what is god actually

[Violet]

Bravo, my good friend I was rather wondering why you hadn't done this already... did I manage to instigate your response, or was it their doing?

[theblindferrengi]

that was in response to adrian

[fr0d0]

The Christian God is defined as outside of time - non temporal. So that doesn't fit.

[mike0001]

The Christian God is defined as outside of time - non temporal. So that doesn't fit.

Just because "outside of time" is grammatical english, doesn't mean it is meaningful.

[theblindferrengi]

does that not just mean the christian god is ageless?

[Tiberius]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence.

This was what I was taught at school, what physicists I have read have continually stated, and what countless scientific programs have repeated.

The Big Bang was an expansion of spacetime, where time itself started ticking. If you want to watch a great program about it, I would point you to Prof Brian Cox's (possibly the next Richard Dawkins in public understanding of science) documentary "What time is it?".

So you admit the rest of your delusional post is all metaphorical, and therefore of no worthy point? Time is not all-knowing, it has no brain. Knowledge exists because of time, but only through the eyes of sentient beings. One could argue that space is all-knowing in the same way. Time is not all-powerful either; people use time to make themselves more powerful. Again, the same could be said of space. Your arguments are deeply flawed, and come across to me as particularly religious or even cultist in nature.

[fr0d0]

The Christian God is defined as outside of time - non temporal. So that doesn't fit.

Just because "outside of time" is grammatical english, doesn't mean it is meaningful.

Haha!

It's meaningful just not scientific

---

does that not just mean the christian god is ageless?

Erm... 'just'? Wouldn't ageless still infer inside time?

[Edwardo Piet]

the only thing remotely close to what god is suposedly, that exists or has the posibility of existing is: time, and time fits quite a few of the charachteristics god is explained as;

Let's see then...

all knowing,

How does "Time" 'know' things? What do you mean by "time is all knowing"? Clocks are super-intelligent? Are you telling me that Big Ben knows where we live? How can time itself 'know things'?

no begining no end

How do you know that it won't end? How do you know that time won't stop passing?

is everywhere

Where would one find it? Isn't time what has passed, what is passing and what will? Does it even have a location other than our own concept of if passing? If it exists at all it exists as what has passed, what is passing, and what will, right? And I'm not sure that that counts as existence?? Is that something that can really...'exist'?...what 'has been' and what 'will be'?

is all powerful

All powerful in what way? What do you mean? It is omnipotent? Time is something that can do anything? I don't think time is a thing is it? It's not something hence, in what sense does it exist? I ask. See above.

nobody understands etc.

You mean 100%? We don't understand anything 100%, or at least if we did, how would we know we did?

There are theories of space time and the like (I don't really know much about them), we certainly understand it to some extent. But in what sense do you mean?

The questions about whether time is really a 'thing', whether it's something that can exist - I really would like a response to from whoever, I've talked about this before - with mixed viewpoints.

EvF

[theblindferrengi]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence.

In 1939, the big bang theory was based upon relativity, which does not as well model the space time continuum. The current version of the big bang theory that incorporates quantum mechanics, that more acurately model the space-time continuum.

In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.

The wikiquote Adrian posted lacked context, just thought I'd add some, it is a very interesting and well-worth reading article. Big Bang - Wikipedia

Schools mostly teach the general relativity model of space-time, because it is easier to understand than some of the more up-to-date theorys like quantum loop gravity, or string theory. It is because of this that books about relativity are more common than books about the much newer theorys, even though the new unification theorys do exactly that, they provide a mathematical model for the entire space-time continuum, not just pieces of it as reletivity does.


The Big Bang singularity started the expansion of our universe, and in the process, destroyed and re-arranged what was before, that is why we cannot now and never will know of anything before it, it does not mean there was nothing before it; this misconception is simply the easiest way to simply explain the theory to people who's only intrest in it is novely.

In response to the last paragraph: I too can repeat what I already said without any supporting facts. This was an idea I had, that i thought might be interesting. It has served its purpose (to provoke conversation) quite well; it is not a belief by me or anyone that i know of, and should not be treated as such.

[Tiberius]

In 1939, the big bang theory was based upon relativity, which does not as well model the space time continuum. The current version of the big bang theory that incorporates quantum mechanics, that more acurately model the space-time continuum.

This does nothing to refute the point that time is not considered to have existing before the Big Bang, and in that respect there was no "before" the Big Bang since time is necessary for "before" to even exist. There are currently two trains of scientific thought; the majority still sides with the observation that the Big Bang was a sudden expansion of spacetime, and that "before" the Big Bang there was no time, and all space was contained within an infinitely small point. The second and less supported theory is M-theory, which involves extra-dimensional membranes that collide and produce universes with each collision. The reason this idea is not supported is because so far any science based off "string theory" cannot reasonably be called anything more than a hypothesis given that string theory is not testable or observable (yet).

In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.

The wikiquote Adrian posted lacked context, just thought I'd add some, it is a very interesting and well-worth reading article. Big Bang - Wikipedia

That didn't add any context at all. The observation that other galaxies exist and the evidence for the expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the idea that time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Schools mostly teach the general relativity model of space-time, because it is easier to understand than some of the more up-to-date theorys like quantum loop gravity, or string theory. It is because of this that books about relativity are more common than books about the much newer theorys, even though the new unification theorys do exactly that, they provide a mathematical model for the entire space-time continuum, not just pieces of it as reletivity does.

Again, nothing to do with the actual point being discussed. As previously stated, string "theory" is only a hypothesis, as is M-theory. It has no evidence whatsoever other than mathematical models, but mathematical models do not make it science. Science grounds itself on the testable and observable, and the current theories surrounding the Big Bang are based on this, and confirm the idea that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang singularity started the expansion of our universe, and in the process, destroyed and re-arranged what was before, that is why we cannot now and never will know of anything before it, it does not mean there was nothing before it; this misconception is simply the easiest way to simply explain the theory to people who's only intrest in it is novely.

Incorrect. The Big Bang singularity was the expansion of space-time. The assumption that there was something there before it is only that, and assumption. I agree, it doesn't mean there was nothing there before it, but for you to say that your claim that there was something trumps my claim is a complete contradiction of your point, that "we cannot know". Passing off someone's research and education in the theory as a "novelty" doesn't earn you any points either. If you have evidence to present that there is a logical or materialistic reason to believe there was something before the Big Bang, present it.

In response to the last paragraph: I too can repeat what I already said without any supporting facts. This was an idea I had, that i thought might be interesting. It has served its purpose (to provoke conversation) quite well; it is not a belief by me or anyone that i know of, and should not be treated as such.

For someone who claims not to believe in what they wrote at the start of the thread, you strive very hard to defend it. Methinks someone just got cold feet when their delusional writings were exposed for what they really were.

Better luck next time.