Time disproves God

I would suggest a variation of these ideas. William James posed a question about 100 years ago: how can the universe be both whole (undivided, which is the same as saying nothing or literally "No Thing") AND yet full of stuff (as it obviously, pragmatically is), at the same time? When we take into account the insights from quantum physics as well as from cognitive science (specifically the work of Maturana and Varela on autopoiesis), we see that the role of the SUBJECT or observer cannot be ignored in this question. The physicist David Bohm developed a good model with the idea of a constant shifting between an undivided wholeness or "implicate order," which is like a background with no boundary, and a formed, observed universe called the "explicate order." This shifting between them he called the holomovement. And indeed, this shifting itself, in the model, is the very substance of all. Weird. Not energy, not matter, but movement from which matter and energy emerge as as aspects of the explicate (observed/created) order. Time (as an act of measurement) would, of course, emerge with the explicate order as well.

Now, all of this begs the question: what is the observer? What are we, if we are wrapped up in this thing that we are wrapping? What is the role of perspective and this continuous creation and destruction of form in a manner that gives us a sense of stability even as we are part of the very chaos of it? (And a part of that stability is the NEED for us to think in terms of CAUSE --> EFFECT, and thus "WHEN was the 'start' of existence?"

How do you think this fits into the discussion?
 
alteredperception said:
Well it sounds like you are in fact skeptical about your bifurcated nothingness concept.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am very convienced that neither "Eternal Existance, hence No Creation" nor God(s) have any merit what-so-ever.

Unlike some that would take their confidence to a level of claiming absolute proof, I retain at least the pragmatic notion that I too am not infaliable.

Further that neither you nor I will ever prove our belief's hence I present my view and you can consider it or don't. I have done the same for your view and I don't. So that apparently leaves us at status quo.

You can rant and rave that my view is irrational and yours is perfect but that should lead others to question your ability to assess reality.


But I, on the other hand, believe in an eternal universe. Nevertheless I continually try to find alternative views and arguments because I want to find more evidence in favor or against my view. I am very open-minded and if I learn about a more reasonable view about the universe I will accept it and disregard my current view without even thinking twice.[/QUOTE]
 
I was not familiar with William James, but now I'm reading up on him and am very interested in what he says. I can tell how him being a pyschologist has influenced his view on the universe. He says the individual observer is the center of the universe for that the person. He also says experiences add quantitatively to the mass of the universe. I don't think I agree with him. He seems to think of the universe as being an abstract internalized subjective entity that we change by merely experiencing it. I think he gets to metaphysical for me :)

MacM, I never said my view was perfect, I acknowledged how I am always testing its validity and comparing to other views.
 
Well, William James was very brilliant. Known as a pragmatist, but he was open to other possibilities. He was highly critical of thinkers of the 19th century who believed that the true universe was an undivided wholeness, but more because of the flimsiness of their arguments than because of a lack of validity to the idea. In the last book he wrote before his death - or a collection of his last presentations - called A Pluralistic Universe, he puts some very strong thinking together. And of course, it is important to be able to create strong models than to simply argue opinions, eh?
 
MacM said:
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.
Click to expand...


MacM

If "nothing" ever existed it would have to be infinite. It would have to be an infinite void or absence of all existence. Nothing would not be "0" in your formula but "infinite 0". Can an "infinite" be divided into 2 parts?
 
It may be interesting to also look at two myths from our ancestors--concerning their symbolism and metphor regarding the 'emergence of time'

Greek: "The great feminine principle is Space (Rhea, the ancient Greek Titaness, whose name means 'flow' or rhythm). The great masculine principle is Time (the Titan Chronus, husband of Rhea, whose name means 'time' e.g 'chron'ology; 'chrono'meter )......

