Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Tvebak

Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Is it possible to disprove "god"? Many would think it is not possible with the knowledge we have today. However this person on youtube puts forward a good and interesting argument. It is on the matter of the relationship between creation and time. He has put up an almost complete narration of the video in the description of the video, I have also posted it below if someone has problems watching the video.

Disproving a Creator (God) ?
Quote:
People seem to think that it is impossible to disprove God. Part of this is due to the fact that God is sometimes defined differently by different people, therefore I will use the most basic quality that most people attribute God's underlying nature, which is that god is the creator of all things.


So then it would suffice to disprove a creator, in which case we would need to understand what creation means. The dictionary defines creation as the act of producing or causing to exist. With respect to religion, it is defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

This is the same as the first definition so it will be adequate to use the former, since it is more general. Let us begin to dissect the definition, but first I will define God as the creator of everything except himself. Therefore he is the fundamental cause for all things besides himself.


The definition of creation is the act of producing or causing to exist. This means at some point in time nothing existed. But wait, time didn't exist either since God hadn't created it. So we must throw away the whole concept of time and space, if we are to get at the crux of creation.

If we throw away time, we have to throw away words like before and after too, since these, in this context, are words involved with time. So what does this supposed divine creation really mean?

If one took the position of a divine creator, then you would also have to assume that the creator created everything essentially instantaneously, since there is no time, there is no time duration. Lack of time duration is instantaneous.

was there ever a time when there was nothing besides god? Well within the question you would be assuming time existed along with god.

In this case, time would be a fundamental property of existence, without the creator demanding it to be so, therefore not being the fundamental cause for everything besides himself.

I am not assuming you need time to exist. I am stating that to go from one state to another, time is certainly required. The act of creation requires time since it is going from one state to another, that is nonexistence, to existence.


You might be saying, nonexistence is not a state, but a lack of every state. However, for the case of a creator, there is no complete nonexistence. There would be the state in which it is just the creator, and then the state with the creator and everything else.

So for a creator to create anything, this being would need to first create time. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not the fundamental reason for everything.


Thus, any divine creator of everything is impossible. Since God is defined as the divine creator of everything, there is no God. However, if you want to define God as existence itself or something of the like, then surely existence exists.

You can see that any other attempt to bring a God into the picture is simply a matter of language and terminology. To account for how we see things seemingly created everyday is a matter of illusion, I will get into this further in other videos.

Thank you for viewing, I am open to any arguments against mine. I just hope that logic will play an important role in your perspective. Logic will lead us to truth more aptly than faith. This will be another video topic, since some people seem to think the reverse.


What do you think?

Cheers
kafir forever

I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist.  Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.
Mutley

Re: Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Tvebak wrote:
Is it possible to disprove "god"? Many would think it is not possible with the knowledge we have today. However this person on youtube puts forward a good and interesting argument. It is on the matter of the relationship between creation and time. He has put up an almost complete narration of the video in the description of the video, I have also posted it below if someone has problems watching the video.

Disproving a Creator (God) ?
Quote:
People seem to think that it is impossible to disprove God. Part of this is due to the fact that God is sometimes defined differently by different people, therefore I will use the most basic quality that most people attribute God's underlying nature, which is that god is the creator of all things.


So then it would suffice to disprove a creator, in which case we would need to understand what creation means. The dictionary defines creation as the act of producing or causing to exist. With respect to religion, it is defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

This is the same as the first definition so it will be adequate to use the former, since it is more general. Let us begin to dissect the definition, but first I will define God as the creator of everything except himself. Therefore he is the fundamental cause for all things besides himself.


The definition of creation is the act of producing or causing to exist. This means at some point in time nothing existed. But wait, time didn't exist either since God hadn't created it.


The human, conceptualizing mind creates time as a measurement of movement or change.

Quote:

So we must throw away the whole concept of time and space, if we are to get at the crux of creation.


Agreed, but for a different reason

Quote:

If we throw away time, we have to throw away words like before and after too, since these, in this context, are words involved with time. So what does this supposed divine creation really mean?

If one took the position of a divine creator, then you would also have to assume that the creator created everything essentially instantaneously, since there is no time, there is no time duration. Lack of time duration is instantaneous.

was there ever a time when there was nothing besides god? Well within the question you would be assuming time existed along with god.

In this case, time would be a fundamental property of existence, without the creator demanding it to be so, therefore not being the fundamental cause for everything besides himself.


Time is just an invention of the human conceptualizing mind that helps us measure motion and/or change.

