Time disproves God

A

alteredperception

I know not what I do
Registered Senior Member
“the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.” –Nathaniel Branden

The misconception of time has misled us into thinking there has to be something that created existence. Time is our creation. It’s a way for us to make sense of motion from our perception. What actually exists is matter and energy that are in motion. What truly exists has always existed and will always exist. A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.
 
alteredperception said:
“the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.” –Nathaniel Branden

The misconception of time has misled us into thinking there has to be something that created existence. Time is our creation. It’s a way for us to make sense of motion from our perception. What actually exists is matter and energy that are in motion. What truly exists has always existed and will always exist. A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.
Click to expand...

I concur with no God but find fault with your eternal existance theory.

To have existed eternally means you must have accumulated an infinite number of time intervals (regardless of the units of time measure you choose to use).

By definition "Infinity" is larger than any number, hence you cannot have accumulated any number of time intervals so as to have reached infinity or eternity.

The solution is coming into existance, without any creation occuring. This seems paradoxial at first; however, it can be rationalized.

If "N" is Nothingness and "s" is Something then the expression:

N -----------> (+s) + (-s) states that Nothingness can become +/- Somethings where the net affect can be viewed as 0 = (+1) + (-1).

That is we must assume that our existance is merely bifurcated Nothingness. In which case there is no creation but a change of form from nothing to something that collectively still equals Nothing.

This has actually been partof a scientific paper by Dr Tyron, a physicist:

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html

The net energy of the observable universe calculates to "Zero".!
 
Last edited:
I don't agree, time doesn't apply to existence because time presupposes existence. Re-read the quote from my first post.

There are two options: nothingness and existence. They are separate and distinct, one cannot become the other. If one exists it exists eternally.
 
alteredperception said:
I don't agree, time doesn't apply to existence because time presupposes existence. Re-read the quote from my first post.

There are two options: nothingness and existence. They are separate and distinct, one cannot become the other. If one exists it exists eternally.
Click to expand...

This of course is shear supposition. You should not only address the implications of my formula but the calculations that our current existance is comprised of NO net energy.

I know you have not had time to read Prof Tyron's work yet. You should do that before pronouncing the view invalid. It appears to be a reality and therefore must be confronted, accepted or falsified by means other than rhetoric.
 
I don't agree that there is a physical universe, it's created by the observer. Zoom enough into matter and you'll find nothing, because the universe consists of nothing (ie. Mind) Consciousness is the creator of the universe, it recreates itself differently in each moment. The creation is continous. If the effect is present, the cause is present.
 
MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?
 
alteredperception said:
MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read the full works or didn't understand what you read.

Mass is only one form of energy, there is radiant energy of stars etc, gravity and time all involved.

Gravity is part of the cycle of flowing energy which constitutes time. That part of energy in mass form is balanced by kenetic energy and is absorbed as gravity by mass, etc,

I certainly cannot reduce several chapters of lengthy mathematics to a post here to explain it all but it is all in his presentation.

I suggest you finish reading or re-read his work.
 
alteredperception said:
MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?
Click to expand...
what Id like to know is HOW does he calculate the mass of the universe in the first place??

quote from the same site
According to Tryon's theory if a mass (M) were to fall to the edge of universe from an infinite distance away, the gravitational potential energy lost by the mass will equal its mass energy. /quote

so theres an edge at the end of the universe now?
reminds me of a flat earth belief people used to have at one time.
 
scorpious, read the footnote on that page and it says how he knows theres no edges but just for the sake of the equation hes able to derive one of the variables using it, nevertheless i still disagree with the entire argument.

The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.

MacM- you say nothing can be infinite, but infinity is a measurment of time, and that doesn't apply to the universe.
 
alteredperception said:
The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.
Click to expand...

Well now you have. I refute your arguement.

Eternity translates into infinite time. You cannot argue eternity in absence of time. Timelessness does to equate to eternity. Your mixing of the meanings of terms to suit your arguement has you claiming an infinite accumulation of nothing? Nothing and eternity are clearly different consequences.

MacM- you say nothing can be infinite, but infinity is a measurment of time, and that doesn't apply to the universe.
Click to expand...

Whaaaa? Nothing, including time can become infinite. Time is measured in intervals. Eternity would be the accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals.

By definition infinity is greater than any countable number. By definition nothing physical can become infinite. Nothing physical can ever become larger than itself.

Infinity is substantially restricted to mathematical applications to set limits in calculus, etc, not as some definition of anything physical.

What on earth do you mean time doesn't apply to the universe? That makes no sense.

We do have some elements of agreement here. Before our existance as a universe there was Nothing, including "No" time. Hence our existance as coming from (or comprised of) Nothing is unavoidably inherent.

As my formula indicates however, our existance from Nothing is not creation ex nihilo because nothing has been created. It still all equals "Zero".

Our existance is simply bifurcated nothingness. Not an easy thing to visulaize but give it some thought. It seems the best, if not only, alternative to miracles or Gods, which I refuse to even consider.
 
