Originally posted by twhitehead I 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.
True, but any event is placed in time and each one has a before,
during, and after you are the denying that.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay I'm saying if nothing were real, you could not or would not have any
time frame, you could not and would not have any change in the
nothing, nothing would happen as that was all there was. LOL 🙂
Kelly
And I have said many times that I fully agree with that. But what I am saying is that in all my discussions on the topic on these forums, I am yet to hear from anyone who believes that the universe came from such a nothing. The mistake you make though is to then set up a false dichotomy.
If god created everything, then he created time too. Before time there was not time. In the point of creation (t=0) there was no 'before'.
I use KJ's own words here to describe why there was a first moment of time.
But KJ wants it both ways, and ending up with denying his own beliefs.
The logic of fundamentalism can sometimes be very funny.
Originally posted by twhitehead And I have said many times that I fully agree with that. But what I am saying is that in all my discussions on the topic on these forums, I am yet to hear from anyone who believes that the universe came from such a nothing. The mistake you make though is to then set up a false dichotomy.
I agree.
Would it even make sense to say that the universe 'came from' such a nothing?
It seems to me that although we can form questions like 'why is there something rather than nothing?', not only do we lack the means to answer them, but it is doubtful whether the question is even meaningful.
Would it even make sense to say that the universe 'came from' such a nothing?
It seems to me that although we can form questions like 'why is there something rather than nothing?', not only do we lack the means to answer them, but it is doubtful whether the question is even meaningful.
You doubt the question is meaningful? To me it seems like the
question due to some possible answers is easier to avoid or dismiss
than take on. The notion that we only worry about time as soon as
we have a marker for it seems rather purposely blind to me, when
the question should we and everything else, be here! If it can be
agreed to that there never was a point where nothing was all there
is, we are now left with what or who was always here since that is
all that is left?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead And I have said many times that I fully agree with that. But what I am saying is that in all my discussions on the topic on these forums, I am yet to hear from anyone who believes that the universe came from such a nothing. The mistake you make though is to then set up a false dichotomy.
There seems to be a starting point without cause as far as I can tell.
How do you describe the beginning what was here and the reason for
it?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead That depends on the definition of 'event'. I do deny that it is known that any point in time has a before, during and after.
Do you deny that time may be finite?
I don't deny our universe has a beginning but time itself it depends
on how you define it. If for example the universe or God is eternal,
than I believe time to be too.
Kelly
Yes I do doubt that the question is meaningful since the ability to formulate a question is no guarantee that it is applicable. You can ask the question 'what is north of the north pole?' but it doesn't mean that the question is meaningful.
As for your suggestion that the question is easier to avoid or dismiss than take on, that's just not an accurate portrayal of the state of affairs. An honest appraisal would admit that we can't answer the question and don't even have enough information to decide whether the question is meaningful or not.
The notion that we only worry about time when we have a marker for it is your notion and nobody else on this thread has said anything equivalent to that as far as I can tell.
You are just convinced that your turtle is better than everybody else's, and that's just dull, sorry.
Yes I do doubt that the question is meaningful since the ability to formulate a question is no guarantee that it is applicable. You can ask the question 'what is north of the north pole?' but it doesn't mean that the question is meaningful.
As for your suggestion that the question is easier to avoid or dismiss than take on, that's just not ...[text shortened]... convinced that your turtle is better than everybody else's, and that's just dull, sorry.
Actually I believe it calls into question all the theories around dating
the whole universe if we do not know how the beginning began. We
really only see the end, meaning the here and now, with that limited
knowledge all best guess about the start is just that. our best guess
work.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay There seems to be a starting point without cause as far as I can tell.
How do you describe the beginning what was here and the reason for
it?
Kelly
I do not know whether the universe has a beginning. Scientifically, we have no evidence either way. If there was a beginning ie time is finite in the past, then the cause/effect system does not apply. We may still ask about 'reasons' but they would be in another dimension and would really have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It would just be the question 'why are we here'. I think knightmeister gave a good argument in another thread that there will always be a why question of that nature. Invoking God does not answer it in the slightest, it merely changes the nature of what is here, the 'why is it here' remains unanswered.
Originally posted by KellyJay I don't deny our universe has a beginning but time itself it depends
on how you define it. If for example the universe or God is eternal,
than I believe time to be too.
Kelly
Time is a dimension and an integral part of the universe. I personally cannot visualize time existing on its own or without the spacial dimensions. How would you measure it if there were no events?
By 'eternal' do you mean 'infinite in the time dimension'?
When you suggest the existence of God before the beginning of the universe, do you also suggest the existence of spacial dimensions? If God is non-dimensional and cannot be measured in space, then can he be measured in time, as we know that time is relative to the location in space?
Originally posted by KellyJay Actually I believe it calls into question all the theories around dating
the whole universe if we do not know how the beginning began. We
really only see the end, meaning the here and now, with that limited
knowledge all best guess about the start is just that. our best guess
work.
Kelly
I see you are peddling your old 'time degrades evidence' claim. What amazes me is that you believe the sun exists as you have never in your life actually seen light from it that was less than 2 minutes old - definitely not the here and now. Is the existence of the sun simply our best guess work?
Do you think I might not exists as my post never reach you in the 'here and now'? Do you have more doubt about the existence of a poster when you read a thread that is 5 years old? What about the Bible that is 2000 years old? Surely that is not in the here and now and has been degrading for over 2000 years!
23 Jun '09 12:30
In the beginning God or nothing?
Back to Top