Quote:

I am not assuming you need time to exist. I am stating that to go from one state to another, time is certainly required.


No. Movement and/or change is required.

Quote:

The act of creation requires time since it is going from one state to another, that is nonexistence, to existence.


That's not time, that's change. Time can't exist without movement or change happening first.

Quote:

You might be saying, nonexistence is not a state, but a lack of every state. However, for the case of a creator, there is no complete nonexistence. There would be the state in which it is just the creator, and then the state with the creator and everything else.


So far, you mean the creator had to be alone at first, put simply.

Quote:

So for a creator to create anything, this being would need to first create time.


I disagree. I believe we created that. The creator merely needed to set things in motion.

Quote:

But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed.


And again, I disagree.

Quote:

If time existed without needing to be created,


time didn't need to create itself, we needed to create it as a measurement tool for motion/change

Quote:

then whatever may have created anything else is not the fundamental reason for everything.


You're actually talking about cause.

Quote:

Thus, any divine creator of everything is impossible. Since God is defined as the divine creator of everything, there is no God. However, if you want to define God as existence itself or something of the like, then surely existence exists.

You can see that any other attempt to bring a God into the picture is simply a matter of language and terminology. To account for how we see things seemingly created everyday is a matter of illusion, I will get into this further in other videos.


rrrmmmmmmm.......

Quote:

Thank you for viewing, I am open to any arguments against mine. I just hope that logic will play an important role in your perspective. Logic will lead us to truth more aptly than faith. This will be another video topic, since some people seem to think the reverse.


Quote:

What do you think?

Cheers


rrrmmmmmmm.......
careperson

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum...=6291dd7e0f812cec2d389a41838eb2ce
Tvebak

Hello Mutley

I figured that you would like to argue his position  Wink

Actually I'm just gonna post his respond/clarification on the video linked above, mainly because I find them thoughtprovoking. But in this video he argues that causality "needs" time and that could be seen as a respond to your issues with the former video.

Impossibility of Creating Time

Quote:
this is a response to the disproving a creator video. I have decided it is necessary to clearly show the inherent connection between time and creation. It is best to achieve this by getting at the definition itself since that is what it is defined to be.


I posit that by what time and creation are defined to be, they are inexorably linked. Let us look into this further... The most general definition of time is...


the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Now let us look at the definition of creation.
the act of producing or causing to exist.

So you can see there is a causal nature in all of this. So it must also be necessary to define causality, which is...defined as the relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the consequence (result) of the first.

If there is a creator, there would be two separate events because the creator is causing the existence of something. Causality demands there be two consequential events, which is the cause itself and the effect of the cause. In other words, causality demands time.

Thus, creation which is characterized as a cause and effect, also demands time. In conclusion, the idea of creating time is inherently impossible. Much like it is impossible for a circle to have a vertex, by definition of what it means to be a circle.


Cheers
Tvebak

kafir forever wrote:
I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist.  Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.


Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers
Mutley

Tvebak wrote:
Hello Mutley

I figured that you would like to argue his position  Wink

Actually I'm just gonna post his respond/clarification on the video linked above, mainly because I find them thoughtprovoking. But in this video he argues that causality "needs" time and that could be seen as a respond to your issues with the former video.

Impossibility of Creating Time

Quote:
this is a response to the disproving a creator video. I have decided it is necessary to clearly show the inherent connection between time and creation. It is best to achieve this by getting at the definition itself since that is what it is defined to be.


I posit that by what time and creation are defined to be, they are inexorably linked. Let us look into this further... The most general definition of time is...


the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Now let us look at the definition of creation.
the act of producing or causing to exist.

So you can see there is a causal nature in all of this. So it must also be necessary to define causality, which is...defined as the relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the consequence (result) of the first.

If there is a creator, there would be two separate events because the creator is causing the existence of something. Causality demands there be two consequential events, which is the cause itself and the effect of the cause. In other words, causality demands time.

Thus, creation which is characterized as a cause and effect, also demands time. In conclusion, the idea of creating time is inherently impossible. Much like it is impossible for a circle to have a vertex, by definition of what it means to be a circle.


Cheers


If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?
HomoErectus

Mutley wrote:


If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?


Hi Mutley

When I come home, my two cats are waiting for me to come and open the door to the balcony, so they can get out...

Is it "time" they have to wait for me, or do they not sense "time" ?

Or is it just us, humans, applying our rule of time also on cats ?

