The universe is proof of god!

[Underseer]

So in summary, The universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, the past would be infinite. And that's impossible, because if the past was infinite, it wouldn't have a beginning.

So it must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, it couldn't.

I don't find that compelling.

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

 

[Random Person]

So in summary, The universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, the past would be infinite. And that's impossible, because if the past was infinite, it wouldn't have a beginning.

So it must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, it couldn't.

I don't find that compelling.

It's not compelling. It reflects the way your mind processes it. A bit muddled.

- - - Updated - - -

So in summary, The universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, the past would be infinite. And that's impossible, because if the past was infinite, it wouldn't have a beginning.

So it must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, it couldn't.

I don't find that compelling.

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

Time had a beginning.

 

[Random Person]

The observable universe is currently expanding. My position - that we do not and cannot know whether something has existed eternally, or whether something began to exist from nothing - is absolutely not a rejection of science. The scientific consensus is that we do not and cannot know what occurred before the Planck Epoch; Many people have conjectured that the physical universe began shortly before that point, but that remains purely conjecture.

Note also that my position is not with regard to the observable universe; it is in regard to everything (including anything we cannot currently observe, but which does exist, if there is anything that fits that description).

It's worth reiterating that whatever the answer is to the question 'was there always something, or did something start to exist from nothing', hypothesising a god or gods doesn't help to address the question in any way.

Bingo!

Christians are the ones who are saying that they know that there was nothing before there was something, and further that there is such a thing as "before the universe."

They are claiming to know what they can't possibly know in order to prove something they already know they can't prove.

There is no scientific basis for asserting that there was a something prior to the universe came into being. Time began. Semantics doesn't negate that.

 

[none]

well, we have the hypothesis "time began"
great work folks

 

[Learner]

I see you edited this, and gave 'Clarity' as the reason. I am sorry to have to inform you that your edit failed; I am unable to make a shred of sense of any of this response. It really couldn't be any less clear.

Oh ok.. sorry about that , I wish I had edited a little more and be more clear. What a shame... I was expecting to read your rebuttal.

 

[Learner]

So in summary, The universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, the past would be infinite. And that's impossible, because if the past was infinite, it wouldn't have a beginning.

So it must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, it couldn't.

I don't find that compelling.

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

Could it be that "physical" thingy things e.g. life and non-life seem to age and has changes and therefore time is noticeable in this context, creating measures , a non-visible non-material thing called time, based on the natural world? Before that, well...

 

[Learner]

I ascribe to freethought. There can be no such thing as supernatural. Anything that interacts with universe we see by definition is part of the universe. Whether we can explain it is irrelevant.


If a ghost truly appeared, then there has to be a causal link or law allowing it to manifest.

Interesting point.

 

[bilby]

It's not compelling. It reflects the way your mind processes it. A bit muddled.

Not muddled at all. You are saying that an infinite past cannot exist, and you give as your reason that an infinite number of minutes would have had to elapse for the present to exist if that were the case.

But if the past is infinite, then an infinite number of minutes HAS elapsed. So that's not a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

Time had a beginning.

How do you know this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If the universe has an infinite past, wouldn't that be exactly the amount of time that has elapsed?
Or is the infinite amount of time that has passed somehow smaller than the infinite amount of time in the past?

 

[Random Person]

So in summary, The universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, the past would be infinite. And that's impossible, because if the past was infinite, it wouldn't have a beginning.

So it must have had a beginning, because if it didn't, it couldn't.

I don't find that compelling.

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

Could it be that "physical" thingy things e.g. life and non-life seem to age and has changes and therefore time is noticeable in this context, creating measures , a non-visible non-material thing called time, based on the natural world? Before that, well...

Time is eternal but the universe isn't? The clock may be ticking before the universe arrives I suppose but that still implies that the physical universe had a beginning.

 

[Random Person]

Not muddled at all. You are saying that an infinite past cannot exist, and you give as your reason that an infinite number of minutes would have had to elapse for the present to exist if that were the case.

But if the past is infinite, then an infinite number of minutes HAS elapsed. So that's not a problem.

- - - Updated - - -




Time had a beginning.

How do you know this?

It actually is a problem. You can't cycle through an infinite number of minutes. The answer to the question, "Has an infinite amount of time elapsed?", is always, "Not yet."

 

[Underseer]

It's not compelling. It reflects the way your mind processes it. A bit muddled.

- - - Updated - - -

It gets better than that.

In this case "the beginning" includes the creation of time itself.

