The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
metaphysically time can be shown to be greater than any empirical models engineered to contain it
”
? I suppose the metaphysician has suitably defined the "empirical model", "time", etc concepts so as to make that true ?

it's really a no-brainer
if you can't indicate anything that can resist time (or make anything resist time), time remains greater than anything you try to indicate it as relative to

The 19th Century was a fascinating time.

I would suspect that metaphysics of being a bit silly, if I read the implications correctly. Nothing has a worse track record than philosophy telling science what it can and can't do, and how it has to behave.

nothing is worse than a science that tells us how things can be done or how things exist but cannot do it or cannot show how it it exists
:shrug:

 

[Cris]

iceaura,

If what you are talking about is the initial existence of time and space, there is no "before", and no initiator in time or space.

While the sentence syntax is correct, the statement has no meaning.

The transition from nothing to something asserts a before and an after. Therefore a "before" is always necessary.

 

[lightgigantic]

I cant label my self but I will try; I´m baptized evangelical lutheran native pagan eastern philosopher atheist, but, everything is energy, vibrations, everything is connected, everything is one, no beginning and no end, the purest form, the circle, flower of life. Thats God.

= time

 

[BlueMoose]

= time

-The Shivas eternal dance

 

[lightgigantic]

-The Shivas eternal dance

then I guess you just slipped the noose of the thread title

 

[iceaura]

The transition from nothing to something asserts a before and an after.

There is no transition, necessarily. There is no before, of the point time first exists.

If time and space have a zero, for example, in fact, at the Big Bang.

f you can't indicate anything that can resist time (or make anything resist time), time remains greater than anything you try to indicate it as relative to

Lots of properties and qualities and existants do not depend on change, and therefore exist independently of time.

Time seems to me completely dependent on change, if viewed so, and therefore a derivative propety of the world. It is not even fundamental, let alone "greater" than things like space or momentum, in such a view.

Again, this is irrelevant. You have carried your point - a modern nonbeliever can come uniquely close to the 19th century conception of God via the more accessible 19th century conception of time. Why is this something you need to argue further ?

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no transition, necessarily. There is no before, of the point time first exists.

If time and space have a zero, for example, in fact, at the Big Bang.

Lots of properties and qualities and existants do not depend on change, and therefore exist independently of time.

such as?

Time seems to me completely dependent on change, if viewed so, and therefore a derivative propety of the world. It is not even fundamental, let alone "greater" than things like space or momentum, in such a view.

once again, if you can't indicate anything that can resist time (or make anything resist time), what's your point?

Again, this is irrelevant. You have carried your point - a modern nonbeliever can come uniquely close to the 19th century conception of God via the more accessible 19th century conception of time. Why is this something you need to argue further ?

I wasn't aware the argument had really begun
I make the assertion that time influences all things and you try to introduce something about a 19th century conception of god

 

[iceaura]

such as?

size, shape, mass, pattern, dimension, order, density, energy, number, space,

anything existant despite being unchanging.

You only need time if something is changing.

I make the assertion that time influences all things and you try to introduce something about a 19th century conception of god

That's hardly your assertion here. I refer you to the OP.

You go far beyond asserting that "time influences all things". You assert that time is absolute, that it is endless, that it is infinite, that it is pervasive, etc etc. And you then find parallels with your God.

I recognise those parallels. I agree with your observation there.

I wonder at your limiting their use to enlightening atheists, however. It seems to me that most theists would be just as enlightened.

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

“
Originally Posted by LG
such as?
”
size, shape, mass, pattern, dimension, order, density, energy, number, space,

anything existant despite being unchanging.

You only need time if something is changing.

so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?
“

Originally Posted by LG
I make the assertion that time influences all things and you try to introduce something about a 19th century conception of god
”
That's hardly your assertion here. I refer you to the OP.

You go far beyond asserting that "time influences all things". You assert that time is absolute, that it is endless, that it is infinite, that it is pervasive, etc etc. And you then find parallels with your God.

saying that time is pervasive etc indicates how it does influence all things
also, its still unclear what is particularly unique to the 19th century concept of god and how it is related to anything I have posted

I recognise those parallels. I agree with your observation there.