But then, my cats ARE waiting, whether I'm there or not... and they can only get out on the balcony when I come home, later on, in time !

hmm....

My cats are also quite "unforgiving", when I'm gone for more than a day, they will be pissed at me, they remember the time I havent let them out, although they waited... for so long !

And... when there is a forward-movement of time, can't it also go in reverse-mode, maybe... ?

And if "time" can be "warped", how much of warping can be done - can it be made to run in circles, or a spiral, or a... standstill ?



.
kafir forever

Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.
Mutley

HomoErectus wrote:
Mutley wrote:


If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?


Hi Mutley

When I come home, my two cats are waiting for me to come and open the door to the balcony, so they can get out...

Is it "time" they have to wait for me, or do they not sense "time" ?


That was covered when I said not even the cells in your brain moving in order to tick off time in your mind. So, I repeat the question.
Mutley

kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?
Tvebak

Mutley wrote:

If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?


Hello Mutley

I really don't see the relevance of this to the relationship of the argument about "causality" and "time". You want kill it off by giving a scenario where there is nothing happening and therefore no causality, but at this stage you have already fathomed the universe, you have fathomed my brain and cells in it. But maybe you could elaborate on your point.

Cheers
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?


Check out the articles at the link.
careperson

If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!
Mutley

kafir forever wrote:
Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?


Check out the articles at the link.


I read a little, butthat's a ton of reading. Can you just copy and paste the relevant part? Also, if something is uncaused, then it would have to be non physical in nature. But the "point in time" he speaks about, still involves the physical.
Tvebak

careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


Is it basicly some different elements we can not fathom?

There is rather something than nothing. Nothing is a state that does not exist, but is only a contruct in our minds? - if yes what is it constructed to explain?
careperson

Tvebak wrote:
careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


Is it basicly some different elements we can not fathom?

There is rather something than nothing. Nothing is a state that does not exist, but is only a contruct in our minds? - if yes what is it constructed to explain?


This is my wild thinking.
I tend to think that the clock could never stuck zero.
It could never stuck zero because 'zero' or nothingness has no ontology- i.e nothing does not exist. 'No time' was never possible. If 'no time' exists it exists only in such saying 'I have no time' to think/eat etc.
Absolute zero is never possible. Zero is always relative.
A physical object can never reduced to nothing.
It is in its minutes vibrant string- as held in the string theory!
The vibration makes the micro time- smaller string temporality.
This vibration is everywhere!
It is there in the construction of time, space, energy and everywhere.
This vibration is the source of the nature's creativity, non-identicality, evolution.... etc.
This vibration lets the expressions having vibrant meaning ....
That is why nothing can remain itself! anything remaining itself is theoretical impossibility.
Even ourselves are never self-same-still entities.
Thus a self-same-absolute god entity is just a delusion.
absolutes do not exist. Absolute nothingness too does not exist.
But, we are habituated to think in terms of absolutes and nothingness.
Once we understand the impossibility of nothingness we escape from compelling ourselves from asking "who created this universe"- the delusion of absolute nothingness demands another absolute: the God!- or some other things- like self- organization.
Selfsameness is impossible- hence any talk of self organization if we are not careful enough pushes us into crude essentialism of 'self'!
These are just my wild thoughts.... somebody knowledgeable can help to bring better clarity.  
.....
kafir forever

careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


You are closer to Quentin Smith's concept of Absolute Time than you think.
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?


Check out the articles at the link.


I read a little, butthat's a ton of reading. Can you just copy and paste the relevant part?


No, I cannot copy and paste, but I will do my best to interpret, as best I can, the bottom line of what he is saying.  I am still going through it for a second time, so I will post my thoughts as they occur.

Quote:
Also, if something is uncaused, then it would have to be non physical in nature. But the "point in time" he speaks about, still involves the physical.


What you have to understand is that he contends that both the physical and the non-physical can exist in time, even if the proposition in question has no physical referent.
careperson

kafir forever wrote:
careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


You are closer to Quentin Smith's concept of Absolute Time than you think.


I am yet to read that article.
I will come back after reading that.
careperson

Dear Kafirforever,
First, let me thank you for directing us to read the article. The article is an inspiring one. I am not a philosopher hence my understanding can very much be defective.

I think you were finding some kind of similarity between QUENTIN SMITH's 'point hypothesis and the one I have written. Of course there are similarities. (Indeed I am jubilant for my argument is compared with that of Prof SMITH). Here I would try to show some difference too. Though I am no where near Prof. Smith's scholarship, I dare to expose my ignorance. I have just glanced through the article. I will be once again coming before you after understanding a little more.


