agree that what I am describing could not be considered a process in the sense that we understand it. But consider this possibility: couldn't we imagine other time-like dimensions in a multidimensional landscape? We observe 3 spatial dimensions, and one temporal dimension. String theory, while controversial, postulates the existence of multiple additional dimensions. We either can't observe them or they are very small in our universe.

Supposing some kind of brane cosmology, is it beyond imagination to suppose that our universe and its 4 observable dimensions are progressing along some additional temporal dimension? And if there is something like order and disorder in this landscape, couldn't we measure the change of the quantity of this order-analogue over the universe's progress along this additional temporal dimension? If a being existed in this landscape, it could have something like computational ability, but this ability would be relative to a dimension unknown to us.

Of course, that's a lot of ifs. But brane cosmology, while controversial, is a scientific theory. Postulating the existence of a cosmic entity is not a move I would make either. But if we are willing to take that step in order to examine whether it is self-contradictory, I don't think it is outside of the rules to allow its thought-analogue to be multidimensional.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I am not a theist,

Quote:

I am not a theist, and so I do not have a theistic perspective in mind.

Understood. But I must defend my thesis and so I shall repudiate objections in the same manner as if I was talking to one.

Quote:

I believe a theist could make the argument that a thought-containing mind could exist outside our spacetime.

Clarify. You said outside our spacetime. What does this mean? I presume you are referring to the causal manifold of the observable universe. If this is the case, you are commiting a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out that the theistic Anthropomorphic God had no structure of causality, it does not matter whether this structure exists in our universe or in another. However, what is quite certain as that unless such a being is part of this causal structure, it cannot have causal efficiacy on this universe, and so that would eviscerate a central tenet of theism, that God does have omnimax control over this universe by its causal structure. The theistic God described in this sense is very much anthropomorphic and very much requires a causal structure in which to act.

Quote:

. The mind that I am describing would not be an anthropomorphic mind like our own, in the sense that it would not experience thoughts as we understand them in our spacetime.

Then you would be commiting a moving the goalpost fallacy. You have not left any definition in its place. Your attribution is a linguistic negation, an ad hoc. In order to rescue it from an internal contradiction, you’ve rededfined “thought” and “mind” using negation operators, ie it is “not like ours” and “it would not experience thoughts as we understand them”. This is incoherent.

Quote:

that sense, I am redfining "thought," yes. If you object to using the word "thought," call it n-thought, where we imagine an ordered piece of information that operates in a higher dimension

This is gibberish.

Quote:

not subject to the arrow of time.

Time does not have an arrow. Not only that, but no causal manifold can exist without chrono-causal structure, regardless of how one twists it. Information by nature, in physics, requires entropy, and entropy, by definition, requires the above chrono-causal structure. This is axiomatic. You are trying to twist thermodynamics to allude to meaningless metaphors. But physics does not base itself on metaphors, it bases itself on equations.

Quote:

I don't think that proposing that an analogue of "thought" as we understand it is a useless argument.

Unless we define useless argument as “does not express any coherent propositions”. That would probably be a useless argument.

Quote:

Of course, this hypothetical mind does not represent the kind of anthropomorphic creature evoked by scriptural passages and other religious documents that speak of a God who answers prayers or feels empathy.

Of course. At least you see that classical theism cannot sustain itself in this regard.

Quote:

But there are certainly non-Atheists who believe in a vaguer "higher power."

Such allusions are useless as they add nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge.

Quote:

Forgive me, but I am not certain what you mean by time invariant

In physics, invariance means it is the same in both directions. Electromagnetism is invariant, for example. It is meaningless to speak of “anti-electromagnetism”. Gravity is not invariant. It only has one direction, a force of attraction. Entropy is time invariant since time is invariant, and so entropy can go in both directions, since time can go in both directions. It’s an irrelevant point since entropy a priori presupposes a temporal causal structure.

Quote:

understand that information entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable.

That’s because I just told you that.

Quote:

If it is true that we can imagine information to be some kind of ordered system, as opposed to a disordered one, why would it be wrong to say that this order could exist independent of time?

Because order and disorder are probability states that depend on heat flow in systems. Any equation in thermodynamics describing either (a) information and (b) entropy progression or disordering. Information entails something called Shannon entropy, as just described, regarding the transmission of data in any form (across neurons, through wires, whatever). Any concept in entropy mechanics will entail a causal manifold a priori. It is gibberish without it. The mathematical operators employed in this regard are affixed with delta, or “change of”. That is what thermodynamics is, in essence, a set of statistical functions describing  probability states, and such equations only work within the function of progression. No causal structure, no entropy mechanics, no information, no ordered system. The concept of creation of an “ordered system” entails that for S=klogW, or, more informally worded S=Rlog Pb/Pa, then PB will have a lower probability than PA. The most central concept of the second law is that change in entropy is heat flow over absolute temperature (K). Such requires time a priori.

Quote:

I understand that if information is purely causal, and if time is simply another dimension, the idea of information in a multidimensional landscape becomes problematic. But why does information depend on causality?

Because information entails that which distinguishes one functional system from another, and such requires time and space a priori. You are speaking in meaningless metaphors to allude to vague and incoherent concepts. Your propositions are useless without mathematics.

Quote:

But the above mathematics does not seem to be time-dependent. My intention was to make the argument that information, or at least some kind of analagous ordered system could exist independent of time.

But this is meaningless because information processing depends on temporality. Information entropy works upon the same principles of thermodynamics as does every single other equation in this system of physics: The transfer of heat between systems and the influence hence on the probability of ordered and disordered systems. That’s “transferred” in the sense that requires sequentiality of events. Without time, it is utter gibberish to speak of entropy or information, because there is no way for anything whatsoever to occur. The concepts of information presupposes entropy, and such concepts presuppose the existence of matter since they depend on the transfer of heat which is a measure of particle kinetics which requires particles which requires space which requires time. Verstehen sie mich? You are trying to use metaphors and confusing language to express propositions that mean nothing whatsoever.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Because

deludedgod wrote:

Because information entails that which distinguishes one functional system from another, and such requires time and space a priori. 

 

Quote:

But this is meaningless because information processing depends on temporality.

 

Information requires time? Space yes. You can't have information without some sort of variance in the properties of points in some space. But the information could be latent. If nothing observes the variance, it just "sits" there. As soon as observation happens (processing), then time is required.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: We are so

Strafio wrote:
We are so used to mathematical concepts that we can think in terms of them in themselves. Compare this to when we first learnt them - we were perhaps shown physical examples, like a picture of two coconuts to learn what 'two' meant. You could say that once you get to our level of mathematics, we've grasped the abstract concepts well enough to transcend the need for physical examples. Religion would be a practice/game equivalent to maths. In early stages the practitioner/believer has to relate it to the physical world to make sense it, but as they get used to applying these concepts in practice they gradually get used to taking the concepts as they are, and in doing so they transcend the physical examples that they were based on.

Hm. But the connection of the math concept the original two coconuts is still there, and could be reduced back down to that level. All that has happened is that we have created a kind of mental shorthand that allows us to do calculations with the number two without actually having to visualize two objects. I would liken this to a computer algorithm that compresses data by representing strings of similar data with one symbol. The data is still there, its just that the computer doesn't have to think about all of it in order to work. Stereotyping would be the communications jargon for it.

These are tricks with the representation of a concept. They do not affect the content of the concept or its fundamental connection to a valid object.

This is my problem with transcendence. There doesn't seem to be a connection to anything, rather it is used as an escape when simpler versions of the concept are ruled out. It's as if you said OK, here's a coconut and here's another coconut and that makes two coconuts. And I said, um, there's actually fourteen coconuts there that you are calling two. And you said look, you are way too focused on the coconuts, don't you see that the twoness of this group of coconuts is a transcendent property? So I'm left trying to figure out how fourteen coconuts can be two coconuts.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Information

Quote:

 

Information requires time? Space yes. You can't have information without some sort of variance in the properties of points in some space. But the information could be latent. If nothing observes the variance, it just "sits" there. As soon as observation happens (processing), then time is required.

Information depends on the existence of matter, which depends a priori on the existence of time. It is completely meaningless to speak otherwise. Furthermore, information depends on gradients, gradients depend on heat, heat depends on particles moving, which depends on a causal structure. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

 

Information requires time? Space yes. You can't have information without some sort of variance in the properties of points in some space. But the information could be latent. If nothing observes the variance, it just "sits" there. As soon as observation happens (processing), then time is required.

Information depends on the existence of matter, which depends a priori on the existence of time. It is completely meaningless to speak otherwise. Furthermore, information depends on gradients, gradients depend on heat, heat depends on particles moving, which depends on a causal structure.

 

Yeah. I guess you can't get to a gradient without change and a gradient can't appear fully formed. I'll shut up now.


guanshi.edyo
guanshi.edyo's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Clarify.

deludedgod wrote:

Clarify. You said outside our spacetime. What does this mean? I presume you are referring to the causal manifold of the observable universe. If this is the case, you are commiting a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out that the theistic Anthropomorphic God had no structure of causality, it does not matter whether this structure exists in our universe or in another. However, what is quite certain as that unless such a being is part of this causal structure, it cannot have causal efficiacy on this universe, and so that would eviscerate a central tenet of theism, that God does have omnimax control over this universe by its causal structure. The theistic God described in this sense is very much anthropomorphic and very much requires a causal structure in which to act.

You have not answered my hypothetical wherein an additional time-like dimension exists outside of our universe, which contains the causal structure of the actions of the entity we are talking about. I don't see why it is logically impossible that an entity existing outside this universe could affect the genesis of our universe, for example, in a collision of branes. The brane collision would occur as a progressive event over a dimension that is not time, but that operates analogously in a multidimensional landscape.

Quote:
Quote:
The mind that I am describing would not be an anthropomorphic mind like our own, in the sense that it would not experience thoughts as we understand them in our spacetime.