I wonder at your limiting their use to enlightening atheists, however. It seems to me that most theists would be just as enlightened.

perhaps there is just as much distance to be gathered when a theist understands what it means to be under the control of god as there is for an atheist when they come to understand what it means to be controlled by time ...

 

[phlogistician]

phlog,

Why does it have to come from somewhere?

So you think that 'it was always there' is an acceptable position? How can something always have existed? What made it the way it is? How much of it is there? How old is it?

The Big Bang and cosmology answer these questions, steady state theory falls short.

Why not? All the evidence says it is.

No, the evidence shows that things are still changing, and that the asymmetry of the Universe, and the variations in the average temperature explain the formation of matter, and that average temperature implies an age of the Universe.

Why must there be an origin?

For many reasons, but most important, because evidence leads us towards that conclusion. If matter had always existed, we would have suffered 'heat death' by now. Space is expanding, we can measure that. If time were infinite, as you have stated, space would be infinitely large, and the matter and energy contained within it infinitely, and equally distributed. But COBE showed us that there is asymmetry in the microwave background, not uniformity. Energy has not had time to radiate and become even. Matter is not equally distributed, because it has not had time to become so. The Universe is not infinitely large, because it has not had time to become so.

We can measure the age of stars, and can tell 1st generation from 2nd generation stars. If the Universe were infinitely old, there would be no 1st generation stars, they'd have burned out long ago. Steady state Universe hypotheses require 'constant creation' Cris, maybe you aren't aware of that, but whichever you choose, you cannot escape that matter needs to be created as an input, either in one 'big bang' or continuously throughout the process.

Sorry, but you really don't grasp the concepts well enough. Learn more physics!

 

[C1ay]

So you think that 'it was always there' is an acceptable position? How can something always have existed? What made it the way it is? How much of it is there? How old is it?.....

Sure. We do not have the evidence to rule out that possibility. Mankind has not found answers to these questions yet so we cannot rule out any possibilities.

For many reasons, but most important, because evidence leads us towards that conclusion. If matter had always existed, we would have suffered 'heat death' by now. Space is expanding, we can measure that. If time were infinite, as you have stated, space would be infinitely large, and the matter and energy contained within it infinitely, and equally distributed. But COBE showed us that there is asymmetry in the microwave background, not uniformity. Energy has not had time to radiate and become even. Matter is not equally distributed, because it has not had time to become so. The Universe is not infinitely large, because it has not had time to become so.

We can measure the age of stars, and can tell 1st generation from 2nd generation stars. If the Universe were infinitely old, there would be no 1st generation stars, they'd have burned out long ago. Steady state Universe hypotheses require 'constant creation' Cris, maybe you aren't aware of that, but whichever you choose, you cannot escape that matter needs to be created as an input, either in one 'big bang' or continuously throughout the process.

Sorry, but you really don't grasp the concepts well enough. Learn more physics!

How can you draw so many "conclusions" without supporting evidence? We have no evidence that our local universe is all that there is. The event horizon that limits our field of observation prevents us from knowing if there is anything beyond that horizon. For all we know there could have been a local big bang in an infinite space that resulted in a universe as we know it in our local space. The matter in our universe may have existed indefinitely before our big bang in a local oscillating universe or in other universes prior to our own event.

The only observational data we have is from the inside looking out and there's a boundary to what we can observe. Without observation or knowledge of what does or does not lie beyond that boundary or observation from the outside looking in we cannot draw any "conclusions" about space or matter beyond the limit of our observational ability.

Sorry, but you really don't grasp the concepts well enough. Learn more physics!

Quite an arrogant statement from someone that thinks it's OK to draw conclusions without supporting evidence, huh?

 

[phlogistician]

Sure. We do not have the evidence to rule out that possibility. Mankind has not found answers to these questions yet so we cannot rule out any possibilities.

Yes there is. Plenty of evidence to show a big bang, and plenty of holes in steady state theory.

How can you draw so many "conclusions" without supporting evidence? We have no evidence that our local universe is all that there is.

The word 'Universe' means all that there is.

The event horizon that limits our field of observation prevents us from knowing if there is anything beyond that horizon.

