Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Twilight Hue]

The second philosophical reason why we can know that the universe is past finite is, it is impossible for time to be infinite. It is impossible to "traverse infinity", meaning, it is impossible to cross an infinite number of points and arrive at a single point. If time had to travel across an infinite amount of points just to get to the present point, when would it get here?? If a man has been running on an infinite road, and he has been running for an infinite amount of time, and he stops, and turns back around, and runs the same distant where he stopped but in the opposite direction, where and when would he stop??? There is no answer to this. It cant happen.*

Actually it can, and has occurred.

 

[TimeBean]

Actually time must be a thing, as in a flow of particles. Beyond that what matters is our perception of the intervals we can see and the interstices of what we can't.

 

[lunakilo]

I just love the way you state your belifs as fact. it is very conviencing
So this is your chain of reasoning:

1) eternal universe = absurd =>
2) universe began to exist =>
3) cause of the = (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) =>
4) cause of the universe had to have been timeless, immaterial, and a being of tremendous power.

Questions:
@1) Why is an eternal universe absurd?
@3) Is your line of reasoning here that if the cause of the universe had some of the same properties as the universe then it would in fact be the universe or a universe, thus leading to that eternal universe which you foind absurd?
@4) Where did the being come into this? A being implies a conscious thought, how do you get from (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) to conscious thought?



Hmmm, as far as I know until the 16th century the prevailing model of the universe was one with the earth in the middle surrounded by Celestial spheres which were eternal. I don't think that was something all those atheists who lived thousands of years ago(!) made up
Primum Mobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two philosophical reasons why an eternal universe is absurd......the first one is...it is impossible to have an infinite amount of anything. You cannot have an infinite amount of baseball cards or marbles. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you give me three, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and I give you three more, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you gave me all of the "even" numbered marbles and kept all of the odd numbered marbles, you would still have an infinite amount of marbles. But this is absurd, because every time you add you are supposed to have more than what you had previously, and every time you subtract, you are supposed to have less than what you had previously. But in these cases, you would still have the same amount whether you added or subtracted. This is the kind of absurdity that you get when you deal with infinity. An "actual" Infinity cannot exist in reality, it exist as a concept. So, this is why postulating these "multiverse" theories are logically absurd. The Hilberts Hotel paradox also shows why it is impossible to have an actual infinite number of things.

The second philosophical reason why we can know that the universe is past finite is, it is impossible for time to be infinite. It is impossible to "traverse infinity", meaning, it is impossible to cross an infinite number of points and arrive at a single point. If time had to travel across an infinite amount of points just to get to the present point, when would it get here?? If a man has been running on an infinite road, and he has been running for an infinite amount of time, and he stops, and turns back around, and runs the same distant where he stopped but in the opposite direction, where and when would he stop??? There is no answer to this. It cant happen.

These are two very distinct reasons why we can know for certain that the universe is not infinite. If our universe was just a by-product of some pre-big bang event, then that would suggest an infinite amount of cause and effect events, and also an infinite amount of time at which those events would have to had occurred. Both, impossible. These reasons are independent of the scientific findings in cosmology on a finite universes. They corroborate it. Now I will wait patiently has someone try to rebut these things lol. Good luck.

You are just saying that 'infinite' is absurd.

infinite is not a number, and you can't subtract a number and from something which is not a number and get a number as a result.
I don't see why that makes it absurd.

And you can travel an infinite number of points.
For example there is an infinite number of numbers between zero and one.
if I travel 1 meter, that is one step, I have traveled over all the infinite number of points between zero and one

infinity is not absurd, it is just weird.

And you skipped my question to point 4.
"@4) Where did the being come into this? A being implies a conscious thought, how do you get from (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) to conscious thought?"

Science is only used to corroberate the fact that the universe began to exist, which is a hellava finding, since for thousands of years, scientists and atheists have always maintained that the universe was eternal and static.

Hmmm, as far as I know until the 16th century the prevailing model of the universe was one with the earth in the middle surrounded by Celestial spheres which were eternal. I don't think that was something all those atheists who lived thousands of years ago(!) made up
Primum Mobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huh?

Huh-what?