Since the one I presented is my own wild thinking, it should definitely having some difference with that of Prof. Smith.--- due to the sources that informed me can be very different from that of Prof. Smith.

The following are the differences i could note in my first glance:
1. He presupposes 'timlessness' my argument does not presuppose timelessness. Rather I held that the clock could have never stuck zero- meaning no-time is a theoretical impossibility.
2. He presupposes 'symmetry' using set theoretical perspective and shows that the point hypothesis presupposes much more rigorous symmetry.  That is how he reaches the point hypothesis. I was presupposing inherent asymmetry- a property that had let the vibration and consequent time-space.
3. He presupposes a zero-dimensional point in explaining his point hypothesis alternative. I was presupposing zero is always relative and state that there is no ontological zero.
4. He presupposes 'being self identical is something possessed by everything'; on the contrary i hold that selfsameness is impossible- I hold this impossibility as the creative source inherent in what we call 'nature'- a similar argument I read somewhere in the philosophy of whitehead.

My argument would not be  the 'timeless point' but the 'pointless time'- the vibrancy that refuses to be reduced into a point.

I hope you may tolerate my naive presuppositions.
MrInquisitive

Time is the explanation to the fact that the Universe either expands or retracts. Like anything else in some linearly expandable or retractable corelation. It must tangible. Somehow.

The fact that the Universe expands and retracts can also be explained as space. Space has a non linear expandable or retractable corelation. It also must be tangible. Somehow!

Energy is the ultimately binding component. Time and space do not drive energy. Energy drives time and space. This is the classic textbook style definition of a symbiotic relationship.
Time and space cannot escape energy.

Energy cannot escape its ethereal components, and neither can the components escape energy. Regardless of the fact that energy causes the other two into an event.

Consciousness is the ultimate representation of Universal Energy.
kafir forever

MrInquisitive wrote:
Time is the explanation to the fact that the Universe either expands or retracts. Like anything else in some linearly expandable or retractable corelation. It must tangible. Somehow.

The fact that the Universe expands and retracts can also be explained as space. Space has a non linear expandable or retractable corelation. It also must be tangible. Somehow!

Energy is the ultimately binding component. Time and space do not drive energy. Energy drives time and space. This is the classic textbook style definition of a symbiotic relationship.
Time and space cannot escape energy.

Energy cannot escape its ethereal components, and neither can the components escape energy. Regardless of the fact that energy causes the other two into an event.

Consciousness is the ultimate representation of Universal Energy.


Obviouisly, you did not read any of the links I provided.
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Hello Mutley

I figured that you would like to argue his position  Wink

Actually I'm just gonna post his respond/clarification on the video linked above, mainly because I find them thoughtprovoking. But in this video he argues that causality "needs" time and that could be seen as a respond to your issues with the former video.

Impossibility of Creating Time

Quote:
this is a response to the disproving a creator video. I have decided it is necessary to clearly show the inherent connection between time and creation. It is best to achieve this by getting at the definition itself since that is what it is defined to be.


I posit that by what time and creation are defined to be, they are inexorably linked. Let us look into this further... The most general definition of time is...


the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Now let us look at the definition of creation.
the act of producing or causing to exist.

So you can see there is a causal nature in all of this. So it must also be necessary to define causality, which is...defined as the relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the consequence (result) of the first.

If there is a creator, there would be two separate events because the creator is causing the existence of something. Causality demands there be two consequential events, which is the cause itself and the effect of the cause. In other words, causality demands time.

Thus, creation which is characterized as a cause and effect, also demands time. In conclusion, the idea of creating time is inherently impossible. Much like it is impossible for a circle to have a vertex, by definition of what it means to be a circle.


Cheers


If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?


Yes, see Quentin Smith's article that I referenced.

Quote:
In the following real definitions of an object's existence in time, the variable x ranges over concrete and abstract objects, but not over instantaneous events or enduring processes. By "n-adic property" I mean a monadic property or a relation of any sort. The crucial aspect of these definitions is that the second order variable F ranges over real and Cambridge n-adic properties.

   

(D1) x exists in time if and only if there is some time t at which x possesses some n-adic property F and some different time t' at which x does not possess F.