So they are claiming that there is such a thing as "before time" when the word "before" doesn't mean anything without time. In order to be able to say "A before B," time has to exist at both A and B and in between the two. In this case, they are saying "A before B" when time only exists at B. When time itself is the effect, how can there be a cause?

Time had a beginning.

Yes. That's what I said.

If time had a beginning, then statements like "before the universe" are meaningless because it's the same thing as saying "before time."

If we have no way of knowing if there was such a thing as "before time," then how can you be certain the universe has a cause? The cause has to come before the effect, and in this case we don't know if there was a "before" because we don't know if time existed yet or existed in some other form.

On what basis do creationists make the claim that time existed before time? Where did that other time come from? How did you prove its existence? What experiments did you conduct to prove the existence of that other time that is separate from our time?

 

[Underseer]

Not muddled at all. You are saying that an infinite past cannot exist, and you give as your reason that an infinite number of minutes would have had to elapse for the present to exist if that were the case.

But if the past is infinite, then an infinite number of minutes HAS elapsed. So that's not a problem.

- - - Updated - - -




Time had a beginning.

How do you know this?

It actually is a problem. You can't cycle through an infinite number of minutes. The answer to the question, "Has an infinite amount of time elapsed?", is always, "Not yet."

Did you take a calculus class? Because it sounds like the basis for your argument is that you don't need supporting evidence to support your conclusion because of some kind of argument from ignorance fallacy.

All finite time is made up of an infinite number of infinitesimal segments. According to the logic of your argument, finite time doesn't exist either because if we tried to count up all of the infinitesimal segments, we would never reach infinity, therefore finite time doesn't exist either.

 

[Random Person]

It actually is a problem. You can't cycle through an infinite number of minutes. The answer to the question, "Has an infinite amount of time elapsed?", is always, "Not yet."

Did you take a calculus class? Because it sounds like the basis for your argument is that you don't need supporting evidence to support your conclusion because of some kind of argument from ignorance fallacy.

All finite time is made up of an infinite number of infinitesimal segments. According to the logic of your argument, finite time doesn't exist either because if we tried to count up all of the infinitesimal segments, we would never reach infinity, therefore finite time doesn't exist either.

That's absurd. Maybe you're stuck in one of Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno didn't know nuthin' about Calculus or even Algebra. We don't divide time into infinitesimal segments in order to measure it. The measurement of a finite number of minutes yields a finite total.

 

[none]

and there are an infinite quantity of dividable duration between minutes, right??

 

[Random Person]

and there are an infinite quantity of dividable duration between minutes, right??

Someone has brought that up before. Minutes are finite measures of time. Dividing them has no connection to measuring them.

 

[none]

and there are an infinite quantity of dividable duration between minutes, right??

Someone has brought that up before. Minutes are finite measures of time. Dividing them has no connection to measuring them.

there could be infinite minutes
an example is there is an infinite quantity of integers, yet you can pick one
an example, the universe is infinite and the universe includes space time and it is expanding getting more space time to measure.. right??
the problem arises when you make the claim "time began"
you are relying on inference, aren't you?
what is the inference you are relying on?

 

[skepticalbip]

and there are an infinite quantity of dividable duration between minutes, right??

Someone has brought that up before. Minutes are finite measures of time. Dividing them has no connection to measuring them.

there could be infinite minutes
an example is there is an infinite quantity of integers, yet you can pick one
the problem arises when you make the claim "time began"
you are relying on inference, aren't you?
what is the inference you are relying on?

Genesis 1???

Since this book asserts that the heavens and the earth were "created", it can be inferred that time was too.

 

[none]

maybe trying to separate time from space is problematic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

...
Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. However, in 1905, Albert Einstein based his seminal work on special relativity on two postulates: (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference); (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

The logical consequence of taking these postulates together is the inseparable joining together of the four dimensions, hitherto assumed as independent, of space and time. Many counterintuitive consequences emerge: in addition to being independent of the motion of the light source, the speed of light has the same speed regardless of the frame of reference in which it is measured; the distances and even temporal ordering of pairs of events change when measured in different inertial frames of reference (this is the relativity of simultaneity); and the linear additivity of velocities no longer holds true
...

 

[Random Person]

and there are an infinite quantity of dividable duration between minutes, right??

Someone has brought that up before. Minutes are finite measures of time. Dividing them has no connection to measuring them.

there could be infinite minutes
an example is there is an infinite quantity of integers, yet you can pick one
an example, the universe is infinite and the universe includes space time and it is expanding getting more space time to measure.. right??
the problem arises when you make the claim "time began"
you are relying on inference, aren't you?
what is the inference you are relying on?

What most cosmologists claim.