Defining or interpreting god? (2 Viewers)

[Seven]

The only way to hope to make any sense of the universe is to treat it like a special case. The universe is not "like everything else", it is precisely: everything.

You cannot first state that "the universe defines time" and then say "what time was it before the universe". The same goes for causality. If there is no time before the universe there's also no cause, because cause is measured in time, yes?

Btw, what you said about subparticles being the cause of particles is a very strange take on causality. Usually we talk about causality as related events in time.

Exactly.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Huh?

Deists believe in a god that created the universe and then did nothing. Theists believe in a personal god. Since you are lending credence to the first, you should probably talk about deism not theism.

 

[Stephan]

i thought cause is measured by action/activity.

 

[Martin]

i thought cause is measured by action/activity.

Define "action/activity" without the use of time.

 

[Seven]

i thought cause is measured by action/activity.

No. You need to have a concept like time before you can talk about causes.

 

[Seven]

Define "action/activity".

It doesn't matter. If there's no time, there is no cause.

 

[Stephan]

Define "action/activity" without the use of time.

well, um, lets see, if i light a match i am causing fire?

 

[Seven]

well, um, lets see, if i light a match i am causing fire?

If there's no time, there won't be any fire.

 

[Stephan]

so um, if man no 1 kills man no 2, then the death is not caused by action but by time? The man no 1 just happens to live in a period of time where he feels its necessary to kill man no 2?

 

[Martin]

well, um, lets see, if i light a match i am causing fire?

Do you know how lighting a match works? The tip of the match is phosphorus, which ignites under small amounts of friction. Friction is the application of force over time.

So yes, you need time to create friction, to trigger combustion, which lights the match.

 

[Martin]

so um, if man no 1 kills man no 2, then the death is not caused by action but by time? The man no 1 just happens to live in a period of time where he feels its necessary to kill man no 2?

This can only be trolling.

 

[Stephan]

Well this is what i get from your logic, not maybe best example but think about it.

I dont do this not just cause i need it, but cause i happen to live in a period of time where i have no other option?

 

[Seven]

so um, if man no 1 kills man no 2, then the death is not caused by action but by time? The man no 1 just happens to live in a period of time where he feels its necessary to kill man no 2?

If there is no time, you can't kill a man.

Say you want to shoot him. So you fire the gun. The bullet needs time to hit the man. If it hits the man, it needs time to kill the man.

 

[Seven]

Well this is what i get from your logic, not maybe best example but think about it.

I dont do this not just cause i need it, but cause i happen to live in a period of time where i have no other option?

That has got nothing to do with it.

We're talking about time, the concept. Jesus.

 

[Dinsdale]

The only way to hope to make any sense of the universe is to treat it like a special case. The universe is not "like everything else", it is precisely: everything.

You cannot first state that "the universe defines time" and then say "what time was it before the universe". The same goes for causality. If there is no time before the universe there's also no cause, because cause is measured in time, yes?

True, so we have to choose one out of two postulates that don't seem to make a lot of sense:

-the universe had a timeless cause, a timeless mechanism caused it => causality exists outside of time

or

-the universe doesn't have a cause => everything came out of nothing

Which one do you pick?

Btw, what you said about subparticles being the cause of particles is a very strange take on causality. Usually we talk about causality as related events in time.

Yeah, the event would be particles moving together.

Standard have to win the CL at some point, if they have eternity to do it .

Now you're implying time existed before the universe started to exist, which doesn't make sense.

verynine, as hitchens said "i am not an atheist, i am an anti-theist"

Me too probably.

Deists believe in a god that created the universe and then did nothing. Theists believe in a personal god. Since you are lending credence to the first, you should probably talk about deism not theism.

I meant theism in the most broad sense (like I also mentioned the first time I used the word); assuming there is a fundamental cause (called god), nothing more than that. It's even more general than deism.

By the way, talking about "atheism vs deism" sounds kind of weird.

 

[Seven]

Now you're implying time existed before the universe started to exist, which doesn't make sense.

No, I'm not. It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

 

[Dinsdale]

No, I'm not. It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

How do you define 'universe' then?


Time is unseparable from space, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

[Hist]

Deists believe in a god that created the universe and then did nothing. Theists believe in a personal god. Since you are lending credence to the first, you should probably talk about deism not theism.

i never knew that distinction.
I think we all meant deists when we spoke of theists

 

[Martin]

True, so we have to choose one out of two postulates that don't seem to make a lot of sense:

-the universe had a timeless cause, a timeless mechanism caused it => causality exists outside of time

or

-the universe doesn't have a cause => everything came out of nothing

Which one do you pick?

Causality without time is a self contradiction, so that is easy to dismiss.

As for the second, your conclusion is essentially incorrect: "everything came out of nothing". You are using a verb "came", which implies something happened over time. Which it could not have, for lack of time.

The only consistent conclusion, according to our definitions of the words we are using is: nothing happened. Nothing could have happened, because there was no time and thus no particle motion.

But that raises the rather interesting question: if time and motion are defined in terms of each other, then how do you go from no time and no motion to time and motion?

I meant theism in the most broad sense (like I also mentioned the first time I used the word); assuming there is a fundamental cause (called god), nothing more than that. It's even more general than deism.

By the way, talking about "atheism vs deism" sounds kind of weird.

How is theism more general than theism, if theism contains more clauses? Moreover, it is a personal god that watches over you, which is not what this thread is about.

Say adeism then, I really don't care.

 

[Dinsdale]

As for the second, your conclusion is essentially incorrect: "everything came out of nothing". You are using a verb "came", which implies something happened over time. Which it could not have, for lack of time.

Unless you're assuming causality ouside of time.

The only consistent conclusion, according to our definitions of the words we are using is: nothing happened. Nothing could have happened, because there was no time and thus no particle motion.

But if you accept the second postulate (thus rejecting causality outside of time), you're rejecting this logic:

X started to exist <=> X has a cause

Why is this any better?

But that raises the rather interesting question: if time and motion are defined in terms of each other, then how do you go from no time and no motion to time and motion?

This is exactly what I meant by "everything (timespace and matter) came out of nothing". See, you too are having problems with this notion.

How is theism more general than theism, if theism contains more clauses? Moreover, it is a personal god that watches over you, which is not what this thread is about.

Say adeism then, I really don't care.

It's even more general than deism, because what I'm talking about just states: God caused the existence of the universe. Whether this mechanism (god) causes anything else within the universe (theism, supernatural things happen), or doesn't (deism), we don't know and don't care. I have no better way than calling it 'theism in the most broad sense'.