Then you would be commiting a moving the goalpost fallacy. You have not left any definition in its place. Your attribution is a linguistic negation, an ad hoc. In order to rescue it from an internal contradiction, you’ve rededfined “thought” and “mind” using negation operators, ie it is “not like ours” and “it would not experience thoughts as we understand them”. This is incoherent.

Those negative statements are not my only definitions of the hypothetical multidimensional mind. As I said, we are free to imagine a mind that contains something like thought as we understand them, but operating along a temporal dimension we are not normally referring to when we talk about "thoughts" because "thoughts" in our customary language occur in the universe that we observe. It is you who is guilty of a straw man here, by first saying "you must defend the existence of 'mind' as I define it," and then saying "you are moving the goalpost by defining 'mind' as something other than what we have defined it to mean." If a mind exists outside of our universe, then of course it will be unlike your mind or my mind. Perhaps this not the Christian view, but it certainly could be the basis for a Deistic view.

Quote:
Quote:

that sense, I am redfining "thought," yes. If you object to using the word "thought," call it n-thought, where we imagine an ordered piece of information that operates in a higher dimension

This is gibberish.

Why is it impossible to imagine order in additional dimensions? Are you saying that there can only be emptiness in a multidimensional landscape? Or are you saying that because physics does not have a theory which corresponds to the ordinary usages of "order" and "disorder" as we might use them to describe the features of a multidimensional landscape, that I am not allowed to use these terms? If we can imagine something existing other than nothing, it seems logically possible to characterize that something as either ordered or disordered. And if you object to these terms, how would you describe what I am referring to?

Quote:

Information by nature, in physics, requires entropy, and entropy, by definition, requires the above chrono-causal structure.

Suppose I somehow manage to stand in a universe which is not our own, and I send a message across the multiverse to you here in our universe. Haven't I transmitted information outside the causal structure of our universe? Or are you saying that this is something other than information which is being transmitted? Or are you saying that this is physically impossible? If so, on what grounds?

Quote:
Quote:

But there are certainly non-Atheists who believe in a vaguer "higher power."

Such allusions are useless as they add nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge.

I am sure you are aware that there are Deists, and other believers who protest that they do not in fact believe in an "old man in the sky," but that they are believers in a less definite God. My point is that if I am playing the anti-Atheist, I do not need to prove that all-powerful being, or a Christian God is logically possible. I am only trying to prove that the existence outside of time of some entity that we could recognize as having computational ability is not logically impossible.

Quote:
Quote:

If it is true that we can imagine information to be some kind of ordered system, as opposed to a disordered one, why would it be wrong to say that this order could exist independent of time?

Because order and disorder are probability states that depend on heat flow in systems.

The mathematics that describe entropy in our universe are not going to work in a multiverse. My point is that we can extend these concepts. You describe this as "metaphorical" but I am just not well versed in whatever mathematical language might be able describe what an "ordered" system at distance scales greater than that of the observable universe could look like. I am using "ordered" in an intuitive or literary sense. Again, if there are mathematical terms that correspond to what we mean when we say "order" in a literary sense that could apply to the non-homogenous nature of larger systems than the observable universe and its four dimensions, please let me know what they are.

Quote:
Quote:

But the above mathematics does not seem to be time-dependent. My intention was to make the argument that information, or at least some kind of analagous ordered system could exist independent of time.

But this is meaningless because information processing depends on temporality.

You have not responded to the idea that there could be information processing along an additional time-like dimension that exists in the multidimensional landscape but that we cannot observe within our universe.

Suppose we postulate that the ekpyrotic theory of the origin of the universe is true. Then the collision that occured between branes represents a progression, albeit not along the temporal dimension that we observe. Then a progression of some kind is logically possible outside of our observable universe.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

You have not answered my hypothetical wherein an additional time-like dimension exists outside of our universe, which contains the causal structure of the actions of the entity we are talking about.

That is because such a point would have nothing to do with my original point. The theistic God is supernatural and has no causal structure to speak of. Once we start discussing causal structures, any causal structures, in this universe or in another, we are discussing something wholly different, and you are changing the parameters of the argument.

Quote:

I don't see why it is logically impossible that an entity existing outside this universe could affect the genesis of our universe, for example, in a collision of branes. The brane collision would occur as a progressive event over a dimension that is not time, but that operates analogously in a multidimensional landscape.

This means nothing. In any multidimensional structure, which is any structure, the number of spatial dimensions D can vary, but the number of temporal dimensions T is one and always one, never anything else, nor can one exist without the other.

Quote:

If a mind exists outside of our universe, then of course it will be unlike your mind or my mind. Perhaps this not the Christian view, but it certainly could be the basis for a Deistic view.

Incorrect. Deism still entails a supernatural mind hence one without any sort of causally interacting substance under such a definition it would be naturalistic. Any mind that is within a causal structure such that it has thoughts is a natural mind a priori. To say otherwise is to change the parameters of the debate. Theism claims that an entity can have a mind despite existing outside any (not necessarily our) temporal and causal/structural/spatial manifold. This is gibberish.

Quote:

Why is it impossible to imagine order in additional dimensions?

The second you begin speaking of dimensions you begin to speak of structure and you are hence speaking of naturalism, and so you are changing the paramaters of the debate. The theistic God is supernatural. No structure, substance, or anything.

One cannot apply the concept of “order” to such a thing. Order is a thermodynamics function that measures the ability of any system to extract usable work from thermal flow, or rather (partial)dS/T=S, such that S=kLogW in any system where –dS must be less than T(d)S.

Quote:

If we can imagine something existing other than nothing, it seems logically possible to characterize that something as either ordered or disordered

Once those terms are employed it follows a priori we are referring to physical substance and the associated structure, and hence we cannot be speaking of the theistic, supernatuarla God. The concepts are thermodynamics concepts and they directly and logically follow from the existence of said structure. If it cannot be described mathematically, it is not thermodynamics! You are using phrases like “order” “disorder” and “multidimensional landscape”. Your use of the latter is especially vague. This is physics. Speak in equations, or not at all. We live in a multidimensional landscape, with three spatial and one temporal, and so we are beings with structured physical existence and chrono-causal structure provided by said manifold and hence we are able to have coherent thoughts.

Quote:

Suppose I somehow manage to stand in a universe which is not our own, and I send a message across the multiverse to you here in our universe.

It is very debatable that would work. Universes are connected via white holes. It does not appear information cannot be directly transmitted across white holes. It gets destroyed inside. This is paradoxical, admittadly, but it appears to be true.

Not that it matters, because this has nothing to do with our debate. Remember? The theistic claim is that the theistic God is able to be a mind with no causal structure, no manifold of existence, whatsoever, it is not temporal. You are veering into a completely different topic- theoretical physics. My propositions is not theoretical, it is true a priori! The concept of a mind with thoughts presupposes some sort of causal manifold. Without such, it would be no more sensible to speak of coherent thoughts than it would be to speak of electromagnetism without magnetism. Nor can you appeal to the vague allusion to “different sort of mind”. A mind by analytical virtue of definition entails a being which receives stimulus from an external world and so can act upon it based on a mental framework which is determined by sensory input. Such structure a priori requires causal structure, and the theistic God is supposedly existing without any time and space at all, a nothing being in the void, with no body or substance, in which case, in what coherent sense whatsoever is it to speak of it as a defined being with a mind? Such a problem is not merely a glitch, it is insurmountable.

You are now describing information, and information is simply a fiunctional measure, in physics, of states, where information entropy is the uncertainty associated with transmission of messages, and applies more to communications theory, but the point is that, information in physics has a precisely defined relationship to ordered states (that is microstates which are ordered), because order is simply a measure of functional ability to do useful work, where ordered states represent, therefore, conjugate variable differences in pressure, tempreature, entropy and volume (these are the conjugate variables of thermodynamics). Once you even start using the word "information" you are essentially speaking about an exact concept in thermodynamics physics, and so, whatever you are talking about (I honestly have no idea, I need the math.) it is not the theistic, supernatural God. Such thermodynamics functions entail a priori both spatial and temporal dimensions since it is a measure of change which kinda requires time and is a measure of physical systems which requires space. I cannot make this any simpler, but if you wish I can make it a great deal more complicated.

Quote:

I am only trying to prove that the existence outside of time of some entity that we could recognize as having computational ability is not logically impossible.

You did no such thing. You redefined time as our temporal structure within our visible universe, in which case you labored under the delusion that if there were a Multiverse, I would not recognize temporal structure within that universe as temporal structure. Temporal structure is temporal structure. Once you say things like “God exists in a different universe” you are suggesting the entity has physical composition, a body, substance, and so you are changing the parameters of the debate and shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote:

The mathematics that describe entropy in our universe are not going to work in a multiverse.

That is false. IN a multiverse, the different universes connected by white holes may have different physical constants. That is what differs them. The six constants which are the most fundamental which determine the others are D the number of spatial dimensions, Lambda, the Vacuum energy, Epsilon, the fusion ratio, N, the field ratio between gravity and electromagnetic field strength, Omega, the critical density and Q, the

These constants, being different in different universes, will affect the laws of physics (in a universe with more spatial dimensions, there would be more exponents in the Inverse field Laws, for example). However, the laws of thermodynamics will always hold in any system, regardless of the physical constants, because they are a logical consequence of any system with any physical matter in it with any number of spatial dimensions D and Time dimensions T (T is not free to vary. Always 1). The laws of thermodynamics will always follow from the existence of physical systems. Without them, physical csystems could not exist. It is gibberish to speak of physical systems without thermodynamics.

Quote:

am using "ordered" in an intuitive or literary sense.

Which is useless. No math, no physics, no nothing.

Quote:

You have not responded to the idea that there could be information processing along an additional time-like dimension that exists in the multidimensional landscape but that we cannot observe within our universe.

This undoubtedly has something to do with the point that your ideas are

A) Nothing to do with my point about the theistic God

B) Incomprehensible. Seriously. I have no idea what you are talking about. And it is not a training problem, either. I need the math. You are trying to disucss theoretical and information physics. Such ideas are useless in metaphor and prose. No math, no nothing. This discussion has now veered away from the theistic God, but the terms you are using are equally vague and confusing. If you wish to express them, come to me with the math, or don’t come back at all. I will not be able to understand you unless you put it in equations.

