Time is a circular eternal loop created by God!

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
Jung, we follow the evidence

Jung, we follow the evidence and listen to the experts. No matter where it leads and no matter how uncomfortable and painful it may be for anyone, that is the best we have to go on.

I would like to address the"Big Bang" story. Science and the evidence leads us back to an instant where there was a singularity, something of near zero dimensions and possessing incredible heat. What happened before that event is the realm of conjecture and mathematical models.

So we must carefully examine the hypothesis that the universe popped into existence from "nothing". We need to cast aside our personal agendas and prejudices and listen to the experts. All that remains is the expert opinions of physicists and mathematicians.

The best I have is this lecture from Hawking at CERN. Please note his words at 11:30.


What was happening just before the rapid expansion? We do not definitively know. To inject the "god" equation is not supported, and can not be tested. In the face of ignorance, we should attempt to be rational and honest.

Personally I am not comfortable with Hawkings' lecture, it indicates that universes can be created. I had to change my position after watching this lecture. But if I can change and accept expert opinion, then it follows that his words at 11:30 are also valid.

Jung, are you willing to listen to expert opinion?

arakish's picture
Dan: "I am not showboating.

Dan: "I am not showboating. Just trying to get at the truth."

So says the one showboating by using the same exact argument style used by William Lane Craig. The Grand Daddy of Showboating. I already spanked you once about this. Do you need another spanking?


Tin-Man's picture
@Arakish Re: "...I already

@Arakish Re: "...I already spanked you once about this. Do you need another spanking?"

Ooooooo.... Goodie-goodie!... A spanking! A spanking!..... *smiling and clapping gleefully*....


arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man


The "WF" mean "with fervor." And I shall always remember that scene in that movie. Can't rightly remember the movie. Monty Python's Holy Grail one right? Damn, that one is what 30 years old now?


arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Dan: "You deny mathematics describes reality?"

Yes. Math does NOT describe reality. Math is used to provide a framework to describe reality so we may comprehend. Think Critically.

Dan: "There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise."

And why do you deem it necessary to NOT provide said evidence?

Dan: "If you can't do it in math, its not logical."

Whopnobberdoogledorf. What was it you were saying about "logical?"

Dan: "If its not logical, it does not occur in reality."

Whopnobberdoogledorf. And that word exists in reality. What is logical about it?

Dan: "An infinite regress of events is not logical..."

It is if you understood mathematics.

Dan: "...there is no first member in the sequence to give the rest of the sequence substance."

Yes there is.

Dan: "The argument is about an infinite regress in past time so it's the other way around. No first member but a last member (now)."

Arakish: "And you have it so completely backwards."

Can you comprehend the problem yet?


xenoview's picture

I apply xenoview's razor to your claims a god is real.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

Cognostic's picture
OP: Infinite regress: There

OP: Infinite regress: There is no contradiction. How many infinities can occur between the number 1 and the number 2? Not only do you not understand infinity, but the idea of an infinite regress is completely beyond you.

OP: A. Axiom 1. The universe is everything.
REJECTED. The universe is only everything we know and we only know a very small part of it. We have no idea what is beyond the horizon of the expansion and we have no idea what is beyond Planck time. (String theory is actually a bold attempt to take us beyond our own universe into alternate universes.) My understanding of the discovery of the Higgs Boson is that it creates the substance of which the universe is formed. The universe has become a thing. Possibly one of many things. According to Lawrence Krauss, When energy enters the universe is is slowed down by the universe and becomes physical. These micro particles randomly appear and vanish all the time. "The universe acts like a giant mud puddle." They come from "outside" the universe.

OP: "Events are cause by events" ie. Everything has a cause. This appears to only be true in our universe. Causality breaks down at Planck time. Time breaks down at Planck time.

You have a serious lack of understanding of modern physics and should probably read a few more books. I have no understanding at all and I know enough to know that the things you are saying are "UTTER BULLOCKS" UTTER, UTTER, UTTER BULLOCKS!