The tensed version is as follows:



(D2) x exists in time if and only if x now possesses F and either did not or will not possess F; or x will possess F and either does not now possess F or did not possess F; or x used to possess F, and either now does not possess F or will not possess F. (The "or" expresses an inclusive disjunction, meaning and/or.)



Your question assumes that the properties that change over time are the real world properties of movement, which are spacial properties, but Quentin Smith is arguing that the properties that change do not have to be spacial, but can also be "Cambridge properties" which have no spacial properties.  In his view, if a Cambridge property changes value from time t to time t', then the object exists in time.
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?


I am not arguing for or against any position, here.  I simply want to consider what Quentin Smith has to say on the subject.  Given that, QS does not argue for a delimiter between moments.  He argues for and concludes, among other things, that "that time consists of an infinite sequence of infinitely long temporal intervals." (Last sentence in the essay.)
kafir forever

Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist.  Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.


Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers


Have you pondered on it yet, Tvebak?
kafir forever

careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.


I wonder if you realize just how correct you are.  I am aware of a theory in physics that makes the case that space itself must have a positive energy in order for anything to happen. To have that positive energy, something must be in motion, but it does not have to be observable matter.

Quote:
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it.


I am sorry, but I do not understand that sentence.  Maybe English is not your primary language.

Quote:
In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination.


I agree completely.

Quote:
Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


Precisely.  This is what some philosophers call "Platonic Realism," and it is the fundamental assumption in what Quentin Smith is arguing in the link I provided in my first post.
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Mutley and HE:  See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments.

The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable.

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.


What is the delimiter between one moment and the next?


Check out the articles at the link.


I read a little, butthat's a ton of reading.


I know.  I have read it many, many times, and I am still learning from it.

Quote:
Can you just copy and paste the relevant part?


Actually, it is all relevant, but let me quote his conclusions, and a few other interesting items for now.

His conclusions:

Quote:
In summary, I have argued in this paper that (a) the theory of time in orthodox quantum mechanics, the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity, are based on a false verificationist metaphysics, and that the philosophical parts of these theories should consist of a realist metaphysics, that (b) observable physical clock processes do not measure the metric and topology of time, that (c) all abstract objects exist in time, that (d) the simultaneity and presentness of physical events are not relative to a reference frame, but absolute, that (e)  past and future time are infinite, and (g) that time consists of an infinite sequence of infinitely long temporal intervals.


His definition of what it means for an object to exist in time:

Quote:

In the following real definitions of an object's existence in time, the variable x ranges over concrete and abstract objects, but not over instantaneous events or enduring processes. By "n-adic property" I mean a monadic property or a relation of any sort. The crucial aspect of these definitions is that the second order variable F ranges over real and Cambridge n-adic properties.

   

(D1) x exists in time if and only if there is some time t at which x possesses some n-adic property F and some different time t' at which x does not possess F.



The tensed version is as follows:



(D2) x exists in time if and only if x now possesses F and either did not or will not possess F; or x will possess F and either does not now possess F or did not possess F; or x used to possess F, and either now does not possess F or will not possess F. (The "or" expresses an inclusive disjunction, meaning and/or.)



Mutley wrote:
Also, if something is uncaused, then it would have to be non physical in nature. But the "point in time" he speaks about, still involves the physical.


Note that in the above definition, no physicality is required.  The "variable F ranges over real and Cambridge n-adic properties" does not require physical objects to exist.  The so called "Cambridge n-adic" properties are abstractions.

Therefore, if an abstraction changes from one time to another, the abstraction itself exists in time.

Also, note that change does not require any physical event or motion of material objects.
kafir forever

careperson wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it. In either way God is an unnecessary and anthropomorphic imagination. Imagined things need not necessarily have any corresponding object/ being imagined!


Is it basicly some different elements we can not fathom?

There is rather something than nothing. Nothing is a state that does not exist, but is only a contruct in our minds? - if yes what is it constructed to explain?


This is my wild thinking.
I tend to think that the clock could never stuck zero.
It could never stuck zero because 'zero' or nothingness has no ontology- i.e nothing does not exist. 'No time' was never possible. If 'no time' exists it exists only in such saying 'I have no time' to think/eat etc.


The clock stricking zero does not mean nothingness.  If time is infinite in both directions, the concept of time = 0 only has meaning on a local basis, and represents a starting point.  That is all.

Quote:
Absolute zero is never possible.


What does that mean to you?

Quote:
Zero is always relative.


As I said above, time= 0 is a local property.

Quote:
A physical object can never reduced to nothing.