EDIT: Lastly, I think I should clarify my use of time invariance for entropy. Time invariance is normally associated with control systems theory. In physics, however, invariance is typically used to mean "the same in both directions", like electromagnetism. Time is invariant, but entropy is unusual because unlike most physical qualities, which would look exactly the same run backwards and forwards, entropy only goes in one direction, from low to high probability states, however, since time can go in both directions, so can entropy, strictly speaking.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: Warning I’m

carx wrote:
 Warning I’m not a native English speaker.  
 
Well I’d like to explain to the Christians the concept of existing out side of time , you see if something exists out side of time then it doesn’t exist at all.

 
So, the universe came from nothing? You said nothing can exist outside of time. If that is the case, then absolutely nothing existed before the Big Bang because the BB is by definition the actual beginning of time.  You are on the horns of a real dillemma here. Something cannot come from no-thing. No-thing, according to you, can exist outside of time. Ergo, the universe came from nothing. This is a scientific impossibility.
 
Second, if nothing can exist outside of time, then there can be no parallel universes, let alone infinite universes. And you are yet to deal with the ultimate questions of the origins and the origin of time itself.
 
Third, what's your proof nothing can exist outside of time? Where is your empiracle data? Were you there outside of time observing that nothing can exist outside of time? But this is impossible because according to you no-thing can exist outside of time. So you wouldn't be able to exist in order to even validate your presuppisition that nothing exists outside of time.
 
Fourth, metaphysicians have noted that there are two things that CAN exist outside time. Namely:
 
MIND
 
and
 
ABSTRACT CONCEPTS (such as numbers). But numbers do not stand in causal relationship to each other.
 
Ergo, the only possible, plausable, reasonable, rational and logical conclusion here, is that MIND existed and produced this thing we call the time-space manifold. And atheism is proven to be irrational.  
 
carx wrote:
Well something can’t exist OUT side of time ! Something can exist in a different time or a different timeline however it can’t exist out side of time (any type of time ).

 
Again, since you wouldn't be able to exist outside of time to see if anything can exist outside of time, you have no way of knowing this. Your argument is not scientific at all. It is total and complete blind faith.
 
carx wrote:
Lets make a analogy every human , atom , existing thing interacts the BIG question is what is interaction ? Interaction is the ability (or the forced mechanism on us) to change in time if something exists out side of time then it can’t change in any aspect.

 
I agree with that. God is by definition immutable.  He doesn't change.
 
carx wrote:
A ball can role just because before that a force hit it and the movement is only a interactive change in time. If a being exists out side of time it can as well  exist out side of existence (Don’t exist at all).

 
The fallacy here is that you are assuming that all existance must be finite. I agree a finite being cannot exist outside time. But God is not finite so your point is irrelevant.  
 
carx wrote:
A god or a being out side of time cant respond to prayers , interact with us or have any conscious or plans for that matcher. A nice example is a data block on a hard drive (lets say a .jpg file ) its all ways the same and it doesn’t change however such a block can’t interact with any thing !   A program however interacts and changes to the impute if a program is giving a response or a question box that program is changing (by creating or interacting) with parts of itself. If such a block of data is to change its susceptible to time change.

 
No, a FINITE being cannot exist outside the universe and answer prayers. But God is not finite. Your argument is a type of straw man because we do not maintain the existance of a finite God.  
 
carx wrote:
Therefore the Christian synonym for “super magic” (existence out side of time ) disproves god  making him more a abstract data that cant interact or create any thing at all.

 
All of your arguments are uttely void because you have equivocated on the meaning of God.  I agree a finite being cannot exist outside time. But God is infinite so your arguments have no validity. And since your analogies are the product of a time-space (finite) universe, they only apply to this time-space (finite) universe. They are by their very definition temporal analagies that don't even apply to realities outside time itself.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

So, the universe came from nothing?

False dichotomy. Furthermore, nothing in modern physics supports the idea that matter and energy were created. Nothing. In fact, conservation is the most established law in physics. The proposition of ex nihilo creation, whether this creation sprung forth from God or from something else, is absurd. 

Quote:

You said nothing can exist outside of time. If that is the case, then absolutely nothing existed before the Big Bang because the BB is by definition the actual beginning of time.

Incorrect again. The laws of general relativity break down at the Big Bang, but the BB itself was a transition event fro low to high entropy, not a creation event.

Quote:

Something cannot come from no-thing. No-thing, according to you, can exist outside of time. Ergo, the universe came from nothing. This is a scientific impossibility.

As I said, nothing whatsoever supports ex nihilo. The BB does not describe the creation of the universe. You are simply ignorant and projecting this ignorance.

Quote:

Second, if nothing can exist outside of time, then there can be no parallel universes, let alone infinite universes. And you are yet to deal with the ultimate questions of the origins and the origin of time itself.

This claim is simply a non sequitur. In any multiverse setting, all universes are described by a causal structure. This is true by virtue of its meaning, for space-time is the construct by which we define the boundaries of a universe, provided, at least in Multiverse theory that they are connected by white holes.

Quote:

Third, what's your proof nothing can exist outside of time?

It's true a priori:

(A) God is causal agent (causing the universe)

(B) Cause a priori requires time

(C) A Causal agent cannot exist outside time

QED

Quote:

MIND

Nonsense. Descartes ontological division has long since been split asunder by modern neuroscience. Furtheremore, the concept of the mind existing outside time is incoherent nonsense, since mental events depend on a causal structure being that they are described by temporal sequentiality.

Quote:

ABSTRACT CONCEPTS (such as numbers). But numbers do not stand in causal relationship to each other.

This has since gone out of popularity with philosophers. The concept of the third realm is no longer considered a proper philosophical hypothesis. It is now more accepted that abstracts entail the functional set.

You obviously haven't kept up this, and are simply ignorant.

Quote:

Ergo, the only possible, plausable, reasonable, rational and logical conclusion here, is that MIND existed and produced this thing we call the time-space manifold. And atheism is proven to be irrational.

This claim is nonsense.

(a) Nothing in modern physics supports the conclusion that anything was created! The Big Bang does not describe it

(b) You are shooting yourself in the foot. Mental events entail causal structure. You are appealing to old, naive views that are no longer taken seriously. You are then appealing to

(a) the concept of a mind creating

and (b) the concept of an infinte being

These stand in internal contradiction. By virtue of the meaning of what is under discussion, the concept of an entity with a mind entails by nature an entity, and such that it cannot be described as infinite, for then in no sense would be it be an ontological thing. Finally, your dualistic view, which has been shot to pieces, still entails a causal structure. Even Descartes would admit that! That is why it was commonly defended by epiphenominalism, yet such causal structure explictly dictates that mental events are causal dead ends. If they weren't, there would not be any ontological distinction between the mind and the brain, your absurdity would collapse! But if that were the case, then such an entity could not cause anything.

Need I remind you your argument still entails a contradiction again, for you are still describing a causal agent, which a priori requires time! Your proposition is nonsense. You may as well just admit that your argument is based on the false premise that the universe was created and admit you were too ignorant of physics to know any better.

Quote:

I agree with that. God is by definition immutable. He doesn't change.

Then it cannot be a causal agent by definition, or cannot have a mind, since a mind entails thoughts and thoughts entail mental causality and change, which in turn requires temporality. You've refuted yourself. Well done.

Quote:

The fallacy here is that you are assuming that all existance must be finite. I agree a finite being cannot exist outside time. But God is not finite so your point is irrelevant.

You've

(A) postulated an incoherency. The concept of an actual infinite being is meaningless. A being by virtue of its meaning entails an entity, describable as a seperate thing, and so cannot be an actual infinite. It's meaningless being that a seperate thing describes something such that it cannot be an actual infinite, for if it were, any distinction between this actual infinite and the world would be meaningless, and so the suggestion of God being "outside time" would be meaningless, being that such operators indicate God is a "discrete entity" so that it can be spoken of it being seperate from other things. If it were an actual infinite, such a distinction would be no more meaningful than speaking of an infinitely large piece of fruit. 

(B) Contradicted yourself. You've suggested the thing was a mind. THe concept of a mind being an actual infinity does not carry any meaning behind the syntax. You are postulating a vague, ad hoc incoherency.

and

(C) Special pleading.

Quote:

No, a FINITE being cannot exist outside the universe and answer prayers. But God is not finite. Your argument is a type of straw man because we do not maintain the existance of a finite God.

This is simply a repeat of the same incoherency.

Quote:

But God is infinite so your arguments have no validity.

Special pleading does not fix an argument. Nor does using incoherent propositions.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: False

deludedgod wrote:

False dichotomy. Furthermore, nothing in modern physics supports the idea that matter and energy were created. Nothing. In fact, conservation is the most established law in physics. The proposition of ex nihilo creation, whether this creation sprung forth from God or from something else, is absurd. 

I don't know if you are intentionally lying or just plain ignorant, but the Big Bang theory, which is universally held by most cosmologists today, states that the the Big Bang is the actual staring point of ALL matter and energy. Conservation only applies within, not without, the universe. And it is more absurd to postulate an hypothesis which tells us absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing. That intelligence came from non-intelligence, being from non-being. This would be the very definition of a miracle -- which incidently proves the existance of God. So however and which way the atheists tries to slice it, they are inadvertently supporting the God concept.

deludedgod wrote:
Incorrect again. The laws of general relativity break down at the Big Bang, but the BB itself was a transition event fro low to high entropy, not a creation event. 

The BB is by definition the starting point of all things. There can be no transition event if there is nothing to transition from and to. You have left science at this point and invoked speculation. And you have yet to deal with the fundemental question of where and how it all came from in the first place.

deludedgod wrote:
  As I said, nothing whatsoever supports ex nihilo. The BB does not describe the creation of the universe. You are simply ignorant and projecting this ignorance.

