Is there a Creator?

[Jeremiah]

I'm not playing word games. A minute is an abstraction based upon the flow of events. We compare the states of things. That is time in everyday parlance.

According to a scientist Time is the flow which allows for events, but it possesses direction (not merely delay), so here while the thing "minutes" refers to exists it is not the same ordination. Time can flow in reverse but cause and effect is preserved. Can you explain how this can be if ordination = Time?

Time is the delay + direction. But neither one is necessary for causality to function. There needn't be delays between significant events and no "direction" or "set of directions" is strictly better than one or another. Causality requires "superior" and "inferior" in as much as something has antecedent or is exigent for the existence of the other. And that is all causality requires.

MTF

"According to a scientist Time is the flow which allows for events, but it possesses direction (not merely delay), so here while the thing "minutes" refers to exists it is not the same ordination. Time can flow in reverse but cause and effect is preserved. Can you explain how this can be if ordination = Time?"

Called it the "flow", "ordination" or "time" the point is the that it is an actual phenomena.

"Not merely a delay"? I am talking about a series of event from the act of me dropping ball to the ball hitting the ground. The movement of a chain of cause and effect in which I referred to as "delay". There is no need for me to spell it out when we have these word for just for this purpose. It completely redundant that one has to play theses stupid little words game every time there is a discussion around here.

"Time is the delay + direction. But neither one is necessary for causality to function. There needn't be delays between significant events and no "direction" or "set of directions" is strictly better than one or another. Causality requires "superior" and "inferior" in as much as something has antecedent or is exigent for the existence of the other. And that is all causality requires."

I honestly don't what you arguing with me for, you are just saying the same thing I am except recasting it in different words. But this is what I am talking about: The "fourth dimension" or as you called it "the flow which allows for events". I don't know where you got the notion that I was including "direction", I guess that was just your own selective interpretation.

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In classical physics (including the General and Special Theory of Relativity), time can be conceived of as an additional dimension alongside three-dimensional space. Thus, motion in a physical system can be regarded as a static and continuous curve traversing through a four-dimensional spacetime. It is also reversible. If we turn all the particle's momentum backward, the motion can be completely reversed. As long as a snapshot (an event -- made up of the momenta and coordinates) in the spacetime is known completely, the equations of motions uniquely determine the past and the future evolution of the physical system. According to classical physics, if one knows the positions and momenta of all particles in the universe at a certain time, the future of the whole (physical) universe is completely determined

Time and causality

 

[OGMIOS6666]

I am truly amazed at all these comments, does anyone remember their first creation? and the same will happen to all of us when we will be alive after our death. The purpose of all these theatrics in the life of the world is merely a test, to see which one among us behaves in a proper manner, and which one of us behaves in an improper manner, there will be no injustice done to anyone of us, all will be recorded in the book of deeds, plain to see.
God there is Nothing comparable to Him whatsoever and There is None Like Him, He is the Almighty, The Oft Forgiving Most Merciful, perhaps He is just holding himself back from wrapping the heavens and finishing the world and holding the earth i hjis hand, and telling all of us well "Am I not God?" Truly all of you have not made a just estimate of our Lord as to what is due to Him.

 

[richardlowellt]

I am truly amazed at all these comments, does anyone remember their first creation?

No, and neither do you or anyone else, what's your point?

The purpose of all these theatrics in the life of the world is merely a test, to see which one among us behaves in a proper manner, and which one of us behaves in an improper manner,

Well you really do have a demon god don't you. He created all there is and then created man as his personal test to see if they will obey him. This is what a dictator does, he demand worship and adherence to a set of rules, those who fail to follow those rules to the letter are tortured and killed, same as your god. Anyone or thing demanding worship is vain, self centered, and arrogant certainly not a trait a god should possess. Not enough to create and leave us alone, no he must test us as one would do with a lab rat, so we become no more than gods lab rats, sure glad this demon god is only a myth.




.

God there is Nothing comparable to Him whatsoever

Sure there is, any dictator would compare very well to this god. Hitler comes to mind, murdered and tortured under his dictatorship, he even committed genocide just like your demon god, a great comparison.

The Oft Forgiving Most Merciful

No, no, I wouldn't say merciful, obey or be thrown into a lake of fire for eternity, now thats not very merciful is it? Babies who weren't baptized before they died were sent to purgatory, not very merciful to poor innocent babies, never answering the prayers of amputees, but giving sight to the blind, well thats just plain cruel, see, no mercy here at all, just self centered cruelty.

Truly all of you have not made a just estimate of our Lord as to what is due to Him.