Of course.  All physical objects are simply a different manifestation of energy.

Quote:
It is in its minutes vibrant string- as held in the string theory!
The vibration makes the micro time- smaller string temporality.


Don't know what you mean by this.

Quote:
This vibration is everywhere!
It is there in the construction of time, space, energy and everywhere.
This vibration is the source of the nature's creativity, non-identicality, evolution.... etc.
This vibration lets the expressions having vibrant meaning ....


There is a physical theory, not String Theory, that says that space itself has a vibration of virtual electrical charge at the Compton frequency, and is the basis for both Quantum Mechanics and time itself.

Quote:
That is why nothing can remain itself! anything remaining itself is theoretical impossibility.
Even ourselves are never self-same-still entities.
Thus a self-same-absolute god entity is just a delusion.


Agreed.

Quote:
absolutes do not exist.


Disagree.  Absolute time and space exist.

Quote:
Absolute nothingness too does not exist.


Agreed.

Quote:
But, we are habituated to think in terms of absolutes and nothingness.
Once we understand the impossibility of nothingness we escape from compelling ourselves from asking "who created this universe"- the delusion of absolute nothingness demands another absolute: the God!- or some other things- like self- organization.
Selfsameness is impossible- hence any talk of self organization if we are not careful enough pushes us into crude essentialism of 'self'!
These are just my wild thoughts.... somebody knowledgeable can help to bring better clarity.  
.....


Your thoughts are not that wild.

Do you have a scientific background?
Tvebak

kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist.  Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.


Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers


Have you pondered on it yet, Tvebak?


Hi fellow kafir.

No sorry not yet. Been wind up with other things, but I promise that I will respond on the matter when I have read it. That is, if I have anything 'clever' to say about it  Wink

Cheers
kafir forever

Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist.  Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.


Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers


Have you pondered on it yet, Tvebak?


Hi fellow kafir.

No sorry not yet. Been wind up with other things, but I promise that I will respond on the matter when I have read it. That is, if I have anything 'clever' to say about it  Wink

Cheers


Even if your thougts are not 'clever' I am still interested in your thoughts.  The first 4 sections of the article are much more readable than the rest, which is highly technical, but well worth the attempt to understand IMO.
careperson

kafir forever wrote:
careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.


I wonder if you realize just how correct you are.  I am aware of a theory in physics that makes the case that space itself must have a positive energy in order for anything to happen. To have that positive energy, something must be in motion, but it does not have to be observable matter.

Quote:
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it.


I am sorry, but I do not understand that sentence.  Maybe English is not your primary language.



I meant that the fundamental transitory property that resulted in 'energy'- and its other forms (i.e., space, time, organic componds, matter etc) does not necessitate a 'being' to initiate it.
God, thus cannot be the 'first cause'- here i am closer to QS.
I hold that the 'motion-flow-flux-transition' is equiprimordial as the energy is.
In other words, 'energy' is the unstabilizable fundamental mobility that spirals into other forms of existance.
Please bear with my bad english. I am not a native english speaker.
kafir forever

careperson wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
careperson wrote:
If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.


I wonder if you realize just how correct you are.  I am aware of a theory in physics that makes the case that space itself must have a positive energy in order for anything to happen. To have that positive energy, something must be in motion, but it does not have to be observable matter.

Quote:
If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it.


I am sorry, but I do not understand that sentence.  Maybe English is not your primary language.



I meant that the fundamental transitory property that resulted in 'energy'- and its other forms (i.e., space, time, organic componds, matter etc) does not necessitate a 'being' to initiate it.


Got it, and I agree completely.

Quote:
God, thus cannot be
or need not be
Quote:
the 'first cause'- here i am closer to QS.


Yes.

Quote:
I hold that the 'motion-flow-flux-transition' is equiprimordial as the energy is.
In other words, 'energy' is the unstabilizable fundamental mobility that spirals into other forms of existance.
Please bear with my bad english. I am not a native english speaker.


You are doing fine, and I appreciate the clarifications.

