Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

From a general relativity point of view, I'd have to disagree. Time is simply an observer dependant direction through a four-dimensional manifold. The manifold has to exist independently for there to be any such thing as time.

Don't see how you can claim this as just logic. You can't just ignore the physics. (Space-)time is not nothing, so you cannot have the non-existence of the manifold within time. You've either got to conclude that the manifold doesn't exist (defying endless evidence) or that its non-existence would be impossible (difficult to justify).

There is nothing logically impossible (they can be constructed mathematically) about manifolds with no time dimension, or, for that matter, multiple time dimensions. There probably wouldn't be observers in them but they remain as logical possibilities.


From: Anthropic principle §Dimensions of spacetime

The logic is what we conceive of as existence. The physics is utterly irrelevant to that.

[Stranger]

The logic is what we conceive of as existence. The physics is utterly irrelevant to that.

Seems to be based on what you personally conceive of as existence, rather than anything objective. Pure logic cannot be based on a point of view or what is conceivable from it. Clearly existence and non-existence without time are conceivable by human beings as the mathematics (rather than physics) directly shows. It's your personal point of view that is irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems to be based on what you personally conceive of as existence, rather than anything objective. Pure logic cannot be based on a point of view or what is conceivable from it. Clearly existence and non-existence without time are conceivable by human beings as the mathematics (rather than physics) directly shows. It's your personal point of view that is irrelevant.

Since no one is objective, I am unworried by that charge. The ppoint here is that you are effectively pursuing a category error in terms of the levels of meaning in the discussion. It's a sort of reverse mistake that people like William Lane Craig and Deepak Chopra make - though they do it deliberately to obfuscate discussion.

No one's language use is purely on the theoretical physics level, nor could it be, and flipping between the levels just confuses the discussion. It's the same problem when you make points to Alan about free will that are written as if you accept the idea of free will because almost all discussion is based on some sort of acceptance of that.

[Stranger]

Since no one is objective, I am unworried by that charge.

It is certainly true that nobody can be wholly objects but that doesn't stop us from trying to be as objective as possible, especially on subjects that connect to science or mathematics and logic. In fact, if your claim to have made a "logic statement" was not an attempt to claim a degree of objectivity, then what was the point?

The ppoint here is that you are effectively pursuing a category error in terms of the levels of meaning in the discussion.

What category error, specifically?

It's a sort of reverse mistake that people like William Lane Craig and Deepak Chopra make...

Unargued assertion.

No one's language use is purely on the theoretical physics level, nor could it be...

So what? You made a statement that contradicted well tested science, namely that existence was a "time based concept", whereas we have to conceive of the existence of the space-time manifold before we can get to time, and even then we have a relative, rather than absolute phenomenon. According to current tested science, your statement was simply wrong.

You then made another claim that "conceptually" we need time for existence and non-existence, which is directly contradicted by mathematics (and therefore logic). Not only can mathematics construct timeless notions of existence but there are physical hypotheses (e.g. loop quantum gravity) that construct (space-)time from more fundamental concepts.

No amount of talking about language, alleged non-objectivity, or accusations of undefined category errors can make these facts go away.

[Sebastian Toe]

Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created.

Whoa there Trigger....
Let's examine that with the words of an expert(?) in time....

I feel the ultimate reality you fail to grasp is that our spiritual nature does not comply to the same time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in this material universe.  Can you grasp the concept of your spiritual self existing in a timeless state of an eternal present?

Such a reality is alluded to in the Gospel -
John 8:58: “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

 It may be difficult for our human minds to grasp, but so is the concept of time being eternal, having no beginning or end.   According to physicist Stephen Hawkin, time is a property of this material universe.  I believe our soul is not of this universe, but can perceive it and interact with it through the window provided by our material body.  No one can presume to know what lies beyond this universe, but we do have the divine revelations given to us from the inspired words of the Christian bible.  What I do know with absolute certainty is that we comprise far more than physically controlled material reactions alone can ever achieve.

Are you ultimately saying that your soul ( which as you have stated above and on many other occasions) exists in a timeless state outwith our spacetime continuum.......cannot have been created?

That's a big statement to make.
Explain please

[Nearly Sane]

It is certainly true that nobody can be wholly objects but that doesn't stop us from trying to be as objective as possible, especially on subjects that connect to science or mathematics and logic. In fact, if your claim to have made a "logic statement" was not an attempt to claim a degree of objectivity, then what was the point?

What category error, specifically?

Unargued assertion.

So what? You made a statement that contradicted well tested science, namely that existence was a "time based concept", whereas we have to conceive of the existence of the space-time manifold before we can get to time, and even then we have a relative, rather than absolute phenomenon. According to current tested science, your statement was simply wrong.

