FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Disproving a Creator (God) ?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
careperson
New Member
New Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:42 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

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.
_________________
I care
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrInquisitive
New Member
New Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 23


Location: Western/Northern hemisphere
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
The most important voice to listen to is the one within one's head!
Everything else may be influential, or not!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum