Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by 1Way
Time is required to “do” anything. No event can ever happen without time.

Awesome post. I fully agree. But, there is still the possibility that there are different types of "time", right? Maybe like there is not just one "spacial" dimension, there are also different "dimensions" of time? Hawking has hypthesized an "imaginary" time... which (like Heusden has said), is more "real" than the time we live in. So, it is possible that the time dimension we live in was created... but if it was, it was created (like you say) in a different "time" or "time dimension".

--ZK

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by attention
Yeah. I fully agree on what you say.

And when you have this contradictionary situation then, that God would be an actor outside of space, time and matter, while such is an impossibility, cause even God can not do something without time, what conclusion do you draw then?

Let us try to explain the reasoning process here again:

1. We think that all of matter, time and space could have started at some point.

2. Since nothing can not start itself, we need the help of a 'creator' then.

3. This 'creator' would have to reside then outside space, time and matter

4. It is even impossible for a creator to do something outside of time

5. Therefore we have to rethink our first assumption, about the beginning of time

6. The only possible explenation comes out: time,space and matter have always existed

So, God has been put into the equations, and reasoned out of it again, leaving the world as something that does not include God. What occured was that God only served as a step in our thinking process itself. A concept of mind.

And that is what God is: a concept of the mind.

The fallacy of course is the concept that time is a characteristic solely of the material universe.

Scripture says differently.

 

[August]

1Way wrote:
<Time is required to “do” anything. No event can ever happen without time.

You can try to deny that truth claim, but I wager that you could only misconstrue or
misunderstand it, but you could not demonstrate that it is wrong. Even if we say that
something “happened” “instantly”, we do not mean that the event took no time at all, every
event takes at least some time.>

You would have had lots of fun arguing with Zeno. Consider this paradox:
An archer shoots an arrow at a target. At time 0, the arrow is in the bow, but shortly afterward it is closer to the target; i.e. it is in a different position. These are 2 different events. The arrow in the bow is the first event, and the arrow at the second position is the second event. Now if each of these events requires a nonzero amount of time, then the arrow takes an infinite length of time to get from the bow to the target, because it occupies an infinite number of different positions in its flight path.
Anyone who has had calculus knows how to resolve this paradox.

 

[1Way]

Amen Bob B! Imagine that, using truth and logic and known laws of science as a basis for a reasonable belief. Scripture does not teach that time had a beginning, it’s use of the words “eternal” and “everlasting” and “ancient of days” etc. seem to overtly give the opposite idea, that time is without a beginning. Even God, who is eternal is named or titled after time based concepts, “He who is and was and is to come”, “ancient of days”, “everlasting father”, “Eternal God”, “Eternal Spirit”, “Creator”, “Beginning of the Creation of God”, “King of the Ages”, etc.

But the pagans want a world view without a just moral God to hold them accountable for that deeds. So their unscientific and illogical bias is pretty obvious since the God of the bible is a God of justice and righteousness. It’s always good to see you here defending the truth and the faith!

 

[1Way]

Attention – As to

(1) Yeah. I fully agree on what you say.

(2) And when you have this contradictionary situation then, that God would be an actor outside of space, time and matter, while such is an impossibility, cause even God can not do something without time, what conclusion do you draw then?

1 – Thanks kindly.

2 – But that is not at all in agreement with what I said. You are granting the opposite of what I said, that God exists outside of time is a notion that I do not grant. But I see that you are doing this to build up to a latter point.

But then you go too far.

6. The only possible explenation comes out: time,space and matter have always existed

I posited, and you agreed, that time is eternal, I do not believe the exact same thing about the universe, and I am not sure about space. I understand space as including infinity, just like time in the expression of eternity, they are unending, so “perhaps” space is also eternal, but I’m not at all certain.

But certainly I do not believe that this created universe existed prior to God’s creation of it. Now, I do believe that the natural laws of the universe, one might say, of reality, along with God’s morality and righteousness and love etc., that they all existed from eternity past. But I do not believe that the created material universe has existed from eternity past, but I do imagine that something of this world’s form and nature was in the mind of creator God at some point prior to creation.

I would say it this way, God supercedes (is over, is beyond, transcends) all of His creation, necessarily, just as any creator is necessarily greater and transcends his creation.

The only choices we have are that

1. the universe has always existed, which is in denial of all known hard science that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and that entropy is a state that moves from order to disorder, not the opposition direction.
   
2. The universe created itself from nothing, pure impossibility.
   
3. Or a capable creator created the universe.

Those are the only three options for the origin of the universe, either it has no origin in that it is eternal (a perfectly unscientific notion), or it created itself from nothing (just as ludicrous), or a capable transcendent creator created the universe, there are no other options.

As to

So, God has been put into the equations, and reasoned out of it again, leaving the world as something that does not include God. What occured was that God only served as a step in our thinking process itself. A concept of mind.

And that is what God is: a concept of the mind.

No, that is what atheists have tried to relegate the truth about God, that He is only a concept in the mind, He is not real. However, if you were truthful about the existence of anything, you know that either it had to have existed from eternity past, or it created it’self without a transcendent creator, or it was created by a transcendent creator, there are no other options.

If you give this concept just a few minuets of honest consideration, it is only reasonable to assume that a transcendent God created all of creation, to suggest otherwise is to deny all we certainly know about the universe (no perpetual motion machine, and nothing can create itself) and what it means for a creator to be beyond it’s creation. In short, it’s to ditch all reason and logic and assert in its place that which is to opposite of reason and logic. And for what reason do mere humans do this tremendous breach of logic and reason? The do it just to try to ease their conscience about the truth of a living and just and righteous God, who they would otherwise have to be accountable to for eternal judgment.

Talk about a blind faith and a determination to be willfully ignorant, just so that one’s immorality might be eternally ignored. The atheist is like a sick man who says that the terminal disease that infects him does not exist, he is not sick and when he dies according to all the known predictions of accumulated medical science and understanding, he will have died because of the disease despite his unbelief of the truth in reality. He could have been set free from the false belief and given life more fully, but some just cant stand the notion that they desperately need a physician’s help.

Your claim that God is just in the mind is like saying that all terminal diseases do not exist and so you neglect the medical care that may have saved your life, all for the unscientific and contradictory notion that the terminal disease only exists in the mind and not in reality, even though all hard science and medical understanding is clear that terminal diseases exist.

 

[1Way]

ZroKewl – As to

Awesome post. I fully agree. But, there is still the possibility that there are different types of "time", right? Maybe like there is not just one "spacial" dimension, there are also different "dimensions" of time? Hawking has hypthesized an "imaginary" time... which (like Heusden has said), is more "real" than the time we live in. So, it is possible that the time dimension we live in was created... but if it was, it was created (like you say) in a different "time" or "time dimension".

You are trying to discount all of science and reason for an imaginary notion. The topic is all about that which is real, to suggest that something unreal is the cause of something that is real is to discount yourself as an authority on that matter, and yes, I think that Hawking is as unrealistic. But I am glad to see his honesty though, it’s rather funny, he has been relegated into the realm of imaginary concepts to try to salvage his “world view”, somehow all the atheistic claims of our pie in the sky fairy tale accounts of a God who created the world, has become even more vapor than it was before these imaginary arguments for a world without a creator God.

ALL

Notice how both antagonists against the creator God proponent fully agreed with my God is the creator of the world position, only to fully disagree with that concept. Atheists are boneheads and they are demonstratively prone to immorality, like bold faced lies for a real un-imaginary example.

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by 1Way
ALL Notice how both antagonists against the creator God proponent fully agreed with my God is the creator of the world position, only to fully disagree with that concept.
Atheists are boneheads and they are demonstratively prone to immorality, like bold faced lies for a real un-imaginary example.

:chuckle: Good one. I didn't agree with your "creator God" proponent... I was agreeing with your assessment of time. That any event must take place in time. In fact, time is created by events (you can look at it both ways). It seems that you are on the brink of a breakthrough of you current paradigm. I have seen your point of view... and I understand it... and some of it is not "wrong" per se (I mostly disagree with the human characteristics that are applied to "God".)

As to You are trying to discount all of science and reason for an imaginary notion. The topic is all about that which is real, to suggest that something unreal is the cause of something that is real is to discount yourself as an authority on that matter, and yes, I think that Hawking is as unrealistic. But I am glad to see his honesty though, it’s rather funny, he has been relegated into the realm of imaginary concepts to try to salvage his “world view”, somehow all the atheistic claims of our pie in the sky fairy tale accounts of a God who created the world, has become even more vapor than it was before these imaginary arguments for a world without a creator God.

:chuckle: You should read the books, dude. You misunderstand the concept of "imaginary time". It is not imaginary in the "not real" sense... it is "imaginary" as in the orthagonal to "real" time -- sqrt(-1) sense. Mathematicians use models that incorporate imaginary #s [sqrt(-1)] all the time to describe accurately the *real world*.

--ZK

 

[attention]

Originally posted by 1Way
Attention – As to 1 – Thanks kindly.

2 – But that is not at all in agreement with what I said. You are granting the opposite of what I said, that God exists outside of time is a notion that I do not grant. But I see that you are doing this to build up to a latter point.

Well you put the finger indeed on the weak spot, because in all discussion about this hypothetical entity, it becomes never entiterely clear as to what God is and what not, where and when he is, and in what form. It's a kind of peek-a-boo game, if you go detemine it in one way, it follows it is in directly the other way (also if you would have started at first in that direction).

