Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Not only did I get the memo, I am a firm advocate for the Theory of Relativity (both special and general). But the Relativity doesn't help a theist who asserts 1) Time began when the universe was created, and 2) There was a timeless time on the universe's timeline before time began in which God existed. Additionally, the implications of Relativity support the B-theory of time, which I've addressed here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html. William Lane Craig and other proponents of a "timeless" deity derived from the KCA are not in favor of a Relativity based theory of time in which past, present, and future all co-exist equally.
"began" defines a point in TIME when something started, and anything that was created had a beginning. God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.
So in short, time exists for the creation, not the creator.
There are two competing concepts of "Timeless" at play here: 1) Eternal in the sense of forever... an actual infinity of moments past, present, and future... and 2) No time, or zero time, in which change or transition or causal relationships are impossible. If we take the latter concept, and time exists for the creation and not the creator, then there was literally no time at which God pre-existed the universe and therefore God and the universe always co-existed at the exact same instant. If you propose, on the other hand, God always pre-existed the universe eternally (infinitely), then you have a different take on the issue from SteveII and WLC. If this is the case, then God's "time" could be measured relative to (not to be confused with the Theory of Relativity) the universe's beginning, though we might never trace God's time back to an actual beginning. So, did God have a succession of thoughts prior to the creation of the universe? Did he, or could he do anything prior to the creation of the universe? What was the catalyst which caused God to change and create the universe?
(May 14, 2016 at 9:10 am)Time Traveler Wrote:
for photons, they exist within the universe. A photon is emitted when an electron at a high energy level converts to a lower energy level, or, in the early universe, when leptons and antileptons annihilated each other. The first photons appeared about 10 seconds after the Big Bang in what is known as the Photon Epoch, after quarks, hadrons, and leptons appeared. So if God is indeed "light," it would appear the universe preceded God and he was rather late to the party.
Also, if you could please explain the physics behind how a massless particle such as a photon - which predates the universe - can not only exist outside the universe, but create all the space, time, matter and energy within the universe, that would be helpful. You might even win a Nobel prize! And can you please define the photon's rest frame via a Lorentz transformation because, from what I've come to understand, it just isn't properly defined mathematically to describe massless particles, and thus leads to nonsensical, seemingly paradoxical results. In this case, you will have to find another method to mathematically prove your assertions regarding time and space from a photon's rest frame.
Finally, if "God is light," then we have no need for "God" because we already have a perfectly good definition of light, which we not surprisingly call... "light."
(May 14, 2016 at 11:13 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The point of the photon example was to illustrate how timelessness and time are relative to the point of view.
[And yet, you go on to spew this...]
If God IS light, then it would make sense that time doesn't exist for him, right?
[and...]
As if I'm just making it up.
1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
[and yet oddly assert...]
I don't presume to know what the essence of God is, I haven't reached that level of arrogance just yet.
You in fact do arrogantly presume when you state "God is light" and back it up with biblical scripture. Furthermore, If God is indeed light, then your example wasn't just an analogy but rather a definition of God. If God is literally light, which is comprised of individual photons, and photons are created within the universe in the manner that I previously described, then you have a blatant contradiction. Feel free to reinterpret 1 John 1:5 now. I don't think you really want to imagine your God actually being light; it just leads to ridiculous conclusions.
(May 14, 2016 at 11:13 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Time and distance doesn't exist from the point of view of a photon, yet from our point of view, the distance in which light travels can be measured by time.
All photon's have a beginning and are caused by some physical process (as I've described before). You keep attempting to describe Relativity within the universe as if it's analogous to something external to the universe. Relativity exists as an attribute of space-time and describes the warping and movement of things through space-time itself. Remove space-time, and you eliminate Relativity. Relativity cannot apply to a God existing absent space-time... you would need a completely new theory. Good luck.
May 16, 2016 at 12:06 pm (This post was last modified: May 16, 2016 at 12:44 pm by Mister Agenda.)
SteveII Wrote:
Mister Agenda Wrote:Infinite regression of past causes seems absurd to humans. If it were logically absurd, by definition, there would be an iron-clad proof of its logical absurdity.
Solving the seeming paradox of 'everything has to have a cause, but it's absurd for causes to regress infinitely' with 'except this one thing that doesn't have to have a cause' first of all just claims that the first statement is false and NOT everything has to have a cause. Given that, a causeless universe is instantly put on the table.
It seems absurd because it is. Hilbert's Hotel does a good job at illustrating that an infinite number of things cannot exist (an actual infinite). Causes are things. To deny the logic is a pretty high intellectual price to pay to preserve your objections. I have yet to see any response why it isn't other than "...well, it seems that way but we really can't know so...you prove it".