Go to 19:50

Devans99's picture
Cognostic - the size of a

Cognostic - the size of a point/number is 0. So how many points/numbers occur in a interval length 1? It is 1 / 0 = UNDEFINDED.

I know that's not the conventional answer but it's the right answer.

If you define the universe as everything then it is everything.

Time does not break down at Plank time; probably just goes discrete.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - the size of a point

Dan - the size of a point/number is 0. So how many points/numbers occur in a interval length 1? It is 1 / 0 = UNDEFINDED.

Then perhaps you should stop trying to assign a value to something you believe to be undefined:

Dan - But what is an infinite regress in time if it is not a sequence of time-ordered events to which we can give number?

Cognostic's picture
1. Prove it.

1. Prove it.

2. Probably?

Hey, great conversation! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPpSKPMabN8

Sapporo's picture
Actually, time is a circular

Actually, time is a circular eternal loop created by me.

Cognostic's picture
Why is that more believable

Why is that more believable than Dan's silly assertion?

Sapporo's picture
It isn't. Both are assertions

It isn't. Both are assertions without proof - I'd love Dan to prove his assertion has any more truth than mine.

Devans99's picture
But I did prove it - see the

But I did prove it - see the OP - and I only assumed cause and effect to prove it.

Either you disagree with the logic of the proof of the axiom (or both). Which is it?

David Killens's picture
Umm, the fact that you used

Umm, the fact that you used flawed assumptions to reach a "proof"? Do you comprehend how fucking idiotic that is?

Cognostic's picture
Sorry. I should have

Sorry. I should have expressed that better. I fully realized the point you were making and opted "OBVIOUSLY" to believe your version over DAN'S. "Why is THAT" (your version) so much more believable than Dan's." The humor is always lost when I have to go back and explain it. I must be losing my touch.

Try again.

"Sapporo, why is your explanation so much better than Dans? Wow, it makes so much sense. Your version is much more believable." (Knowing full well it was the exact same thing.)

It would help if I could learn to express myself effectively in English writing. Sorry.

Sapporo's picture
@Cognostic don't worry about

@Cognostic don't worry about it.

I think at the same time I was inclined to take what you said at face value because I perceived you found my remark a lame attempt at humor rather than making some meaningful point.

jontydavid's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens
" Do you comprehend how fucking idiotic that is?" David Killens, yesterday ( copyright laws ultra mega power ) or otherwise David Killens will scold you for that too..

that was pretty crass, did you not scold me for being arrogant and unpleasant, lets not get hypocritical here.

also are you a teacher ? beginning to remind me of some mean ones I had in grade school ..

Yes would listen to the experts, but even as a undergrad I could never listen to the over dramatic monologues of the atheist apologists even though i was until recently and atheist myself

Richard Dawkins,Philip Roth, Sam Harris, Peter Singer ect..
Christopher Hitchens gets a pass,he's a salty old dog with a sense of humor and some respect for his opponents at least until they go full religious nutter.

Simply because not one is a fore runner in his field. Not even exemplary or relevant. All the true geniuses and pioneers of physics and mathematics stay out of the discussion because they are not nearly arrogant and bias enough to try and thumb suck an answer from such an incomplete data set.

do not get me wrong I loath the christian apologists just as much ( mostly ) some exceptions, for the same reason, its always just the slow kids trying to feel relevant.

if you want to talk about professor Hawkins, he has contradicted himself on the possibility of design over his life-time and later determinism settling on NO-GOD , its still just one mans opinion who knows maybe he is right.

but many wise and brilliant men disagree, I just do not think either side should mock the other, I really think it just shows the weakness in your resolve and intellectual arrogance beyond all the great minds of our time..

perfect example is the little amoeba Richard Dawkins calling for people to mock the religious as a possible method of correcting their delusions.