You claim that scientists and atheists have always maintained that the universe is static. I am saying that the static model for the universe is very old and favoured for example by the catholic church. It was the standard model at least since Aristotle. You can't blame atheists or scientists for that one. If it wasn't for scientists like Hubble I doubt anyone would have come up with the idea of an expanding universe.

 

[work in progress]

Yup, the Standard Model is in fact a GR based model.

Many of those String theories are subject to the BGV (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin) theorem, and Alan Guth is a advocate of a past finite universe.

You're wrong on that one! Their model has nothing to do with String Theory, and since it is focused on what goes on in a chaotic inflationary stage of the early universe, William Lane Craig himself has added snippets of their work to claim that they are arguing for a beginning of the Universe.....which they are not...if they are given a chance to explain the implications of their work:

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.


However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.
​

This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.


Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

​

In the final summation, it is once again, another example of how William Lane Craig feels that everything can be used for the purposes of proving the Christian God...including using lies, omissions and misrepresenting the work of others! Regardless, their work is not even using the same jumping off point as the multiverse models consisting of some sort of primordial 11 dimensional metaverse, with universes popping in and out of existence like a cosmic fireworks show. That's one of the reasons why Paul Steinhardt called his model the Ekpyrotic Universe. There have been many attempts by others to knock down this cyclic universe model, but as of the time of this article, it looks like it's still there: Ekpyrotic cosmology resurfaces
Onething seems apparent -- whether the math works or not, if M-Theory is a valid model for unifying physics, then colliding branes of expanded universes are going to seed the creation of new universes, and some sort of cyclic model of universes will be an inevitable result.

See, most cosmologists dont realize that when they posit an infinite number of universes that they run in to the problem of infinity, which is mathematically and philosophically absurd. And the bad part for them is, there is no way of getting around it, because the past cannot be infinite, nor could there be an infinite amount of universes out there. Each problem is distinct from the other and cannot be reconciled.

This sort of proof is similar to the ontological proofs of God. They depend on human reasoning, not on the way things in the outside world actually work. I noticed that others have chimed in here to challenge your infinity problem, and since I'm not a math expert, I'll leave that aside. It also seems ludicrous to me that the elite mathematicians and theoretical physicists working in places like the Perimeter Institute aren't aware of this problem before devoting hours to this work! Wave/particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle are also absurd...but they still work anyway.

Christians believe that God will intervene before this heat death occurs.

A few years ago, I heard Frank Tipler (one of the few...maybe even the only creationist cosmologist) say that God would intervene before heat death or the Universe blows up etc.. And he's doing this because his whole rationale of the Universe coming back together in an immortal grand singularity described in his book - "The Physics of Immortality" was written prior to the discovery that the rate of expansion of the Universe was increasing. I would have loved the chance to follow up on that answer which was left standing by the NPR interviewer (can't recall the show), because he was already telegraphing that his theories make no sense without invoking divine intervention. Now, why bother going to his fanciful notions of the Singularity? If, at the end, God intervenes and goes "whoa horsey" and pulls the Universe back together so Tipler can have his Singularity, then God could just turn it into a static universe that is more in line with the story laid out in Genesis.

 

[work in progress]

God exists in a supernatural realm, and he constantly governs the affairs of the natural universe. I see no problem here.

The problems start right here when some creationist claims to have objective proof for God, because God can't "govern" a natural universe without showing some evidence of that interaction. God can't just jump in and out and leave no trail of evidence proving something outside of natural forces occurred.

Right here I have to say that believers in any sort of God or a certain religion are playing a high stakes poker game by trying to prove their ideas by using - or more often - misusing science. There seems to be a prevailing opinion among fundamentalists of all stripes that the scientific community at large is weak and avoiding a challenge by maintaining the position of methodological naturalism. What they fail to realize is that science can investigate supernatural claims, whether they are religious dogma claims like the Catholic Transubstantiation, or psychic claims. Most scientists prefer to stick to what is natural and avoid that controversy because there is nothing to gain by tearing down the foundations of some religious dogmas. People are going to just build a thicker shell around their religion and reject science and logic completely to adhere with the religion they usually grew up in. But, if push comes to shove, as seemed to be the primary point of Pope Benedict's infamous Regensberg Address about five years ago, wherein his attack on Immanuel Kant and methodological naturalism were ignored because of the firestorm over his attacks on Muslim theology, then the Pope and every other fundamentalist who puts their God up for scientific scrutiny could have it knocked down instead of the present situation where most scientific communities prefer to avoid talking about God or the supernatural.

