How much of this do you believe?

[Willamena]

The truly mind-boggling aspect of these religious arguments is that the religious proponents seem to think that they have explained away the paradox of infinite causal chains. Skeptics point out that God merely becomes part of the causal chain, but that seldom deters the true believer from a kind of "turtles all the way down" logic. God is declared to be "timeless" in some obscure sense of the word, and so he provides a self-satisfying way for believers to ground their imaginary causal regression and somehow step outside of the paradox.

I have heard it proposed that "time" began with the singularity that caused the Big Bang ("Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless" --though perhaps he meant that it effectively began with the Big Bang). Isn't an infinite causal chain equally "explained away" by suggesting a singularity before which no "time" existed?

 

[Copernicus]

I have heard it proposed that "time" began with the singularity that caused the Big Bang ("Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless" --though perhaps he meant that it effectively began with the Big Bang). Isn't an infinite causal chain equally "explained away" by suggesting a singularity before which no "time" existed?

I would not say that the "explaining away" is equal, since it is a bigger leap of imagination to posit the existence of a complex spiritual world with its own chain of infinite causal regression. God cannot think, plan, or act without himself being a temporal being, although one can imagine that he is in a different stream of time--one that is orthogonal to the stream he creates. One can legitimately ask what grounds God's infinite causal regression in his time stream. But, of course, there is the problem that he also operates temporally through sequential interventions in our universe. So I don't see any way to rescue the religious argument here.

As you point out, it is no worse to assume that the uncaused event was effectively the Big Bang. It is simpler than the super-complex spiritual being hypothesis.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I have heard it proposed that "time" began with the singularity that caused the Big Bang ("Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless" --though perhaps he meant that it effectively began with the Big Bang). Isn't an infinite causal chain equally "explained away" by suggesting a singularity before which no "time" existed?

I never understood that statement by Hawkins about time beginning with the big bang. As far as i understand it there is no single entity called time. As time is linked to each objects speed each object has its own time. There is also no reason to believe that there was no time before the big bang. It is just a different stream of time in another continuum. The question what was before the big bang indeed however doesn't make sense.

 

[Alceste]

I never understood that statement by Hawkins about time beginning with the big bang. As far as i understand it there is no single entity called time. As time is linked to each objects speed each object has its own time. There is also no reason to believe that there was no time before the big bang. It is just a different stream of time in another continuum. The question what was before the big bang indeed however doesn't make sense.

I am really fuzzy on the whole "physics" thing, but I seem to recall "spacetime" is a fairly widely accepted concept in smarter circles. It recognizes space and time are not two different things, but two different ...uh... "angles" of viewing one thing. Like the proverbial blind men with the elephant. One feels a leg and goes "It's a tree", another feels a trunk and goes "It's a snake".... (I'm fuzzy on that proverb too, to be honest).

So anyway, assuming my halfwit recollection of what the physicists are up to these days is right, when there is no time, there is no space and vice versa. So, since the "big bang" is meant to be the origin of what we recognize as "space", it must also be the origin of "time". We can't ask what went on "before" the big bang any more than we can ask what's "outside" the universe. Well, obviously we can, because we do, but we don't get any answers.

For the record, I don't find the big bang entirely convincing, but that's only because I can't conceive of "nothing", and I am non-linear. Despite the fact many people have argued "the human mind can't grasp the concept of infinity", my own mind can't conceive of anything but. To me the universe has always been and always will be, and goes on forever in every direction. If it seems like it's "expanding", as the physicists claim, I can only conceive it as the inhalation of a giant cosmic lung, after which an exhalation will surely follow.

 

[S-word]

I am really fuzzy on the whole "physics" thing, but I seem to recall "spacetime" is a fairly widely accepted concept in smarter circles. It recognizes space and time are not two different things, but two different ...uh... "angles" of viewing one thing. Like the proverbial blind men with the elephant. One feels a leg and goes "It's a tree", another feels a trunk and goes "It's a snake".... (I'm fuzzy on that proverb too, to be honest).

So anyway, assuming my halfwit recollection of what the physicists are up to these days is right, when there is no time, there is no space and vice versa. So, since the "big bang" is meant to be the origin of what we recognize as "space", it must also be the origin of "time". We can't ask what went on "before" the big bang any more than we can ask what's "outside" the universe. Well, obviously we can, because we do, but we don't get any answers.

For the record, I don't find the big bang entirely convincing, but that's only because I can't conceive of "nothing", and I am non-linear. Despite the fact many people have argued "the human mind can't grasp the concept of infinity", my own mind can't conceive of anything but. To me the universe has always been and always will be, and goes on forever in every direction. If it seems like it's "expanding", as the physicists claim, I can only conceive it as the inhalation of a giant cosmic lung, after which an exhalation will surely follow.

Well said, I love your definition of God as the eternal and Boundless ever evolving living , breathing entity, which cloud of swirling and ever changing patterns of vibrating and shimmering wave particles, through our physical senses, we perceive as the living Cosmos, who Is, who was and who ever will be.

I, who am a living intellectual being, began as a single cell which duplicated itself, becoming two cells occupying two diferrent positions in space and time, etc. A single living cell that was comprised of no more, (Or so it would seem) than non-living molecules which were created by the gathering together of non-living atoms, which were created by the gathering together of non-living sub-atomic particles etc, and yet I am, but one of the myrid of swirling patterns in the living cloud that is the mind that is God.

 

[Alceste]

Well said, I love your definition of God as the eternal and Boundless ever evolving living , breathing entity, which cloud of swirling and ever changing patterns of vibrating and shimmering wave particles, through our physical senses, we perceive as the living Cosmos, who Is, who was and who ever will be.

