God and time and space

[Random Person]

It seems logically consistent to me. That doesn't make it true but it's not hard to understand.

If a bing created space, time and matter then it would exist outside of these three things.

When, pray tell, did this entity have the time to create time? I didn't know turtles wore watches.

Some people believe that time had a beginning and that god created it along with space and material.

 

[Kharakov]

Time began when I was created. You're welcome, old people.

 

[Atheos]

But to suggest that the bing created anything is to appeal to time. The being would have to exist without the created thing, then the being would have to do something that resulted in the existence of the created thing. This takes time. Without time god wouldn't have enough time to create time.

Time was our idea. We are the ones who must take time to move from one spot to the next, and while we can go back to our original spot, we can't go back to the original time. That's our problem, not the problem of a being who is not constrained by space and time, and does not have to play by our rules.

It's irrelevant whether or not this theoretical entity exists in some extra-dimensional environment where time as we understand it is not applicable. I maintain that it is not possible for it to be true that the entity created the four dimensional construct known as our universe if said entity does not exist in an environment with something analogous to time. Call it "god time" for lack of a better word. But in order for it to be true that the entity created something a minimum of these three states are necessary:

• Entity exists but creation does not exist
• Entity performs creative act
• Entity and creation exist

Otherwise it cannot be true that the entity created the creation.

 

[Bronzeage]

But to suggest that the bing created anything is to appeal to time. The being would have to exist without the created thing, then the being would have to do something that resulted in the existence of the created thing. This takes time. Without time god wouldn't have enough time to create time.

Time was our idea. We are the ones who must take time to move from one spot to the next, and while we can go back to our original spot, we can't go back to the original time. That's our problem, not the problem of a being who is not constrained by space and time, and does not have to play by our rules.

It's irrelevant whether or not this theoretical entity exists in some extra-dimensional environment where time as we understand it is not applicable. I maintain that it is not possible for it to be true that the entity created the four dimensional construct known as our universe if said entity does not exist in an environment with something analogous to time. Call it "god time" for lack of a better word. But in order for it to be true that the entity created something a minimum of these three states are necessary:

• Entity exists but creation does not exist
• Entity performs creative act
• Entity and creation exist

Otherwise it cannot be true that the entity created the creation.

If an entity which is not constrained by space and time creates the creation, then the creation exists in all times and simultaneously does not exist. Freaky, huh?

 

[Malintent]

It seems logically consistent to me. That doesn't make it true but it's not hard to understand.

If a bing created space, time and matter then it would exist outside of these three things.

When, pray tell, did this entity have the time to create time? I didn't know turtles wore watches.

Some people believe that time had a beginning and that god created it along with space and material.

well then, aren't beliefs FUN! Fiction is very entertaining, indeed... Some people believe that the moon landing was a hoax... and that black people are "less evolved" than whites... We are discussing facts, though, I beleive. People are entitled to whatever beliefs they want. Facts, on the other hand, are not really open for debate.

So, factually speaking, to "create time" requires that time does not yet exist (unless "create" is being used differently here than in, say, ENGLISH). Please explain how "create" works without the support of time to diferenciate a "before creation" and "after creation" state that changed.

 

[Random Person]

It seems logically consistent to me. That doesn't make it true but it's not hard to understand.

If a bing created space, time and matter then it would exist outside of these three things.

When, pray tell, did this entity have the time to create time? I didn't know turtles wore watches.

Some people believe that time had a beginning and that god created it along with space and material.

well then, aren't beliefs FUN! Fiction is very entertaining, indeed... Some people believe that the moon landing was a hoax... and that black people are "less evolved" than whites... We are discussing facts, though, I beleive. People are entitled to whatever beliefs they want. Facts, on the other hand, are not really open for debate.

So, factually speaking, to "create time" requires that time does not yet exist (unless "create" is being used differently here than in, say, ENGLISH). Please explain how "create" works without the support of time to diferenciate a "before creation" and "after creation" state that changed.

Time had a beginning according to the standard model of physics.

 

[Bomb#20]

Time had a beginning according to the standard model of physics.

