50 Simple Proofs, God is Imaginary

[Violet]

The singularity could not have given birth to anything if there was no time in which to do it. It is as simple as this. I'm 'caught up' in the fact that without time: there is no causality. I'm not at all concerned with it's being the 4th dimension: I am concerned with the action of time itself. I'll rephrase for clarity: without time (in any sense)... there can be no action.

Edit: my 1000th post. I did not miss announcing it now

[theVOID]

The singularity could not have given birth to anything if there was no time in which to do it. It is as simple as this. I'm 'caught up' in the fact that without time: there is no causality.

This is not true, "TIME" is a label we have placed on a dimension of measurement within our universe's 4-dimensional spacetime. At it's most basic, Time is a measurement of the increase in entropy, as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics (Entropy in a closed system must always increase) and because we can measure entropy we know for a fact that our universe is a closed system and if it is closed (and therefore finite) we know it had a beginning.

Outside of our own 4D bubble we call the universe, causation can still exist, it is simply a measurement on a higher dimension that would resemble our dimension of time in a practical sense, and since it would need to be (eventually) inside an infinite system, it would not be a measurement of time like our universe (there is no entropy) but simply a causal chain.

I'm not at all concerned with it's being the 4th dimension: I am concerned with the action of time itself. I'll rephrase for clarity: without time (in any sense)... there can be no action.

"TIME" is the label we apply to the 4th dimension, "CAUSALITY" is a concept - you'd best not confuse the two if you want to remain coherent.

[Violet]

We...? Time is a concept to me '/shrug'. Call it causality if you want though... whatever makes it politically correct

That which resembles time ≠ time in some sense??? A causal chain takes time ('in some sense'?) to occur. Is that politically correct enough? One does not have to be a physicist to think about the possibility of more ways to describe something than what-where-when... but one does have to 'not think' to be convinced that what-where-when are irrelevant descriptions because of more descriptions.

Entropy is just the degree of randomness in the system as far as I am concerned. That the universe can exist in many different forms... and only a cyclic universe (of which there could be different types) can be the original. Proving that the 'Big Bang' 'began' time... would also be to prove that our universe is not the original. Quite an achievement, if I may say so myself...

Entropy does not mean that the equality breaks down fundamentally, as doing so would lead to a singularity, or nothingness (righting the inequality)... but only if there is time (causation, whatever) in which to do so. That is the objective rule of existence (1=1, therefore something is itself). Time (concept of it!) is the continued progress of existence. Difference in location and time is to result in the change of the existence. Thus: physics by which 'what', 'when', and 'where' can be deduced. How, why, if... those are questions determining process, purpose, and possibility of what, when, and where.

You might be getting frustrated that I do not see how it is possible for something to progress without a time-'concept'. And before you scream 'causality!' at me... causality is a time-'concept'. It states that cause came before effect, that the effect came after the cause. This is dependent on time. You will notice before and after?

[theVOID]

We...? Time is a concept to me '/shrug'. Call it causality if you want though... whatever makes it politically correct

That which resembles time ≠ time in some sense??? A causal chain takes time ('in some sense'?) to occur. Is that politically correct enough? One does not have to be a physicist to think about the possibility of more ways to describe something than what-where-when... but one does have to 'not think' to be convinced that what-where-when are irrelevant descriptions because of more descriptions.

Entropy is just the degree of randomness in the system as far as I am concerned. That the universe can exist in many different forms... and only a cyclic universe (of which there could be different types) can be the original. Proving that the 'Big Bang' 'began' time... would also be to prove that our universe is not the original. Quite an achievement, if I may say so myself...

Entropy does not mean that the equality breaks down fundamentally, as doing so would lead to a singularity, or nothingness (righting the inequality)... but only if there is time (causation, whatever) in which to do so. That is the objective rule of existence (1=1, therefore something is itself). Time (concept of it!) is the continued progress of existence. Difference in location and time is to result in the change of the existence. Thus: physics by which 'what', 'when', and 'where' can be deduced. How, why, if... those are questions determining process, purpose, and possibility of what, when, and where.

You might be getting frustrated that I do not see how it is possible for something to progress without a time-'concept'. And before you scream 'causality!' at me... causality is a time-'concept'. It states that cause came before effect, that the effect came after the cause. This is dependent on time. You will notice before and after?

