What is the probability based on? — Terrapin Station

You have me confused; you will have to make that question more specific.

- If an event is non-natural in a time period, then it has a 0% chance of occurring in that time period.
- If an event is natural in a time period, then it has a non-zero chance of occurring in that time period.

Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it? — Terrapin Station

We have to say that the qualifier 'natural' applies to certain time periods. For an event to be natural within a time period; it has to have a non-zero possibility of occurring in that time period.

So what I am saying is that the Big Bang is a natural event for all time periods of the universe's infinite history; hence there must be infinite Big Bangs.

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

Yes. In two dimensions: If the y axis is time and the x axis is space, then movement along the x axis represents movement at the speed of light wholly in the spacial direction. The temporal co-ordinate is always zero in this case.

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

If Big Bangs occurs naturally, then there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang in any finite time period.

If we extend that over the life time of an infinite in time universe:

(non zero probability of big bang per time period) * (life of universe) = (number of big bangs)
0.000001% * ∞ = ∞

If there had been a infinite number of Big Bangs, I'd warrant the astronomers would of detected something

If the big bang was a natural event, it would have a non zero probability of occurring over any finite period.

That means it occurs infinite times over an infinite period.

So it is impossible for there to be only one 'naturally occurring' Big Bang (if time is infinite).

There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time — Terrapin Station

Assuming you mean the Big Bang was a naturally occurring event, can you justify your above statement in any way?

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

Given infinite time and that the Big Bang big is a naturally occurring event, then there must be an infinite number of Big Bangs. Say Big Bangs are caused by random transitory arrangement of quantum fluctuations. If it happens the once; we should expect it to happen infinite times (with infinite time).

So we have to conclude on evidence that the Big Bang occurred only once so is not a naturally occurring event.

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

As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time.

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

Sorry I'm not using 'event' in the strict sense of relativity defines it; what I mean is infinite instances of the same class of 'event'; IE infinite Big Bangs.

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

Any given event has a probability of happening over any fixed time period. If it's a 'natural' event then that probability is non-zero. With infinite time, as soon as the probability is non-zero, the event will/has happened infinite times. So I maintain we can class events, particularly universe creation events, into two classes:

- Natural events. With infinite time we expect these to occur an infinite number of times. Which is not what we have evidence for (only one Big Bang).
- Unnatural events. We expect these to occur a singular number of times. Which is what we have evidence for (one Big Bang).

Your view, account, of the existential status of this god, please. — tim wood

Space time is 4 dimensional. I can imagine God in a separate 4D world in which each point has a one-to-many relationship with our spacetime points. So at each point in God's time he can see all of our time. God's time is maybe an inbuilt facet of the deity. So God can change and act and effect our world but is not part of it.

It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them — Echarmion

We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time.

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

Not sure I follow. I would have thought a timeless god would not feature in time at all. He would be external to time, viewing all of time in one go but not being part of it.

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

The photon changes (position) and yet it experiences no time. That suggests time and change are independent. Change is possible without time. Cause and effect without time follow.

Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. — Echarmion

I think thats debatable; cause and effect are enabled by time; that does not mean there could be something else time-like that also enables cause and effect.

That's a longer, more detailed version of the claim. It's not an argument for any of it. — Terrapin Station

Its just a consequence of the maths of infinity. Assign a tiny probability that an event will happen each time period and then multiply that by infinite time:

(some small number) * ∞ = ∞

So with infinite time anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times no matter how unlikely it was in the first place.

It requires some natural causation mechanism per what? — Terrapin Station

The act of creation is the cause and the created thing is the effect. If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. So there must be something outside of time that supports cause and effect. At the very least it the cause of time is outside time.

Even if the Godliest God you can imagine is exactly right, where did he come from? — tim wood

As I pointed out above, God would be timeless, IE he 'always' existed, was not created, just is. So there is no chicken and egg/infinite regress of creators once you remove time from the picture.

BTW an infinite regress of events in time is really impossible:

- the number of past events would be greater than any number
- but thats a contradiction (can't be a number AND be greater than any number)
- so an infinite regress in time is impossible

There is also the same argument as above applied to time; if creation of time were a natural event, we should expect infinite times, so creation of time was non-natural; IE God.

It would require a timeless intelligence to create a dimension. I call that God (although that may not be everyone's definition of God).