Because science can only deal with nature. The supernatural is not nature. Science cannot give a reason how Jesus could rise from the dead, or how he could walk on the water. But it can give reasons as to why I cant walk on water, or why I cant rise from the dead. The supernatural is outside of science jurisdiction. You cant put a spirit in a test tube and do an experiment. That is why.

Since these are old stories, those of us who aren't convinced that they are something more than mythology are not going to just take some 2nd century author's word that it actually occurred.

 

[TimeBean]

Fascinating.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are just saying that 'infinite' is absurd.

infinite is not a number,

I understand that infinity is not a number, that is why I consistently said "infinite amount", which it undeniably is. You can say it isn't a number, but you cant say that it isnt a unspecified amount, and that doesn't change the fact that when you subtract or add to any amount, you are supposed to have either less or more than what you started with.

and you can't subtract a number and from something which is not a number and get a number as a result.
I don't see why that makes it absurd.

You can slap the hand of a person doing the math and say "you cant do that", but you cant stop a person from adding and subtracting in reality if they were free to do so, and nothing would stop these kind of absurdities. If it is absurd in a thought experiment, it would be absurd in real life, and an absurdity cant take place in reality. That is why in transfinite arithmetic, adding and dividing is prohibited because of these kind of results.

And you can travel an infinite number of points.
For example there is an infinite number of numbers between zero and one.
if I travel 1 meter, that is one step, I have traveled over all the infinite number of points between zero and one

So if there are a infinite number of points between zero and one, what is the number before the number one?? And what is the number before that? And before that??? My point is, if the number one is the destination, then there must be a distinguishing point before it. What is it??

And you skipped my question to point 4.
"@4) Where did the being come into this? A being implies a conscious thought, how do you get from (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) to conscious thought?"

God was changeless and timeless before the creation. His thoughts never changed. If there is no change, there is no time, because time requires change. Once creation began, God entered time and became temporal. So God went from a changeless/timeless state, to a atemporal state, being in time but not bound by it.

You claim that scientists and atheists have always maintained that the universe is static. I am saying that the static model for the universe is very old and favoured for example by the catholic church.

Well, the Catholic church was wrong too. No problem here.

It was the standard model at least since Aristotle. You can't blame atheists or scientists for that one. If it wasn't for scientists like Hubble I doubt anyone would have come up with the idea of an expanding universe.

Hubble only observed it, but going back to at least a decade before his observation Einstien already knew that the universe was not static with his famous GR equations.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're wrong on that one! Their model has nothing to do with String Theory, and since it is focused on what goes on in a chaotic inflationary stage of the early universe, William Lane Craig himself has added snippets of their work to claim that they are arguing for a beginning of the Universe.....which they are not...if they are given a chance to explain the implications of their work:

First of all I said "many" of the String theories, not all of them. Second, the BGV theorem does apply to the Ekpyrotic scenario based on string theory. Vilenkin said himself "Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions, specifically brane-cosmology like Steinhardts" (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin "Inflation Is Not Past Eternal" 4.) The Pre-Big Bang scenario of string theory has other problems that it hasn't dealt with yet, and all of string theories at still in developmental stages so it is to early to even take them seriously.

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

Um, either the universe had a beginning or it didnt have a beginning. The man said the short answer is "yes". It cant be yes and no at the same time. He said the answer is yes and the foolishness that was said after that I dont know how to respond to it because i dont know what it means. In the theorem, the only exception to it is for a universe to have an average Hubble expansion greater than zero. That is the only exception. The vast majority of all models DOES have an Hubble expansion greater than zero, and that includes at least one of the string theories.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true.