Well since we were discussing physics i tried to keep the definitions to their meaning in physics.... if you 're going to use these words as defined outside of physics then let us know (it gets me confused )

Time is a label for the causal dimension inside our universe, or if there are others, time would be the same causal dimension inside every 4-dimensional universe. Any other causality would be in a higher causal dimension 'outside' of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

As for why you insist on a the idea of our own universe being cyclic universe i do not know - it is a dated model that was laid to rest by the discovery of the expansion of the universe primarily, and conclusively by the discovery of the accelerating universe... The Brane theory still suggests a cyclic universe (Brane theory also states "Time" as a single dimension inside each isolated 4-dimensional universe with causal higher dimensions), which i would agree with, as the initial iteration does need to be cyclic, but our universe has an evident beginning and an end extrapolated from cosmological data, both pointing to a finite, isolated system.

[Violet]

I don't insist that this one is necessarily cyclic (The original is however)... I simply have not seen sufficient proof (imo) of this universe not being cyclic. I for one, do not see how the universe's expansion accelerating and expanding is in any way conclusive. I still need more evidence, which should be on its way in the coming decade.

It would be interesting for people to take my suggestions of things like "we might just be a computer simulation" seriously

[theVOID]

I don't insist that this one is necessarily cyclic (The original is however)... I simply have not seen sufficient proof (imo) of this universe not being cyclic. I for one, do not see how the universe's expansion accelerating and expanding is in any way conclusive. I still need more evidence, which should be on its way in the coming decade.

It would be interesting for people to take my suggestions of things like "we might just be a computer simulation" seriously

Well considering Entropy (The amount/categories of information required to describe the entire universe) is increasing (Growing in complexity) then this universe must be an isolated system, therefore finite, not cyclic.

We can also tell the universe had a beginning by measuring the redshift of type 1a supernovae (specifically 1a, it is an extremely bright candle, giving measurements from great distances), calculating the rate of expansion and extrapolating backwards to a finite point of first-expansion(what happened prior to this cannot be stated with any certainty, but we know with a degree of certainty what happened after the million trillion trillion trillionth of a second). We can also determine that the universe is not going to collapse (not cyclic) from the exponential expansion of the universe.

Fairly conclusive that this universe is not the original.

[Violet]

Maybe conclusive to you (and many people)... but until we know for fact what did come before (if anything): there will always remain some reasonable doubt. (Also, i don't get how entropy equates to closed system... in some iterations of the universe: it could be true... but it is an assumption that this iteration is not one of many envisionable systems in which entropy is just a stage in the system.) The question of 'How did the Big Bang get there?' becomes all the more important if this universe is not the original.

[theVOID]

Maybe conclusive to you (and many people)... but until we know for fact what did come before (if anything): there will always remain some reasonable doubt. (Also, i don't get how entropy equates to closed system... in some iterations of the universe: it could be true... but it is an assumption that this iteration is not one of many envisionable systems in which entropy is just a stage in the system.) The question of 'How did the Big Bang get there?' becomes all the more important if this universe is not the original.

I'm not arguing that it's a certainty, only that it's very likely.

There is always the possibility that this iteration of expansion is the only one of an infinite possible number of outcomes and just happens to be the first in which there will be no collapse.

Entropy is defined as the amount of information needed to describe a system, and if entropy is increasing then the system is growing in complexity - it is a law of thermodynamics that entropy will only increase in an isolated system, and this is where the conclusion starts to be drawn that the system is finite (though may be infinite in terms of space). If you reverse the expansion of the universe to a singular point you also simplify entropy in reverse until the point where all matter and energy in the universe is a single unified force, the singularity - We know that the singularity is not infinite as it is no longer, and we know that since it is also not infinite that it can't be the original infinite system. That to me suggests a parent system which would be cyclic, where entropy is in a constant state.

As for 'How did the big bang get there' is anyones guess - that is beyond our current understanding and possibly out of reach all together.

[Violet]

I can accept that reasoning.

[littlegrimlin1]

Peoples, I need your halp. ;\

I was arguing with a "Christfag" online and he sent this (youtube comment repsonse).

SpiritLedOne has sent you a message:

OK then, consider this
You want proof? (And by the way science contradicts itself yet you continue to believe in it with your faith, in human reason...Carbon 14 has contradictive results. It's not a reliable way to date items. Research it. It's a fraud. And evolution never explains how nothing came from something, nor why macro physics is completely different from micro physics).

But how about if I tell you what is going to happen, before it happens? Can science do that? Do muslims have that? Do hindu's have that? Well, here is what is going to happen in your lifetime, assuming God doesn't take you out before it all goes down. Here is what is on your horizon. And when you start to see these things happen, maybe you'll say to yourself "How is it possible this person knew all of these things would happen in exactly this way?" And you answer will be, it is not possible. Unless God is all-knowing and He has already revealed history to us to prove to us that He truly is the God.


..... Then he goes on and on listing how the bible "predicted" all of this stuff.


And I don't have that much knowledge about what the Bible says... I havent read it all the way.