The BB itself supports ex nihilo. And you are clearly not up on current BB science. The BB affirms the beginning of time, space and all matter. You are either ignorant of this or intentionally lying. It is difficult to tell. And even if the universe was eternal, which it isn't, you have yet to address the questions of WHY any of it exists in the first place and WHERE any of it came from.

deludedgod wrote:
This claim is simply a non sequitur. In any multiverse setting, all universes are described by a causal structure. This is true by virtue of its meaning, for space-time is the construct by which we define the boundaries of a universe, provided, at least in Multiverse theory that they are connected by white holes.

The only problem with that is that there is no physical evidence of multi-universes, and it is impossible to have an infinite series of times, universes or events. Infinity does not exist in reality, it is merely a mental conception. You are not being scientific. You are invoking faith at this point.

deludedgod wrote:
It's true a priori:

(A) God is causal agent (causing the universe)

(B) Cause a priori requires time

 

No, only a finite cause would require time. This is why I mentioned his equivocation. He is redefining the concept of God. I would agree with him if God was finite, but He isn't. God does not opperate in time. He produced time.

deludedgod wrote:
(C) A Causal agent cannot exist outside time

QED

That is the unsupported hypothesis I spoke of earlier. The only way for him or anyone to know such a thing, would require they transcend time, look behind the curtain, and observe what actually takes place outside time. In addition, if something cannot exist outside time, then there can be no multi- or parallel universes working in time because the BB causes time.

deludedgod wrote:
  Nonsense. Descartes ontological division has long since been split asunder by modern neuroscience. Furtheremore, the concept of the mind existing outside time is incoherent nonsense, since mental events depend on a causal structure being that they are described by temporal sequentiality.

I didn't say anything about Decartes. The fact that only mind and abstract concepts can exist outside time-space, is the universal consensus of metaphysicians. And your claim that mental events depend on a causal structure ,is not proven. Temporal sequentiality is only what we observe, not what exists in reality.

deludedgod wrote:
This has since gone out of popularity with philosophers. The concept of the third realm is no longer considered a proper philosophical hypothesis. It is now more accepted that abstracts entail the functional set.

It hasn't gone anywhere. You are not a philosopher so I wouldn't expect you to be abreast in these areas.

 

deludedgod wrote:
This claim is nonsense.

 

It's always funny to me when evolutionary atheists who suffer from undeveloped brains which are allegedly still evolving, make objective and universal value judgements. How can a still-evolving brain, with still evolving logic, know anything with certainty?

deludedgod wrote:
(a) Nothing in modern physics supports the conclusion that anything was created! The Big Bang does not describe it

 

The BB does not have to descibe anything for us to know it had a cause. Something cannot come from nothing. Moreoever, the universe demonstrates intelligence. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. God is more logical because the universe

 

1. Began

 

2. Demonstrates intelligence.

 

There is no reason to believe in another cause, becaue there is no evidence of anykind of other cause.

deludedgod wrote:
(b) You are shooting yourself in the foot. Mental events entail causal structure.

 

Precisely, an affect requires an antecedent cause. Mind cannot come from non-mind. Anyone with half a mind knows this.

 

deludedgod wrote:
You are appealing to old, naive views that are no longer taken seriously. You are then appealing to

 

It's still taken seriously by the most eminent philosophers and metaphysicians in the world.

deludedgod wrote:
(a) the concept of a mind creating

and (b) the concept of an infinte being

These stand in internal contradiction.

 

Why?

deludedgod wrote:
  By virtue of the meaning of what is under discussion, the concept of an entity with a mind entails by nature an entity, and such that it cannot be described as infinite,

 

Why? What is your proof an entity cannot be infinite? You are not being scientific here at all, and I'm very disappointed. You have produced nothing but a series of assertions.

 

deludedgod wrote:
  for then in no sense would be it be an ontological thing.

I'm sorry that is totally unsupported and does not logically follow at all.

 

deludedgod wrote:
  Finally, your dualistic view, which has been shot to pieces, still entails a causal structure.

 

God is the causal structure. There's no problem here at all. Although you want to give the impression there is.

 

deludedgod wrote:
  Even Descartes would admit that! That is why it was commonly defended by epiphenominalism, yet such causal structure explictly dictates that mental events are causal dead ends.

 

Yes, mental events are causal. and God is the antecendent pre-causal agent of all mental events. He is the very precondition of all minds.

deludedgod wrote:
  Need I remind you your argument still entails a contradiction again, for you are still describing a causal agent, which a priori requires time!

 

You are confused. Only finite causes require time. God is not finite so your point is irrelevant. You are commiting the same equivocational fallacy as the author of this thread. Your premises are false, so logically your conclusions are false.

 

deludedgod wrote:
Then it cannot be a causal agent by definition, or cannot have a mind, since a mind entails thoughts and thoughts entail mental causality and change, which in turn requires temporality. You've refuted yourself. Well done.

You need to take a good course in introductory logic and philosphy. Mind and/or thoughts do not require temporality. That is a TOTALLY unproven assertion on your part. An infinite being does not think. An infinite being KNOWS. Your arguments would only apply to a finite being.

You've

(A) postulated an incoherency. The concept of an actual infinite being is meaningless.

 

The concept of multi-universes is more meaningless. If God exists, which I have established doe, He becomes VERY meaningful.

 

deludedgod wrote:
  A being by virtue of its meaning entails an entity describable as a seperate thing, and so cannot be an actual infinite.

According to that logic there can be no infinite parallel universes because they would by definition entail being separate things. If there are no infinite universes, then they require a cause. And your conclusion does not even follow from its premise. You have no proof am entity cannot be infinite.

 

deludedgod wrote:
  It's meaningless being that a seperate thing describes something such that it cannot be an actual infinite, for if it were, any distinction between this actual infinite and the world would be meaningless, and so the suggestion of God being "outside time" would be meaningless, being that such operators indicate God is a "discrete entity" so that it can be spoken of it being seperate from other things. If it were an actual infinite, such a distinction would be no more meaningful than speaking of an infinitely large piece of fruit. 

 

I would only have no meaning if it were't true. If it is true, then it means everything.

deludedgod wrote:

(B) Contradicted yourself. You've suggested the thing was a mind. THe concept of a mind being an actual infinity does not carry any meaning behind the syntax. You are postulating a vague, ad hoc incoherency.

 

Why do you assume it has to require meaning to be true? You are postulating the absurd in that you are claiming being and consciousness came from non-being and non-consciousness. Thats a greater miracle then the resurrection of Christ!

 

 

You didn't prove or refute anything.

 

I still want to know:

 

1. Where everything came from.

 

2. How everything came to be.

 

3. Why everything came to be.

 

4. What physical and scientific evidence there is for multi-universes and why and where these multi-universes came from. Good luck looking for evidence. You're not going to find any.

 

You have done nothing here but invoke faith and make silly assertions. You have left science at this point.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
 I almost forgot to say

 I almost forgot to say that Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, calculated the odds of the universe even existing, is 1 out of 10 billion to the 120th power.

Robert Jastrow, who you are probably familiar with, called this the most powerful argument for the existance of God ever to come out of science.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

 

Quote:

I don't know if you are intentionally lying or just plain ignorant, but the Big Bang theory, which is universally held by most cosmologists today, states that the the Big Bang is the actual staring point of ALL matter and energy.

I am neither lying nor ignorant. As luck would have it I took physics alongside biology. The Big Bang describes a transition from enormous density and pressure from an initial low entropy state to a later higher entropy state. It does not describe creation. In no way whatsoever. At all. That was a myth made by apologists. At this point I suspect you were not lying when you suggested it was ex nihilo. You are simply ignorant. That you would accuse me of this is astonishing.

The Big Bang does not contradict the laws of either conservation or thermodynamics. It aligns with them. Your assertion regarding the Big Bang is absurd. If the BB did describe such things, it would lead to an internal contradiction which would lead to a paradigm shift within physics, much the same way that the contradiction between Newtonian Kinematics and Electromagnetism lead to Relativity. It hasn’t, because there is no contradiction!

Since this thread has now degenerated into me teaching you about something regarding which you don’t know what you are talking about, allow me to educate you about the Big Bang:

The Big Bang is derived from three primary sources:

-The Hubble Metric

-The Einstein Field Equations

-The Cosmic Background Radiation

The first is quite simple. The universe is expanding. That is to say the space-time is expanding, and so the matter within. This tumbles neatly out of the Lorentz transforms and the Einstein field equations. Einstein originally inserted an ad hoc constant which took this form:

R(uv)=-0.5Rg(uv)+ 8pi(pvac)(g)(uv)=8pi)G)/c^4)T(uv)

Where G is the gravitational constant

Pvac is the density function in the vacuum (empty space) where R is the function of topology of the space-time metric, as is g,

The universe is expanding. This means that all cosmological bodies are moving away from each other. As a result of this recessional velocity, the wavelengths as observed from other bodies from which the ones being measured are receding from will shift, and become greater. Hubble’s Law states that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance

 

At small distances, the acceleration of the universe is cancelled out by gravity (Newton’s inverse square law), which means that they will be moving towards each other. As a result, observers of these bodies should see blueshift, which is the opposite of redshift. Since the body is moving closer to the observer, the wavelength will compress, not expand. However, for the purpose of this exercise, this is immaterial, since we will not be looking at short distance cosmology.

 

Omega: That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda (λ). This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. In cosmology it has another meaning. At any rate, Newton’s equations, which work perfectly until they disintegrate at the quantum level, dictate that all material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, However, surely this means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick? No. The reason for this is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, there is a fight between Dark Energy and matter, and the density of matter over the universe will determine its ultimate fate.

 



Now, if Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.

 

We have discovered by means of measuring the redshift of supernovae, that none of these things are happening. The universe is not constantly expanding, decelerating, or contracting. In fact, it is accelerating in expansion, which is given by the dotted line on the graph marked accelerating.

