22 Jun '09 16:22>
In 'nothing' god cannot be. Because if he is in 'nothing', then it's not 'nothing' anymore.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you read my post, you will note that I explicitly said that I fully agree with you that you cannot have time in 'nothing' nor can it be placed on the timeline.
I'm discussing 'nothing' if you want to tell me how you can have time
in nothing I say you have changed the subject to something.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have no major problem with that, so long as you realize that your 'cause effect' is not based on the standard timeline ie it did not happen 'before' the big bang but rather along a totally different dimension in which there was a 'before' and now there is a 'present' in which the universe with its entire history now exists.
I actually believe the cause of the universe is outside of it, or better
said not part of it including our time line.
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]You believe there is another 'nothing' you believe in a different
If you read my post, you will note that I explicitly said that I fully agree with you that you cannot have time in 'nothing' nor can it be placed on the timeline.
However, you made an error when you invoked nothing as a substantial entity. You said:
[b]"We are left with choices here, can we have a beginning of time without
cause, can we really have supposing that it is the same 'nothing' that you previously defined - which is isn't.
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]You wish to say that in another dimension invaded ours when ours had
I have no major problem with that, so long as you realize that your 'cause effect' is not based on the standard timeline ie it did not happen 'before' the big bang but rather along a totally different dimension in which there was a 'before' and now there is a 'present' in which the universe with its entire history now exists.
[b]I see God as having no as internally to the universe we still have an infinite chain of chickens and eggs.
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]My argument is against 'nothing' flowing into 'everything', so the start
I have no major problem with that, so long as you realize that your 'cause effect' is not based on the standard timeline ie it did not happen 'before' the big bang but rather along a totally different dimension in which there was a 'before' and now there is a 'present' in which the universe with its entire history now exists.
[b]I see God as having no as internally to the universe we still have an infinite chain of chickens and eggs.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou first defined nothing as:
You believe there is another 'nothing' you believe in a different
'nothing' you have some other way to describe it?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayForget the science fiction for a moment. Dimensions do not 'invade'. A dimension is a measuring stick. If something external to the universe and external to our space time dimensions 'caused' the universe then there must exist a dimension external to the universe on which the universe is just a blip, or at least finite in extent - otherwise the 'cause' would not be 'external'.
You wish to say that in another dimension invaded ours when ours had
'nothing' in it and that was how we got everything?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour error is to assume that 'flowing' must occur. There is a third alternative. It is possible that time is finite ie has a beginning, but did not 'flow' from some prior state of nothingness. In fact, if time had a beginning, there is no prior state by definition.
My argument is against 'nothing' flowing into 'everything', so the start
of everything requires something eternal to bring into being if there
was a beginning.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]There is no cause within 'nothing' it lacks all in every meaning of the
You first defined nothing as:
[b]Nothing goes way past that, no place holder, no place, the lack of any and all values of any kind, no cause, no reactions, no material, no force, no pressure, no singularity, no before, no during, no after, for me right now it seems its only real
description would be to define what is not there since speaking of it
gi o cause), then use the other sense to try to disprove it or show it to be illogical.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are suggesting that counting backwards in time allows us to stop
Your error is to assume that 'flowing' must occur. There is a third alternative. It is possible that time is finite ie has a beginning, but did not 'flow' from some prior state of nothingness. In fact, if time had a beginning, there is no prior state by definition.
Further your conclusion that something 'eternal' must bring it into being is totally unfo ...[text shortened]... ere was no before, so in the time dimension it is necessarily as finite as the universe.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd I am perfectly happy with that definition. However, don't then make the error of trying to invoke a different version of nothing and then use the above definition against it.
There is no cause within 'nothing' it lacks all in every meaning of the
word 'all'. So no cause or effect would be there, since having either
would mean we have a cause or effect, both of which means we have
more than nothing. To hold a place for anything means again there
is more going on than nothing, I thought I had made that clear when
speaking about a null value in programming.
Originally posted by KellyJayI am not simply suggesting it, I am saying that it is true by definition. If you have negative numbers then it is not the beginning of time. The lack of negative numbers on a dimension is not an impossible concept by the way, there is no such thing as negative width, negative weight, negative radius, negative lines of longitude etc.
You are suggesting that counting backwards in time allows us to stop
at what zero? So we have no negative numbers for some reason?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm saying if nothing were real, you could not or would not have any
And I am perfectly happy with that definition. However, don't then make the error of trying to invoke a different version of nothing and then use the above definition against it.
[b]I maintain you cannot aquire anything from nothing, there would be
no reason too, since nothing would ever change, because there is
nothing to change.
Kelly
Do you ...[text shortened]... alk of 'something from nothing' is really just a strawman, as nobody has made such a claim.[/b]