You then made another claim that "conceptually" we need time for existence and non-existence, which is directly contradicted by mathematics (and therefore logic). Not only can mathematics construct timeless notions of existence but there are physical hypotheses (e.g. loop quantum gravity) that construct (space-)time from more fundamental concepts.

No amount of talking about language, alleged non-objectivity, or accusations of undefined category errors can make these facts go away.

Duscussion needs to be clear on what meaning is. When a theist talks about god's existence they are not talking theoretical physics. I explained that ypur category error is about levels of discussion, that you don't seem to understand that that's imporatant means you aren't having discussions merely verbally masturbating.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why the whole space time manifold and not nothing?

[Nearly Sane]

Why the whole space time manifold and not nothing?

Why why? What's nothing?

[Stranger]

Duscussion needs to be clear on what meaning is.

What does that mean?

When a theist talks about god's existence they are not talking theoretical physics.

Possibly not but let's not forget the context here, which was the improbability of DNA and the earlier points made about "fine tuning". Clearly Alan (and others) think they can take facts from science and use them to justify their ideas of god.

More specifically here, Alan made the direct claim that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created." (#48293) The current scientific view of space-time is clearly directly relevant here exactly because the manifold itself does not exist in time.

In what way do you think that comparison is not justified or the level of discussion was wrong?

I explained that ypur category error is about levels of discussion...

So what's the category error? In the sequence of the discussion above, I made a direct comparison between Alan's claim about creation and current science of the nature of the universe as a whole. In contrast, you made the rather bizarre claim that "Existence is a time based concept." As far as I can see, the only level at which that makes sense is entirely from the point of view of humans being able to directly observe existence or not of some objects within the universe. Since the theist level here purports to be at the god/creation of the universe level, I think it's you who got mixed up about levels of discussion.

[Stranger]

Why the whole space time manifold and not nothing?

Why your god and not nothing?

Cue more incoherent gibberish about a "necessary entity"....

[Nearly Sane]

What does that mean?

Possibly not but let's not forget the context here, which was the improbability of DNA and the earlier points made about "fine tuning". Clearly Alan (and others) think they can take facts from science and use them to justify their ideas of god.

More specifically here, Alan made the direct claim that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created." (#48293) The current scientific view of space-time is clearly directly relevant here exactly because the manifold itself does not exist in time.

In what way do you think that comparison is not justified or the level of discussion was wrong?

So what's the category error? In the sequence of the discussion above, I made a direct comparison between Alan's claim about creation and current science of the nature of the universe as a whole. In contrast, you made the rather bizarre claim that "Existence is a time based concept." As far as I can see, the only level at which that makes sense is entirely from the point of view of humans being able to directly observe existence or not of some objects within the universe. Since the theist level here purports to be at the god/creation of the universe level, I think it's you who got mixed up about levels of discussion.

No one here is talking completely in terms of theoretical physics, very few are even slightly. It's entirely irrelevant to a discussion of existence as a day to day concept w hich is time based.
I agree that Alan's random use of science should be picked up but thinking that theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence being talked about here is the same mistake reversed.

[jeremyp]

I explained that ypur category error is about levels of discussion, that you don't seem to understand that that's imporatant means you aren't having discussions merely verbally masturbating.

This just looks like an attempt to dismiss a counter example to your assertion that existence is time based. The space-time manifold certainly exists (notwithstanding solipsism) so you can't dismiss it just because describing it requires talking physics.

[jeremyp]

...thinking that theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence being talked about here is the same mistake reversed.

That's a straw man argument.

Nobody here has said theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence. What they have said is that the space-time manifold which necessarily is not time based, because time is only one component of it, is a counter example to your claim that existence is time based.

[Nearly Sane]

This just looks like an attempt to dismiss a counter example to your assertion that existence is time based. The space-time manifold certainly exists (notwithstanding solipsism) so you can't dismiss it just because describing it requires talking physics.

Again, this is taking the discussion here as of it is a tgeoretical physics one. It isn't.

[jeremyp]

Again, this is taking the discussion here as of it is a tgeoretical physics one. It isn't.

You can't just ban the use of concepts from physics just because they would otherwise disprove your assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a straw man argument.

Nobody here has said theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence. What they have said is that the space-time manifold which necessarily is not time based, because time is only one component of it, is a counter example to your claim that existence is time based.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about anything other than the space time manifold, and last time I looked this thread is not called Searching for the SPACE TIME MANIFOLD.

[Nearly Sane]

You can't just ban the use of concepts from physics just because they would otherwise disprove your assertion.

I'm not banning them, I am saying this isn't a discussion of theoretical physics and that it's irrelevant here.

[Outrider]

This is a common misconception quoted by atheists.

It's a common interpretation, you've got a way to go to demonstrate that it's a misconception.