No, the standard model of physics breaks down and can't tell us what was happening before the Planck Time. That's not the same thing as telling us time had a beginning. Moreover, the word "time" is getting used in two senses in this thread. It's being used to refer to one of the dimensions of spacetime, and it's also being used to refer to the partial ordering imposed on events by cause-and-effect relationships. Even if some day we develop a theory of quantum gravity that can describe the universe before the Planck Time, and even if that theory tells us time had a beginning, it will only be telling us so in the spacetime dimension sense. Physics isn't in principle capable of telling us whether cause-and-effect relationships had a beginning; that's a metaphysical question.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

But to suggest that the bing
created anything is to appeal to time. The being would have to exist without the created thing, then the being would have to do something that resulted in the existence of the created thing. This takes time. Without time god wouldn't have enough time to create time.

Time was our idea. We are the ones who must take time to move from one spot to the next, and while we can go back to our original spot, we can't go back to the original time. That's our problem, not the problem of a being who is not constrained by space and time, and does not have to play by our rules.

It's irrelevant whether or not this theoretical entity exists in some extra-dimensional environment where time as we understand it is not applicable. I maintain that it is not possible for it to be true that the entity created the four dimensional construct known as our universe if said entity does not exist in an environment with something analogous to time. Call it "god time" for lack of a better word. But in order for it to be true that the entity created something a minimum of these three states are necessary:

• Entity exists but creation does not exist
• Entity performs creative act
• Entity and creation exist

Otherwise it cannot be true that the entity created the creation.

The maya solution. The idealist God. Nothing has actual physical existence, all exists solely in the mind of God. All is illusionary.

Panentheism, the Universes exists outside and beyond God. God can affect rhe Universe in limited ways.
Process theologians have found that this God cannot coexist with the modern physics of the Universe.

The Easter Bunny argument. The Easter Bunny waves her paw and magic happens. That is one can make up any argument, claim it's possible and the burden to disprove that claim shifts to the atheist. That is why I try to develop counter arguments like super-omnipotent and omnigenesis. The most powerful God imaginable still does not in the end, work. And the most powerful God imaginable guts arguments such as TAG and presuppositionalism.

 

[Random Person]

Time had a beginning according to the standard model of physics.

No, the standard model of physics breaks down and can't tell us what was happening before the Planck Time. That's not the same thing as telling us time had a beginning. Moreover, the word "time" is getting used in two senses in this thread. It's being used to refer to one of the dimensions of spacetime, and it's also being used to refer to the partial ordering imposed on events by cause-and-effect relationships. Even if some day we develop a theory of quantum gravity that can describe the universe before the Planck Time, and even if that theory tells us time had a beginning, it will only be telling us so in the spacetime dimension sense. Physics isn't in principle capable of telling us whether cause-and-effect relationships had a beginning; that's a metaphysical question.

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

Who said anything about "metaphysical time"? Are you just throwing my words in a blender and assuming what you get out is equivalent to what you put in? The universe having 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is a valid concept; cause-and-effect partial order is a valid concept; they are two different concepts; and every physicist uses both of them. Those are facts, not matters of belief. But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

 

[dockeen]

RP,

Can you point to any survey where physicists were asked about their thoughts on time beginning?

 

[Random Person]

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

Who said anything about "metaphysical time"? Are you just throwing my words in a blender and assuming what you get out is equivalent to what you put in? The universe having 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is a valid concept; cause-and-effect partial order is a valid concept; they are two different concepts; and every physicist uses both of them. Those are facts, not matters of belief. But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

It sounds like you are engineering a conclusion without any real basis.

 

[Malintent]

Time had a beginning according to the standard model of physics.

No, the standard model of physics breaks down and can't tell us what was happening before the Planck Time. That's not the same thing as telling us time had a beginning. Moreover, the word "time" is getting used in two senses in this thread. It's being used to refer to one of the dimensions of spacetime, and it's also being used to refer to the partial ordering imposed on events by cause-and-effect relationships. Even if some day we develop a theory of quantum gravity that can describe the universe before the Planck Time, and even if that theory tells us time had a beginning, it will only be telling us so in the spacetime dimension sense. Physics isn't in principle capable of telling us whether cause-and-effect relationships had a beginning; that's a metaphysical question.

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

At no fault of the layperson, this is a misunderstanding of what "the majority of physicists" say about "the beginning of" time. Suffice to say, it would be more (grammatically clumsy) precise to say, "the earliest point in the existance of the Universe for which our quantifiable understanding of the nature of time and space can be accurately applied". Or, the more easily digestable form, "beginning of time".