That is not what Craig claims. Dr. Craig does claim that based on the STANDARD MODEL of the big bang the universe did come from nothing, because based on the model there is nothing outside the singularity. All the BGV theorem does is provide corroboration of the fact, that the universe began to exist and the vast majority of models that attempt to make the universe a static universe are all subject to the theorem, making them all finite.

In the final summation, it is once again, another example of how William Lane Craig feels that everything can be used for the purposes of proving the Christian God...including using lies, omissions and misrepresenting the work of others! Regardless, their work is not even using the same jumping off point as the multiverse models consisting of some sort of primordial 11 dimensional metaverse, with universes popping in and out of existence like a cosmic fireworks show. That's one of the reasons why Paul Steinhardt called his model the Ekpyrotic Universe. There have been many attempts by others to knock down this cyclic universe model, but as of the time of this article, it looks like it's still there: Ekpyrotic cosmology resurfaces
Onething seems apparent -- whether the math works or not, if M-Theory is a valid model for unifying physics, then colliding branes of expanded universes are going to seed the creation of new universes, and some sort of cyclic model of universes will be an inevitable result.

Vilenkin has already said that the theorem applies to the Ekpyrotic model. Steinhardt already admitted that this model cant be past eternal (Steinhardt and Turok 2005, p.43-47).

This sort of proof is similar to the ontological proofs of God. They depend on human reasoning, not on the way things in the outside world actually work. I noticed that others have chimed in here to challenge your infinity problem, and since I'm not a math expert, I'll leave that aside. It also seems ludicrous to me that the elite mathematicians and theoretical physicists working in places like the Perimeter Institute aren't aware of this problem before devoting hours to this work! Wave/particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle are also absurd...but they still work anyway.

The problem with infinity goes all the way back to David Hilbert and his Hiberts Hotel Paradox. Nothing new here.

 

[Tristesse]

I understand that infinity is not a number, that is why I consistently said "infinite amount", which it undeniably is. You can say it isn't a number, but you cant say that it isnt a unspecified amount, and that doesn't change the fact that when you subtract or add to any amount, you are supposed to have either less or more than what you started with.

Infinity will never be a quantity, it's a concept.

God was changeless and timeless before the creation. His thoughts never changed. If there is no change, there is no time, because time requires change. Once creation began, God entered time and became temporal. So God went from a changeless/timeless state, to a atemporal state, being in time but not bound by it.

How are you able to assign characteristics of a being that you claim is outside of time or not bound by it? Don't you live according to a universe in which you are bound by the property of time? So, if there is something you claim is not bound by this property, how is it that you are able to not only detect it, but also assign properties to it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Infinity will never be a quantity, it's a concept.

It is a concept, no argument here. It is also a unspecified quantity. There is no way you can substract from something and still be left with the exact amount of what you had before. This is absurd.

How are you able to assign characteristics of a being that you claim is outside of time or not bound by it? Don't you live according to a universe in which you are bound by the property of time? So, if there is something you claim is not bound by this property, how is it that you are able to not only detect it, but also assign properties to it?

How am I prohibited from giving properties to a timeless being?? If time began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be in time. If there was no space before the universe, whatever gave the universe its beginning could not have been spatial. These are necessary conditions, and we are not prohibited from making these necessary deductions.

 

[Tristesse]

It is a concept, no argument here. It is also a unspecified quantity. There is no way you can substract from something and still be left with the exact amount of what you had before. This is absurd.

Infinity is purely a concept, it refers to something without any limit. You cannot add or subtract from it, because it's limitless. So, actually your idea of infinity is absurd.

How am I prohibited from giving properties to a timeless being?? If time began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be in time. If there was no space before the universe, whatever gave the universe its beginning could not have been spatial. These are necessary conditions, and we are not prohibited from making these necessary deductions.

I never said you were prohibited, I asked you a question. And we don't know enough about the "beginning" of time to say one way or the other.

 

[lunakilo]

If time began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be in time.

How can something begin to exist if time does not exist?

If time beagn to exist then time must have existed for time to begin to exist

 

[lunakilo]

So if there are a infinite number of points between zero and one, what is the number before the number one?? And what is the number before that? And before that??? My point is, if the number one is the destination, then there must be a distinguishing point before it. What is it??