Yes your right, kind of hard to make a just estimate of a baby killer, mass murderer, torturer of millions, and just plain evil. all thats due him is what the late great George Carlin had to say."In any decently run universe this guy would have been thrown out on his all powerful *** a long time ago" How very true.

 

[Thief]

How about the label itself?
Supposedly that's the actual target.

So once again.....
The singularity is a creation.
God did it.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"According to a scientist Time is the flow which allows for events, but it possesses direction (not merely delay), so here while the thing "minutes" refers to exists it is not the same ordination. Time can flow in reverse but cause and effect is preserved. Can you explain how this can be if ordination = Time?"

Called it the "flow", "ordination" or "time" the point is the that it is an actual phenomena.

"Not merely a delay"? I am talking about a series of event from the act of me dropping ball to the ball hitting the ground. The movement of a chain of cause and effect in which I referred to as "delay". There is no need for me to spell it out when we have these word for just for this purpose. It completely redundant that one has to play theses stupid little words game every time there is a discussion around here.

"Time is the delay + direction. But neither one is necessary for causality to function. There needn't be delays between significant events and no "direction" or "set of directions" is strictly better than one or another. Causality requires "superior" and "inferior" in as much as something has antecedent or is exigent for the existence of the other. And that is all causality requires."

I honestly don't what you arguing with me for, you are just saying the same thing I am except recasting it in different words. But this is what I am talking about: The "fourth dimension" or as you called it "the flow which allows for events". I don't know where you got the notion that I was including "direction", I guess that was just your own selective interpretation.

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time and causality

I'm not calling Ordination Flow. That is illogical as they do not express the same concept. Exigency and Motion are not the same concepts. Time is a reference frame in motion. It allows for interacting beings to notice change. Exigency can exist without a framework of motion to allow changes to be noticed, but still allow changes to occur. Taken to an absolute, what if all changes "happened all at once?" or "all delays were infinite in an eternal system?" There is a fundamental breakdown in our understanding of cause an effect under both "questions," but this does not mean that it is impossible, merely that we are (currently) unable to conceive of how to resolve this.

Time is a "reality" but it is inextricably bound up in our perception as well. To state otherwise is to invoke fallacy. Existence does not need time, but anyone wishing to interact with existence in a meaningful manner does (I think).

MTF

 

[richardlowellt]

So once again.....
The singularity is a creation.
God did it.

[/QUOTE]Nope, no evidence of that whatsoever, you have to prove the singularity was created and you have to prove there is a god, good luck, no on has been able to do that since started asking that question, just think, you could be the first in all of history.

One of the greatest minds of this century Stephen Hawking has stated in his best seller A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe" Here is more from Hawking "Observations confirming the big bang so not rule out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so called quantum fluctuations."

 

[Thief]

So maybe the universe is redundant.
God did it.

 

[richardlowellt]

So maybe the universe is redundant.
God did it.

Maybe it is, if so maybe the fish gods from Neptune are responsible and not your god thing.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Goodness gracious Thief. Even if it is the case which the Big Bang singularity is the source of the universe (which is probably not the case considering BBT has some holes in it; we will probably find some better model in the future once we have more information), it does NOT follow that a creator is responsible.

The universe =/= Existence. The universe (let alone the known universe) is so far from being the totality of everything as to be a drop of water in a great ocean. Arguing that existence has a beginning would necessitate a "God" but any arguments about existence proper amount to PURE speculation. Deal with it.

MTF

 

[Thief]

If the cause and effect argument has holes in it....
Then most of the discussion I see in this forum is likewise.

Cause and effect is a basic line of thought.
The effect follows the cause.

Science falls short explaining the genesis (singularity).
I am willing to say ...God did it.
Deal with it.

( this is a religious forum)

 

[darkendless]

If the cause and effect argument has holes in it....
Then most of the discussion I see in this forum is likewise.

Cause and effect is a basic line of thought.
The effect follows the cause.

Science falls short explaining the genesis (singularity).
I am willing to say ...God did it.
Deal with it.

( this is a religious forum)

Genesis has more holes in it than the Iraqee navy. There is a concept i would like to introduce to you, it is called Geology. Geology proves much of genesis to be false. Deal with it. If you don't like it, never enter a building, because human knowledge of geology is keeping it stable.

 

[Thief]

Not genesis of biblical fame.
Genesis as singularity. That notation was directly there in the post.

And of course, rebuttals like yours are why discussions like this go on so long.
You are assuming my frame of mind.