I already stated and declared here, that there is no other place for God then a phenomena of our consciousness itself, and God can not exist outside of that.

So, please take a position, if you want to defeat that. If God is outside of the mind itself, then God needs to be somewhere at some time, else God would not exist.

But then you go too far. I posited, and you agreed, that time is eternal, I do not believe the exact same thing about the universe, and I am not sure about space. I understand space as including infinity, just like time in the expression of eternity, they are unending, so “perhaps” space is also eternal, but I’m not at all certain.

Spacetime is infinite, indeed.

But certainly I do not believe that this created universe existed prior to God’s creation of it. Now, I do believe that the natural laws of the universe, one might say, of reality, along with God’s morality and righteousness and love etc., that they all existed from eternity past. But I do not believe that the created material universe has existed from eternity past, but I do imagine that something of this world’s form and nature was in the mind of creator God at some point prior to creation.

Where does your notion comes from that matter itself (and not just material existence forms, which are always existing in a finite spatiotemporal extend) is not eternal?

When did you see matter coming from nothing and nowhere, or going to nothing or nowhere?

I would say it this way, God supercedes (is over, is beyond, transcends) all of His creation, necessarily, just as any creator is necessarily greater and transcends his creation.

God is indeed transedential, in the sense that the human mind "invented" this Deity at some point, and also disinvented this same Deity, which all by all is not a neutral action, but one which lead to increase in knowledge and understanding.

Let me explain what I mean.

First we have started to explore the material world, and our first conclusion from observation is that everything that exists, exists in a finite spatiotemporal form.

We then try the assumption that all of existence, the universe in total, would need to be in a finite spatiotemporal domain.

This then leads to the concept of a begin of time. A problem, since from nothing we will never get something.

So we inventend the Deity, to "transcend" a nothing to something. But this Deity can in no way be finite itself, since this Deity then must have existed always, and was uncaused. Otherwise we would have to start again, for inventing a cause for this Deity. Therefore the Deity must have existed eternally and be infinite. However, we can not assume that anything exists outside of time, matter and space.

This then leads to the contradiction, which only can be solved, by reconsidering our first assumption, that matter was finite in spatiotemporal extend.

Our conclusion is then: matter is not finite but infinite in spatiotemporal extend.


As can be shown in the above, in which at some point of the argument we assume God, only to see in later instance that we have to remove that assumption, that the end result is NOT the existence of God, but it's non-existence.

However, the reasoning can not be said to have not lead to new knowledge and insight, since we altered the initial assumption of a finite extend of the natural world, the universe, to that of an infinite extend. An (infinite) large step!

In fact the reasoning is a form of dialectical reasoning.

This has the following form:

1. Thesis
2. Anti-thesis
3. Syntesis

This is known as the negation of the negation. The anti-thesis is the negation of the Thesis, and the Synthese is the anti-thesis of the Anti-thesis, which is the negation of the negation of the original Thesis. What we get back is the original Thesis, but with a richer and enhanced content.

In the previous example this would have the following form.

• 
  [1] Thesis:
  
  The universe is finite in spatiotemporal extend.
  
  [2] Anti-Thesis:
  
  God has caused all of space, time and matter.
  But God can not have itself a cause, therefore God must be infinite and eternal.
  
  [3] Synthesis:
  
  Outside of matter, space and time, nothing can exist, which means God can not exist. Therefore: the universe must be infinite in spatiotemporal extend.
  
  

The dialectical law of the negation of the negation, is the general law that describes any form of development.

Take for example this example of a dialectical process, describing how in general reproduction occurs in nature.

• 
  [1] Thesis
  
  A seed of a plant
  
  [2] Anti-Thesis
  
  Out of the seed grows a plant, which destroyes (negates) the seed.
  
  [3] Synthesis
  
  The plant grows new seeds, which is the source of new plants which grow even when the original plant has died.
  
  

We get back with what we started, but not in the exact same form, but in a new form, which involves quantitative and qualitative changes!

Instead of one seed, we get as result several seeds. And those seeds are not exact copies of the original seed, but slight changes occured in DNA of the seed.

This is how evolution can be understood as a dialectical process.

All proceses in nature as well as in consciousness, are in last instance dialectical.

The only choices we have are that

1. the universe has always existed, which is in denial of all known hard science that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and that entropy is a state that moves from order to disorder, not the opposition direction.
   
2. The universe created itself from nothing, pure impossibility.
   
3. Or a capable creator created the universe.

Those are the only three options for the origin of the universe, either it has no origin in that it is eternal (a perfectly unscientific notion), or it created itself from nothing (just as ludicrous), or a capable transcendent creator created the universe, there are no other options.

For my reasoning for the eternal infinite uncreated universe, see my previous argument.

