What would you call my new beliefs?

[Pat Mustard]

Yes, we are.

But Krauss's theory is not meant to answer that. It is only meant to answer why our universe, in its present form, exists.

Problem is, your answer does not have any explanatory power. It has plenty of explanatory scope, but no power.

Explaining a mystery (why the universe exists), by appealing to a bigger mystery (a universe creating god), does not actually EXPLAIN anything. And it only creates more questions. Positing a panacea to explain a mystery, explains nothing.  

In other words, a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.

Inductively, to escape the logical absurdity that physical matter always existed, what we are left with as an explanation is a non-physical, timeless, un-caused, force that was powerful enough to bring matter into existence out of nothing. 

The problem that I see constantly here is that most of you are missing the fact that the case for God is a cumulative case. No one thing is meant to be the defining argument. Here is just the list from Natural Theology (as opposed to revealed theology in the Bible or personal experience in people's lives)

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Tl;dr: I want god to be real therefore he is real, and reality is lying.

Sorry to break it to you, child, but wishing don't make things happen.

---

delete

First intelligent thing you wrote on these fora.

[Whateverist]

Yes, we are.

But Krauss's theory is not meant to answer that. It is only meant to answer why our universe, in its present form, exists.

Problem is, your answer does not have any explanatory power. It has plenty of explanatory scope, but no power.

Explaining a mystery (why the universe exists), by appealing to a bigger mystery (a universe creating god), does not actually EXPLAIN anything. And it only creates more questions. Positing a panacea to explain a mystery, explains nothing.  

In other words, a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.

Inductively, to escape the logical absurdity that physical matter always existed, what we are left with as an explanation is a non-physical, timeless, un-caused, force that was powerful enough to bring matter into existence out of nothing. 

The problem that I see constantly here is that most of you are missing the fact that the case for God is a cumulative case. No one thing is meant to be the defining argument. Here is just the list from Natural Theology (as opposed to revealed theology in the Bible or personal experience in people's lives)

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Only if by 'explanation' you mean something impossible to disprove.  But not everyone is comfortable actually embracing bullshit for the sake of unassailability.

[SteveII]

What do you know. I found an article with like 80 paragraphs on space and time and they mention dimension...5 times! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy...e_and_time

What do you know - it is not a scientific article, and still talks about time as a dimension anyway.

This really is the most pointless objection I've seen anyone make in any discussion for quite some time. You keep citing sources that say exactly what you pretend they don't, then demand that others find for you what you have just read for yourself. All so that you can try to claim that time would not exist without things happening within it, which would remain nonsensical and unsupported even if time were not a dimension, and from there try to make an unjustified leap to pretending that you have evidence for causality holding outside of time.

Literally every step of your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

What the article explained (and you apparently missed) was that there are a host of considerations about the philosophy of time to consider that don't say over and over and over that "it's a dimension". As a result of your condescending attitude and lack of ability to articulate an answer to my question "what is time", I did additional research. 
I find myself in the philosophical camp of rejecting the scientific realism you seem to adhere to. I do not believe that time, space or space-time exists. We observe physical objects, events and processes that stand in relationship to each other and therefore constitute a complex relational structure. Some of these relationship can be described in mathematical terms. So, time is a mathematical structure used to represent temporal relations among events. While physical objects exist, events happen--a change occurs. Change occurs via causality. Therefore, time--the mathematical structure we use to represent temporal relations among events--depends on causality. No causality, not mathematical structure, no time. 

Back to your assertion that started this discussion, "in point of fact, the idea of causality holding outside of time is nonsensical, since there is no time in which a cause could possibly precede an effect." Since I have just shown that time is not something we exist in and is somehow an enabler of causality, your assertion falls apart. We can certainly conceive of "another world" in which creation (this world's first event) is not the first event but the result of some prior cause (Leibniz argued this in his Fifth Letter).

So, I have outlined my position why I think I am right. That's how a real discussion progresses. And look, I managed no condescension.

[Nonpareil]

What the article explained (and you apparently missed) was that there are a host of considerations about the philosophy of time to consider that don't say over and over and over that "it's a dimension".

No, Steve. What you seem to fail to grasp is that time is a dimension. This is not a question of philosophy. It is straightforward, simple fact. Even the Wikipedia article - again, because you don't seem to be able to find anything more detailed than that - that you cite in an attempt to get around this doesn't offer any actual support for your rejection. In fact, it repeatedly states that it is so.

