The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
That might seem logical to you, but it's just not the case. What is time if not the separation between two events. Before the Universe existed, before energy, before matter, there were no events. Therefore, there was no time.
It wasn't just ticking away waiting for something to happen, space-time was born at the moment of the big bang. If you think time existed before the BB, how long was there before the BB, after time came into existance? If argue that time always existed, then time waited for ever, before the BB, .. er, in which case, how can something have started after an eternity? I think you need to apply some more logic!
Then compare time and God please, attribute for attribute.
Phlog,
No that is still not correct. For an event to occur a change of state must occur – time must pass. It is not just the duration between events since an event needs time to pass.
It is impossible. If there was no time then an initial event could not occur and the universe could never have begun. Since the universe does exist then time must have always existed. You might argue that time was created first but that is again an event that would need time to exist.
The fault is your for assuming that the BB is the beginning of everything. Throw that model away and there is no problem. And you also have a problem comprehending infinity (eternity). Infinity isn’t a numerical quantity but a state that has no boundary.
Lg,
Time is simply an axiomatic property of existence just as the 3 spatial dimensions are essential for existence. If any of the four are absent then existence cannot occur. I do not see a basis for anything mystical about any of these attributes.
Note: I hesistate to use the term dimension here since such a concept is really a mathematical abstraction but I hope the perspective is clear.
Time is simply an axiomatic property of existence just as the 3 spatial dimensions are essential for existence. If any of the four are absent then existence cannot occur. I do not see a basis for anything mystical about any of these attributes.
Note: I hesistate to use the term dimension here since such a concept is really a mathematical abstraction but I hope the perspective is clear.
All the BB addresses is the evolution of the universe from a density of D0 to a density of D1 (now). That's it. Things were denser and therefore hotter. Now they're not. Evidence supports this model.
When they try to figure out why a cargo cult is not a cargo religion, worshipping the god "cargo" ?superlum said:
That kind of argument only works for some kinds of arguers, I think - and only in their own minds.
You can make a pretty good argument that time, as we know it, did not necessarily exist before the beginning of the universe.Cris said:
It is possible, without contradicting anything we know for sure about the universe, that time began a few billion years ago with the Big Bang. It is also possible that time did not "begin" then but is closed - finite in measure even though the universe is infinite in duration in both time "directions" - like the sum of the closed curves on a Klein bottle.
Last edited:
iceaura,
I'd question any proposition that suggests time could have a beginning since an event that would start time would require time to exist first for the event to traverse the instant of no event to event completion. I do not believe you can provide an example of an event that does not require time to be present.
Anything you suggest that requires an action or event must necessarily be dependent on time being present first.
But even this concept makes little sense since time isn't a commodity that can exist independently, any more than "length" can exist on its own. Time is a property of existence and since we can see from above that time must have always existed then the universe (existence) must have always existed.
All we can conclude about the BB is that it is an event that appears to have occurred. Also, we know that time and hence 'something' must have existed before the BB but the details remain mere speculations for now. A cyclic universe is one such idea, and the infinite number of BB bubbles where ours is just one is another.
I'd question any proposition that suggests time could have a beginning since an event that would start time would require time to exist first for the event to traverse the instant of no event to event completion. I do not believe you can provide an example of an event that does not require time to be present.
Anything you suggest that requires an action or event must necessarily be dependent on time being present first.
But even this concept makes little sense since time isn't a commodity that can exist independently, any more than "length" can exist on its own. Time is a property of existence and since we can see from above that time must have always existed then the universe (existence) must have always existed.
All we can conclude about the BB is that it is an event that appears to have occurred. Also, we know that time and hence 'something' must have existed before the BB but the details remain mere speculations for now. A cyclic universe is one such idea, and the infinite number of BB bubbles where ours is just one is another.
remember the OP is that time for an atheist is the closest they can come to understanding god
Keeping in mind that this is metaphysical time based on 19th century metaphysics, and LG's God based on 19th century Christian theology.LG said:
If you try to use 20th century physicist's time, and compare an atheist's incomprehension of the Balinese Monkey God, you won't understand LG's point.
Simply recalling the understanding of God one had as a youth will also work, if one was raised in a sufficiently sophisticated Christian religious household. That's probably LG's God, very closely.
Meanwhile, further contemplation has solidified an initial whim, and I put it as a claim: the closest a theist can come to understanding atheism is by imagining themselves living among believers in a Cargo Cult, and trying to clarify what's wrong with Cargo as a deity.
in many ways, time still remains metaphysical, since all attempts to empirically reduce it do not enable us to control it in any meaningful way
that's news to me
erm - I doubt it.