You appearantly have a problem in the notion of an eternal and infinite existing universe, as you make references to the second law arguments.

So, your notion is that everything becomes more disorganised? That there is no progressive development?

Man, haven't you read any history? Everything that happened in history just proofs to the contrary. Man itself has develop from an ape like existence into a well organised societal form. Please disproof that one. We have invented more and more complex things. All that proofs that things realy went progressively, into more order, instead of more disorder.

Aren't you able of seeing those facts?

Comparing to the state of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, after that atoms formed, I would for sure state that the current form of the universe is more organised.

The second law is applicable ONLY to closed and finite thermodynamic systems. How can you put the whole universe in a laboratory sized system? You can't. And you can't proof that the universe is a closed system, other then assuming it. Built your argument, starting with a real closed TD system, and add systems to it, that could form a larger closed TD system, untill you have covered the entire universe. But this you can never complete, because either you end up with an open system, or you have not come to completely include the whole universe.

Further. Let us just assume the universe WAS a real closed TD system. This would apply to both the first and second law then.
From the first law we would need to state that the amount of matter and energy must have remained the same, throughout all of time. From the second law we obtain the conclusion that the amount of useuable energy would have to run down.
Conclusion: the universe would have already run out of useuable energy. Contradiction: we observe that the sun still shines.

How can you resolve this contradiction, without removing the unwarranted assumption that the universe is a closed TD system.
You can't, without raising even deeper and profounder contradictions, which you also need to solve.

Conclusion: in no possible way can the universe be a closed TD system. The terms open and closed don't even apply to the universe, since it is an infinite system.

As to No, that is what atheists have tried to relegate the truth about God, that He is only a concept in the mind, He is not real. However, if you were truthful about the existence of anything, you know that either it had to have existed from eternity past, or it created it’self without a transcendent creator, or it was created by a transcendent creator, there are no other options.

Matter exist in the form of eternal motion and is infinite.
No doubt about that.

If you give this concept just a few minuets of honest consideration, it is only reasonable to assume that a transcendent God created all of creation, to suggest otherwise is to deny all we certainly know about the universe (no perpetual motion machine, and nothing can create itself) and what it means for a creator to be beyond it’s creation. In short, it’s to ditch all reason and logic and assert in its place that which is to opposite of reason and logic. And for what reason do mere humans do this tremendous breach of logic and reason? The do it just to try to ease their conscience about the truth of a living and just and righteous God, who they would otherwise have to be accountable to for eternal judgment.

I have given the "concept" already an infinite amount of considerations, and in no possible way it would work or could defeat my point of view and that of materialism.

I have seriously tried! I'm sorry!

Perhaps you should try the other option. Not God, but matter exists in primary instance, and which was neither created or destroyed, is infinite and eternal.

A lot of societal phenomena can also be explained at the basis of materialism. As for instance historical materialism, explains why the society changes, what forces are working in society, etc.

Talk about a blind faith and a determination to be willfully ignorant, just so that one’s immorality might be eternally ignored. The atheist is like a sick man who says that the terminal disease that infects him does not exist, he is not sick and when he dies according to all the known predictions of accumulated medical science and understanding, he will have died because of the disease despite his unbelief of the truth in reality. He could have been set free from the false belief and given life more fully, but some just cant stand the notion that they desperately need a physician’s help.

I don't hold this things for any argument. In my mind, they are the theists that the the most immoral beings that exists.

And we have some historic records to back that claim up!

Your claim that God is just in the mind is like saying that all terminal diseases do not exist and so you neglect the medical care that may have saved your life, all for the unscientific and contradictory notion that the terminal disease only exists in the mind and not in reality, even though all hard science and medical understanding is clear that terminal diseases exist.

Ok. Then let us assume that God is not a concept of the mind, but exists in reality.

Then it is to you the burden of proof that God exists in an objective way, and can provide hard evidence for God.

Go ahead!

 

[1Way]

ZroKewl – You did say,

Awsome post. I fully agree.

Then you argued against the part(s) of the post that you did actually disagreed with. Is it so hard to admit that I caught both of you being somewhat duplicate? Even if you were only trying to be friendly, like having a good sense of humor, these are often admirable traits, but being somewhat dishonest is still being slightly dishonest, and you were caught red handed. As to

Good one. I didn't agree with your "creator God" proponent... I was agreeing with your assessment of time. That any event must take place in time. In fact, time is created by events (you can look at it both ways). It seems that you are on the brink of a breakthrough of you current paradigm. I have seen your point of view... and I understand it...

I’m not at all sure you do. So you agree that time is necessary for any event to happen. Which is the direct support for my conclusion that time could not have been created; it necessarily had to have always existed. But then you immediately turn right around and say that time is created by events and thus you throw out the entire line of reasoning for your own mixed up version. They might better be stated as being directly related to each other, but neither causes the other, neither creates the other, they just each exist within inextricable relationships. Then you say.