If it doesn't interact with us, and we cannot detect it, we cannot say it's there, and therefore it doesn't matter (pun intended). If it does interact with us, it's part of our Universe, not a separate entity.

For all we know there could have been a local big bang in an infinite space that resulted in a universe as we know it in our local space. The matter in our universe may have existed indefinitely before our big bang in a local oscillating universe or in other universes prior to our own event.

Well, there was no 'matter' at the point of the big bang, just energy, matter and energy didn't separate for some time afterwards. If you are implying big bangs, followed by big crunches, or that black holes syphon matter from one Universe through a singularity to create new ones, well that's a different matter, (pun intended) but as we cannot interact with the new Universe through the black hole, still covered by the definition of Universe above.

The only observational data we have is from the inside looking out and there's a boundary to what we can observe. Without observation or knowledge of what does or does not lie beyond that boundary or observation from the outside looking in we cannot draw any "conclusions" about space or matter beyond the limit of our observational ability.

We don't need to draw conclusions beyond our observatinal ability!. We can only exist in our Universe. Our Universe is the space time environment that supports matter and energy as we understand it. We cannot go outside it to look back in, that is an absurd idea. The only way to measure, is from the inside. What is inside is the only relevant thing. Like I said, anything you class as 'outside' does not interact with us, so changes nothing. Things that do interact, are on the 'inside'.

Quite an arrogant statement from someone that thinks it's OK to draw conclusions without supporting evidence, huh?

Cosmic Microwave Background, and it's anisotropy not evidence enough for you? Steady state theories requiring constant creation not a big enough hole in the argument?

Please, offer some proof for whatever argument you are trying to make. Actually make a statement, and back it up, eh?

 

[C1ay]

phlogistician, please tell us factually with supporting testable evidence what exactly does or does not exist beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang. Peer reviewed proof is preferred.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician, please tell us factually with supporting testable evidence what exactly does or does not exist beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang. Peer reviewed proof is preferred.

I never claimed anything did exist. You inferred there might be something outside the Universe, but it just seems you don't fully understand the terms. Also seems you didn't bother to read, nor comprehend what I did write however, because I explained your error.

Now, like I said, make a claim, and argument, or a statement Don't just try and prove some vague notion, by throwing mud at the big bang theory.

Come on, be brave, say something.

 

[C1ay]

I never claimed anything did exist.

You're right. You claimed it doesn't, that the universe as we know it is all that there is. Can you prove it or not?

 

[Sarkus]

so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?

Yes - a 2-dimensional circle with radius of 1cm.

Please show how this has changed since the beginning of time, and how it will change until the end of time?

If you can, of course.

 

[BlueMoose]

The Big Bang and cosmology answer these questions, steady state theory falls short.

-The big bang is still just a theory while other theorys arise. In no means the big bang is the "truth". Science still wonder how the big bang did come to existence.
-The universe isnt steady thats is for sure, everything is changing all the time. The Universe is pure energy/electricity, what we see is just our perception of that energy, in the frequency zone of our own state of energy. Think about quantum physics, the more you see the more puzzled you are, particles come to exist and then vanishes again, thats energy changing its form in our zone of perception because of the influences of other energys, thats why accurate measurements cant be done in that field, only predictions.
-To me its much more acceptable explanation that everything has been and will be than that everything did came out from nothing (?) and will expand to infinity and to be frozen. That would mean that from somewhere beyond our universe there is energy input to our universe and in the end there is no more energy input ? If everything is energy we dont need extra input since energy dont wear off, it is just changing its form. (quantum physics).
Think about fractal theory, what happens in atoms are happening in cosmos too, just a larger scale. Start dividing one tell me when there is nothing left ?
Time to us is our perception of the ever changing universe of energy.

The ancient did knew these things, Shiva is the The Creator and Destructor at same time ~ energy/electricity changing its form. The ring surrounding Shiva reflects time ~ circle ~ infinity. The purest form that we know,
try squaring the circle, you cant as a consequence of the fact that pi (π) is a transcendental. The dance meaning movement~reforming.