 

The Metric Expansion of Space: this is the most accurate and current model of the universe to date. The expansion of space-time overpowers gravity and hence accelerates in expansion. We can determine the rate at which space-time accelerates using Hubble’s constant. Then, by extrapolating backwards, we can determine the precise time at which the universe began to expand, in other words, if we have the value of acceleration of the universe, we can work backwards and determine the moment of expansion on that graph, when the distance between all material beings was negligible, in other words, we can work out when the Big Bang occurred.

 

Cosmological Redshift: There are many different types of redshift. There is the Relativistic Doppler Effect, where redshift is caused by the relative velocity of two bodies from each other (this is the effect of Special Relativity), there is gravitational redshift, caused by the distortion of space time by material bodies, but these do not matter at cosmological distances. What we need to look at is cosmological redshift, that is, the redshift caused by the expansion of space-time, this is the only form of redshift which has measurable consequences at cosmological distances.

 

When we examine distant galaxies, we discover they are moving away from us at a calculable rate. Based on the distance they are from us, the wavelength of light from them which we are observing also changes by a calculable amount. The recessional velocity (the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us), the distance which galaxies are from us, the redshift, or change in wavelength as a result of this recession and distance, and lastly, the acceleration or the rate at which the velocity is increasing, are all linked by several simple equations, and from this we can easily determine the age of the universe, or rather, how long ago the point was that there was no distance between the two receding bodies, the moment of the Big Bang. Firstly,

 

v=HD

 

This is the simplest equation we must understand. The recessional velocity (the speed at which a body is moving from Earth) is directly proportional to the distance it is from us. What connects them is Hubble’s constant, which is exactly what we need to find out.

 

Now, what I am doing is unusual. It is perfectly accurate to determine the age of the universe using redshift and Hubble’s constant. But most cosmologists prefer the Friedman-Lemaitaire-Walker Metric, derived from Freidmann’s equations. However, these are mathematically vastly more complex than the simple equations which we are about to use (and they in turn are derived from Einstein’ solutions to general relativity, which are also very complex).

 

Anyway, v=HD can be rearranged to find Hubble’s constant based on the recessional velocity and distance of an observed galaxy, where we have: H=(v/D).

 

Also, the recessional velocity with respect to time (ie the time between the intervals measured) can be given by differentiation: dD/dT.

 

Hubble’s constant, the acceleration of the universe, is given in km/s/Mpc, as is v.

 

The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift.

 

This means that I have to use the scale factor of the LRMW metric in order to derive an accurate result. We can calculate the distance to galaxies using Cepheid variables. We can calculate their recessional velocity using the amount by which the light has shifted. The problem is that the measurements the Cepheids give us will not account for the present position of the galaxy since the light from the Cepheids set out to Earth many millions of years ago for distant galaxies. However, if Hubble’s Law holds, this does not matter, because the acceleration of the universe is expressed as a constant, and we should still be able to use this data to extrapolate back into the Big Bang.

 

Now, for cosmological redshift, the formula given is:

 

1+z= (anow/athen).

 

a is the universe scale factor. The physical distance between commoving objects is given by L=λa(t), which is rearranged to give a(t)= L/λ

 

This can be expressed via Hubble’s Law (distance proportional to redshift) using this formula:

 

H=a2(t)/a1(t), where t is the time derivative of the equation

 

We are beginning to see how the expansion of the universe, redshift, wavelength, the distance and recessional velocities of galaxies and the time taken for this to occur all tie together and all converge to give us the age of the universe. a or the scale factor is a simple ratio of wavelength emitted: wavelength received, which allows us to account for the change over large times. If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.

 

We will be examining standard candles later, ie Cepheid variables, but the best way to determine the absolute magnitude of an object, the very best standard candles are Type Ia supernovae. It was using observations from these from the Chiandri telescope that we first realized the universe is accelerating. The output of light from a Type 1a is always the same, and so we can use it to determine absolute magnitude and distance, and by taking pictures over several days and weeks of massive type 1a supernovae, we realized first that the universe is accelerating.

 

Recall that redshift is just received λ /emitted λ. This ratio is called z. Multiplying z by light speed gives us distance, however this is not as accurate as the directly proportional relationship of distance given by Hubble’s constant.

 

Really, I ought to be calculating the age of the universe using the Friedmann equations, and the integration of H with the three Omega constants. I can do this, but it is ridiculously complex, and there is no need to put it in this paper. Once we have H, we can determine age as a function of acceleration of the universe, but we do not need to do that either, we can just extrapolate backwards once we have distance and acceleration, it is H that we are looking for

 

Hubble’s constant is hotly debated, but based on the present data, the COBE estimates place it around 71km/s/Mpc. Note that we determined this by observing Type 1a supernovae using exactly the simple formula I outlined after calculating the redshift:

 

v=HD, 1+z=(anow/athen), zc=Ho, and a(t)= L/λ, and H=a2(t)/a1(t). There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.

 

We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:

 

Q=-H^-2((dH/dt)+H^2)

 

Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.

 

It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.

 

Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:

 

1 Light Second= 300,000km, one light year=3x10^5 x 60 x 60x 24 x 365=9.5x10^12km

 

The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:

 

1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.

 

However, this function is only a rough estimate of the age of the universe, since H is not actually constant. However, this is not really any sort of concern regarding the scale of the length of time. A significantly lower H constant yields a higher value of 16 billion, while a much higher H constant of 90 (50-90 are generally considered as the lower and upper bounds on the constant), then we derive 9 billion.

 

The final thing to consider is that The Big Bang theory dictates that the universe expanded outwards from an immensely and uniformly hot and extremely dense point which expanded outwards in accordance with thermodynamics, this means that as the spatiotemporal fabric expanded, the universe and its matter cooled greatly, very quickly in fact. The average temperature in the universe is 2.7K, which is -270 C. Since the universe is homogenous, what we should see is an afterglow, a faint radiative microwave background that dates back to the Big Bang (recall what I said about light showing us the past), the fluctuations of which became everything we see around us.

 

The cosmic background radiation is the most distant and old thing that humans have ever observed. The universe was initially opaque but as it cooled and spread out, it became black roughly 380,000 years After The Big Bang. The microwave background, in other words, is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just moments after the original expansion, and a COBE photograph of it was taken by spectroscopes and microwave radiation probes by a device called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

None of these support the idea, in any way, shape, or form, that BB describes anything other than a phase transition. None whatsoever. Your ideas and understanding are completely flawed. All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

The laws of General Relativity break down as you approach the prior entropy state, until Planck Time. According to BB theory, nothing can be known about the pre-Planck Time existence, all we know is that the universe expanded outwards from some prior very low entropy state when presumably the symmetry in the four disngaged forces were unified. There was no matter, it would have been too excited and broken down, due to Planck's Constant. This system was extremely unstable and collapsed into our present system. Remember, when one intuitively speak of "time" you are speaking of time as a progression. I am referring to the Lorentz Manifold, the causal structure. This applies to Minkowski and Non-Minkowski space. So, it is unhelpful to say that time "did not exist" before BB.

In this regard, it is necessary to consider time, being that we are describing, after all the expansion of space-time, not as a "river" that flows in one direction, but as invariant, as demonstrated in Physics.

According to the Lorentz Matrices, time, strictly speaking, is invariant, it has no direction and there is no reason it should. This is demonstrated by the light-cone experiments, which can be causal-chronological or chronological-causal. Time is not a thing unto itself, being relative to the observer, but absolute space-time is. The concept of time as we understand it is quite simple to begin with. In a 2D Euclidean manifold, with two vectors, the square of the displacement of a body will be equal to the squares of the sum of the vectors. This is Pythagoras' theorom: x^2+y^2=h^2. This can be extended to incorporate a Z axis: x^2+y^2+z^2=h^2.

Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold, than (and this fit perfectly into the contradiction Einstein found between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean Transformations), time could be included as being displaced as well, along a 4D manifold called Minkowski space. In this scenario, time simply becomes another unit of measurment, the same of length, width and breadth, which can be displaced. THe equation derived for this simply follows the same rule of transformation: x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=h^2. This works tidily since c is constant in all frames of reference, although it needs some righting since it is unhelpful to vector something to an imaginary number, i which is formally r(-1), and since squared, becomes: x&2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=h^2. In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways. Nonetheless, it is gibberish to speak of causality without the manifold (no values can be inserted into the equations).

The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature. According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy. This is described by the mass-energy equivalence, or E=mc^2. As for the energy in question which formed matter by this equation, that was most certainly not generated in the process. It was a necessary antecedant for the phase transition called the Big Bang. The phase transition itself, or BB, is the result of the decay that is dictated by that the original state was of lower entropy than at present. Although we are unsure precisely how the original state collapsed, there are at least 100 competing proposals, and time will tell which is correct.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

Did you get all that? You better have because I am not to repeat it. Your ideas of BB are wrong. You are simply ignorant and decided to engage in a debate despite your ignorance. Your entire argument is therefore ignorant since your premise is false. You are wrong. Plain and simple. You have applied a common misconception about Cosmology. You should debate that which you have not studied beyond popular science. It will simply make you look embarassing.

So, you see? I do know about Big Bang. I know not merely about it, but also how it was derived. I do not think you are in a position to call anyone else ignorant given that your own education in these matters could not possibly extend beyond high school. If it did, you wouldn't be making these arguments!

For further review of common Cosmological Misconceptions:

Common cosmological misconceptions.

Given your misunderstanding, you've all but certainly erred by referencing Christian apologetics websites, which generally speaking, are not versed in Big Bang cosmology, and therefore should not be taken seriously. The misunderstanding that BB describes ex nihilo creation which violates the most fundamental laws of physics is surely the greatest error ever propogated in popular science, perhaps superseded only by the idiotic claim that DNA is a language.

 

 

Quote:

. Conservation only applies within, not without, the universe. And it is more absurd to postulate an hypothesis which tells us absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing.

