if absolute time is given up why does there have to be anything like God before the big bang

Subtract 3 from 0 and you get -3. Subtract -3 from 0 and you get 3. You very well can pull 3 and -3 out of 0, just as you can add (un-subtract) them back together into 0 again.

Throwing this out there, if particles and antiparticles annihilate each other, this is ontologically different from something arising from nothing. I think something can only arise from nothing if the Void is spiritual. But Einstein had a self enclosed system with regard to time, so by science we don't need the spiritual right?

I like your idea. It’s sad to see all these knee-jerk reactions whenever someone puts forth an original idea that goes against the beliefs of materialism.

Well I’m on board for the idea of the clock, but I would say that the idea that the universe could be completely computed from a color-based language is problematic, because for instance how do you compute a feeling?

why would the vacuum disapear into the past. The way we view the past is a product of the particle positions in our brain. The past can only be the present (time travel) when all people have there brains shifted to view the past a certain way (particle positions). The past as viewed by us is an illusion that is altered by the particle positions in our brains. If someone operated on your brain your view of the past would change. Time is nothing more than an iteration of events and can only be interpreted by a flawed brain. Time is not a substance but nothing more than a concept.

Are you familiar with special relativity?

time is not a substance. It is more so a concept used to help us make better decisions. As far it is is known there is no absolute measurement of time.

If the homogeneous state fluctuated between black and white for example then you could create a clock based purely on that even though there are technically no moving parts and no geometry. — Umonsarmon

You could only make a clock by referring to such fluctuations, if the fluctuations were temporally consistent. But your premises provide nothing to cause such consistency..

If so, I would agree - infinity is impossible so God cannot be infinite. The bible says God is infinite - without any justification - and Aquinas ties himself in a logical knot trying to justify that claim. — Devans99

Eternal: without beginning and end.
That should qualify as ‘infinite’ or without limit.
Neither Aquinas nor any other human has any concepts to understand eternal or infinite.
Try explaining television to your dog, and you may get the idea.

Eternal: without beginning and end. — sandman

Time seems to be more than just a concept of the human imagination - it is something concrete and real (see SR/GR) - and something concrete without a beginning (or end) is an impossibility. See for example the argument here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360708

Neither Aquinas nor any other human has any concepts to understand eternal or infinite. — sandman

The fact that it is impossible to imagine actual infinity is not IMO indicative that it is beyond comprehension, merely indicative that it is an illogical/impossible concept. For example, other things I struggle to comprehend are talking trees and square circles - but they are not beyond comprehension - they are just impossible ideas. Actual infinity is unconstructible, unmeasurable, unfathomable and leads to logical paradoxes (which are a form of Reductio ad absurdum). That is enough evidence for me that it cannot exist.

There was no "before the big bang."

Actual infinity is unconstructible — Devans99

The north pole of the Riemann sphere. So there. :cool:

Yes. If you disregard physics, anything is possible. — StreetlightX

:rofl:



1. If you want to make a clock then there must be something that changes
2. If there's something that changes then there's something
Ergo
3. If there's something then it can't be nothing

Most mathematicians think that infinities are logically consistent. I don't think they know much about the, but the contradictions can be resolved. Contra William Craig

merely indicative that it is an illogical/impossible concept. — Devans99

That's the short version of my thoughts.