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
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:37 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
careperson
New Member
New Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
_________________
I care
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 May 03, 2008 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
_________________
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
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

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
Page 5 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