Disproofs of God.

[jeremyp]

That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.

Why God and not nothing?

[Outrider]

That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.

It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why God and not nothing?

Don’t know. I’m still open to whatever is necessary being in the universe. Any suggestions? Requirements are. Cannot just be an abstract necessity, Cannot be dependent for its existence or state on anything else, cannot be made from parts, cannot be emergent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.

O.

Irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.

[Outrider]

Irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.

Within this framework, to have 'nothing' is impossible - your question is invalid, it's like asking why a round circle and not a square one.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.

O.

It isn’t. Show us the something that it is that has always been here.

[Outrider]

It isn’t. Show us the something that it is that has always been here.

It is a looped universe, there is no time at which it isn't in existence, there is no start or finish, it's a closed system.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Within this framework, to have 'nothing' is impossible - your question is invalid, it's like asking why a round circle and not a square one.

O.

You mean there is another framework in which it is possible? How then is it impossible?
Secondly you seem to be saying that you can get something ( which seems to be both unfalsifiable and non identifiable from nothing and this is the way do it. But you have already said that nothing is impossible. So what then is the something from which it owes its existence.

If you are saying existence is temporal then how can it be independent of time?

And all this apart from the statement something has always been here being irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a looped universe, there is no time at which it isn't in existence, there is no start or finish, it's a closed system.

O.

Why is it in existence at all? And why is it looped. The only apparent reason for suggesting a looped universe at all is to avoid an open universe. It seems to exist just to make sure that we get something for nothing.

Can a loop be termed as an infinity? What is it that keeps it dynamic and not static?

[Outrider]

You mean there is another framework in which it is possible? How then is it impossible?

If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing.  In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds.  For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.

Secondly you seem to be saying that you can get something ( which seems to be both unfalsifiable and non identifiable from nothing and this is the way do it.

No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.

But you have already said that nothing is impossible.

Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.

So what then is the something from which it owes its existence.

It doesn't.

If you are saying existence is temporal then how can it be independent of time?

Time is part of this model of  universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.

And all this apart from the statement something has always been here being irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.

It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.

Why is it in existence at all?

What makes you think that there's a 'why'?

And why is it looped.

That's the nature of space-time in this model.

The only apparent reason for suggesting a looped universe at all is to avoid an open universe.

It's a model that avoids certain logical difficulties, but poses others - in the absence of any solid information that's the case with all models.

It seems to exist just to make sure that we get something for nothing.

To exactly the same extent that positing 'gods' avoids the need to actually come up with an explanation in favour of 'theologically serious' magic?  You can impugn the intent of whomever proposes the argument if you'd like, but it doesn't constitute an argument against it or in favour of alternative explanations.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing.  In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds.  For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.

No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.

Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.

It doesn't.

Time is part of this model of  universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.

It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.

O.

But not even Krauss put his money on the question being meaningless. You have still to demonstrate how the answer it has always been here is meaningless rather than your answer being non sequitur.

This is turd polishing even greater than Hillside. The King is dead, long live the King.

Any progress on showing what it is in the universe that has been around for ever?
If not what evidence do you have for something being around for ever. It should be far easier if what you say is true. Let’s have the evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing........... so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.

so the something owes its existence to nothing?

........................But.....you have said.....there is no possibility of nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing.  In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds.  For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.

No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.

Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.

It doesn't.

Time is part of this model of  universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.

It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.

What makes you think that there's a 'why'?

That's the nature of space-time in this model.

It's a model that avoids certain logical difficulties, but poses others - in the absence of any solid information that's the case with all models.

To exactly the same extent that positing 'gods' avoids the need to actually come up with an explanation in favour of 'theologically serious' magic?  You can impugn the intent of whomever proposes the argument if you'd like, but it doesn't constitute an argument against it or in favour of alternative explanations.

O.

This post is like you leaving a field of cow pats. Some will turn out to be just shite, some will fertilise Roses.

But If time is looped, and it’s not just a circular answer, a bit of magic, and a huge portion of Godphobia. Wouldn’t that make each event its own explanation?

[Outrider]

But not even Krauss put his money on the question being meaningless.

In the general it isn't, in respect of this particular model it is.

You have still to demonstrate how the answer it has always been here is meaningless rather than your answer being non sequitur.

The answer 'it's always been there' isn't quite what I was saying; I was saying it encompasses all of time, so there is no 'when' for something to exist to have caused it, there is no 'nothing' outside of it, the concept of 'outside' or 'else' is meaningless.  You still have to justify that model, of course, but within that model your question doesn't mean anything.

This is turd polishing even greater than Hillside. The King is dead, long live the King.

It's always nice to have greatness acknowledged, but the ad hominem award for you failing to grasp the argument isn't exactly a prestigious (or even rare) award.

Any progress on showing what it is in the universe that has been around for ever?

Within this model of the universe? Everything has been around for ever, that's the nature of the cyclic model.

O.

[Stranger]

A few points here is time dependent on the manifold or is the other way round.

Time is a direction through the manifold*. If you think of the manifold as the surface of the earth, then you could consider time to be (say) the north to south direction.

Is it not possible that there are more dimensions?

Of course it's possible.

Also when you say the manifold, what is it we are looking at?

What are you asking for here? Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with metric signature -2 (or +2, depending on your sign convention - as long as you're consistent, it makes no difference).

* The exact direction depends on the observer.

[Outrider]

This post is like you leaving a field of cow pats. Some will turn out to be just shite, some will fertilise Roses.

As is the nature of any body of conjecture, surely?

But If time is looped, and it’s not just a circular answer, a bit of magic, and a huge portion of Godphobia. Wouldn’t that make each event its own explanation?

But if 'god' is real, isn't that an actual bit of magic; doesn't that make god his own explanation? Isn't that a huge portion of reality-phobia?

Ultimately, though, yes it would result in an entirely self-contained, self-referential natural cycle.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that model holds true it is impossible for there to be nothing.

OK let’s loop time. Now is it time or entropy that makes things happen? If entropy then eventually we are going to reach heat death. What is it then that keeps our perpetual motion machine going. What is it which is bending time back on itself? What is it that is guiding every particle back to its exact position relative to everything. And not just once but forever and ever.

What makes you think that there's a 'why'?

Because of reason. It is a great question which has served humanity exceedingly well. Creating the unquestionable has never been a good course of action and looks like special pleading for starters or having something to hide.

Why something and not nothing

There has always been something here.......not an answer, not a definition.


[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Time is a direction through the manifold*. If you think of the manifold as the surface of the earth, then you could consider time to be (say) the north to south direction.

Of course it's possible.

What are you asking for here? Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with metric signature -2 (or +2, depending on your sign convention - as long as you're consistent, it makes no difference).

* The exact direction depends on the observer.

What is it physically?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As is the nature of any body of conjecture, surely?

But if 'god' is real, isn't that an actual bit of magic; doesn't that make god his own explanation? Isn't that a huge portion of reality-phobia?

Ultimately, though, yes it would result in an entirely self-contained, self-referential natural cycle.

O.

I haven’t demonstrated reality phobia but you have demonstrated Godphobia in such abundance I could bag it up and sell it by the roadside.

[Outrider]

OK let’s loop time. Now is it time or entropy that makes things happen?

No.  All things that 'happen' are our experience moving through the four dimensional space that's already there.  Entropy is our explanation for a local pattern of activity that tends towards uniform order at a particular point.

If entropy then eventually we are going to reach heat death.

That's the conventional model of entropy, yes; this model requires some mechanism to change that at some point - I'm not sure what that would be, I'm not aware of any significant examples.

What is it then that keeps our perpetual motion machine going.

Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitation, electro-magnetism, strong- and weak-nuclear forces... all the bits that we understand to part of physics now.

What is it which is bending time back on itself?

Possibly nothing, it's possible that it's just the nature of space-time that it curves.

What is it that is guiding every particle back to its exact position relative to everything.

Statistics - give it an infinite number of iterations to align a finite number of elements, and one of those iteration will duplicate a prior one.

And not just once but forever and ever.

That's the nature of looped time, once it happens once it happens forever.

Because of reason.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to the be apologist for religion and claim to be the force of 'reason' - god is the ultimate excuse for stopping looking for difficult answers.

It is a great question which has served humanity exceedingly well.

But there are situations where it doesn't apply - any time you don't have a conscious actor, why becomes irrelevant. How is significant, but why requires choices.

Creating the unquestionable has never been a good course of action and looks like special pleading for starters or having something to hide.

Saying that you need to justify 'why' is not making something unquestionable, it's just establishing the fundamentals.  If you want to ask 'why' you need to explain who it is you think is making the choice; otherwise the question you want to is 'how'.

Why something and not nothing

What does 'nothing' mean in this model?

There has always been something here.......not an answer, not a definition.

Everything is this, there is no 'other', there is no 'outside' there is no 'boundary'... it's part of the definition of the model.

I haven’t demonstrated reality phobia but you have demonstrated Godphobia in such abundance I could bag it up and sell it by the roadside.

How can you be afraid of something that you don't believe exists?  Now 'religiophobia' would be a potentially valid accusation, religion worries me, religious people worry me, but gods worry me as much as unicorns, pixies, Sauron and Thanos' big, shiny, universe-fisting glove.

O.

[Stranger]

What is it physically?

What is anything physically? All we can do is give the most accurate description of it we can. In this case the most accurate description we have is a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold with metric signature -2.

The best analogy is to forget 2 of the space dimensions and think of time and one space dimension plotted on a surface of some kind. Unfortunately, there are a number of complications:

• The lines of space and time are not absolute, they depend on the observer.
• Even where it's 'flat', the geometry is not Euclidean (the normal geometry you learn at school).
• It isn't generally 'flat', it's 'curved'. What this means is that the geometry varies. You can think of this as the surface being curved through a third dimension, but that is just another analogy. Curving through an extra dimension does change the geometry of the surface, but the geometry can change without an extra dimension and you can't model all the possible changes in geometry by literally curving through an extra dimension.
• Even if you select one observer and draw its lines of space and time on the surface, the curvature is such that they won't be valid everywhere. There will be places where the coordinates become degenerate (like latitude and longitude do at the poles) or you'll get coordinate singularities (where the values go infinite, like at the event horizons of black holes) and you have to switch to alternative coordinates to understand what's happening.

[jeremyp]

Don’t know.

So why criticise people who say they don't know why the Universe and not nothing.

Everything below is irrelevant to the point.

I’m still open to whatever is necessary being in the universe. Any suggestions? Requirements are. Cannot just be an abstract necessity, Cannot be dependent for its existence or state on anything else, cannot be made from parts, cannot be emergent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why criticise people who say they don't know why the Universe and not nothing.

Everything below is irrelevant to the point.

I’m not sure I am criticising them. I’m criticising those who say it is an invalid question because by some means a state of nothingness is impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.

If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.

If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.

O.

Bob’s your uncle !!!!!!! In what dimension are you looping time in again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad - you can't "disprove" "God" any more than you can disprove leprechauns. What you can do though is to falsify the arguments attempted by theists/leprechaunists to justify the claims gods/leprechauns. And that's all that's required for atheism/a-leprechaunism.

You know this already though.   

Rest: why are you feeding the house troll again?