All that would do is make people angry and hurt causing them to double down on their beliefs and increasing hostilities between the apposing view points.

that's the kind of absurdly childish and simple minded behavior displaying utter lack of social skills or emotional intelligence found on both sides.. ( he really might be on the spectrum and I mean that as a reconciliation too his behavior not and insult )

David Killens's picture
My apologies. The confusion

My apologies. The confusion over arrogance and idiotic comments was not directed at you, but Dan.

I was referring to Hawking, who by any standards was a fore runner in his field. And if you chose to casually discard his statements because they conflict with your personal ideas, then you ARE ignoring experts in this field.

I listened to him, and I also changed my position. That is because I am not trained in the math and discipline of higher physics. To take the position that I fully comprehend quantum math or Feynman diagrams is sheer folly, stupidity, and arrogance. But I do listen to experts.

You are the one dragging other names into the conversation, and all of them are well known for their position on theism. For Feynman and Hawking (the only two I mentioned), they did not inject themselves into the religious debate, they stood out in their respective fields. Their works are well known by anyone familiar with physics. For names like Richard Dawkins, Philip Roth, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Christopher Hitchens most people do not even know their contributions on science, just that they speak out on religious issues. For that latter group, I do not consider them experts in their fields.

arakish's picture
@ Jung

@ Jung

Please provide proof Richard Dawkins has contradicted himself. Like David said, I listen and read about the experts in their fields. Never has any of them contradicted themselves on the issue of religion being humanity's greatest enemy.


Cognostic's picture
Spaghetti O's are eternally

Spaghetti O's are eternally loopy. Just like some of the people in this thread. Prove me wrong.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

To show how your fallacious arguments are just that, fallacious.

I am the Creator of All Things. I am the Crux of the Multiverse. I am the Forever One. I am the Only Existing One. I have decided to visit this universe to see how my handy work has progressed. I must say I am not pleased with you Religious Absolutists. Not one of you have any understanding of what I truly am.

Now prove I am wrong.


Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - Its all cause and

Dan - Its all cause and effect even at quantum level.

That is not true, just from the first postulate of QM. Casually stated something like this:

Everything that can be known about a system (English: a single particle is a simple example of a system) is given by a complex (English: imaginary numbers) function of coordinates (English: locations) and time. That the probability of finding the system located in a certain region is the definite integral (English: a sum of infinitesimals) of the product of 1)every possible value of the function in that region and 2)every possible value of the complex congratulate of the function in that region.

Now I realize that is a mouthful, but I'll give anyone who is interested a tiny insight:

A probability is always a number from 0 to 1. But if you've paid attention, you might be worried that the function is complex (typically has imaginary numbers in it), which don't sound like a number between 0 and 1. However when you multiply a complex number with its complex conjugate, the result is always real and 0 or greater (its never negative). The sum of an infinite number of these values will also be real and 0 or greater. This gets us a long way to the range a probability must have (0 to 1). There is a simple trick to scale this result into the range of 0 to 1 that I won't go into today, but it isn't complicated. It is super important to take the absolute square (multiplying the function by its complex conjugate), otherwise you might get negative probabilities which is gibberish (or worse, complex/imaginary probability!). This part is called the Born rule.

The point is that randomness (probability) is built into QM right out of the gate. Many people have trouble accepting that, and that is fine. But if you reject that, you are not doing Quantum Mechanics, you are doing something else. And that is fine too, but don't call it Quantum Mechanics, because it isn't.

fordtheman77's picture
Hey guys, first time poster.

Hey guys, first time poster. Regarding cause and effect...

"In quantum physics, the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level, so time-symmetric systems can be viewed as causal or retro-causal."


Cognostic's picture
When a neutron strikes a

When a neutron strikes a nucleus and is absorbed, it causes the nucleus to undergo a deformation. The deformation is so drastic that the nucleus can not recover and fission releasing 2 or 3 neutrons occur. These fission fragments lose their energy by emitting gamma rays and eventually coming to rest. At this stage they are called fission products. In the final stage the fission products lose their excess energy through radioactive decay and the emission of beta particles and gamma rays over time. This time can be from seconds to years but the end result is a yellow quantum tunneling banana with left spin that can time travel.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.