... and some of it is not "wrong" per se (I mostly disagree with the human characteristics that are applied to "God".)

I did not present any such contrasting idea. So, do you think that before God created mankind and all of creation, that somehow time was not required for any event to happen? If you say this is true, then I’d simply ask where you get such an unrealist and contradictory notion. If you say that this is not true, then I’d simply ask, what are you trying to say that you haven’t already.

As to

You should read the books, dude. You misunderstand the concept of "imaginary time". It is not imaginary in the "not real" sense... it is "imaginary" as in the orthagonal to "real" time -- sqrt(-1) sense. Mathematicians use models that incorporate imaginary #s [sqrt(-1)] all the time to describe accurately the *real world*.

Coming from a person who just violated (by way of contradiction in terms! :hammer: ) what you claim you understand and believe is true (about time and events), all within one or two sentences, forgive me if I am not quickly moved to value your sense of what I should be doing to better educate myself. :dunce:

Here’s my advise to you, you should put a little more thinking into your thoughts, it may save you a world of confusion and error. :doh: Imaginary verses real mathematics. Is that like new verses old math? From what I gather, all the known properties and laws and logic of math, still apply today just as much as it did from long ago. Sure, mathematical knowledge may continue to mature and make advances, but I know that time is required for any event to happen, you seem to grant that fact too, so I don’t need to examine how it might be that an event might occur without any time to do it, imaginary or real time not withstanding. Or perhaps you were somewhat not truthful when you said that you agree that time is required for every event.

? :help:

 

[attention]

Originally posted by 1Way
Your claim that God is just in the mind is like saying that all terminal diseases do not exist and so you neglect the medical care that may have saved your life, all for the unscientific and contradictory notion that the terminal disease only exists in the mind and not in reality, even though all hard science and medical understanding is clear that terminal diseases exist.

Strange way btw to use this example. Is the belief in God also a terminal disease?

Well I would state then life itself is a terminal disease.

Noone ever has survived it!

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by 1Way
But then you go too far. I posited, and you agreed, that time is eternal, I do not believe the exact same thing about the universe, and I am not sure about space.

In our "4-dimensonal" realm (ONE definition of "universe"), space and time are inseparable. It is like not being able to separate the length, width, and height of a 3D object -- you can *measure* them separately, but the dimensions themselves exist as a unit. That is my understanding, anyway. And it is my perception of our reality. Note: "Universe" has been defined by Heusden as being "everything that exists". If there are things outside of our 4D "reality", they are also part of the "universe". Keep that in mind, else your arguments are going to hinge on a difference of definitions.

The only choices we have are that

1. the universe has always existed, which is in denial of all known hard science that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and that entropy is a state that moves from order to disorder, not the opposition direction.
   
2. The universe created itself from nothing, pure impossibility.
   
3. Or a capable creator created the universe.

Those are the only three options for the origin of the universe, either it has no origin in that it is eternal (a perfectly unscientific notion), or it created itself from nothing (just as ludicrous), or a capable transcendent creator created the universe, there are no other options.

Option 1 is OK as long as you don't limit "universe" to be our 4D space-time continuum. Option 2 is logically contradictory, so I agree that it is impossible. Option 3 assumes a lot of things about a "creator" and introduces unnecessary (IMO) variables into the model (your world-view) of the universe, and does not add any predictable quality to our model. In addtion, Option 3 also has the same limitations (and flaw) as #1 & #2. Did this creator always exist? That defies the laws of science. Did it create itself? That is illogical. Therefore, it must have had a creator. (Argument ad. infinitum).

However, if you were truthful about the existence of anything, you know that either it had to have existed from eternity past, or it created it’self without a transcendent creator, or it was created by a transcendent creator, there are no other options.

I don't know if the "transcendent" part is necessary... but basically it boils down to this: either it always existed, or it was formed. However, another issue may come in to play that we haven't even touched on yet (as far as I have seen): How do you define a "thing". What makes a thing what it is? If a thing changes, is it the same "thing"? Why or why not?

Once those things are answered, you can ponder this: Zakath pointed out that when a thing creates something, the creator thing is changed. Some Christians believe that God does change. Some don't. If God is in time, then God does change. That is what time is. If he is not in time, he cannot change, and could not have created the world.

--ZK

 

[1Way]

Attention – The first part of your post is rather convoluted in thought and grammer, so I’ll respond to your clearer remarks.

(1) Where does your notion comes from that matter itself (and not just material existence forms, which are always existing in a finite spatiotemporal extend) is not eternal?

(2) When did you see matter coming from nothing and nowhere, or going to nothing or nowhere?

