[removed by moderator, read it here]
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
All effects that have causes have causes. But that does not mean that all effects have causes.
In an isolated system like the universe, you cannot get something from nothing. But that tells you nothing about the origin of the universe.
Saying that time had a start cannot be falsified. We only know about what we think is the earliest event.
It is impossible to infer about what is outside an isolated system while in an isolated system.
Time runs slow in the presence of gravity. The big bang had more intense gravity than anything. Looks like the start of time to me and a lot of scientists agree with that.
My axiom was: all events are caused by events.
V.S.
I see no contraction.
@ Dan
Contraction? Gee not only do you not understand math, you do not understand English. Are you sure English is your primary language?
rmfr
@Dan you have not explained why the properties you have given God cannot be applied to the whole of existence.
@Sapporo To which properties of God do you refer?
Properties you mentioned included "timeless" and "eternal" and the creator of time.
According to your logic in the thread you started called "Time is a circular eternal loop created by God!", I cannot see why you think the universe could not have created time.
"6. So something must have existed forever outside of time"
Nothing can exist outside of time. If you disagree, please provide proof, not more assertions.
But if time had a start AND something always existed, the only remaining possibility is something timeless always existed.
Please prove that time had a start.
Please prove that something had always existed.
And thirdly, do you not see the contradictions in your statement, that time had a start, yet something always existed?
Exist in what sense? Time only in the sense we understand it? It is inconceivable that there are concepts of things like time and existence we are entirely unaware of? You are making broad assertions based on pure assumption Dan, and the stridency of your claims makes them risible. What's more you always do this, you seem to have no concept of the limits of epistemology, hell you don't even seem to realise epistemology has limits.
It's good to be curious and imaginative. but not if you can't recognise the difference between this and objectively validated facts.
Not knowing something means no rational assertions can be made about it, not that you can challenge that ignorance as evidence of your personal unevidenced beliefs. This fallacy is called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
DAN
1. Axiom: ‘events in time are caused by events’ REJECTED - Causal relationships are only a contingent property of our universe. Time breaks down at Palanck Time, as do causal relationships. Our physics does not work at this point.
Everything has a cause - Does not mean the Universe had a cause. If I have a book of 100 facts about life and you read 99 of them and determine that each and every one of them is True and Factual, does that mean that the 100th fact is also True and Factual? Absolutely not. Your assertion that the universe has a beginning needs independent evidence. You do not get to assume a first cause. You must prove it.
2. You can't get something from nothing.
You can not demonstrate "nothing" exists. We have no example of nothing anyplace. Please demonstrate the existence of this nothing to which you are referring. You have no idea at all what is beyond our universe. If you think you do. please demonstrate it. You no more get to assert nothing into existence than you get to assert your god into existence.
3. Something must have always existed, WRONG
Something may or may not have always existed..... we don't know. If you think you can sway logic to one side or the other, please provide evidence and not assertions. What you have said thus far is utterly useless.
4. Time has a start.
What we know about time thus far is that it seems to have had a start with the expansion of the universe event. The Big Bang, (Careful here. The Big Bang is not a theory of cosmology. What you are calling time works differently beyond Planck time. Different is not an absence. Time as we know it, linear time, our time, appears to have begun at the expansion of the universe. How would our universe expand without our time? What happened before this? How would you find out? You might build a Hadron Collider and think of a few experiments. Hmmmm? You wouldn't jump onto an Atheist chat site and begin spouting nonsense.
There is no point in moving any further. Your premise is rejected. Your nonsense is unfounded, unsubstantiated, and worthless for the conclusions you wish to draw.
1. Our ability to measure breaks down at Planck time, we have no scientific evidence that causality breaks down.
2. I am referring to the philosopher's nothing: no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no information. And then deducing using the axiom 'all events are caused by events' that you cannot get something from nothing.
4. We have to continue to use our logic to figure it out. Astronomy may help - getting a proper handle on the expansion of the universe. My money is on gravity winning in the end - a big crunch - the end of time - leading to the start of time. So that would be evidence in favour of circular time and by extension God (its such an Occam's Razor design it must of been built by an intelligence).
"1. Our ability to measure breaks down at Planck time, we have no scientific evidence that causality breaks down."
Jesus fucking wept Dan, we have no evidence it applies either, this crap is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. You and only you are making claims about the law of cause and effect prior to the big bang. Why can't you grasp this very simple concept?
" I am referring to the philosopher's nothing: no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no information. And then deducing using the axiom 'all events are caused by events' that you cannot get something from nothing."
And applying something seen in a temporal condition prior to the big bang with no evidence it can be applied at all, Jesus Dan your relentless repetition is beyond tedious. YOU CAN'T EVIDENCE YOUR CLAIMS, thus they are assumption, Occam's razor applies.
"We have to continue to use our logic to figure it out. "
We? You are using personal religious belief, pure assumption, and known logical fallacies, it's the very antithesis of logic that you are using Dan. Look...
"My money is on gravity winning in the end - a big crunch - the end of time - leading to the start of time. "
What the fuck is logical about you making broad claims you can't evidence. If the entire scientific world doesn't know, then why can't you see how risible your claim is?