You are in plain denial of facts. Trying to act as though you are not will not change things.

Nor will it make your argument any less entirely incoherent.

I do not believe that time, space or space-time exists.

Then you are a delusional fool.

We observe physical objects, events and processes that stand in relationship to each other

...within dimensions called "space" and "time", yes.

Without these dimensions, there is nothing to stand in relationship to one another in, Steve.

[SteveII]

What the article explained (and you apparently missed) was that there are a host of considerations about the philosophy of time to consider that don't say over and over and over that "it's a dimension".

No, Steve. What you seem to fail to grasp is that time is a dimension. This is not a question of philosophy. It is straightforward, simple fact. Even the Wikipedia article - again, because you don't seem to be able to find anything more detailed than that - that you cite in an attempt to get around this doesn't offer any actual support for your rejection. In fact, it repeatedly states that it is so.

You are in plain denial of facts. Trying to act as though you are not will not change things.

Nor will it make your argument any less entirely incoherent.

I do not believe that time, space or space-time exists.

Then you are a delusional fool.

We observe physical objects, events and processes that stand in relationship to each other

...within dimensions called "space" and "time", yes.

Without these dimensions, there is nothing to stand in relationship to one another in, Steve.

Fine. You have 2 problems that I can see:

1. You are incapable of having a discussion. 
2. Your grasp on reality is about an inch deep.

Actually, you got me to do about 3 hours of reading on the philosophy of time from Aristotle to now. I enjoyed learning. I did not enjoy wasting my time typing replies to someone that only knows one tune. Oh well 1 for 2 isn't bad.

[Nonpareil]

Fine. You have 2 problems that I can see:

1. You are incapable of having a discussion. 
2. Your grasp on reality is about an inch deep.

Not precisely. I am unwilling to engage in more than is necessary with something like this. When someone outright rejects the existence of spacetime, despite their own sources contradicting them and the idea of existence without dimensions being utterly nonsensical, there really isn't anywhere else to go, and certainly not much inclination on my part to do much beyond pointing out that, yes, you are quite totally wrong.

Space exists. This is demonstrable; it is the thing that separates two objects.

Time exists. This is demonstrable; it is the thing that lets one event happen after another.

Space and time are dimensions. This is a matter of definition; they are continuums in which two points can be separated from one another.

Causality requires time. This is also a matter of definition; a cause must precede its effect, or it is, by definition, not a cause.

Causality does not create time any more than motion creates space. The idea is utterly nonsensical.

These are all brute facts. You cannot get around them. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and say that the people refusing to let you get away with complete nonsense are big meanie-heads who can't hold a conversation because they won't let you play silly buggers.

[SuperSentient]

I do not believe that time, space or space-time exists. 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presumes that time and space exist in order to be valid. The analysis used takes space and time into account to deduce the existence of God. So, the more accurate claim is that time and space began to exist with the first event and space-time is dependent upon the occurrence of events, and God logically exists independent from the occurrence of events (space-time). Otherwise, you are at least looking at God in a completely different way than contemporary monotheist theology.

[SteveII]

Fine. You have 2 problems that I can see:

1. You are incapable of having a discussion. 
2. Your grasp on reality is about an inch deep.

Not precisely. I am unwilling to engage in more than is necessary with something like this. When someone outright rejects the existence of spacetime, despite their own sources contradicting them and the idea of existence without dimensions being utterly nonsensical, there really isn't anywhere else to go, and certainly not much inclination on my part to do much beyond pointing out that, yes, you are quite totally wrong. [1]

Space exists. This is demonstrable; it is the thing that separates two objects. [2]

Time exists. This is demonstrable; it is the thing that lets one event happen after another. [3]

Space and time are dimensions. This is a matter of definition; they are continuums in which two points can be separated from one another.

Causality requires time. This is also a matter of definition; a cause must precede its effect, or it is, by definition, not a cause. [4]

Causality does not create time any more than motion creates space. The idea is utterly nonsensical.

These are all brute facts. You cannot get around them. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and say that the people refusing to let you get away with complete nonsense are big meanie-heads who can't hold a conversation because they won't let you play silly buggers. [5]

1. LOL. You don't even understand your own position. Let's pull apart the word 'dimension' that you are so fond of:

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it – for example, the point at 5 on a number line. A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it – for example, both a latitude and longitude are required to locate a point on the surface of a sphere. The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Classical physics theories describe three physical dimensions: from a particular point in space, the basic directions in which we can move are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Movement in any other direction can be expressed in terms of just these three. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#...dimensions

A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that we cannot move freely in time but subjectively move in one direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#Time

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Underline added for emphasis

To sum it up, a dimension is a mathematical expression of relationship. It is a description of spacial or temporal location, not an object. It does not exist separately from the things you are describing. 