I wish others on this thread would come back and post some comments and observations.
kafir forever

Tvebak and Careperson:

Let's discuss this further.
careperson

The god hypothesis gets disproved once the non-necessity of the 'starting point' is established.
Further,
God is necessitated when one tends to think that like one's own soul, there should be a super soul! The belief in one having a permanent soul arises from a egocentric aspiration to be everlasting.
Mind, just a body effect- is misconstrued as if it were a bodiless being- soul- capable of existing without a body!God too is imagined as a bodiless being, an super form of the soul entity!Without body there is no mind! There is no soul- when there is no mind! A bodiless god can have no mind!
Defined differently, mind is in whatever we mind! At this moment of writing my mind is the pc in which i am typing! Mind, then is not a thing in itself, but a phenomenon of being engaged with outside oneself! Strangely enough, nothing can be absolutely itself! Being absolutely itself is to be selfsame-immobile-mindless-static-changeless! selfsameness is a theoretical impossibility. Alas! God entity is a selfsame- ever remaining same thing! God, imagined to be having nothing outside itself, not even time, space or any possibilities is a phenomenon impossible!
Tvebak

kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak and Careperson:

Let's discuss this further.


Hi KF

Sorry I'm trying to spend less time, overall, on the internet, so I'm have been cutting down my time debating different issues. I hope that I will have some time this weekend to read Smiths thoughts and try to chew on it. Then I will return. I'll be back  Wink
kafir forever

Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak and Careperson:

Let's discuss this further.


Hi KF

Sorry I'm trying to spend less time, overall, on the internet, so I'm have been cutting down my time debating different issues. I hope that I will have some time this weekend to read Smiths thoughts and try to chew on it. Then I will return. I'll be back  Wink


Thanks.  Let me bottom line some of it for you.

    All events have an Absolute relationship (B-relationship) to one another such that any two events have an ABSOLUTE past, present, future relationship to one another, and therefore, the metaphysics of STR, GTR and QM are false.

    Time is infinite in both directions (past, future) such that time can can exist even before the Big Bang, and is not dependent on any physical reality.


He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4.  The rest is the logic behind it.
Tvebak

kafir forever wrote:

Thanks.  Let me bottom line some of it for you.

    All events have an Absolute relationship (B-relationship) to one another such that any two events have an ABSOLUTE past, present, future relationship to one another, and therefore, the metaphysics of STR, GTR and QM are false.

    Time is infinite in both directions (past, future) such that time can can exist even before the Big Bang, and is not dependent on any physical reality.


He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4.  The rest is the logic behind it.


I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug Wink and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace
kafir forever

Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:

Thanks.  Let me bottom line some of it for you.

    All events have an Absolute relationship (B-relationship) to one another such that any two events have an ABSOLUTE past, present, future relationship to one another, and therefore, the metaphysics of STR, GTR and QM are false.

    Time is infinite in both directions (past, future) such that time can can exist even before the Big Bang, and is not dependent on any physical reality.


He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4.  The rest is the logic behind it.


I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug Wink and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace


It is the article on Absolute Simultaneity and the Infinity of Time. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/absolute...eity_and_the_infinity_of_time.htm

I know it is very sleepy stuff.  I have read this article 6 or 8 times.  The first four sections are more readable than the middle sections, and the last section summarizes his conclusions, if that helps.
careperson

Thank you KF for the good discussion. The discussion already reached a conclusion on the non-necessity of God hypothesis to explain existence. Nothing needs to be originated from God as, the origin itself necessitates no starting point! there exists no such starting point! not just staring point, there is no end point either. Time never ends!So does space. Space never shrinks into an absolute zero! No moment of time is possible without its past and future extensions! Every nanosecond has its nanopast and nanofuture! Such is the vibrancy of existence.
kafir forever

careperson wrote:
Thank you KF for the good discussion. The discussion already reached a conclusion on the non-necessity of God hypothesis to explain existence. Nothing needs to be originated from God as, the origin itself necessitates no starting point! there exists no such starting point! not just staring point, there is no end point either. Time never ends!So does space. Space never shrinks into an absolute zero! No moment of time is possible without its past and future extensions! Every nanosecond has its nanopast and nanofuture! Such is the vibrancy of existence.


Thanks, careperson, but I do not think the Big Bang enthusiasts would agree.
careperson

kafir forever wrote:
careperson wrote:
Thank you KF for the good discussion. The discussion already reached a conclusion on the non-necessity of God hypothesis to explain existence. Nothing needs to be originated from God as, the origin itself necessitates no starting point! there exists no such starting point! not just staring point, there is no end point either. Time never ends!So does space. Space never shrinks into an absolute zero! No moment of time is possible without its past and future extensions! Every nanosecond has its nanopast and nanofuture! Such is the vibrancy of existence.


Thanks, careperson, but I do not think the Big Bang enthusiasts would agree.


Reality is the least anthropomorphic!It is anthropomorphic to expect a beginning and an end. It is still more anthropomorphic to expect a creator to initiate beginning and end the end. In anthropomorphism neither there is science nor spirituality. Anthropomorphism is the expression of 'ego'mindedness. 'Ego'mindedness is the mother of all ignorances. It was due to 'ego'mindedness once it was believed earth occupying the central place in the universe. It was due to egomindedness many tended to believe oneself as non-destroyable permanent soul entity, having soul's mega counterpart (creator), the God!
Tvebak

kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:

Thanks.  Let me bottom line some of it for you.

    All events have an Absolute relationship (B-relationship) to one another such that any two events have an ABSOLUTE past, present, future relationship to one another, and therefore, the metaphysics of STR, GTR and QM are false.

    Time is infinite in both directions (past, future) such that time can can exist even before the Big Bang, and is not dependent on any physical reality.


He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4.  The rest is the logic behind it.


I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug Wink and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace


It is the article on Absolute Simultaneity and the Infinity of Time. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/absolute...eity_and_the_infinity_of_time.htm

I know it is very sleepy stuff.  I have read this article 6 or 8 times.  The first four sections are more readable than the middle sections, and the last section summarizes his conclusions, if that helps.


Hello K_F

Sorry for the long delay Smile

It's indeed an interesting point of view. I'm not sure wether I'm grasping all of it, I probably need to read the article more thouroughly. And even then I wont be able to fully comprehend his arguments. But I understand that, as you outlined, that he's proposing a real timeline, where time is absolute, an infinite. It seems also to be regarding some different perspective of what we understands as 'time'. He's critical towards this relativistic view of time. But in my personal opinion, the relativity of personal understandment of time does not necissarely negate an absolute time. I might be on a wrong track here.

But anyways...

kafir forever wrote:
careperson wrote:
Thank you KF for the good discussion. The discussion already reached a conclusion on the non-necessity of God hypothesis to explain existence. Nothing needs to be originated from God as, the origin itself necessitates no starting point! there exists no such starting point! not just staring point, there is no end point either. Time never ends!So does space. Space never shrinks into an absolute zero! No moment of time is possible without its past and future extensions! Every nanosecond has its nanopast and nanofuture! Such is the vibrancy of existence.


Thanks, careperson, but I do not think the Big Bang enthusiasts would agree.


Well there's different kinds of big bang enthusiasts. Some proponents of QT-big bang does not argue for an absolute zero. And as such time does end in their opinion.

Personally I'm in line with the infinite time idea. And agree that there's no need for a "god-hypothesis" in this matter. Here I apply to Ockhams razor.

Best Regards
kafir forever

Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
kafir forever wrote:

Thanks.  Let me bottom line some of it for you.

    All events have an Absolute relationship (B-relationship) to one another such that any two events have an ABSOLUTE past, present, future relationship to one another, and therefore, the metaphysics of STR, GTR and QM are false.

    Time is infinite in both directions (past, future) such that time can can exist even before the Big Bang, and is not dependent on any physical reality.


He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4.  The rest is the logic behind it.


I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug Wink and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace


It is the article on Absolute Simultaneity and the Infinity of Time. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/absolute...eity_and_the_infinity_of_time.htm

I know it is very sleepy stuff.  I have read this article 6 or 8 times.  The first four sections are more readable than the middle sections, and the last section summarizes his conclusions, if that helps.


Hello K_F

Sorry for the long delay Smile

It's indeed an interesting point of view. I'm not sure wether I'm grasping all of it, I probably need to read the article more thouroughly. And even then I wont be able to fully comprehend his arguments. But I understand that, as you outlined, that he's proposing a real timeline, where time is absolute, an infinite. It seems also to be regarding some different perspective of what we understands as 'time'. He's critical towards this relativistic view of time. But in my personal opinion, the relativity of personal understandment of time does not necissarely negate an absolute time. I might be on a wrong track here.


No, you are right here.  He argues that relativity only describes local reference frames and relationships between them, not a relationship to an absolute frame, the existence of which relativity denies, hence the apparent paradoxes around simultaneity and the relationships between cause and effect.  He argues that an absolute frame does infact exist, at least metaphysically, and it is the only "time" that has a true past, present and future, and it is the only frame in which there exists absolute relationships between cause and effect.

Quote:
Personally I'm in line with the infinite time idea. And agree that there's no need for a "god-hypothesis" in this matter. Here I apply to Ockhams razor.

Best Regards


I agree.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home