"So that would be evidence in favour of circular time and by extension God"
Oh do fuck off Dan, this is getting beyond tiresome, it isn't evidence for anything, ""My money is on" is not a valid claim ffs, it's just a string of unevidenced assumptions you keep making, that science can't even validate, and to which you risibly tack two more assumptions, that a deity is needed, and that it's the deity you hold a priori belief in.
You have no evidence, and you are outraging logic with every post man...
1. "Scientists have succeeded in observing one of the strangest predictions of quantum theory – the breakdown of causality." "On a quantum level, however, cause-and-effect breaks down." “The weirdness of quantum mechanics means that events can happen without a set order,” says physicist Jacqui Romero, from the University of Queensland in Australia.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/causality-disappears-at-the-flick-of-...
2, The philosopher's nothing is not a contingent property of the world we live in. It is a "mind game" and nothing more. You must prove this philosopher's nothing has any bearing at all in the real world. Anyone can say "zero." Saying it does not prove it. Your version of nothing is a thought experiment and nothing more.
3. No! We do not use logic to figure out astronomy. We observe astronomy and look for patterns. Logic is what we attempt to impose on the universe around us. Logic is how we match new observations with past observations. When things do not make sense to us, we explore them and try to figure out why. (Things like the breakdown of causality.) When your beliefs clash with reality? And you pretend things exist without evidence, you should probably change your beliefs. This is what beliefs are for. Can’t do this? May as well not bother having beliefs because you are just making shit up. You don't get to impose your ideas on the world around you. Please prove your version of "nothing" actually exists.
"something must have existed always "
Just yesterday you stated in another thread you started, that infinite regress was impossible. So which is it Dan?
"Existing outside time would mean not subject to axiom"
Special pleading fallacy.
"Can’t get something from (the philosopher’s) nothing... So something must have existed always"
That's a logical contradiction, if something always existed then it axiomatically required nothing in order to exist.
"So a timeless, eternal God must have created time"
Pure assumption, why not garden fairies or pixies that are timeless and eternal? Weakest nonsense I've ever heard.
"So time must of had a start"
Grammar alert! **Must have, not must of (sic).** Grammar alert!
Nothing can start if there is no time, the two claims are mutually dependant, you mean a point of origin, but not a start not in the sense we mean it in a temporal condition, and again you are in the realms of pure assumption, theistic fantasies writ large. Your claims are no more rational than the biblical creation myth. The whole thing is riddled with contradictions, and this is just an excuse for you to repeat precisely the same claim you made in the other thread, why on earth do we need two threads for such errant nonsense I don't know.
Edited for typos & clarity.
Sheldon - an infinite regress is impossible. Time has a start so it is a finite regress. A circle is finite and time is a circle. Just one set of events though. As in Einstein's 4d spacetime view of the world. Imagine a huge torus in 4d spacetime - that's the universe (with time going around the outside of the loop).
Not special pleading. I'm just following the 'events in time are caused by events' axiom. God is outside time.
Of course there cannot The end of time precedes and causes the start of time, the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang.
1
2
3
4
That the assumptions I counted in your first 4 sentences.
Are you seriously claiming you have spotted something in Einstein's work that validates the existence of a deity that he and the entire scientific world has missed? Come on Dan this is fucking ridiculously absurd nonsense man.
"Not special pleading. I'm just following the 'events in time are caused by events' axiom. God is outside time."
You are using claims about a deity in your argument for the existence of a deity, that is called a begging the question fallacy, so again any claim your argument is logical id laughable, can you really not see the absurdity of claiming to be using logic whilst using common logic fallacies like this?
"God is outside time."
No it isn't - Hitchens's razor applied. ffs stop making up assumptions.
"Of course there cannot The end of time precedes and causes the start of time, the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang."
Gibberish, loaded with risible assumptions. Link a peer reviewed scientific paper that is supported by a brood global scientific consensus please.
I must admit I've spotted a problem with my own argument:
It allows you to get something from nothing timelessly.
I withdraw the argument for now... needs further thinking.
@ Dan
Thinking about it ain't gonna help you any.
rmfr
That's not the problem with your argument, it is irrational, it is based on numerous unevidenced assumptions, and most importantly you don't seem to know this for some inexplicable reason.
"Time" is but a concept to help humans interpret the passing and arrival of events. I see no "proof of god" here
@ Secular
Talk about great minds. Just like my definition of Time in another thread being "a change occurring from a previous state."
Kewl.
rmfr
Yeah man time itself is very complex. Most people see it as some linear thing moving at a constant. They don't think beyond what their senses interpret and assign "god" to anything that can't be explained without research. The laziness... It's really irritating.
@ Dan
Serious question. Are you William Lane Craig's son practicing to be just like a dumb ass daddy?
rmfr
I really don't know what you mean, these are my arguments. I have not read Craig's stuff so maybe there is overlap but I know he is a presentist so he does not believe in circular time so clearly we have different core beliefs.
@ Dan
Of course you do not know what I mean. English is not your primary language.
Then why are your arguments EXACT copies of his with only a slight rewording?
rmfr
Point me to an example...
Here is a website created by your brother.
http://www.stafforini.com/blog/william-lane-craig-a-complete-list-of-debates/
rmfr
Pages