2.  "it is the thing that separates two object". Do you mind defining 'thing'? What properties does the space thing have? 'Space' only describes relative position of things. It is a mathematical description of spacial relationship. If you only had one object in the universe, there would be no space.

3. "it is a thing that lets one event happen after another". Another 'thing'. What properties does time have that it 'lets' anything happen? Again, time is a mathematical structure in which we catalog events and their relationship to each other. Cause and effect are 'things' (events) that happen to other real 'things' (objects). Time is not a real 'thing'.

4. You have your work cut out for you if you think you can defend "causality requires time". Since time is a measurement of change, you are really saying, "causality requires a measurement of change". However, that does not make any sense. Wouldn't it be the case of the reverse: "A measurement of change requires causality?" Or, as I stated in my first response to you, Time requires causality. 

5. You have not shown anything resembling an argument other than to assert your position over and over and over. Your move to 'brute fact' does not do anything for your argument because there have been thousands of books written on the philosophy of time and space where people actually produce reasons/evidence/arguments for various positions. My opinion is that you got in over your head when you posted and then persisted in your one-note 'dimension' tune.

---

I do not believe that time, space or space-time exists. 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presumes that time and space exist in order to be valid. The analysis used takes space and time into account to deduce the existence of God. So, the more accurate claim is that time and space began to exist with the first event and space-time is dependent upon the occurrence of events, and God logically exists independent from the occurrence of events (space-time). Otherwise, you are at least looking at God in a completely different way than contemporary monotheist theology.

First, welcome to the forum. You posts so far seem thoughtful and polite--both welcomed attributes.

You picked one sentence out of a rather detailed paragraph. I think time, space or space-time are mathematical constructs and not real things themselves. I have explained my position in detail above. But, I don't see a problem in regards to the KCA or the existence of God in general. Creation was the first event in the timeline in which all the matter and energy of our universe began to exist and therefore all things in our universe have a mathematically-described relationship to each other and to us (space and time).

[Nonpareil]

1. LOL. You don't even understand your own position. Let's pull apart the word 'dimension' that you are so fond of:

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it – for example, the point at 5 on a number line.

You do realize that everything you just quoted agrees with me, yes? A line has one dimension - that is, it has one area in which two points can be differentiated from one another. Our universe has four. Time is the fourth, the dimension in which changes in the previous three occur in sequence.

To sum it up, a dimension is a mathematical expression of relationship... It does not exist separately from the things you are describing.

This does not follow, even from - again - the Wikipedia articles you are citing to try and prove it. And even if it did, it would not help your argument for causality without time.

If you only had one object in the universe, there would be no space.

Yes, there would. It would be empty, but you would still have space.

You have your work cut out for you if you think you can defend "causality requires time". Since time is a measurement of change, you are really saying, "causality requires a measurement of change". However, that does not make any sense. Wouldn't it be the case of the reverse: "A measurement of change requires causality?"

No.

Even granting your completely mangled definition of "time", this is gibberish.

Still wrong in literally every way possible.

[SuperSentient]

---

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presumes that time and space exist in order to be valid. The analysis used takes space and time into account to deduce the existence of God. So, the more accurate claim is that time and space began to exist with the first event and space-time is dependent upon the occurrence of events, and God logically exists independent from the occurrence of events (space-time). Otherwise, you are at least looking at God in a completely different way than contemporary monotheist theology.

First, welcome to the forum. You posts so far seem thoughtful and polite--both welcomed attributes.

You picked one sentence out of a rather detailed paragraph. I think time, space or space-time are mathematical constructs and not real things themselves. I have explained my position in detail above. But, I don't see a problem in regards to the KCA or the existence of God in general. Creation was the first event in the timeline in which all the matter and energy of our universe began to exist and therefore all things in our universe have a mathematically-described relationship to each other and to us (space and time).

So, it seems you agree that space-time exists, but in socially constructed mathematical relationships. It doesn't seem like you are being inconsistent with the KCA then, just that space and time are dependent upon the first event and all of those arising afterwards.