What is the probability based on? — Terrapin Station
Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it? — Terrapin Station
So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement? — Echarmion
Put it this way. If I were to say, "Between the last message I posted and this one--a finite time period, there was zero probability of a big bang occurring," we could know that I'm wrong by . . . . ? Well, by what? — Terrapin Station
There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time — Terrapin Station
I wasn't using the term that way, either. There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time. Again, see what i wrote above if you want to argue that's impossible. — Terrapin Station
So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time? — Echarmion
There's a serious problem with that per theory, then, because an event can happen just once given an infinite amount of time. — Terrapin Station
That certainly makes sense, but if we're forwarding a logical argument what is the ground for assigning any probability for any arbitrary time period? If it's just an arbitrary assumption why would we expect anyone to give it any weight as something true? — Terrapin Station
Your view, account, of the existential status of this god, please. — tim wood
It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them — Echarmion
nd just for the heck of it, a timeless god would be around for some amount of time - but the amount of time he was around would always be longer.... Right? — tim wood
And this "time-like thing", would it then be finite or infinite? Replacing time with not-time doesn't solve any problem with the argument, at most it shifts it. A timeless "act" that is also a "cause" with time as the "effect" is simply incoherent. — Echarmion
Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. — Echarmion
That's a longer, more detailed version of the claim. It's not an argument for any of it. — Terrapin Station
It requires some natural causation mechanism per what? — Terrapin Station
Even if the Godliest God you can imagine is exactly right, where did he come from? — tim wood
But, didn't you say time is finite. If so, ONE Big Bang isn't unnatural is it? There just wasn't enough time for more Big Bangs. — TheMadFool
Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, it could be God but is it? — TheMadFool
I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time. — Devans99
It would be unnatural and caused by God per what? Those claims don't follow from anything — Terrapin Station
Again, this is a complete non-sequitur. You're assuming something that you're not stating. Imagine that we have a universe with infinite time and space and re matter/energy, we have a single gym sock and that's it. You'd have to argue why that's not possible. You can't just assume whatever you're assuming. — Terrapin Station
"As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds
— Devans99
You'd need to present an argument that it does. — Terrapin Station
"If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time
— Devans99
What does that follow from? — Terrapin Station
Re (3), time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it. Or space could be infinite, too. Or matter/energy could disappear, too. There are any number of possibilities that would make (3) false. — Terrapin Station
As for (4), the notion that finite time requires a God is completely arbitrary. — Terrapin Station
Ahmed states, "at every time the universe existed and there was no time before the universe existed; there was no time in which God could have acted." — Walter Pound
I would guess he (God) would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time. — Devans99
3 only follows from 1 and 2 if the matter that is being created is also infinite. If it "decays" in some way the conclusion isn't necessary. — Echarmion
Why could a finite time only be created by God? — Echarmion
So it really could be turtles all the way down? — tim wood
Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all. — Christoffer
There is almost complete scientific consensus of the Big Bang, down to a very small fraction of a second before time 0. And that is where the physics ends right now — Rank Amateur
You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed. — Christoffer
How do you know time is infinite? — Christoffer
You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one". — Christoffer
What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset? — Christoffer
How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this? — Christoffer
"Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics — Christoffer
You have no true premises for this conclusion — Christoffer
I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises. — Christoffer
Why would it be maximum by now? — Christoffer
There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas. — Christoffer
How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong... — Judaka
The idea is that certain well-defined systems do "reset," and the universe is such a system (but it takes a really, really,..., really long time. Interesting stuff! — tim wood
If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause? — Inis
Lazy. There is no causality in any fundamental law of physics. — Inis
What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"? — Terrapin Station
I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me. — Kippo
I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged
No time means no cause and effect. — MindForged
I think once you attribute eternalism to the universe, there is no longer a justified belief for an external eternal creator. — Josh Alfred
You can also look at the evidence for the absence of a creator. How much of space is empty? Why is there such a low life to space proportion if we are here intended by some higher being? — Josh Alfred
You can also look at the pieces of evidence that show that the universe is EVEN NOW forming naturally, with no apparent intelligence behind its formation (thus automatically).
You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred
First, you're ignoring that the idea of a nonmaterial anything doesn't even make any sense. — Terrapin Station
Secondly, you're doing what I talked about earlier re assuming that our theories are correct. — Terrapin Station
Third, you're comfortable jumping to "well FTL communication is impossible in the material world, but it would be possible in the nonmaterial world" (even though the idea of a nonmaterial world doesn't even make any sense and we haven't the faintest idea whatsoever how FTL communication would be possible in a nonmaterial world . . . we haven't the faintest idea whatsoever how anything would work in a nonmaterial world, or what any properties of it would be).
You might as well just "explain" every mystery with, "It must be magic." — Terrapin Station
But you could just make the same moves re the material world without having to posit something incoherent. — Terrapin Station
How in the world would a nonmaterial substrate explain it? — Terrapin Station