Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was your implication that the universe would somehow have to run through all of its past, from an infinite time ago: "if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were".

Fascinating as infinities are, they really aren't very relevant because, as I've already explained, whether the universe has an infinite past or not is of little relevance to thinking about why it exists or any arguments for any god (that's just Newtonian thinking).

Not sure I agree with you there.

Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.

[jeremyp]

Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.

Evidence please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence please.

The old Five pound paradox Jeremy. If I am reliant on something physical derived from no beginning I am never going to get it unless some thing introduced somewhere it into the system.

So any infinity in some imaginary time itself will not produce the goods.

[Stranger]

Not sure I agree with you there.

Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.

I think you're missing the point. Be it infinite in the past (or future or space-like extent) or not, the space-time manifold exists. Time is internal to it, so looking to base some sort of argument on any "start" of time is spurious.

The existence of the space-time is no more unexplained or mysterious than would the existence of any god you propose might have magicked it into existence. The idea of a god explains nothing of the fundamental question of existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you're missing the point. Be it infinite in the past (or future or space-like extent) or not, the space-time manifold exists. Time is internal to it, so looking to base some sort of argument on any "start" of time is spurious.

The existence of the space-time is no more unexplained or mysterious than would the existence of any god you propose might have magicked it into existence. The idea of a god explains nothing of the fundamental question of existence.

I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?

How  cana universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.

[jeremyp]

The old Five pound paradox Jeremy. If I am reliant on something physical derived from no beginning I am never going to get it unless some thing introduced somewhere it into the system.

So any infinity in some imaginary time itself will not produce the goods.

If God is eternal and has existed for infinite time, when could he have created the Universe?

[jeremyp]

I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universeGod having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universegod which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?

How  cana universegod which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God is eternal and has existed for infinite time, when could he have created the Universe?

God is outside time and space.

[Walter]

God is outside time and space.

well fuck me ,its taken all this time to get to THAT

[ippy]

You'll all more than likely go past infinity before you'll ever ding any sense at all into________

ippy.

[ippy]

That's probably because Time doesn't  exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/

It just shows you, you can come out with something sensible now and again Sriram, the trick is to keep it up.

Regards, ippy.

[Outrider]

That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.

However, if nothing changes...where is time?

If I don't move, depth doesn't disappear - that it's only made apparent to us in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it's not there when we aren't paying attention.  Time is, without time we couldn't have anything. Existence is time-dependent - without change you have stasis, but stasis is also a description with respect to time.  Time is.

O.

[Outrider]

There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were.

Only if you're selective in your interpretation

There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.

Only if it's infinite in both directions.  As it is, it seems it's only infinite in one direction... there's one to try and get your head around!

O.

[Outrider]

I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?

Firstly, can we please start differentiating between the universe (had a Big Bang early on, involves observable space-time) and the broader (possible) reality of which we can't verify anything at this point.  The different uses of 'universe' are starting to make this difficult to track.

An infinite history to reality is in no way a mathematical paradox, you just need to imagine that it's in a dynamic balance - much as, say, the Earth's weather patterns - and suddenly existence at any point along that eternal balance of forces is absolutely just a manifestation of that dynamic balance.

How  can a universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.

How can a universe god which doesn't start be anything... it's a complete non-starter?  That we struggle to conceive of it is our limitation, not reality's - it's an argument from incredulity.

O.

[Stranger]

I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one.

I don't want any sort of infinity, have no idea if the universe (or some larger context in which it may exist) had a start or not, and see no relevance at all to the question of any gods.

Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?

How  cana universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.

You still seem to be missing the point and thinking of the passage of time, rather than the idea of a block universe (which is what the evidence we currently have is telling us).

God is outside time and space.

Which is an exactly equivalent (non-)problem. The space-time manifold (as a whole) is "outside" time and space because it contains time and space. The space-time as a whole (at least according to the theory I've been discussing) is timeless and unchanging: it just is - much like the "god outside of time and space" concept would just be.

However, the universe exists and we still have no reason to think that any gods do.

[ekim]

If I don't move, depth doesn't disappear - that it's only made apparent to us in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it's not there when we aren't paying attention.  Time is, without time we couldn't have anything. Existence is time-dependent - without change you have stasis, but stasis is also a description with respect to time.  Time is.

O.

'Depth' could just be a human concept to describe relative position in space.  If you are static and look at the night sky are you observing deep into space or high into space?  When the observing mind disappears  so does the concept.  Similarly, time could just be a concept used to indicate and compare relative changes e.g. the decay of a caesium particle or the movement of a clock hand or a photon.  Stasis is another concept which implies absence of change.  If this were to be absolute then time as a concept ceases to have meaning and existence would be changeless and non time-dependant.

[Nearly Sane]

God is outside time and space.

That makes no sense since 'is' is a temporal concept, and 'outside' is a spatial concept.

[jeremyp]

God is outside time and space.

How could God do things if it is outside space and time?

[SteveH]

On the one had we have the vast amounts of evidence that support the theories of space-time, and on the other we have your scientifically illiterate assertions.

Tricky.

... err, oh, no it isn't, I was right, you're still talking simplistic, ill-thought out drivel...

St Augustine of Hippopotamus argued that only the present exists: The past only exists as present memory, and the future as present anticipation.

[Stranger]

St Augustine of Hippopotamus argued that only the present exists: The past only exists as present memory, and the future as present anticipation.

And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?

Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?

Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity.

I feel moved to ask then where is the past so we may observe it and measure it.

[Nearly Sane]

I feel moved to ask then where is the past so we may observe it and measure it.

Irrelevant and idiotic question

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?

Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity.

Surely that just tells us that there is no absolute present not that the observer or things don't have a present.

[SteveH]

And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?

Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity.

I was just mentioning what he said - which, you must admit, sounds surprisingly modern, even if it was wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Perhaps you missed this?

Vlad,

You’ll never admit it, but it should by now be apparent to you that WLC’s validation of the Kalam cosmological arguments is in tatters. There is though another, perhaps deeper problem even with the attempt when you claim that “Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none”. Aside from being a gross inversion of the facts (cosmology IS science, theism/theology is faith), that would mean that WLC (and you) should have no need of faith because the science does the work for you.

Why not then just have the argument peer reviewed by people versed in science, and then publish the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" in the relevant scientific journal? What need then would you have for faith?

So, what with you having science on your side if your claim is to believed when can we expect the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" to be published? I'm thinking New Scientist, but maybe Scientific American if WLC is the lead author. What do you think?