I don't practice religion.
As for the Genesis Narrative....
It does mention a beginning, and describes that beginning coming forth from some kind of void.

It does look like a coarse description of the singularity.

 

[richardlowellt]

Its no more logical to suggest it does exist than to suggest it doesn't.

And why, because you can't imagine such an event without a creator? Thats the mindset of the religious, if it's so complex that I can't understand it, then it must be God. It's the easy way out, thats exactly why religion is hostile to fee thought.

I've said this, or did you choose to ignore it. Since we do not understand the big bang it is impossible to rule out creation.

There are many theories about that event, one suggests there was no singularity A quote from one of the great minds of our century Stephen Hawking from his best seller A BREIF HISTORY OF TIME "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe. The claim that the universe began with the big bang has NO basis i current physical and cosmological knowledge. There are models suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so called quantum fluctuations."

Stop being silly, you cannot make definitive judgements on incomplete evidence.

No but I think unlike you I can rule out god magic. Try an expanding contracting cosmos, one that has always existed, like a rubber band it expands then contracts to a small point and the BIG BANG, a perpetual motion machine that has bee going on for eternity, beats god magic.

If you would care to show me "complete" evidence for the big bang then we can start ruling out God's

There is no "complete" evidence for the big bang, only scientific theories which are based on collected data and observation, both things that can't be done with an imaginary being. Your being silly putting your bet on a magical being who at this point is nothing more than a myth.

what is to say that God did not create the big bang

Simple reason, and logic, and a non belief in imaginary being who perform magic. Do you really think the magician makes the elephant disappear?

 

[Tiapan]

Why is there the need for a massively complex entity such as a "god" if the universe has always and will forever exist (eg a cyclic Universe - contraction big bang expansion contraction big bang expansion... etc)?

If it has always existed no need for creator.

Some will ask "it must have started somewhere" I would reply why. Bit like asking where is the start or end of infinity.

The supposition that a god existed to create the universe from nothing (State 0) to the embryonic singularity (State 1) which explodes and create our current universe(State 2+) continually increasing in complexity (Chaos theory) with time until eventually it reverses and returns to the singularity (State 1) again during the big crunch that oscillates between State 1 and State 2+ why do we need a State 0. This God character for all his skill must have been ultimately complex (State Infinity) in a universe of State 0, I dont think so. If the Universe has always existed with no start or end and there is no State 0 there is no god.

Cheers

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm not calling Ordination Flow. That is illogical as they do not express the same concept. Exigency and Motion are not the same concepts. Time is a reference frame in motion. It allows for interacting beings to notice change. Exigency can exist without a framework of motion to allow changes to be noticed, but still allow changes to occur. Taken to an absolute, what if all changes "happened all at once?" or "all delays were infinite in an eternal system?" There is a fundamental breakdown in our understanding of cause an effect under both "questions," but this does not mean that it is impossible, merely that we are (currently) unable to conceive of how to resolve this.

Time is a "reality" but it is inextricably bound up in our perception as well. To state otherwise is to invoke fallacy. Existence does not need time, but anyone wishing to interact with existence in a meaningful manner does (I think).

MTF

"I'm not calling Ordination Flow."

I know, that was obvious. At any rate, can we get to the point where you actually prove time does not exist. This is getting boring and I certainly don't need you to explain what I already understand.

 

[darkendless]

And why, because you can't imagine such an event without a creator? Thats the mindset of the religious, if it's so complex that I can't understand it, then it must be God. It's the easy way out, thats exactly why religion is hostile to fee thought.

As an atheist i can and do im just simply saying given our current understanding it would be scientifically unjust to rule out that which statistically has a chance of being correct.

There are many theories about that event, one suggests there was no singularity A quote from one of the great minds of our century Stephen Hawking from his best seller A BREIF HISTORY OF TIME "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe. The claim that the universe began with the big bang has NO basis i current physical and cosmological knowledge. There are models suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so called quantum fluctuations."

I was introduced to quantum tunelling last year. My problem with these theories is understanding how free energy which is present fluctuates enough to create such events. There is always a gap in explaining how or what kind of mechanisms could be used as triggers to set off such events.

No but I think unlike you I can rule out god magic. Try an expanding contracting cosmos, one that has always existed, like a rubber band it expands then contracts to a small point and the BIG BANG, a perpetual motion machine that has bee going on for eternity, beats god magic.

How? Where is your evidence against God? As rediculous as you may find religion you can't get rid of it. I hate everything to do with religion, but unlike you, i refuse to eliminate plausible possibilities.