That's just the point. there is no specific number just before the number one, because you can always fit a number between that number and the number 1.
If you go to 1-d , where is a small distance, the there is a point at 1-d/2 which is closet to 1 than 1-d is.

The problem is that the numbers between 0 and 1 is not a discrete set of numbers, but are continuous.
Discrete mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God was changeless and timeless before the creation. His thoughts never changed. If there is no change, there is no time, because time requires change. Once creation began, God entered time and became temporal. So God went from a changeless/timeless state, to a atemporal state, being in time but not bound by it.

What I am asking about is where thought come into the equation.

Even if you could make a conviencing argument for that a non-temporal,non-material,non-special entity is needed in order to cause the universe to be created, then why does this entity need conscious thought?

On a side note I am also puzzled as to how to interpret what you wrote:
"God was changeless and timeless before the creation." how can you talk about 'before' in a timeless place?
How does a "changeless and timeless" being change?
Change is required in order to cause creation!

Hubble only observed it, but going back to at least a decade before his observation Einstien already knew that the universe was not static with his famous GR equations.

I assume you by GR mean general reletivity...
And no, it's the other way around.
Einstain originally assumed a static universe. He had to introduce a cosmological constant in order to make his model static.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary"

 

[lunakilo]

Dont believe the hype. There is nothing that can slow down time or stop time. Time will always remain consistent, it is our relation to time that may change, but time itself will always remain consistent.

And you of course have some cool scientific paper to back up that claim, or maybe a wiki link that is conviencing?

You show me a paper that has suggested the idea that time can slow down or stop??? Time isn't a "thing" that you can just these kind of things to.

"Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," Einstein A., 1905.

Thank you PolyHedral

I was just going to go with Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"the lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes."

Your turn Call_of_the_Wild, tell me why this is absurd
And where is that link I was asking for?

 

[The Wizard]

The whole "existence began at some point" concept is absurd beyond all fruitcakery. If true, nothing would exist to "begin existence." Time never began. We have Existence time- infinite. And big bang/crunch time. Time is a measurement of existence...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Infinity is purely a concept, it refers to something without any limit. You cannot add or subtract from it, because it's limitless. So, actually your idea of infinity is absurd.

No, your idea of infinity is absurd. Basically what you are saying is, if someone had an infinite amount of marbles (a limitless amount), that this person is prohibited from giving me three of the marbles, just based on the fact that they have a limitless amount. This goes to show that you dont understand infinity. It doesn't matter whether or not it is limitless, you cant stop someone from giving me 3 marbles if they had an infinite amount of marbles.

I never said you were prohibited, I asked you a question. And we don't know enough about the "beginning" of time to say one way or the other.

Well, based on the question you asked me you made it seem as if is a complicated task for me to assign characteristics to such a being. It is to easy.

 

[Tristesse]

No, your idea of infinity is absurd. Basically what you are saying is, if someone had an infinite amount of marbles (a limitless amount), that this person is prohibited from giving me three of the marbles, just based on the fact that they have a limitless amount. This goes to show that you dont understand infinity. It doesn't matter whether or not it is limitless, you cant stop someone from giving me 3 marbles if they had an infinite amount of marbles.

There isn't "an infinite" it's not a quantity, it's a concept. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in. Maybe this will clear it up, if you have a limitless amount, how many do you have in numbers? Can you add to something that has no limit, can you subtract from something without limit? If you subtract from infinity what number of marbles do you have? Again, it's not a number it's a concept.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There isn't "an infinite" it's not a quantity, it's a concept. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in. Maybe this will clear it up, if you have a limitless amount, how many do you have in numbers? Can you add to something that has no limit, can you subtract from something without limit? If you subtract from infinity what number of marbles do you have? Again, it's not a number it's a concept.

Exactly.

It is really not that hard to understand the difference between a concept like "Infinite"
and an actual quantity. At least for most.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's just the point. there is no specific number just before the number one, because you can always fit a number between that number and the number 1.

