1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB. — adhomienem
I'm defining time according to Merriam-Webster: "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues." To put it more simply, time is the measurement of change. — adhomienem
You earlier said: "I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist." But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. Your reasoning is circular. What you really have is a rationalization of God's creating spacetime, not a proof of God's existence. Further, it seems a weak, ad hoc rationalization, since you can't actually explain how an action can possibly be performed without an elapse of time.I'm only using references to time-- "when," "before," etc.-- because we are temporal beings who cannot think outside of events in relation to time. Perhaps a better word would be "outside"-- outside of the creation of the universe, which obviously includes time, the GCB still existed, otherwise it would not be greater than the universe. — adhomienem
But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. — Relativist
While time and change have become almost interchangeable in this context, I think it's important to differentiate the two. — Belouie
...God's act, which occurred in a different temporal framework. — Metaphysician Undercover
That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified.time may pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you explain special relativity? Time slows near a strong gavitational field and at high velocities, which suggests time and the material universe are intertwined.When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence,
Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation?whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act". — Metaphysician Undercover
This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God.But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God
That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified. — Relativist
Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation? — Relativist
One sees proofs that time cannot be infinite and proofs that it cannot have a beginning on a regular basis, because both are inconceivable; yet one or the other must be true. Language is inadequate to the world we live in, never mind what is beyond. — unenlightened
This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God. — Relativist
You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level."Such fields are mathematical though, and are not representative of any real physical existence because they represent probabilities, possibilities for physical existence. The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level." — Relativist
Yes. usually. In your case, no.Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover
A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist
It's obvious that you are rationalizing God's existence, not "proving" it. — Relativist
Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god, do you suppose the witch doctor or local wizard is going to say, "Gee, I guess there really isn't a volcano god. I'm going to change my entire metaphysical belief system"? Belief systems do change, and how that happens is no simple matter, but it sure does't happen because of the inefficacy of a virgin or two.No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist
You're conflating metaphysical beliefs with well-supported beliefs about the world. It would be silly to hold a metaphysical belief that is contradicted by (for example) belief in gravity. Getting more esoteric, if your metaphysical belief is inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics, your burden would be to show that you can account for the empirical evidence explained by the standard model.No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics.
— Relativist
Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god,... — tim wood
No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist
Thank you Terrapin Station for bringing that to Relativist's attention. And I am such a philosopher. If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. Relativist doesn't seem to believe that it is possible that any theories of physics might be based in principles which are wrong.A philosopher could think the physics has things wrong. — Terrapin Station
And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. QFT is widely accepted by physicists, so if your metaphysics is not consistent with it, you have a burden to show that your assumptions are more likely to be true than QFT. For yourself, you need to show justification; for your theistic argument, you have a higher burden to make a persuasive case for those assumptions. The latter is what I'm focusing on.If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover
I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading.Above, you seem to be saying that it's a contingent matter whether someone's metaphysics can depart from physics. But that's not the same as saying "A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics."
"Must be" means you see it as something necessary. As a requirement. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.