I think I can see where you are not coming from
erm ok
(BTW the OP wasn't manufactured as an insult to atheists. There are serious issues that surround time - namely the inevitability of it and it's existence in all things)
Last edited:
depends on how you want to work with the word "mystical" - I mean the way that time invokes irrevocable change in all things is certainly astounding.
And furthermore if you back to the OP you can see how time has a bit more to offer than the 3 spatial dimensions
Saying "an event needs time" is thinking of it the wrong way.Cris said:
We need time, not events. Events don't know or care, about time. We do.
i.e. Time is a requirement for us, we need to "see" time, to observe (change, or any "point" of change--what we call an event); events are time, they don't need it.
p.s. Time is the direction, or dimension of entropy, or dispersal, or dissipation.
Things don't indissipate, or undisperse, or unentropicise, or whatever.
Because of chaos, or chaotic (non-equilibrium, or irreversible) processes.
Nope, that's all pretty clear. Math can "do away with" time, too.Cris said:
Last edited:
Clearly not, something can come from nothing, or we wouldn't be here. Just because you cannot understand that, doesn't make it incorrect. You are trying to apply some logic to this, and some things are counter-intuitive. Let the evidence and data guide you, don't philosophise. Put it this way, if I name two Greeks, Pythagoras, and Democritus, I bet more people would have heard of the former over the latter. Why? Because Pythagoras established a solid mathematical proof based on experiment. Democritus made a postulation based on logic, but no matter what fundamental particle we discover, it seems we can still smash it into smaller pieces, so his philosophy isn't correct, although it appeals to logic.
The event was space, time, and matter being created. It was possible, because that's exactly what happened.
Throw that model away, and replace it with what? Your vague notions that have no data to back them up? btw, I do not a problem with Infinity, seems you do however. IF time always existed, and Inifinity passed before any event that occurred, such as the start on the Universe, how can something ever come to pass, if you have to wait for eternity, eh? Riddle me that. Eternity isn't over, but here we are. For things to happen, you need boundaries, limits, and beginnings. You don't seem to grasp that. Time only moves forwards, for your postulations to be correct, you need negative time,.... maybe you don't see this flaw in your flawed logic!
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I thought there was still debate out there about whether something did come before. I recently read an essay where some physicist were discussing the possibility of universes undergoing natural selection. Other essays and articles gave me the impression that the issue has not been laid to rest. If it has then physicists out there should be clearly that the door is closed.
Last edited:
The BB model only addresses what happened to matter, energy, space, and time after T=0. It dosen't say that "everything" was "created" at this moment. All the model does is take physics back as far as possible given the observations we curently have.
Speculation happens all the time on what may have preceeded the BB. THis speculation has nothing to do with the current BB model.
Speculation happens all the time on what may have preceeded the BB. THis speculation has nothing to do with the current BB model.
Phlog,
No, you are assuming there had to be a beginning and there is no basis for that. Even the state change from nothing to something would require passage of time. A beginning becomes impossible since any action would require time to be present first.
And that event would have required time to begin.
That’s an unsupportable assertion.
That’s because you are still thinking of infinity as a numerical quantity and have tied yourself in knots. But I’m not suggesting that time can exist independently, that has been my point here, time is a property of existence, and since for anything to happen time must be present then there can never have been a point where time did not exist and hence never a point where the universe did not exist.
Why?
Huh! Nonsence. Time no more moves in a direction any more than “length” moves in a direction. Think of time (and hence existence) as a line that has infinite length and “now” is simply an arbitrary point on that line. No beginning or end is needed or possible.
Frud11,
I don’t think that helps since time and events occur independently of us. But perhaps this does highlight my point that time is not an independent commodity but a property of existence much like length and width. In this sense any given event necessarily includes time.
Not sure how this specific example helps the debate.
Lg,
I think what I had in mind was that there is no necessity to add further explanation for “what is”. I suspect you may view this as reductionism but it seems to me there is a set of basic physical laws and conditions that make our universe possible, i.e. these are what constitute existence. Now the question of whether a deity exists that designed all that seems superfluous.
I think I like Einstein’s pantheistic spiritual view on this – he was in wonderment and awe of a universe that reveals itself to us through the laws of physics.
I would tend to agree and I have been struggling this week to further capture those elusive qualities. I’m sure I will continue to think on this.
Those aren't serious issues, they're simpleminded circularities of logic.LG said:
Time does not necessarily exist, for example, in light "traversing" a vacuum. You can assign an existence to it in that circumstance, in order to meet your definition of a "thing", but you don't have to. The light's measure of it is 0.
And there is no such thing as "inevitability' without time in the first place. Time is 'inevitable" the way hue is colored.
But again, the conception of God involved and the conception of time involved can be set beside each other, and the outside observer or historian can learn about the one from the other. That's a fair statement.