1 - Logically consistent hard science. I hold to the highly elaborate and esoteric notions that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and nothing creates itself. The only other option for the origins of the universe, is that something outside of creation created the universe. If you disagree, then describe the other terribly elusive option.

2 – I neither said it did, nor do I believe it happened that way. Burning down straw men will only get you burnt. Moving on, you later say.

This then leads to the concept of a beginning of time. A problem, since from nothing we will never get something.

So we inventend the Deity, to "transcend" a nothing to something.

Not at all accurate. The fact that all hard science and all reasonable logic demonstrates that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and that nothing creates itself, leaves us only with only one other possibility, that our world was created by a supernatural creator. We did not invent a deity to transcent “a nothing to something”, we realize that “nothing into something” is an impossibility, even with God. So the first two options are unscientific and illogical, however the third option is scientific, it’s logical, and it garners no necessary problems unlike the first two options. Then later you say.

Therefore the Deity must have existed eternally and be infinite. However, we can not assume that anything exists outside of time, matter and space.

This then leads to the contradiction, which only can be solved, by reconsidering our first assumption, that matter was finite in spatiotemporal extend.

Our conclusion is then: matter is not finite but infinite in spatiotemporal extend.

That is not the logical progression. And you are simply claiming your atheistic conclusions in the place where a reasonable argument would belong! You do know the difference between a truth claim and a support argument, between circular and logically consistent reasoning, don’t you? You said.

However, we can not assume that anything exists outside of time, matter and space.

You have NO reasonable argument for this claim what so ever, you simply claim it out of pure fanciful faith. On the contrary, I remain logical and scientific and offer support reasoning for my claim that God would exist outside of creation, because He created it. Anything that is created necessarily was created by a creator that transcends the creation, it can not be any other way. And positing the problem of supposedly having to exist outside of space and time is yet another straw man that you want to burn down. I am not saying that God must exist outside of time and maybe not even space, just the created universe, the creator must be beyond that which He creates, it can be no other way.

Flying before you can walk.

Your level of confusion on these topics leave me little choice but to wait for you demonstrate your capability to deal with more simple ideas without contradicting them before I will continue to spend time with you, correcting your contradictions and false understandings. My time is way too scarce to help you mature in these areas. Deal with smaller easier concepts until you can consistently demonstrate that you can handle them without the problems that you so readily demonstrate.

 

[August]

Has anyone else observed that "attention" is either "heusdens" operating under an alias, or someone who has taken on his exact habits of misspelling the same words, and bought his "matter is eternal"(despite Einstein) belief?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Were the Greeks constantly banging into paradoxes, or what?

Were the Greeks constantly banging into paradoxes, or what?

AUGUST WROTE to 1Way: You would have had lots of fun arguing with Zeno. Consider this paradox: An archer shoots an arrow at a target. At time 0, the arrow is in the bow, but shortly afterward it is closer to the target; i.e. it is in a different position. These are 2 different events. The arrow in the bow is the first event, and the arrow at the second position is the second event. Now if each of these events requires a nonzero amount of time, then the arrow takes an infinite length of time to get from the bow to the target, because it occupies an infinite number of different positions in its flight path. Anyone who has had calculus knows how to resolve this paradox.

I've never taken calculus (my loss) but since the 1980s, I've debated Calvinists who have tried to argue that this is a real paradox. My argument has been that they are making an error along the lines of dividing by zero. A zero length point may only exist in man's imagination, but not in reality. Reality may be more digital than analog (like in electrons jumping instantly between positions), and the foundation of space itself may be built upon the existence of an absolute minimal distance (like the ultimate Planck length). Regardless, if a point is of zero length, and the arrow only proceeded the distance of a single such point per moment in time, then even an infinite number of moments would not allow the arrow to move at all. Yet, things obviously move. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that at some point, you cannot get smaller, and real world objects move digitally so-to-speak by jumping from one of these points to the next. That resolves the Greek's paradox (they confused themselves frequently, didn't they?) I'd love to hear the calculus resolution.

Also, I'll throw in with 1Way and bob b on this, against Zeno and attention, any day! -Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

August, a couple days ago on the main Battle Talk thread I posted "Hey, I haven't check on this, but... did Heusdens disappear when Attention showed up? -Bob"

But ZK made fun of that apparently because he thought that it was too pathetically obvious to point out, and since then, it has become commonly admitted to on the site (even by Huey I think).

-Bob

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by 1Way
ZroKewl – You did say, Then you argued against the part(s) of the post that you did actually disagreed with. Is it so hard to admit that I caught both of you being somewhat duplicate? Even if you were only trying to be friendly, like having a good sense of humor, these are often admirable traits, but being somewhat dishonest is still being slightly dishonest, and you were caught red handed.