Wait a minute, how could there not be a number before the number one when you arrive at the destination of 1?? If you arrive at any destination there is always something before it. There is no getting past this. How can you arrive at one, without passing points leading up to this destination?? If you arrive at one, where were you before you arrived at one?? There is no answer to this because infinity is just a mathematical concept. When you apply the concept to real life events, to actual "things", you end up with these kind of absurdities.

If you go to 1-d , where is a small distance, the there is a point at 1-d/2 which is closet to 1 than 1-d is.

I dont follow.

The problem is that the numbers between 0 and 1 is not a discrete set of numbers, but are continuous.
Discrete mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly!!! So if you were to count the so called "infinite" numbers from 0 to 1, you would never arrive at 1 as a distination, because you cant count up to infinity use infinity as a arrival point. So if you cant count the numbers between 0 and 1 and arrive at the number 1, how could time travel an infinite number of points and arrive at the present moment? Its the same thing.

What I am asking about is where thought come into the equation.

Thought never came in to the equation.

Even if you could make a conviencing argument for that a non-temporal,non-material,non-special entity is needed in order to cause the universe to be created, then why does this entity need conscious thought?

Ohhh, because at the complexity of the universe. One of the necessary attributes of the First Cause is he had to have the will to create. If something has a "will", something has a consious. Intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence. Your computer is just as "smart" as the folks that designed and built it. You cannot get thought and intellectual capacity from entities that dont have it. Consiousness is a necessary attribute for the First Cause. Not to mention the astounding probability based on our unvierses low entropy conditions.

On a side note I am also puzzled as to how to interpret what you wrote:
"God was changeless and timeless before the creation." how can you talk about 'before' in a timeless place?

Because as I said before, there was no "temporal" before, but there was a "causal" before. By "causal" i mean there was a being that existed causually, but because the agent was in a changeless state, thus, there was no time or temporal relation. For example, if I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (eternity meaning timeless), and i never moved, there was never a moment before i sat or a moment after i sat. As I am sitting, the dent in the cushion from my weight never began, but yet I am still causing it because of my sitting. Now lets say I begin to stand up from sitting, it is only at the moment of my first move that time begins, because a change has occurred, and based on that first instance of change I immediately go from timeless and changeless to a temporal state.

How does a "changeless and timeless" being change?

In the example above, i went from sitting perfectly to then begin to move. That is change. The same thing with God, he was changeless and timeless before the universe and at the moment of creation he became temporal.

Change is required in order to cause creation!

Right, and thats why I said God changed when he began to create.

I assume you by GR mean general reletivity...
And no, it's the other way around.
Einstain originally assumed a static universe. He had to introduce a cosmological constant in order to make his model static.

Right, he assumed a static universe and thats my point. Before the discovery of a expanding universe the majority of naturalists assumed the universe was static and eternal. Based on the equations of his GR theory, he found out that the universe couldnt be eternal but must have had a beginning. Then he came out with the cosmological constant to make the universe back static, but Hubble confirmed his theory by observation and Einstien recanted and called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life. Good ole fashioned science right there.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary"

Um, thats my point luna.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There isn't "an infinite" it's not a quantity, it's a concept.

It is a UNSPECIFIED quantity, and if you dont understand this or see how and why, I dont think i can help you.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in. Maybe this will clear it up, if you have a limitless amount, how many do you have in numbers?

First of all, you keep talking about numbers when I am not using infinity as a number. Second, lets take this nice and slow....if i have a limitless amount of marbles, can I give you three, yes or no???

Can you add to something that has no limit

The fact that you are asking this question implies you dont understand infinity...yes you can add to something that has no limit. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, i can still give you ten of my own marbles. So the answer the the question is undoubtedly yes.

can you subtract from something without limit?

Um, yes you can. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, you can give me three of your marbles. Yes you can, once again. So you are asked two questions, both which you thought the answer was no due to your lack of understanding of the subject in question.

If you subtract from infinity what number of marbles do you have? Again, it's not a number it's a concept.

If you subtract marbles from an infinity amount of marbles, how many marbles you will have will depend on how many marbles you subtracted. Once again, I never used infinity as a number, that is what you seem to be doing. It is clear that you dont understand infinity, yet you seem to think you are making such a good point here lol