China: [the empty circle is] "Creatrix, That which Is, Wu chi/Original chaos, Ground Neghentropy"....
[and the s-shaped line added (ie., the yin/yang symbol)] is "Creator, Is Change, T'ai chi/Discrimination/Meaning/Entropy. " (Fruits of the Moon Tree: The Medicine
Wheel & Transpersonal Psychology, by Alan Bleakley)

So we can see how those two myths seem to correlate metaphorically. That the idea is that 'time' Is born from ground/universe rather than vice versa.
so i wonder then: what is time? is it connected to thinking. to rational abstractioning

one thing i have also learnt. that the patriarchy introduced clocks onto churches to opresses pagans peoples out of a sense of ORGANIC time-a movement with the seasons, etc - and introduce mechanical time by the tick tock clock
 
1Dude said:
MacM

If "nothing" ever existed it would have to be infinite. It would have to be an infinite void or absence of all existence. Nothing would not be "0" in your formula but "infinite 0". Can an "infinite" be divided into 2 parts?
Click to expand...

Sorry I mean no disrespect but you are babbeling.
 
MacM said:
Sorry I mean no disrespect but you are babbeling.
Click to expand...

Hi MacM,

Nice to talk with you again. I am merely trying to understand your concept. To do that I will need to ask a few questions.

I found the following quote regarding this topic.

Definition of nothing.

“The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.”

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm


Question 1:

Is “Absolute Nothingness” a finite or an infinite condition?
 
1Dude said:
Hi MacM,

Nice to talk with you again.Question 1:

Is “Absolute Nothingness” a finite or an infinite condition?
Click to expand...

It seems to me to begin to assert qualities to "Nothing" unintentionally causes it become something. To claim it must be an infinite void is over reaching in that there is no proof (indeed it would be impossible) for the universe to be infinite, therefore one is claiming Nothingness is bigger than all existance.

It can't be bigger, or even as big or have any size and still be Nothing.

The only definition I have found that seems suitable is "The absence of time-space". It is in this view that calling Nothing a void is nonsense. A void occupies space, So a void wouldn't be Nothingness.
 
I started this thread to show how the universe can in fact be infinite. One must realize that time presupposes existence. I also explained how causality presupposes existence. Therefore, the totality of existence requires no outside first cause (such as God).
 
Interesting, everyone is theoretically correct because no one definatively knows the answer as yet but... I have my own opinion, if anyone's interested.

I think the universe is most definately finite as it started out as being incredably small and powerful being just a bit of hydrogen and helium fusing to make lithium and so on creating much heat etc in the process until big bang.
I might have the chemicals confused but I think it started with these basic elements.
Anyway, I think it is proven that the universe is still expanding, thus by definition it is finite, how could it get bigger if it had reached a maximum, i.e infinity.
I beleive there will be no retraction, I think the universe is destined to continue expanding within dark matter.
I also beleive this universe is just one that exists within a larger enviroment.
We look at distances as we do time, in our terms, based on our own life expectancy span and our time in existance. Negliagable in the scheme of things. The universe is thought of the same because it really is difficult for us to comprehend the distances and sizes in question.
We must be expanding into something.
There is an underlying...force of sorts, a forward motion , the same power that drives life, survival of the fitest and evolution, a forward driving force that has some universal laws, from the micro to the macro enviroments. Laws that constrain equalibrium, that contain enviroments that evolve through change. It really is miraculous in it's size and complexity and pure brilliance in it's simplicity and humbling by it's power.
I could go on but maybe some other time.
I think we are so mislead by religon, which basically says that it was all created by a god that was made in our own image, how arrogant we humans are!
Anyway.
 
MacM said:
The only definition I have found that seems suitable is "The absence of time-space".
Click to expand...

MacM:

Here is another quote from the same site above:

"Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If it existed in the past, then some event must have taken place to end it. An event would be impossible in nothing, so nothing could never have existed because we do, and as our universe now exists, nothing can never exist in the future either. Why could an event not happen in nothing? Because apart from the obvious that there is nothing to happen, an event would create and require a moment in time. There can be no time in nothing as relativity describes time as just another dimension.

As for Time, without it nothing must have always existed, it can not have a beginning or end because either would create a moment in time. It would in reality be meaningless to ask how long nothing has existed and how long it will continue to exist, it would be eternal and unchanging. Again, because we exist, nothing could not have had an existence because the creation of the universe would have required a significant change, thus contravening an unchanging nothing."