I should have said: "Awesome post". Then quoted you: "Time is required to “do” anything. No event can ever happen without time." And then said "I fully agree." I was "fully agreeing" with that statement. Obviously, I don't "fully agree" with your introduction of "God". Sorry if you thought I suddenly became a theist.

As to I’m not at all sure you do. So you agree that time is necessary for any event to happen. Which is the direct support for my conclusion that time could not have been created; it necessarily had to have always existed. But then you immediately turn right around and say that time is created by events and thus you throw out the entire line of reasoning for your own mixed up version. They might better be stated as being directly related to each other, but neither causes the other, neither creates the other, they just each exist within inextricable relationships.

An event cannot exist apart from time, and time cannot exist apart from events. From what we know, matter cannot exist outside of time. Anything within time is changing. Change cannot exist without matter. Matter requires time which is changing matter. Would "space" exist if there was no matter in the space? Einstein & people smarter than you and I put together say no. Matter and space are also inextricable. Matter cannot exist apart from space, and there is no space without matter. Same is true for time. Space and time have always existed. Perhaps in different forms, though.

So, do you think that before God created mankind and all of creation, that somehow time was not required for any event to happen?

Time is required for events... time does not exist without events.

If you say this is true, then I’d simply ask where you get such an unrealist and contradictory notion. If you say that this is not true, then I’d simply ask, what are you trying to say that you haven’t already.

We've all repeated ourselves so much, I'm not sure what repetitive statement you are referring to.

Imaginary verses real mathematics. Is that like new verses old math?

Are you being serious, here? Surely you jest.

Or perhaps you were somewhat not truthful when you said that you agree that time is required for every event.

I try to clearly state what I'm thinking, do not lie, and do not obfuscate intentionally. I have stated that there may be other time dimensions, and that events require time -- perhaps not the time dimension in which we live -- but they do require some time dimension.

--ZK

 

[attention]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
I don't know if the "transcendent" part is necessary... but basically it boils down to this: either it always existed, or it was formed. However, another issue may come in to play that we haven't even touched on yet (as far as I have seen): How do you define a "thing". What makes a thing what it is? If a thing changes, is it the same "thing"? Why or why not?

Once those things are answered, you can ponder this: Zakath pointed out that when a thing creates something, the creator thing is changed. Some Christians believe that God does change. Some don't. If God is in time, then God does change. That is what time is. If he is not in time, he cannot change, and could not have created the world.

--ZK

That are the imporant issues here. Theists all to often claim to assert their hypothetical being at the basis of laws of physics or other knowledge, that would indicate the need for a creator (although in the most cases, their arguments are that terrible bad, they are more in need of a good science theacher), but when there are questions asked about the creator, how does it exist, and in what way, how does it create things, does it change, etc, a big silence is mostly the response.

So, firstly, why would God have to create the world, if the world itself can not fail to exist. And apart from failures in their logic, they never give a valid argument as to why there would be any need for a "begin of time". And the most horrible thing is of course, if the world itself needed a "begin of time" which implies the need of an outside cause, why is it that the "creator" would be in a different position to this? The same logic also applies there, so also the creator needs a begin and a cause. So, the only way this can be resolved is to state straight from the beginning, that the world itself, does not have a begin in time.

Then about change. Change is paradoxically stated, the only constant in the universe. Why is there change? Why can't things stay the same. The reason for that is, also paradoxically, that things change so that they can remain the same.
In order for me to exist, I have to breath, I have to digest food, and do a lot of other things. All this requires changes of some sort, but all those changes are only necessary so that I can remain - more or less - the same. And this situatiuon does not only apply to humans or living things, but also to atoms. An atom changes trillions of times a second, else it would not even exist.
So, everything that exists, exists in a way of eternal change. Things change so that they can remain the same. If there would be no change, then there would not be existence either.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by August
Has anyone else observed that "attention" is either "heusdens" operating under an alias, or someone who has taken on his exact habits of misspelling the same words, and bought his "matter is eternal"(despite Einstein) belief?

Attention is the resurrection of Heusdens. You testified yourself that they are the same person.

Well, good old Einstein is the very proof of matter is eternal, since Einstein explained how mass can be transformed into energy and vice versa. Both mass and energy are forms of matter.

Note-- I am talking about matter in the philosophical sense, which is all that that exists outside, apart and independend from the consciousness.

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
But ZK made fun of that apparently because he thought that it was too pathetically obvious to point out, and since then, it has become commonly admitted to on the site (even by Huey I think).

I didn't make fun of your question... I was joking and alluding to Heusden having said he had "resurrected" himself (it was in some other thread). Apology accepted.

--ZK

 

[attention]

Originally posted by 1Way
Attention – The first part of your post is rather convoluted in thought and grammer, so I’ll respond to your clearer remarks. 1 - Logically consistent hard science. I hold to the highly elaborate and esoteric notions that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and nothing creates itself. The only other option for the origins of the universe, is that something outside of creation created the universe. If you disagree, then describe the other terribly elusive option.