For many reasons, but most important, because evidence leads us towards that conclusion. If matter had always existed, we would have suffered 'heat death' by now. Space is expanding, we can measure that. If time were infinite, as you have stated, space would be infinitely large, and the matter and energy contained within it infinitely, and equally distributed. But COBE showed us that there is asymmetry in the microwave background, not uniformity. Energy has not had time to radiate and become even. Matter is not equally distributed, because it has not had time to become so. The Universe is not infinitely large, because it has not had time to become so.

-Matter = Energy. Its just a really tiny glance of ever changing energy that we are witnessing.

We can measure the age of stars, and can tell 1st generation from 2nd generation stars. If the Universe were infinitely old, there would be no 1st generation stars, they'd have burned out long ago. Steady state Universe hypotheses require 'constant creation' Cris, maybe you aren't aware of that, but whichever you choose, you cannot escape that matter needs to be created as an input, either in one 'big bang' or continuously throughout the process.

-Can you prove where the matter~energy came from, the big bang, right ?
-So what is a big bang more than a theory, not stated as fact, because we dont understand it well enough yet or hardly any. So it is a battle between two theory. And why is that energy are wearing out of our universe ?
-Everything is connected in universe, gravity theory, but if everything is energy the gravity should work in smaller scales too. ?. (quantum physics)
-My guess that what we call gravity is a side effect from energy storming in our cosmos
-In other hand I could be wrong, but waiting someone to prove it to me could be a long long wait

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes - a 2-dimensional circle with radius of 1cm.

Please show how this has changed since the beginning of time, and how it will change until the end of time?

If you can, of course.

I wasn't aware that a circle (much less one with a radius of 1cm) can be empirically evidenced (all rendered circles are imperfect) - rather a circle is merely a mathematical abstraction.

And even if you could indicate a circle as such, it's not clear what it would be composed of to resist the influence of time (I don't think science has encountered any circles not subject to change - or even perfect circles for that matter)

anything else to offer?

 

[iceaura]

so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?

Routinely. Can't you ? As a matter of fact, I have more trouble indicating the size etc of things that do change - I have to bring in abstractions like "average over time". And patterns of course don't "change" in this sense at all. .

also, its still unclear what is particularly unique to the 19th century concept of god and how it is related to anything I have posted

Like I said, this set of parallels should be as least as enlightening to theists as atheists.

Interpret this from the point of view of a 20th century concept of time, for example:

perhaps there is just as much distance to be gathered when a theist understands what it means to be under the control of god as there is for an atheist when they come to understand what it means to be controlled by time ...

But be careful - you seem to not recognise when you are sliding between your "metaphysical" time and the "empirical" world. Example:

I wasn't aware that a circle (much less one with a radius of 1cm) can be empirically evidenced (all rendered circles are imperfect) - rather a circle is merely a mathematical abstraction.

Apparenlty abstractions don't exist ? Or is that just mathematical abstractions - time, we presume, does exist ?

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

“
Originally Posted by LG
so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?
”
Routinely. Can't you ? As a matter of fact, I have more trouble indicating the size etc of things that do change - I have to bring in abstractions like "average over time". And patterns of course don't "change" in this sense at all. .

then spill the beans
what is the something that doesn't change?
“

Originally Posted by LG
also, its still unclear what is particularly unique to the 19th century concept of god and how it is related to anything I have posted
”
Like I said, this set of parallels should be as least as enlightening to theists as atheists.

Interpret this from the point of view of a 20th century concept of time, for example:

still you are not explaining anything what is a "19th century concept of god" or how that is relevant to anything I have posted on this thread
“

Originally Posted by LG
perhaps there is just as much distance to be gathered when a theist understands what it means to be under the control of god as there is for an atheist when they come to understand what it means to be controlled by time ...
”
But be careful - you seem to not recognise when you are sliding between your "metaphysical" time and the "empirical" world. Example:

“
Originally Posted by LG
I wasn't aware that a circle (much less one with a radius of 1cm) can be empirically evidenced (all rendered circles are imperfect) - rather a circle is merely a mathematical abstraction.
”
Apparenlty abstractions don't exist ? Or is that just mathematical abstractions - time, we presume, does exist ?

to go back to the OP

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real

In what ways do metaphysical circles bear a tangible effect on us like time (or god)?

You might as well be talking about invisible pink unicorns