To point at that semantic shortcut and say "Ah Ha! Time HAD A BEGINNING" is in the same category of stating, "Ah HA! Evolution is JUST A THEORY".

 

[Malintent]

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

Who said anything about "metaphysical time"? Are you just throwing my words in a blender and assuming what you get out is equivalent to what you put in? The universe having 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is a valid concept; cause-and-effect partial order is a valid concept; they are two different concepts; and every physicist uses both of them. Those are facts, not matters of belief. But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

It sounds like you are engineering a conclusion without any real basis.

I read no conclusion in the quoted statement.
I did read 2 questions, 4 facts, 2 opinions, and 1 conditional argument.... But no conclusions.

 

[dockeen]

It is a very definite statement to proclaim "the majority of physicists believe XYZ", that a responsible reporter would have a definitive, direct source for.

I won't even delve into the use of the word "believe" - having slipped up and used that word in graduate school during a late night homework or test study session
a couple of times, and been showered with "this is not a f***ing religion class"...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Love how orthodox believers often pretend they know how the Supreme Being operates & under what (or no) parameters...until they reach a point where it would appear the S.B. is either hateful or noninterventional, and then it's back to "We are mere humans, and the created cannot understand the creator." It's a wretched fiction where they write all the rules to cover all the contingencies. BTW, believers, what are the specific texts that convince you that the SB is outside of space and time? (Not that the texts should prove anything, but just asking.) Also, how can a SB who is outside of time be angered and disappointed and change his (its) deal with mankind, i.e., the Genesis flood legend? Quote: And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

Space doesn't have to travel in order to be everywhere at once. It is something too- it has properties, such as electromagnetic permittivity, that indicate that it is not "nothing".

Now that's the interesting question, though it's a derail: If space is not nothing, then it must be something; but just what is it? Is it a continuum, or is it quantized? If it is capable of being distorted, and in turn of distorting things that travel through it, then does it have substance? It seems to be full of virtual matter and energy, but yet to be an empty vessel for real (non-virtual) things to occupy. So just what is this paradox? Does it exist in all it's nothingness, or does it only exist as a conceptual framework, a relational epiphenomenon?

 

[Random Person]

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

Who said anything about "metaphysical time"? Are you just throwing my words in a blender and assuming what you get out is equivalent to what you put in? The universe having 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is a valid concept; cause-and-effect partial order is a valid concept; they are two different concepts; and every physicist uses both of them. Those are facts, not matters of belief. But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

It sounds like you are engineering a conclusion without any real basis.

I read no conclusion in the quoted statement.
I did read 2 questions, 4 facts, 2 opinions, and 1 conditional argument.... But no conclusions.

Wait for it. It will arrive eventually.

 

[Malintent]

Space doesn't have to travel in order to be everywhere at once. It is something too- it has properties, such as electromagnetic permittivity, that indicate that it is not "nothing".

Now that's the interesting question, though it's a derail: If space is not nothing, then it must be something; but just what is it? Is it a continuum, or is it quantized? If it is capable of being distorted, and in turn of distorting things that travel through it, then does it have substance? It seems to be full of virtual matter and energy, but yet to be an empty vessel for real (non-virtual) things to occupy. So just what is this paradox? Does it exist in all it's nothingness, or does it only exist as a conceptual framework, a relational epiphenomenon?

No spacetime is not nothing.. it is a field.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think it's defined as such, but I could be wrong.  Field (physics)

- - - Updated - - -

Space doesn't have to travel in order to be everywhere at once. It is something too- it has properties, such as electromagnetic permittivity, that indicate that it is not "nothing".

Now that's the interesting question, though it's a derail: If space is not nothing, then it must be something; but just what is it? Is it a continuum, or is it quantized? If it is capable of being distorted, and in turn of distorting things that travel through it, then does it have substance? It seems to be full of virtual matter and energy, but yet to be an empty vessel for real (non-virtual) things to occupy. So just what is this paradox? Does it exist in all it's nothingness, or does it only exist as a conceptual framework, a relational epiphenomenon?

Well, there is  vacuum energy, the  Casimir effect, etc. So.... it does seem like even "empty space" is not empty. At the very least, it is permeated by fields caused by matter and energy within it.