God does not exist in time, so there can be no concept of who or what created God.

Whatever predated our universe exists outside of time as we understand it, but the notion of 'creation' requires a change with regards to some corollary of time - whatever is out there, whether it's a god or blind physics, we have no ability to conceive of activity without time - we therefore can have no concept of a god outside of time, regardless of whether or not something created it.

God created time.

Maybe. Do you have something reliable to demonstrate that, or just your personal love for the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Bed-time Stories?

O.

[Stranger]

No one here is talking completely in terms of theoretical physics, very few are even slightly. It's entirely irrelevant to a discussion of existence as a day to day concept w hich is time based.
I agree that Alan's random use of science should be picked up but thinking that theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence being talked about here is the same mistake reversed.

This is directly contradicted by Alan's claim that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created." That directly opens up the question of existence, creation, and their relationship with time. We are already beyond the normal day to day concept of existence within time, and it wasn't me that got us there, it was Alan.

I also really can't see how you can possibly claim that a well tested theory from physics that explicitly includes something that exists that isn't embedded in time, but actually contains and defines time is not directly relevant to Alan's claim.

Like it or not, science in general and cosmology in particular (not to mention mathematics and probability) are often directly relevant to theist claims about god.

[jeremyp]

I'm not banning them, I am saying this isn't a discussion of theoretical physics and that it's irrelevant here.

You claim "existence is time based"

The Stranger points out that the space-time manifold exists and is not time based. This is not "a discussion of theoretical physics", it is pointing out a counter example to your assertion.

Can you justify your assertion? I've never heard anybody claim existence is time based before. I would agree that creation is time based because it implies a time before the thing was created, but not existence itself.

[Dicky Underpants]

Who else but God would have the authority to forgive sins?

I deleted my previous answer to this, since I had confused Mark with Matthew (it's been a long time). Jesus says he has the authority to forgive sins, and the Jews were taken aback by this, but Matthew adds this interesting addendum to Mark:

.....he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

The Jews had certainly had precedents with their miracle workers, (Moses, Elijah, Elisha) who had done just as remarkable things as Jesus up to that point. And Matthew makes it clear that the authority comes from God, without any suggestion that Jesus should be taken as God.
In any case, the whole suggestion that 'sins' cause paralysis is nonsense. Guilt and other psychosomatic factors might well cause paralysis, and a cure might well be effected by a bloody good psychologist, which no doubt Jesus was.

[Nearly Sane]

You claim "existence is time based"

The Stranger points out that the space-time manifold exists and is not time based. This is not "a discussion of theoretical physics", it is pointing out a counter example to your assertion.

Can you justify your assertion? I've never heard anybody claim existence is time based before. I would agree that creation is time based because it implies a time before the thing was created, but not existence itself.

In the context of this discussion, existence is a time based concept since we are not discussing theoretical physics. As I replied to Vlad, I was not making a statement about physics.

[Nearly Sane]

This is directly contradicted by Alan's claim that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created." That directly opens up the question of existence, creation, and their relationship with time. We are already beyond the normal day to day concept of existence within time, and it wasn't me that got us there, it was Alan.

I also really can't see how you can possibly claim that a well tested theory from physics that explicitly includes something that exists that isn't embedded in time, but actually contains and defines time is not directly relevant to Alan's claim.

Like it or not, science in general and cosmology in particular (not to mention mathematics and probability) are often directly relevant to theist claims about god.

They really aren't. Just because Alan makes a muddled claim with unclear meanings, doesn't justify highlighting an irrelevant one. In day to day terms existence is time based as a concept.

[Stranger]

They really aren't. Just because Alan makes a muddled claim with unclear meanings, doesn't justify highlighting an irrelevant one. In day to day terms existence is time based as a concept.

Mindless contradiction. I explained the relevance and so has Jeremy. Alan himself introduced the concept of existence outside of time (#48287), so the every day meaning of existence within time is clearly not the subject here.

Cosmology is very often used by theists to attempt to justify their claims, so claiming the irrelevance of science is just wrong. You can't dismiss an argument that claims a scientific basis just by claiming science is irrelevant.

Not so much here, but elsewhere I've lost count of the number of times I've seen claims that big bang cosmology indicates a cause for the universe and hence a god. You cannot just ignore the actual science. The claim that god exists outside of time is probably even more commonplace, so the day to day meaning of time-based existence cannot be said to be the only relevant one in this kind of discussion.

[jeremyp]

In the context of this discussion, existence is a time based concept

Nonsense.

Where's your justification for saying that existence is a time based concept?

since we are not discussing theoretical physics. As I replied to Vlad, I was not making a statement about physics.

We are discussing existence. Physics has a lot to say about what exists. You can't exclude using it in arguments.