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

If time is finite, the argument is that God created that finite time. Again I'd class creation of dimensions as an unnatural act.

Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, it could be God but is it? — TheMadFool

The creation of time and the universe was not a natural event and was performed by a non-natural agency. As I mentioned above this agency would have to be timeless:

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

So a powerful, timeless intelligence of some form. That does not fully encompass the traditional definitions of God but it's someway there.

It would be unnatural and caused by God per what? Those claims don't follow from anything — Terrapin Station

If the event occurred once only in infinite time it must be unnatural. The rule is with infinite time, if an event is possible it happens an infinite number of times. So any natural event would happen an infinite number of times. A singular event is a non-natural event in infinite time.

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

An infinite time single gym sock universe is not possible through natural means; if whatever caused the gym sock is natural, it would occur infinite times, giving an infinite gym sock universe.

"As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds
— Devans99

You'd need to present an argument that it does. — Terrapin Station

Time is infinite and matter/energy increases on average. So it must reach infinite density. Even if the universe is expanding on average, it can't have been expanding forever; at best it is oscillating; resulting in infinite density with infinite time.

"If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time
— Devans99

What does that follow from? — Terrapin Station

Creation of time naturally requires some natural causation mechanism to exist. If time was created within that mechanism naturally, there should be multiple instances of time (because creation of time is a natural event). So its the same, 'if it can happen it will happen and infinite number of times' argument as for infinite time.

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

-'time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it' - so that would be an unnatural event caused by God.
- 'Or space could be infinite'. So what. Matter/energy density would still reach infinite levels with infinite time.
- Or matter/energy could disappear. As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds

As for (4), the notion that finite time requires a God is completely arbitrary. — Terrapin Station

If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time. There is only one time so we can say its creation was not a natural event; IE the work of God.

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

As I mentioned above:

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

I think god, if he exists, exists outside our time so he would still be able to act without time to initiate the creation of our universe.

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

I would have thought matter would decay into energy and energy would not decay at all, but probably best to say (in 2) that energy/matter is created on average.

Why could a finite time only be created by God? — Echarmion

Creation of time is a non-natural event so it requires some sort of timeless intelligence. So some sort of creator. This might not be quite the same as the traditional interpretation of God.

So it really could be turtles all the way down? — tim wood

Turtles all the way down is just an infinite regress and all infinite regresses are nonsense. Another infinite regress is infinite time; it's just as bad as the turtles as the way down. The turtles are missing a bottom turtle to hold the whole thing up; with infinite time we are missing a coming into being event to give the universe substance. They are both equally bad and invalid.

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

Well for example, if time was infinite then the number of seconds past so far is greater than any number; which is a contradiction, hence time is finite. But the point was, God is the solution whether time is finite or not.

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

We can still use statistics to find out about what happened; a single big bang and infinite time clearly point to a non-natural cause of the Big Bang. Else we'd expect an infinite number of Big Bangs and there is only evidence of one.

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

You are misunderstanding me; I believe time is finite and that finite time is the strongest evidence there is for a God. So therefore I am addressing only the case was time is infinite (and showing that in that case there is also a God).

How do you know time is infinite? — Christoffer

If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case).

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

We have evidence of only one Big Bang / Eternal Inflation event. If time was infinite we should expect an infinite number of such events (if they were naturally occurring) and there is no evidence for that. So the Big Bang must be a non-natural event or time is finite.

What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset? — Christoffer

If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened.

How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this? — Christoffer

If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God.

I don't address time is finite as that means there was a God (who created time).

"Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics — Christoffer

How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy.

You have no true premises for this conclusion — Christoffer

An infinite regress of events is impossible; the number of events in it would be greater than any number; which is a contradiction so its impossible.

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

Well we have half of the evidence; the Big Bang. It was not a naturally occurring event else there would be multiple occurrences of them (an infinite number with infinite time) and there is only evidence of one Big Bang - a non-natural event caused by God.

Why would it be maximum by now? — Christoffer

Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum. It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events. These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches. But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event is still required; the initial Big Bang.

There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas. — Christoffer

I notice you avoid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities.

How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong... — Judaka

Correct, I'm not saying anything about the nature of God beyond his ability to create the universe. So he could be completely different to the normal religious definitions of God.

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.

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

Existing requires coming into being. So stuff can’t have existed for ever; it must of been created. Modern cosmology points this way too; in eternal inflation theory, matter/energy is created in exchange for negative gravitational energy. So that leads naturally to a creation event.