Last edited:
scorpius said:
what Id like to know is HOW does he calculate the mass of the universe in the first place??

quote from the same site
According to Tryon's theory if a mass (M) were to fall to the edge of universe from an infinite distance away, the gravitational potential energy lost by the mass will equal its mass energy. /quote

so theres an edge at the end of the universe now?
reminds me of a flat earth belief people used to have at one time.
Click to expand...

You need to understand the differance in the uses of the term infinity. Infinity is a mathematical concept and has no physical reality.

To state falling an infnite distance, is a mathematical construct for calculation purposes, it doesn't actually state or mean a physically infinite size to the universe. Nothing physical can become infinite.

Hence therefore the universe being physical must be finite. You take that to mean an edge which certainly confuses the uninitiated. You must understand that being finite (having a bounding limit) doesn't mean an "Edge" in the normal sense.

This is not an egg shell limit of which the question of "What is beyond the shell?" applies. The limit becomes the absence of time-space. Nothing (not meaning a void) can exist without time-space. There is no dimension for anything to exist beyond in.
 
The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.

What happens to time at the speed of light according to General Relativity? Start from there.

Then consider a definition of time. Examine every assumption for validity.

Once you start critically examing what we think we know, then real questions will appear.
 
MacM said:
Well now you have. I refute your arguement.


Whaaaa? Nothing, including time can become infinite. Time is measured in intervals. Eternity would be the accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals.

By definition infinity is greater than any countable number. By definition nothing physical can become infinite. Nothing physical can ever become larger than itself.

Infinity is substantially restricted to mathematical applications to set limits in calculus, etc, not as some definition of anything physical.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Or rather, I would introduce an alternative view of what "infinity" means. The definition you use, which is the conventional one, involves something greater than any countable number. The assumption in this, I believe, is that infinity is a quantity. However, I think a more fruitful way is to look at it in the opposite direction, so to speak. In-finity literally means "without finiteness or end." Rather than saying this means "really lots of something beyond count," we might look at it as "undivided." In other words, "without divisions and and in that sense without end." Wholeness. One.
 
Time shouldn't be considered a noun. It should be considered a verb. "To time," i.e., to create intervals. As living and subjective beings, our very existence is indexed to intervalizing what I suppose is an otherwise undivided wholeness. Of course, we are not alone in that. There is cultural time, sure, but also psychological time, biological time, even cycles on a physics level that are a kind of "timing." If we try to think "around" that - to peer into the interval between designated events (and all events are designated as such) without creating more intervals - that is where we might find infinity, i.e. undivided wholeness - both in space and in what we have been calling "time."

The word "eternal" comes to mind. Not in the sense of "zillions of years," but rather the absence of years. The absence of centuries. The absence of minutes, seconds, nanoseconds. Just the pure wholeness that may be the flipside of the divided world that we dwell on. Well, I think we have one foot in each realm :)

Naturally, this "eternal" view of the cosmos can alter our views of what birth and death mean, as well as so-called "afterlife" (which becomes meaningless if we think, instead, in terms of re-joining the eternal that has no before or after), along with the reasons for our life experience.
 
Onefinity said:
I disagree. Or rather, I would introduce an alternative view of what "infinity" means. The definition you use, which is the conventional one, involves something greater than any countable number. The assumption in this, I believe, is that infinity is a quantity. However, I think a more fruitful way is to look at it in the opposite direction, so to speak. In-finity literally means "without finiteness or end." Rather than saying this means "really lots of something beyond count," we might look at it as "undivided." In other words, "without divisions and and in that sense without end." Wholeness. One.
Click to expand...

I have seen and even Webster applies both definitions. I have no objection with either.
 
Onefinity said:
Naturally, this "eternal" view of the cosmos can alter our views of what birth and death mean, as well as so-called "afterlife" (which becomes meaningless if we think, instead, in terms of re-joining the eternal that has no before or after), along with the reasons for our life experience.
Click to expand...

I much prefer the watching and counting of time intervals to becoming eternal:D
 
After reading the replies to this thread, only one thing is clear!!! None of you know anything about the Universe (so it is called) Time, Nature, Life are only words created by man to try an explain what he thinks he knows about creation but knows nothing at all. Even if there is a Living creator, something still created HIM. The only thing we truly know is that we are here and the events that happen in this world and especially on this planet has sustained our existence. ;)
 
ReighnStorm said:
After reading the replies to this thread, only one thing is clear!!! None of you know anything about the Universe (so it is called) Time, Nature, Life are only words created by man to try an explain what he thinks he knows about creation but knows nothing at all. Even if there is a Living creator, something still created HIM. The only thing we truly know is that we are here and the events that happen in this world and especially on this planet has sustained our existence. ;)
Click to expand...

Your post didn't show that you very much yourself. :bugeye:
 
Time is merely relative motion. Infinity has no significance in regards to the universe of a whole. Time is not a path on which things are accumulated like you say. Time is just movement. Your misconception of time is what leads you to believe the universe can't be eternal. Existence doesn't require a beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top