The notion that there ain't "pepetuum mobile" is the same notion as what we already had about the closed thermodynamic system.
So your only argument is that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system. Since the universe ain't the size of a laboratory, we can however not state anything about it's thermodynamic properties as a whole. If you state that it is a closed thermodynamic system, then you must provide the argument that it is. Read my arguments in my previous post, that this can not be the case.

If you hold on the position of the universe as a closed themodynamic system, then you better provide proof for that assumption, and secondly, provide a solution to it's inherit contradiction (already ran out of useuable energy, while the sun is still shining).

Creation is not a scientific term and is a very confusing and contradicationary term, so let us refer here to the universe in the way as it is defined, which means everything that exists.
The notion of what the universe is, is already confusing as we can have at least three different notions of the universe, which are:
1. The observable universe
2. That part of the universe and spacetime, that came into being as a result of the Big Bang event.
3. All of existence.

In most cases, I refer to the universe as the notion of everything that exists. By definition there is not something that exists outside of the universe. So, there is realy no option for "outside" causes, since that just means you have poorly defined it.

Oh, and please note we have a very clever way of determining if and wether a scientific notion about reality makes sense. If your notion of reality would indicate that it (the universe) could not possibly exist, and your observation and experience of it, indicate that it nevertheless DOES exist, then most probably, not the universe itself is impossible, but your mindly perception of it is impossible.

2 – I neither said it did, nor do I believe it happened that way. Burning down straw men will only get you burnt. Moving on, you later say. Not at all accurate. The fact that all hard science and all reasonable logic demonstrates that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and that nothing creates itself, leaves us only with only one other possibility, that our world was created by a supernatural creator. We did not invent a deity to transcent “a nothing to something”, we realize that “nothing into something” is an impossibility, even with God. So the first two options are unscientific and illogical, however the third option is scientific, it’s logical, and it garners no necessary problems unlike the first two options. Then later you say. That is not the logical progression. And you are simply claiming your atheistic conclusions in the place where a reasonable argument would belong! You do know the difference between a truth claim and a support argument, between circular and logically consistent reasoning, don’t you? You said. You have NO reasonable argument for this claim what so ever, you simply claim it out of pure fanciful faith. On the contrary, I remain logical and scientific and offer support reasoning for my claim that God would exist outside of creation, because He created it. Anything that is created necessarily was created by a creator that transcends the creation, it can not be any other way. And positing the problem of supposedly having to exist outside of space and time is yet another straw man that you want to burn down. I am not saying that God must exist outside of time and maybe not even space, just the created universe, the creator must be beyond that which He creates, it can be no other way.

The "hard science" fact would in first instance have lead you to the understanding that matter itself (note here I use matter in it's philosophical meaning) can not be created or destroyed, which is acknowledged by science in that physical matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa, which means they are the same stuff but in different existence forms, and which is a conserved proterty in the universe.

Secondly you would have to note that the universe exists in a causal way. You can not rip causality out of existence, or postulate that also 'acausal' things happen, cause this would be ridiculous. Event the assumption that one event was acausal is contradictionary. What would detemine that specific event to be acausal, while all the other events are causal? By definition there could not be anything to determine that it happened, if events can happen acausaly, which then would mean: all events would have to be acausal. But then explain to me why so many events are causal. A coincidence? The only way to explain that is to state that all events are ruled by causality, without even one exception.

Causality itself already (when applied properly) leads to the notion of infinite time. And no: causality itself can not have causes, since outside of causality, causes do not exist.

Happily you admit to the fact that even for the creator our normal notions about space and time must apply, which means that then for the 'creator' the situation is the same: also the creator needs to be accounted for at the basis of causality, which means also the 'creator' needs a 'creator' ad infinitum. So, this 'creator' thing ain't very helpfull to solve the inherent contradiction that from nothing one can not get very much, which then lead to the only reasonable conclusion: a material world in whatever form must have been existing through all of time, without a begin or end.

In summary, this then leads to the notion I already put forward, that there is no and can not be a begin to matter, space and time.

Flying before you can walk.

Your level of confusion on these topics leave me little choice but to wait for you demonstrate your capability to deal with more simple ideas without contradicting them before I will continue to spend time with you, correcting your contradictions and false understandings. My time is way too scarce to help you mature in these areas. Deal with smaller easier concepts until you can consistently demonstrate that you can handle them without the problems that you so readily demonstrate.

Let me state here that the confusion is just occuring in your head.

Also my time is rather limited, and it is pointless to discuss about reality when one does not recognize and acknowledges the proper facts about reality, and does not acknowledge the proper way of reasoning about this.

The invention of Deities, is in no way a help or way out of the contradictions, you created yourself.