I, who am a living intellectual being, began as a single cell which duplicated itself, becoming two cells occupying two diferrent positions in space and time, etc. A single living cell that was comprised of no more, (Or so it would seem) than non-living molecules which were created by the gathering together of non-living atoms, which were created by the gathering together of non-living sub-atomic particles etc, and yet I am, but one of the myrid of swirling patterns in the living cloud that is the mind that is God.

Well, I don't associate the breath of the universe with the breath of "god", or get stuck on "seeming", but I can sorta get into the rest. I do think the universe is "alive" in a sense.

 

[lilithu]

Spontaneous universe

Spontaneous earth

Spontaneous life

Assent of life

Spontaneous intelligence

Spontaneous soul

(Spontaneous- not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural)

Natural does not equal "spontaneous" or "out of nothing."

 

[S-word]

Well, I don't associate the breath of the universe with the breath of "god", or get stuck on "seeming", but I can sorta get into the rest. I do think the universe is "alive" in a sense.

I had said, (Or so it would seem,) in relation to the fact that most cannot accept that living organisms evolved from apparent non-living matter, and your body is nothing more, I repeat, nothing more than a conglomeration of apparent non-living atoms, and yet that tent in which you the godhead of that body develops, is a living organism.

What is it that animates those atoms that are your living body?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Spontaneous universe

Spontaneous earth

Spontaneous life

Assent of life

Spontaneous intelligence

Spontaneous soul

(Spontaneous- not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural)

I've always thought of spontaneous as being new, unplanned... Off the cuff... That doesn't necessarily mean unmanipulated

Without spontaneity, life would be very dull indeed, and I think it's tremendously large part of life and it's existence. The universe existing is a spontaneous event of itself. (Again, not necessarily unmanipulated)

 

[Valjean]

I never understood that statement by Hawkins about time beginning with the big bang. As far as i understand it there is no single entity called time. As time is linked to each objects speed each object has its own time. There is also no reason to believe that there was no time before the big bang. It is just a different stream of time in another continuum. The question what was before the big bang indeed however doesn't make sense.

You're thinking of time as being as you perceive it, non-Spoon. It's a misperception, a sensory error.

[Neti! neti!]
Reality is so different from what we are fimiliar with; what we perceive with our senses, that to apply experience of commonsense to it will inevitably result in misunderstanding.

Geographically, time is a dimension no different than length or breadth or height. Mathematically you can convert length to height by a simple rotation through one of the three "shape/loction" dimensions. But the same applies to time. Time is an aspect of distance (space). they're inseperably linked.

 

[Alceste]

I had said, (Or so it would seem,) in relation to the fact that most cannot accept that living organisms evolved from apparent non-living matter, and your body is nothing more, I repeat, nothing more than a conglomeration of apparent non-living atoms, and yet that tent in which you the godhead of that body develops, is a living organism. What is that animates those atoms that are your living body?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Qi - the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is thought to be inherent in all things.

 

[Willamena]

I've always thought of spontaneous as being new, unplanned... Off the cuff... That doesn't necessarily mean unmanipulated

Without spontaneity, life would be very dull indeed, and I think it's tremendously large part of life and it's existence. The universe existing is a spontaneous event of itself. (Again, not necessarily unmanipulated)

That is closer to the intent of the word. Significantly, it's a naturally occuring 'off the cuff'. I suspect Sandy's 'unmanipulated' is nothing more than your 'unplanned'.

Spontaneity lies in the observation. Nature is not spontaneous, however much spontaneity is natural.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is closer to the intent of the word. Significantly, it's a naturally occuring 'off the cuff'. I suspect Sandy's 'unmanipulated' is nothing more than your 'unplanned'.

Spontaneity lies in the observation. Nature is not spontaneous, however much spontaneity is natural.

Not sure exactly what you're saying, but just to clarify unplanned vs unmanipulated.

(Is unmanipulated even a word?0.o)

Basically, when I think spontaneity, I think Robin Williams stand-up. Or perhaps Who's Line is it Anyway? That is to say, that neither of these are largely unplanned before hand by the performers, yet each performer DOES things.. i.e. manipulates the environment... in a brand new way.

Maybe I'm tired but it feels like I'm rambling so I'll leave it there for now xD

 

[adimus]

Spontaneous universe

Spontaneous earth No

Spontaneous life No

Assent of life Yes

Spontaneous intelligence No

Spontaneous soul No

(Spontaneous- not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural)

I will add some:

Creator God Yes

A supernatural reality Yes

Eternity Yes

 

[lilithu]

I've always thought of spontaneous as being new, unplanned... Off the cuff... That doesn't necessarily mean unmanipulated

That is closer to the intent of the word. Significantly, it's a naturally occuring 'off the cuff'. I suspect Sandy's 'unmanipulated' is nothing more than your 'unplanned'.

In the context of Sandy's OP, I think "spontaneous" means without apparent cause. As in "spontaneous combustion" or "spontaneous generation."

 

[painted wolf]

I agree... but also add that it means "without God". Or even "impossible".

Ironically even "spontaneous combustion" has a cause.

wa:do

 

[logician]

Basically, when I think spontaneity, I think Robin Williams stand-up.

I've heard, contrary to appearancess, Robin Williams is a very "scripted" comedian.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Natural does not equal "spontaneous"...

It does according to Merriam-Webster.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've always thought of spontaneous as being new, unplanned...

Again, the definition is from Merriam-Webster.

 

[Willamena]

In the context of Sandy's OP, I think "spontaneous" means without apparent cause. As in "spontaneous combustion" or "spontaneous generation."

That's pretty much how I interpret "spontaneous" too. The "no apparent cause" underlies what does appear (via observation).