A very big difference between what you propose, that there is an infinite causal chain, and what I propose, that there existed a God before the universe is that one is logically absurd and one is not.
I know you were presented with a link to a critique of Hilbert's Hotel. I can only assume you didn't follow it, one way or another.
You'll have to walk me through on where you got the idea that I don't think 'causes are things'.
That's how it goes with claims. You have to support them. The main problem with your claims so far is lack of any good reasons to think they're actually true. You trying to make that our problem is shifting the burden of proof. They call it a burden for a reason.
Claiming that a timeless, spaceless, changeless being who makes decisions and changes is not absurd is a claim you haven't supported very well yet.
Basically, you're proposing a God with ad hoc qualities to get around the fact that its supposed actions have no detectable effect on and leave no detectable trace on the universe. This is a God whose definition has been revised so much in the face of advancing science that part of its description literally includes being nothing.
God wasn't always considered to be timeless, spaceless, and outside the universe; that's modern physics and cosmology backing the idea of God into an ever smaller corner.
Quote:So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?
The Bible states that God is eternal. YOU state that God is timeless.
Eternal: Lasting forever, without beginning or ending.
Are you equivocating 'timeless' in the sense of 'unaffected by the passage of time' with 'timeless' in the sense of 'time not existing'? Because the last sense is the one we've been using throughout this thread; and in that sense, there is a contradiction between something being both eternal and timeless.
May 16, 2016 at 12:48 pm (This post was last modified: May 16, 2016 at 12:53 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(May 16, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The Bible states that God is eternal. YOU state that God is timeless.
Eternal: Lasting forever, without beginning or ending.
Are you equivocating 'timeless' in the sense of 'unaffected by the passage of time' with 'timeless' in the sense of 'time not existing'? Because the last sense is the one we've been using throughout this thread; and in that sense, there is a contradiction between something being both eternal and timeless.
2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal
b : not restricted to a particular time or date <the timeless themes of love, solitude, joy, and nature — Writer>
(May 16, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The Bible states that God is eternal. YOU state that God is timeless.
Eternal: Lasting forever, without beginning or ending.
Are you equivocating 'timeless' in the sense of 'unaffected by the passage of time' with 'timeless' in the sense of 'time not existing'? Because the last sense is the one we've been using throughout this thread; and in that sense, there is a contradiction between something being both eternal and timeless.
2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal
b : not restricted to a particular time or date <the timeless themes of love, solitude, joy, and nature — Writer>
3: not affected by time : ageless
*emphasis mine*
Where is the contradiction?
With your definition, actual infinites exist; therefore, they are not absurd, at least according to you.
(May 16, 2016 at 8:12 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote:
(May 16, 2016 at 6:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Let me turn your logic back onto you a second, I'm sure you believe life started on earth through abiogenesis, go ahead and explain the exact process; preferably in a way that can be reproduced scientifically.
Now pay attention to how I respond to this Huggy, are you ready?
I don't know how life began, I don't know enough about biology to speculate on it either so I won't pretend to know. I do think natural causes is more likely than magic. But I'm not making any claims about it.
So, yes, there is a difference in what you believe Vs. what I don't. And again, I'm not making claims, you are. You've just erected a straw-man in attempt to shift your burden of proof. Now, you try...
I was listening to the radio Saturday or Sunday, and on Newstalk's science show they were interviewing Prof Baz Kamber of TCD's geology department who co-authored a paper suggesting that life got stared on Earth in a sub aqueous impact crater. A link to the paer and a news item by TCD can be found here (https://www.tcd.ie/Geology/; second paper first news item).
I post this not to suggest that we have found how life started, but that people are looking, and we'll probably narrow it down enough to be onfident some day relatively soon.
Mister Agenda Wrote:The Bible states that God is eternal. YOU state that God is timeless.
Eternal: Lasting forever, without beginning or ending.
Are you equivocating 'timeless' in the sense of 'unaffected by the passage of time' with 'timeless' in the sense of 'time not existing'? Because the last sense is the one we've been using throughout this thread; and in that sense, there is a contradiction between something being both eternal and timeless.
2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal
b : not restricted to a particular time or date <the timeless themes of love, solitude, joy, and nature — Writer>
3: not affected by time : ageless
*emphasis mine*
Where is the contradiction?
So you ARE using 'timeless' as in 'unaffected by the passage of time' when everyone else is using in they physics sense of 'no time existing'. That explains a lot.