And the BB does not describe ex nihilo for the fifth time in a row that I have mentioned this. You are attacking a strawman argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever in modern physics supports ex nihilo, be that ex nihilo creation by God or anything else. Your entire argument is constructed around a false premise. You are simply ignorant of BB theory.

And absolutely everything you said in your next set of responses to my response indicated that ignorance.

Quote:

The BB is by definition the starting point of all things.

This is false.

Quote:

The BB itself supports ex nihilo

This is completely false. Nothing whatsoever in physics supports ex nihilo. The very idea of ex nihilo is complete gibberish! In fact, the concept of "created" from a standpoint in physics is meaningless. You obviously have highly misguided views about the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not describe the creation of the universe from nothing! Please repeat this until it sticks. It is a common misconception that simply shows ignorance of highest order.

Quote:

The only problem with that is that there is no physical evidence of multi-universes,

I did not say there was. I was suggesting your understanding of Multiverse was false. I was not discussing whether the theory was true, I was saying the way you understood it was incorrect.

Quote:

No, only a finite cause would require time.

This is

(a) An assertion

and

(b) Does not address the argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Cause requires time a priori ergo a causal agent requires time. To say otherwise undermines your own premise.

(c) Ad hoc

Quote:

That is the unsupported hypothesis I spoke of earlier.

Actually, it follows directly from the premise:

A requires B

Therefore if ~B, then ~A

Quote:

I didn't say anything about Decartes.

No, but I brought him up to emphasize my point. A point it would be nice if you would address.

Quote:

The fact that only mind and abstract concepts can exist outside time-space, is the universal consensus of metaphysicians.

That is an utterly absurd assertion and does not address my arguments. Please stop making ad vericandum and address the argument.

Quote:

nd your claim that mental events depend on a causal structure ,is not proven.

It is true by virtue of its meaning. Our thinking minds entail temporal sequentiality, as demonstrated by the fact that you are indeed thinking under such sequential process! Furthermore, it has been irrevocably demonstrated that mental events have physical antecedant and consequence, which would undercut your proposition, because it entails they have causal efficiacy, which means they cannot exist outside temporal structure.

Quote:

It's always funny to me when evolutionary atheists who suffer from undeveloped brains which are allegedly still evolving, make objective and universal value judgements. How can a still-evolving brain, with still evolving logic, know anything with certainty?

This claim is utterly absurd

(A) Evolution has no eschatology. Your wording, such as "still evolving" would imply it does. It does not work towards goal nor does it mean anything to speak of "underevolved" or "still evolving".

(B) In this regard, the concept of "undeveloped" and "underevolved" are meaningless and incoherent nonsense. You obviously know nothing about evolution and for prudence, you should resign from the other thread immediately because of your irrevocable demonstration that you have absolutely no knowledge of evolution. You are trying to suggest Orthanogenesis in order to propogate a meaningless proposition.

Given this, that you have made a confusin regarding evolutionary biology that is virtually unforgivable ignorance, and an equally massive error on Cosmology, I suggest you cease and desist from both threads immediately, lest you continue to expose beliefs that you hold because you have never consulted a biology textbook or a physics journal.

Quote:

It hasn't gone anywhere. You are not a philosopher so I wouldn't expect you to be abreast in these areas.

No, but I earned my Masters in it after doing physics. Isn't it fun to be trained in so many fields? Listen very carefully. I will not touch arguments about which I am ill-informed, such as ancient history or the Bible. But trust me, if you think you can get away with an appeal to credentials, or authority, or whether or not I have them, then this debate would already be over. If our discussion was decided by who of us two was more qualified in these areas of discourse, you would be completely sunk. Even more so than you already are.

The concept of third realm was originally propogated but has largely been superseded by the abstraction proposition:

Abstract propositions are formed by functional expression of physical quality, such that they are distinctive from them only in the sense that, for example if f(x)=f(y) then x R y where R is equivalence.

For an abstract like numbers, this can be represented such:

If n X= n Y there are as many X as Y

Which means for any abstract expression, for any quality f of x, or f(x), a corresponding quality Kf of y is expressed as:

x= Kf only if some y have f(x)

This is particularly important for the existence of abstracts, since it has a corollary:

X(set)=Y(set) iff all x, x has X iff x has Y

So, for example, for the abstract concept of a "number" of carriages in a train, considering x and y to be carriages

The train of x=The train of y iff x and y are connected

In all these cases, abstracts simply denote the sets, in which case, abstract things do not "exist". This is a substantial thesis, of course, but it is more popular than Third Realm used to be, considering that it is not incoherent. Under this, the distinction between abstracta and concreta would be defined differently. Without the existence of concreta, nor could there exist abstracta, which I find more useful, since it can be described in a logical fashion, unlike the propogation of third realm, which is ad hoc and confusing at best.

I'm not suggesting the problem is solved, but it is a better solution. The principle problem with third realm is that it does not appear to address the issue at hand.

For further review:

A Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.

Quote:

The BB does not have to descibe anything for us to know it had a cause.

Indeed. The Big Bang involved a transfer from low to high entropy. This is a very simple derivation.

Could you please address my arguments?

Quote:

Something cannot come from nothing.

Indeed. The BB does not suggest it does. Au contraire, theism makes ex nihilo claims, it is no more meaningful to speak of God "creating" matter and energy ex nihilo than it is to speak of spontaneous generation of maggots from meat!

Quote:

Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence.

This is simply an assertion.

Quote:

Mind cannot come from non-mind

Actually, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that thoughts, mental events, and such, depended on causal structure, temporal sequentiality, and so the idea of the god-mind existing external to this is nonsense. However, your affirmation stands in contradiction to your prior response:

Quote:

The fact that only mind and abstract concepts can exist outside time-space, is the universal consensus of metaphysicians.

Why?

Because the concept of entity entails ontological discretion, like that it would be meaningless to speak of an infinitely large orange. The concept of an actual infinity has never been established as meaningless, and is certainly meaningless when mix-matched with the concept of a discrete agent.

Quote:

What is your proof an entity cannot be infinite?

because then by virtue of the meaning of the word infinite, it would not be a single, coherently defined being or entity! Infinity is infinity. To speak of a being such that it is distinct, ontologically from other existing things, such as the physical universe, implies that it is not infinite, that is to say that it has discrete existence. To speak of God being infinite could only produce one logical corollary: Pantheism of the Spinozan variety.

Quote:

ou are not being scientific here

Considering this is a philosophical dicussion...I do not see how this is a particularly harmful charge.

Quote:

od is the causal structure.

Nonsense. You just told me that God created the space-time manifold. Now you tell me he is of it. Make up your mind. How can a being create that which constitutes it?

Quote:

Yes, mental events are causal. and God is the antecendent pre-causal agent of all mental events. He is the very precondition of all minds.

This is self-refuting. If mental events are causal, then an agent with a mind must have some sort of causal structure. This would contradict your earlier point that God was immutable and unchanging.

Quote:

Only finite causes require time.

Why? What is the link between finitude and temporality? Furthermore, in what sense is the concept of actual infinity coherent?

Quote:

You need to take a good course in introductory logic and philosphy.

I've done both. I'd wager that I've invested in both more than you have.

Quote:

Mind and/or thoughts do not require temporality

Really? But three times in this thread you've affirmed that mental events have cause and consequence?

Second, this would sink your proposition in a second, because it would entail that mental events are causally ineffacious, which means that God could not cause anything, being that it is described as willing the universe into being.

Quote:

The concept of multi-universes is more meaningless.

I beg to differ. The concept of Multiverse is not proven, but it is meaningful. All it suggests is that many discrete space-time structures, universes, are connected by white holes. This may or may not be true, but it is possible to grasp. The concept of actual infinity, on the other hand, is not.

Quote:

You have no proof am entity cannot be infinite.

As I told you before, this is a priori true

(A) The concept of entity denotes ontological discretion.

(B) Given this, we can say that this entity has a defined existence. So, for example, my computer is a seperate existence from my body.

(C) If an entity were infinite, it could not be a discrete entity, for such considerations would imply limitations on its being, and then, if that were the case, it would be meaningless to speak of it being outside certain other things. The only logical consequence of the concept of "infinite God" is Pantheism. The concept of an infinite GOd being a creator God is not tenable.

You continue to attack Multiverse theory. I never said I believed n it. I was attacking your faulty understanding of it.

Quote:

 

I would only have no meaning if it were't true. If it is true, then it means everything.

This does not address the argument. Actually, it is so phenomenally weak it may suggest you can't address the argument. Since you missed it, here it is again:

A Catch-22 is easily derived from the argument at hand:

 

C=>(A^B)

 

(A =>~B)

 

(B =>~A)

 

This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur.

A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of)

 

B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused

 

C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time

 

The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22.

 

If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.

 

The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’

 

 

Quote:

Why do you assume it has to require meaning to be true?

So, you are admitting the concept is meaningless? But if it were meaningless, how would it be coherent to speak of it as true?

 

Regarding your assertion of the “outside time” nature of the mind, this is simply nonsense. After all, two entire disciplines of human thought have established that mental events are causally effacious. If they are causally effacious, they cannot be atemporal by virtue of the meaning of causally effacious, nor can an atemporal entity act as a causal agent.