There is no "complete" evidence for the big bang, only scientific theories which are based on collected data and observation, both things that can't be done with an imaginary being. Your being silly putting your bet on a magical being who at this point is nothing more than a myth.

Simple reason, and logic, and a non belief in imaginary being who perform magic. Do you really think the magician makes the elephant disappear?

I'm not betting on anything. Religion is useless to me, as is speculation. By speculating your own personal opinion based on logic you have yet to demonstrate, you're just as bad as the religious.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"I'm not calling Ordination Flow. That is illogical as they do not express the same concept."

I agree, that was obvious, but I like how you think I didn't catch that. At any rate, can we get to the point where you actually prove times does not exist. This is getting boring.

Time is not completely objective in its reality, and that is the point. We cannot be sure how much is our consciousness and how much is a feature of external reality, since external reality need not possess time (strictly speaking). External reality could be an eternal static system which has small individualized units which labor under the "delusion" of change (so exigency is preserved, external reality is necessary in order for us to exist, but "time" is not required for cause and effect).

I'm not sure what the point Turkey was trying to make exactly, but it should not be taken as given that Time is objective nor necessary for existence to work. I will certainly agree that it is a very good assumption that the rest of reality uses Time (or something very close to it), but that is all that it is: an assumption.

All spacetime does in physics is establish that the way to best model the behavior of particles is if you assume that time is a part of the geometric architecture which establishes location, velocity, etc. That doesn't mean that time propagates to all levels of reality. Take 11th dimension proposed by M Theory: We have no idea how "time" relates there...

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Why is there the need for a massively complex entity such as a "god" if the universe has always and will forever exist (eg a cyclic Universe - contraction big bang expansion contraction big bang expansion... etc)?

If it has always existed no need for creator.

Some will ask "it must have started somewhere" I would reply why. Bit like asking where is the start or end of infinity.

The supposition that a god existed to create the universe from nothing (State 0) to the embryonic singularity (State 1) which explodes and create our current universe(State 2+) continually increasing in complexity (Chaos theory) with time until eventually it reverses and returns to the singularity (State 1) again during the big crunch that oscillates between State 1 and State 2+ why do we need a State 0. This God character for all his skill must have been ultimately complex (State Infinity) in a universe of State 0, I dont think so. If the Universe has always existed with no start or end and there is no State 0 there is no god.

Cheers

Actually, in order to explain first cause for any causality chain you require something which exists outside the causality chain. In the case of Reality/Existence, then presuming a first cause requires a "thing" which is outside Existence.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

If the cause and effect argument has holes in it....
Then most of the discussion I see in this forum is likewise.

Cause and effect is a basic line of thought.
The effect follows the cause.

Science falls short explaining the genesis (singularity).
I am willing to say ...God did it.
Deal with it.

( this is a religious forum)

This presumes that there is a genesis. BBT has enough holes in it to be slowly sinking the ship. So, any religious explanations predicated on BBT being completely true are vacuous.

So you are willing to say God made the universe. That is great. I am far less interested in an extra-terrrestrial, than I am in an actual "God." The universe is a nested portion of Reality in general. If God made the universe, then God (as you conceive it) is subject to the rules of Reality and thus a limited being. This means God is just a glorified ET.

I am far more interested in "God" or Perfection as a First Cause for Reality. Of course we have no way of knowing for sure that Reality has a beginning...

MTF

 

[Jeremiah]

Time is not completely objective in its reality, and that is the point. We cannot be sure how much is our consciousness and how much is a feature of external reality, since external reality need not possess time (strictly speaking). External reality could be an eternal static system which has small individualized units which labor under the "delusion" of change (so exigency is preserved, external reality is necessary in order for us to exist, but "time" is not required for cause and effect).

I'm not sure what the point Turkey was trying to make exactly, but it should not be taken as given that Time is objective nor necessary for existence to work. I will certainly agree that it is a very good assumption that the rest of reality uses Time (or something very close to it), but that is all that it is: an assumption.

All spacetime does in physics is establish that the way to best model the behavior of particles is if you assume that time is a part of the geometric architecture which establishes location, velocity, etc. That doesn't mean that time propagates to all levels of reality. Take 11th dimension proposed by M Theory: We have no idea how "time" relates there...

MTF

"Time is not completely objective in its reality, and that is the point."

That was not your point but I really don't care any more.

"but it should not be taken as given that Time is objective nor necessary for existence to work. I will certainly agree that it is a very good assumption that the rest of reality uses Time (or something very close to it), but that is all that it is: an assumption."

It is far more then an assumption, but then you already know that.