If energy/matter were not created, there must be periodic entropy reset events (else entropy would be at a maximum by now). Those would be Big Bang/Big Crunch events. If time was infinite, there would be no first such event which does not make sense (time is finite).

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause? — Inis

If the creation event had no cause; it must be a naturally occurring event like quantum fluctuations. If it is a naturally occurring event, it should have occurred infinite number of times (if time is infinite) but we have evidence of only on. So the creation event was not natural and had a cause (without resorting to causality) or time is finite (IE it would need a non-natural cause).

Let's call that cause God. Then there is the chicken and egg problem (who created God). The creation of God can't be a natural event else conservation of energy is violated (and we'd have an infinite number of Gods with infinite time). So we can either make God timeless (beyond cause and effect) or we can make time circular (God can create himself).

Lazy. There is no causality in any fundamental law of physics. — Inis

How about 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'? Causality I think is essential to physics and everyday life. Causality is required by common sense in any case (which trumps physics).

What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"? — Terrapin Station

The theory does not say. A common interpretation of the theory is some sort of natural event like a quantum fluctuation temporarily fluctuates the speck into existence for just long for eternal inflation chain reaction to start. But if time is infinite there should of been an infinite number of such natural, eternal, events and we see no evidence for this (so time is finite or inflation is unnatural).

As to the high energy environment, I'm not sure where that is supposed to come from. Something contrived by the creator I would imagine.

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 don't think he had much of a choice. How would any God go about designing intelligent life? It's surely impossible even for Gods; we are just way too complex to design. So we had to be generated instead; generated by evolution. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. The planets are the playing surfaces, the stars the energy sources. If you put yourself in God's shoes, this seems the only feasible approach to creation.

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

My argument is that it does require a creator. If eternal inflation was a natural event and time is infinite the there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation events. We see only evidence for one. Hence either time is finite (created by the creator) or inflation is not a natural events (caused by the creator).

No time means no cause and effect. — MindForged

Maybe God has something else, analogous to time but different that also supports cause and effect.

I think once you attribute eternalism to the universe, there is no longer a justified belief for an external eternal creator. — Josh Alfred

That depends on if cause and effect still have meaning outside of time; they might do in which case we could have an eternal (outside of time) God and an eternal universe he created.

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

I think if you look at it in terms of matter usage; most of the universe is dedicated to stars (power source for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). For me, there is just too much fine-tuning for life in the standard model and big bang to doubt the the existence of a creator.

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

I am proposing that God created the universe with an initial act and that nature completes the process so I agree the universe should be still forming naturally; it was only the initial act of the Big Bang/Inflation that was unnatural.

I think the way science bends over backwards logically to avoid any consideration of a deity is a mistake. Ultimately it maybe that we have a creator God, so solutions that involve a creator God are worthy of consideration. It's not like I'm proposing magic; it was just the initial creation event was contrived by a creator (God) using natural processes.

First, you're ignoring that the idea of a nonmaterial anything doesn't even make any sense. — Terrapin Station

The fact that there is one sort of reality we know about (the material world) does not exclude the possibility of alternative forms of reality. We are missing information in the real world and it must be somewhere. If we can't find it in the real world, it must be elsewhere. So a non-material world makes sense.

Secondly, you're doing what I talked about earlier re assuming that our theories are correct. — Terrapin Station

There is masses of experimental evidence for the speed of light and for quantum entanglement; I do not see it as reasonable to doubt them.

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

FTL travel is not possible because of spacetime. If the substrate is not subject to spacetime then FTL travel maybe possible.

The non-material world is not magic; if it exists, it follows rules like our world. It would be also connected to our world. So it's logical and we can collect evidence for it (indirectly); so it falls well within the remit of science.

But you could just make the same moves re the material world without having to posit something incoherent. — Terrapin Station

These solutions don't work in the material world: the entangled particles are (say) one light year apart in the material world so there is no way they can be co-located. FTL communication is impossible in the material world. We have spent years searching the material world and not found anything to mediate the spooky action at a distance. Hence its valid to consider alternative mechanisms.

How in the world would a nonmaterial substrate explain it? — Terrapin Station

The non-material substrate could be arranged differently so the entangled particles remain co-located in the substrate. Or FTL communication is possible in the substrate.