Another way to consider the causal structure is to consider how we normally experience the causal structures. Presuming the existence of other first-person ontologies, then a normal pattern of causal interaction in, say, a conversation can entail in S1 (subject 1) and S2 (subject 2), the following pattern of interaction;

 

Stimulus => S1 (physical

 

Brain (S1) => (physical causality) neuronal network response and processing of stimulus

 

Mental causality (S1) => Thought process

 

Mental causality (S1) => Thought process entails referencing to neuronal networks

 

Physical causality (S1)=> Entails the activation of other neuronal networks via this causal relationship

 

Physical causality (outward exuding) (S1) => Communication

 

Stimulus => S2 (physical)

 

Now, obviously, applying this particular model to the entire mental causal process is called analytical functionalism. And I do not think that analytical functionalism is MSF is a sufficient account of the mind, for one, it is not only true that exterior stimulus can induce mental causality (or that physical states being induced by such), because mental causality can in turn cause other mental processes, or rather, physical processes underlying those mental process such that there is an action-reaction between neuronal networks and thoughts, emotions (and the associated neurotransmitter), sense data (physical stimuli causality). But the problem is that in the ridiculous model being discussed, there is no relationship between experience and physical causality and hence the physical processing of the world, and the conscious awareness does not entail any active causality between the neuronal networks and the conscious experience, because “consciousness” does not proceed from the local object upon which the experience is acting (the brain). That being the case, being that there is no computational relationship between experience and physical causality, but this is gibberish because the being the case, we wouldn’t be experiencing anything. Regardless of whether or not analytical functionalism is a sufficient account of the mind, to some degree, mental states are defined by their functional states relative to physical states and other mental states (it is also possible to argue that the idea of a single "mental state" is not coherent). However, I have never accepted functionalism always remaining a staunch type physicalists ((mental events are defined by their physical correlates). For reasons of the fact that mental states can be realized in non-human brains and also non-human experiences, I rejected strong type physicalism in favor of token identity physicalism, which accounts for what I described above, called Multiple realizibility. At any rate, the thing to take away is that the "mental events without causal effeciacy" nonsense (a) has no model of interaction and (b) does not account for qualia, the subjective nature of consciousness localized to the physical occupance of the thing expereincing the first person ontology, ie the feel of the pain when one burns their finger. It is not coherently established how such a proposition, entailing a seperate metaphysical postulation, would accout for this given that this would entail that consciousness is a "thing" which exists indepedently of the experiencing first person ontology and its extended body.

 

To consider my own position further, I am a specific subset of identity type theorists called an anomolous monoist.

 

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/9b/300px-Anomalous_Monism.pngSo, to me, although there is no bridge of reductionist subsets, mental states still have their necessary antecedants in neuronal networks, and constellations of such give rise to neuronal networks. I settled on this particular model several years ago, after realizing that (a) Epiphenominalism was nonsense because it has causal dead ends on mental events and (b) Machine state functionalism could not account for the person understanding the Chinese language as opposed to Searle's Chinese Room machine, and I did not want to bite the bullet of functionalism by admitting that Ned Block's Chinese Nation-Mind state entity could be a functioning mind. Emergentism appealed to me because Token types entail multiple realizability, as shown:

 


 

What all this entails is what is called supervenience, which I have defended before, which is propositionally simple: Systems, be they emergent or reductionist, cannot entail changes in higher level properties without constituent changes. It is a constitutional relationship which entails that certain properties have necessary antecedants, and supervenience was what I used in principle to Attack the existence of God. In simple terms, the existence of God entails certain properties which have supervenience to lower properties, and these lower properties have been amputated from the theistic description of God. The nature of the mental, both a priori and discovered a posteriori , such as by neuroscience, entails, something which virtually every philosopher (or indeed, everyone else) would accept, that mental events supervene the physical, ie mental events have properties which entail physical antecedance, which I have already mentioned. This is very problematic for the existence of God, which entails a disembodied mind, something which I have firmly established before is not possible. Note that while certain propositions entail synthetic knowledge, gained by neuroscience about how mental and physical events interact, necessary a priori truths can also entail that this is problematic, ie that consciousness is entailed by expereince of something, or that physical events antecede mental. In property terms, certain properties do antecede each other. It is possible for an object with extended body to be a color other than blue, but is not possible for a blue object to exist without extended body. In this regard, mental events by virtue of the meaning of the term, require temporality because they are causally effacious. This proposition is overwhelmingly accepted in the community of Philosophy of Mind and neuroscience, in fact both entire disciplines rely on such an idea. To say anything else is simply untenable.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  I almost forgot

Quote:

 I almost forgot to say that Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, calculated the odds of the universe even existing, is 1 out of 10 billion to the 120th power.

That's ridiculous. What numbers could be imputed to derive the data to reach such a probability? None. There is no way to calculate such a thing. The fact that you spent much of your post not addressing my arguments, accusing me of unfounded assertion yet decide that a blatant assertion, backed by ad vericandum is an argument? Do you realize how utterly absurd your sentence is? You will have to do a great deal better than this. This is not an argument, it is an exercise in nonsense.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Let me show me you a simple

Let me show me you a simple example to get you understanding lets thing of squares , cubes and hypercube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube . The adding of dimensions gives nothing with the exaction of moving true les dimensional objects the inability to see the whole of the more dimensional beings by less dimensional beings (if the more dimensional being doesn’t pas with its entire mass and is seen by multiple observers surrounding this object) and the ability to move into this hyper space and repairing in the lesser dimension.

 

New this being with n+1 dimensions  doesn’t give the ability to create any thing ! Or star the universe ! And adding dimensioned doesn’t give the ability to violate logic or other lows !

 

However you don’t argue to added a dimension to god ! You argue to reduce  god where god has one dimension less then we have ! This is so smart like cutting god legs and arguing like this “God can brake logics because he is a crippled HA HA HA”  

 

Do you start to understand ?

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
  I want people to see

 

I want people to see what is going on here. Deludedgod is employing a common debate tactic/fallacy where he is trying to give the impression by copying and pasting from other sources that he knows what he is talking about.

 

None of his arguments hold any validity

 

Deludedgod uses key scientific terms to give the IMPRESSION that these terms support his claims. THEY DON'T.

 

He does not know what he is talking about as I will now prove.

 

Deludedgod, your statements show that you do not have a proper understanding of the horizontal  Cosmological Argument.

 

Please pay close attention to what I'm going to tell you ok?

 

I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can. I will make it so simple that a fifth grader should grasp it. And notice I will not be copying and pasting from other websites.

 

First, notice I quoted two modern eminent cosmologists. (Donald Page and Roberrt Jastrow). The latter worked for NASA. Deludedgod did not refute what they said. He only dismissed what they said. But dismissal does not = refutation.

 

The horizontal cosmological argument (embraced by Bonaventure, etc) is what I will briefly describe here as simply as I can.

 

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

 

2. The universe had a beginning.

 

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

 

The first premise (Everything that had a beginning had a cause), is often taken as self-evident, since to admit otherwise would amount to the ridiculous claim that nothing produces something. Even the infamous skeptic David Hume confessed:

 

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (LDS, 1:187).

 

The second premise (The universe had a beginning) is defended both philosophically and scientifically.

 

PHILOSOPICAL ARGUMENT

 

1. An infinite number of moments CANNOT be traversed.

 

2. If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come, since an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.

 

3. But today has come.

 

4. Hence, there only a finite number of moments before today (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything with a beginning had a Beginner. Therefore, the temporal world had a Beginner (Cause).

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

 

The scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning comes from the so-called BIG BANG view held by most contemporary astronomers. There are several converging lines of evidence  that the space-time universe had a beginning.

 

1. The universe is running out of usable energy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), and what is running down cannot be eternal (otherwise it would have run down by now). An entity cannot run out of an infinite amount of energy.

 

2. The universe is said to be expanding. Thus, when the motion picture of the universe is put into reverse, logically and mathematically it reaches a point where it is nothing (that is, no space, no time, and no matter). So the universe literally came into being out of nothing. But nothing cannot produce something.

 

3. The raditation echo given off by the universe, discovered by two Nobel prize-winning scientists, Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson (see Jastrow, GA, 14-15), has the identicle wavelength of that which would be given off by a gigantic explosion.

 

4. The large mass of energy resulting from such an explosion and predicted by Big Bang proponents was actually discovered by Hubble Space Telescope in 1992.

 

5. Einstein's own theory of general relativity demanded a beginning of time, a view he resisted for years and even defended by a fudge factor he introduced into his argument to avoid it and for which he was later embarassed (see Heeren and Smoot, SMC, 109).

 

The cumulative philosophical and scientific evidence for an origin of the material universe provides strong reason to conclude that there must have been a nonphysical orginating Cause of the physical universe.

 

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow (mentioned above) admits that this is a clearly THEISTIC conclusion (emphasis mine) = see SCBTF in CT, p.17).

 

After reviewing the evidence that the cosmos had a beginning, the British physicist Edmund Whittaker concurred:

 

"It is simpler to postulate creation EX NIHILO-divine will constituting nature from nothingness (cited by Jastrow, GA, 111).

 

Jastrow concludes:

 

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT" (emphasis mine) -- Jastrow, SCBTF in CT, 15, 18).

 

To be continued (on the vertical dimension of this argument).

 

 

 

 

 

 

My signature is stupid like you know who.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

I want people to see what is going on here. Deludedgod is employing a common debate tactic/fallacy where he is trying to give the impression by copying and pasting from other sources that he knows what he is talking about.

That is an absolute and utter lie. I wrote everything in the above post. How dare you accuse me with the complete and utter falsehood of plaigarism. I did no such thing. You can check yourself. This writing is mine, all of it, I took the time to write it. I am no longer debating you. You are a liar. Accusation of plaigarism is a serious charge. You have nothing to back it up. If the charge is false, and it is, I recognize my own writing, then the moderators will issue you a warning, which if you get three, you will be temporarily blocked.

Which means I am not going to continue to respond to your post until you issue an apology or demonstrate that I have plaigarized. Which you will not be able to because I have not. This is a serious accusation and you better have something serious to back it up. If the charge is false, or you cannot back it up, you must cease and desist immediately, which is a euphemism for leave the room. In fact, I would wager that you haven't even read my entire post, since your reply did not respond to it or constitute a proper analysis. You will either do this the proper way or get out. But now that you have made this charge of plaigarism, if you cannot back it up, you will be kicked out the room. Its very simple.

Good Luck 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I want people to see what is going on here. Deludedgod is employing a common debate tactic/fallacy where he is trying to give the impression by copying and pasting from other sources that he knows what he is talking about.