Question 2:

Is a condition where we have the complete "absence of time-space" a condition where change-over-time can ever occur?
 
Last edited:
hello everybody

its interesting to read this thread......

i agree i dont know that much as u all are discussing about.

from the thread got so many answers definitions, layouts, fixing sentinels for the meaning of time, infinity/...................

but i could not see one definition or an attempt to bring in the meaning of God,

i just dont know how would u bring the feel, belief, a moment of impulse into picture with formulas and besides disproving or approving that,

if that is the case, no testing or derivations (LHS = RHS) could withstand the disapprovement or agreeing the above statement in the subject
 
One of the major errors of Physics comes from the ignorance of what a cause is. Since they believe that the cause is the origin IN time, they search for an explanation of the existence of the universe in its past. This is impossible. If the effect is present, the cause is present. Time and the universe are the same thing, hence you cannot explain the universe within time. Time cannot start somewhere in time, neither can the universe.

Generally, instead of causes, science searches for the ORIGIN of things. An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

EVERYTHING PAST IS AN EFFECT, AND AN EFFECT IS A CREATION OF THE CAUSE.

When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. Quantum physicists could have guessed that if they tried to observe the present reality of particles, they would be bound to banish the idea of "particle".

Can an effect be the cause of another effect? As a rule,we tend to think so, but this is a mistake. Every sequential effect is the result of a cause which is THE GOAL. The cause is a PRESENT NECESSITY, producing effects in order to be realized.

The cause is always present, and it is only by studying the present that you can grasp the cause.

What is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything. The cause cannot be visible. The present cannot be visible. It is the creator of appearances.

For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. HENCE THE CAUSE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality, it discovers... nothingness.

Creation takes place at each present moment. Not in the past once and for all, but at every moment.

-

If we take note of Heisenberg, we realize that if we do Physics (which consists in considering the observed world as being "external"), we cannot understand anything about the universe: have you ever seen a cause?

We cannot find the cause by observing effects.
What is visible is the result of a cause.
There is no visible cause.

Nonetheless, Heisenberg and many others continue to do physics and refuse all metaphysical incursions which, in studying the mind (the invisible world of causes) that observes the visible universe (the world of effects), enables us to understand things. Matter is a form of our mind, and Metaphysics unifies matter and mind by including matter IN mind (it is impossible to include mind into matter).

In reality, we can only understand things because they are INTERIOR to our mind. And the LOGIC discovered therein is the manifestation of the evident identity of natures between our reason and matter.
 
foucaulteco said:
Interesting, everyone is theoretically correct because no one definatively knows the answer as yet but...
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if I'd buy the idea that "everyone is theoretically correct." I say this because an opinion or viewpoint is not the same as a theory, which is a model. And there are stronger and weaker models, based on how well they work for us. However, I would agree that everyone is partially correct. After all, to have a perspective is to be a participant, and co-creator, in that which is being viewed :)
 
alteredperception said:
A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.
Click to expand...

Hi alteredperception,

How does existence exclude a supernatural God if He is existence itself?
 
If you define God as the totality of existence, then God exists. But that is not the normal definition. Most religions consider God to be a supernatural being.
 
hi alteredperception,

as per ur definition,

if we assume God exists - u give the definition as 'totality of existence'
and u have stated that most religiions consider God to be a supernatural being

what is the actual context if u do give meaning as 'totality of existence'

u have laid uncertain seamless sentinels, boundaries for the required question ....
i believe for an instinct which is beyond ur control for which u surrender (without ur knowledge ur conscience may surrender) noway a definition, explanation meaning could be given.

Perceptions could only be perceived.......... I believe
 
1Dude said:
MacM:
Click to expand...

Q1: Symantics.

Question 2:

Is a condition where we have the complete "absence of time-space" a condition where change-over-time can ever occur?
Click to expand...

What do you propose that would change which exists and occupies no space?

What time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top