That is an absolute and utter lie. I wrote everything in the above post. How dare you accuse me with the complete and utter falsehood of plaigarism. I did no such thing. You can check yourself. This writing is mine, all of it, I took the time to write it. I am no longer debating you. You are a liar. Accusation of plaigarism is a serious charge. You have nothing to back it up. If the charge is false, and it is, I recognize my own writing, then the moderators will issue you a warning, which if you get three, you will be temporarily blocked.

Which means I am not going to continue to respond to your post until you issue an apology or demonstrate that I have plaigarized. Which you will not be able to because I have not. This is a serious accusation and you better have something serious to back it up. If the charge is false, or you cannot back it up, you must cease and desist immediately, which is a euphemism for leave the room. In fact, I would wager that you haven't even read my entire post, since your reply did not respond to it or constitute a proper analysis. You will either do this the proper way or get out. But now that you have made this charge of plaigarism, if you cannot back it up, you will be kicked out the room. Its very simple.

Good Luck

Alberto,

Your choices are:

a) prove the allegation

b) apologize for the false accusation

c) bye bye 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Alberto wrote:

Alberto wrote:

 

I want people to see what is going on here. Deludedgod is employing a common debate tactic/fallacy where he is trying to give the impression by copying and pasting from other sources that he knows what he is talking about.

 

None of his arguments hold any validity

Excuse me? That's quite a serious allegation.  If you would like your arguments to hold validity please list or link to the sources which you believe DG is "copying and pasting from".

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Alberto wrote: 4. Hence,

Alberto wrote:
4. Hence, there only a finite number of moments before today (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything with a beginning had a Beginner. Therefore, the temporal world had a Beginner (Cause).

One step too many. Every beginning had a beginning, but not necessarily a beginner. How many times has the kalam argument been refuted based upon its presuppositional nature with regard to a 'beginner'?

Science works with what is to determine what might have been and what might be. Assuming one knows the origin already based upon the schizoid ramblings of existentialists is the height of delusional arrogance.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
  The horizontal form of

 

The horizontal form of the cosmological argument argues from the past origin of the cosmos to an Original (First) Cause of it.

 

By contrast, the verticle form of this argument begins with the PRESENT contingent existance of the cosmos and insists there must be a current Necessary Being causing it.

 

Both are causal arguments and both begin with an existing cosmos. However the horiontal argument starts with a universe that had a beginning (long ago), and the second with a universe that has BEING (right now). The former stresses originating causality, and the latter focusses on conversing causaility.

 

The first argues to a First Cause (back then), and the second argues to a Necessary Cause (at present).

 

The vertical cosmological argument was stated in several ways by Thomas Aquinas. Two forms of it will illustrate the point: the argument from contingency and the argument from change.

 

The argument from contingency begins with the fact that at least one contingent being exists; that is, a being that exists but can not exist. A Necessary Being is one that exists but cannot not exist. The argument goes like this:

 

1. Whatever exists but can/could not exist needs a cause for its existence, since the mere possibility of existence does not explain why something exists. The mere possibility for something is nothing (i.e., no-thing).

 

2. But nothing cannot produce something.

 

3. Therefore, something necessarily exists as the ground for everything that does exist but can not exist. In short, it is a violation of the principle of causality to say that a contingent being can account for its own existence.

 

Another way to put this form of the verticle argument is to note that if something contingent exists, then a Necessary Being must exist.

 

1. If everything were contingent, then it would be possible that nothing existed.

 

2. But something does exist (e.g., I do), and its existence is undeniable, for I have to exist in order to be able to affirm that I do not exist.

 

3. Thus, if some contingent being now exists, a Necessary Being must now exist, otherwise, there would be no ground for the existence of this contingent being.

 

The argument from change, another from of the argument above, begins with the fact that there are changing beings:

 

1. Whatever changes passes from a state of potentiality (potency) for that change to a state of being actualized (act). That is, all changing beings have act (uality) and potency in their very being. If not, then all change would involve annihilation and re-creation, which is impossible without a Cause. since nothing cannot produce something.

 

2. But no potentiality can actualize itself, any more than the potential for steel to become a skyscraper can actualize itself into a skyscaoer.

 

3. If no potency can actualize itself, and yet atleast one being is actualized (e.g., me), then ultimately there must be something that is Pure Actuality (with no potentiality), otherwise there would be no ground for why something now exists that has the potential not to exist.

 

The form of the verticle dimension of the cosmological argument addresses the impossibility of an infinite regress of beings that are composed of act and potency. It points out that the very first Being beneath a changing being (with act and potency) cannot be another being with act and potency, for what does not account for its own existence certainly cannot account for another's existence. To say it could is like arguing that one paratrooper whos chute did not open can hold up another whose chute did not open. And adding more paratroopers whose chutes do not open does not help the problem; it compounds it.

 

Another way to put the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes of the present existence of a changing being (with act and potency) is to point out that in an infinite regress of such causes at least one cause must be causing, since it is admitted that causing is occuring. Yet, in an infinite series every cause is being caused, for if one were not beinf caused, then we have arrived at an Uncaused Cause.

 

One cause must must be uncaused, for if every cause in an infinite series is being caused, and atleast one cause is causing, then that cause is self-caused. However, a second-caused being is impossible, since a cause is ontologically, if not chronologically, prior to its effect, and something cannot be prior to itself.

 

Another for of this argument begins with the present dependence of every part of the universe. Briefly:

 

1. Every part of the universe is right now dependent for its existence.

 

2. If ever part is right now dependent for its existence, then the whole universe must also be right now dependent for its existence.

 

3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent right now for its existence on some Independent Being beyond itself.

 

In response, a person might say the second premise commits the fallacy of composition. That every piece of a mosaic is square does not mean the whole mosaic is square. Also, putting two triangles together does not necessarily make another triangle; it may make a square. The whole may (and sometimes does) have a characteristic not possessed by the parts.

 

Defenders of the verticle form of the cosmological argument are quick to note that sometimes there is a necessary connection between the parts and the whole.

 

For example, if every piece of floor is oak, then the whole floor is oak. And while putting two triangles does not necessarily another triangle, nevertheless, puttingtwo triangles will necessarily make another geometric figure. Why? Because it is of the very nature of geometric figures that when they are combined they still form a geometric figure.

 

Likewise, it is of the very nature of dependent beings that when you put more of them together, you still have dependent beings. If one thing is dependent for its being, then another dependent being can no more hold it up than adding more links to a chain will hold it up if there is no peg holding the whole chain.

 

Somone might argue that the whole is greater then its parts. Therefore, while the parts are dependent, the whole universe is not.

 

However, either the sum of the parts is equal to the whole or it is more than the whole. If the whole universe is equal to its parts, then the whole must be dependent just like the parts are.

 

If, on the other hand, the whole universe is more than the parts and would not vanish were the parts all destroyed, then the whole universe is the equivalent of God, for it is an uncaused, independent, eternal and necessary Being on which everything is the entire universe depends for its existence.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
 deluded,   I believe you

 deluded,

 

I believe you took your material from another source becuse of the diagrams. I aplogogize if I was mistaken.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
 Apologize (sorry my

 Apologize (sorry my spelling can be horrendous)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you. Now we may

Thank you. Now we may continue in a civilized manner. I shall prepare a response shortly.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Alberto
Theist
Alberto's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-11
User is offlineOffline
 Its not really necessary.

 Its not really necessary. It takes too long to type all this and I'm not the fastest typist. Go to youtube and type in William Lane Craig and watch all his videos on cosmology and the big bang. I was just watching one where he stated that any standard text book on modern astrophysics says the universe began to exist at the big bang.

 

Also, your statements that certain elements of the God concept have no meaning, seems to be based on the verification theory, which has been completely rejected by epistemologists.  I'm nost sure this is what you were talking about if it wasn't, I apologize.

 

Watch and listen to all the debates by William Lane Craig.

My signature is stupid like you know who.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm nost sure this

Quote:

I'm nost sure this is what you were talking about if it wasn't, I apologize.

I reject logical positvism. My principle concern is coherency, not verifiability.

I have watched most of Craig's debates (Tabash, Atkins etc.) but not all of them, I try to avoid watching those that have to do with the resurrection of Jesus or his historicity, since I am not interested in such things, and focus on the "Does God Exist" ones. 

I don't deny that the Universe began to exist at the Big Bang, I just deny the claim that this beginning was ex nihilo. Something did indeed exist before the BB, although some Cosmologists are unsure we can ever know precisely what that something was, although we do know that it was of lower entropy than after the Bang and it possessed what we call field symmetry, although we are unsure how to mathematically interchange it, particularly with respect to gravity, more research needs to be done. I, personally, am waiting for 2010, when the L.I.S.A detector will be turned on, to see if Linde is correct on inflation. Until then, my current stance is that more research needs to be done, since we think Linde is probably correct, we just aren't entirely sure, since it simply happens to be the most fitting explanation at present, and not backed by data, although it does entail some interesting consequence. Since there are well over 100 competing hypotheses for the collapse of the false vacuum, I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude until 2010, when if all goes well, one will be proven right, and 99 will be falsified, or perhaps, all of them will be proven wrong, athough this seems dubious.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


drm5977
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
 Well I’d like to

 

Quote:
Well I’d like to explain to the Christians the concept of existing out side of time , you see if something exists out side of time then it doesn’t exist at all.

 

Lets make a analogy every human , atom , existing thing interacts the BIG question is what is interaction ? Interaction is the ability (or the forced mechanism on us) to change in time if something exists out side of time then it can’t change in any aspect.

 

A ball can role just because before that a force hit it and the movement is only a interactive change in time. If a being exists out side of time it can as well  exist out side of existence (Don’t exist at all).... Waiting for responses.

 

We define time as it relates to the speed of light.What your taking about is the universal speed limit. That is, of course, the speed of light. Where as things that move slower then the speed of light can not interact with things that move faster then the speed of light. On a graph it looks like reverse parrellel log functions, with an asymtompt at c. But that doesnt mean that both dont exist, or that they even exist in different times. In fact what it would take would be a infinite amount of energy to cross one from the other....what would have an infinite amount of energy? Only an Omniscent being.

Cogito ergo sum