Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
*TRUE* said:
No , but energy , space and matter have ALWAYS EXISTED , am i right?
Always? You mean as in, infinity? No. They existed... there's no comment you can make regarding the amount of time they existed for before time=>0, but they existed at time=0.

They have "always" existed insofar as they have existed during the history of time, yes.
 

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Enteebee said:
Always? You mean as in, infinity? No. They existed... there's no comment you can make regarding the amount of time they existed for before time=>0, but they existed at time=0.

They have "always" existed insofar as they have existed during the history of time, yes.
Hahhaa:)
Im sorry Chadd - is that your name? Chadd? If not...etb whatever...
but this discussion is seeming so silly to me.
IF they existed before time came into existance , then they existed outside of time....so there is a whole other concept outside of time.
Which was my point ages ago.....
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
IF they existed before time came into existance , then they existed outside of time....so there is a whole other concept outside of time.
Space, Matter & Energy existed at time=0... They don't exist "before" time comes into existence, there is no before, merely time=0.

The only thing which can exist outside of time is something which is in 1 state, if god exists outside of time then he cannot cause anything, he cannot 'change' anything or 'decide' anything. Therefore if it is this thing outside of time which you believe created the universe, it cannot have chosen to do so or chosen how to do this, it would have just necessarily had to of done it.
 
Last edited:

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
*TRUE* said:
Hahhaa:)
Im sorry Chadd - is that your name? Chadd? If not...etb whatever...
but this discussion is seeming so silly to me.
IF they existed before time came into existance , then they existed outside of time....so there is a whole other concept outside of time.
Which was my point ages ago.....
Stop thinking of time as something absolute. It's the same thing as space. The only difference is in the way we perceive it. And it seems that we perceive time the way we do as a result of the second law of thermodynamics, which is one of the few time-dependent physical laws. You're saying 'before' time came into existence. That's not a logical statement.

You're also stuck in thinking that everything must have a cause, which is obviously not true. eg particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum.

But if you're not satisfied, and you still want a cause, try string theory, or rather M-theory, which are at least as reasonable an explanation as god, but still lack direct evidence at the current time.

The main problem is with your concept of time though.

EDIT: Sorry when i said time-dependent, i meant dependent on the direction of time, ie something that gives us an 'arrow of time'
 
Last edited:

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
webby234 said:
Stop thinking of time as something absolute. It's the same thing as space. The only difference is in the way we perceive it. And it seems that we perceive time the way we do as a result of the second law of thermodynamics, which is one of the few time-dependent physical laws. You're saying 'before' time came into existence. That's not a logical statement.

You're also stuck in thinking that everything must have a cause, which is obviously not true. eg particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum.

But if you're not satisfied, and you still want a cause, try string theory, or rather M-theory, which are at least as reasonable an explanation as god, but still lack direct evidence at the current time.

The main problem is with your concept of time though.
THANKYOU!!!!!
:)
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
No. Time as WE would define it began at "the big bang" as did energy and matter shortly after.

We can't define 'before' the big bang because we simply don't know. Did time exist in any real comparable concept to what it is now (given that time is rather subjective anyway)? We don't know. Did energy exist? We don't know. Did matter exist? Probably not, but again, we don't know. Was the universe born as a result of the death of another? Possible, but we don't know (in which case, time, energy and matter may have existed technically before our universe existed).

We don't know. Yet.
 

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Ooops i hope i havent stuffed up the thread. I was just interested.
:(
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
No. Time as WE would define it began at "the big bang" as did energy and matter shortly after.
Shortly after it? My understanding would be that time began with matter/energy/space existing, what happened once time began was that these components changed form.
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Well this goes into the realm of deep physics but matter and antimatter were created VERY shortly after the big bang. Matter and antimatter then had this epic "battle" (excuse me for anthropomorphisising) and matter won out. Therefore, we have matter!


/layman's layman's version
 

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Kwayera said:
Well this goes into the realm of deep physics but matter and antimatter were created VERY shortly after the big bang. Matter and antimatter then had this epic "battle" (excuse me for anthropomorphisising) and matter won out. Therefore, we have matter!


/layman's layman's version
oh yes , that rings a bell actually, think ive heard that...im going to bed too too tired.
Sweet dreams everyone :)
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
There are lots of ideas, Hawking's is interesting:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html said:
It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football.

In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
By that, the analogy of the Big Bang as being like the North Pole hold :)

But that's just a very simplified version of one idea and we have to admit that we don't really know yet.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Kwayera said:
Well this goes into the realm of deep physics but matter and antimatter were created VERY shortly after the big bang. Matter and antimatter then had this epic "battle" (excuse me for anthropomorphisising) and matter won out. Therefore, we have matter!


/layman's layman's version
What I mean is that the matter/anti-matter/space/time existed at time=0, merely in a different form, the big bang didn't "create" the most basic building blocks of the universe.
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Enteebee said:
What I mean is that the matter/anti-matter/space/time existed at time=0, merely in a different form, the big bang didn't "create" the most basic building blocks of the universe.
Matter didn't exist, it was formed from energy. You could argue that energy did exist, but that depends on which theory you subscribe to. Some have a balance of positive and negative energy, meaning that no energy actually existed at t = 0.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Enteebee said:
Can I ask you a question btw? Do you accept the big bang theory? As far as I understand, from observations we have made it appears that time began sometime around 13.7 billion years ago with a 'big bang', all of the components of our universe having existed since time=0 (the amount of matter/energy the same). What caused time to begin? You can't have a 'cause' without time, so before time there is no need for a cause. There was no moment before this moment, this moment was time=0, to ask what came before time=0 is to ask what letter comes before a in the alphabet.
Are you using this as a way to say that there is no problem in believing that the universe originated from nothing , by nothing and for nothing? I think you may have underestimated the validity of the problem by getting rid of it with tricky wording. While yes, I agree with you, it is ridiculous to say "what came before" when time does not exist this seems to be avoiding the real question.

The reasoning that I use in this case is the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. What ever begins to exist must have a cause (metaphysical law)
2. The universe began to exist (ie, big bang)
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
BradCube said:
Are you using this as a way to say that there is no problem in believing that the universe originated from nothing , by nothing and for nothing? I think you may have underestimated the validity of the problem by getting rid of it with tricky wording. While yes, I agree with you, it is ridiculous to say "what came before" when time does not exist this seems to be avoiding the real question.

The reasoning that I use in this case is the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. What ever begins to exist must have a cause (metaphysical law)
2. The universe began to exist (ie, big bang)
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
I don't agree with 1.
2. it depends - there are some ideas that don't require a beginning, but see our observable universe as a part of something bigger.
3. Why is this cause God?
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Oh and also, if this cause was the God of Christianity (or most major religions), why do the conditions of the Big Bang necessarily need to lead to life? There is inherent randomness in the quantum fluctuations in the early universe - the universe is not deterministic at the smallest scales. So the conditions of the early universe didn't need to lead to life. It seems inefficient for a god to have to create a universe, then intervene if things don't go right.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
webby234 said:
I don't agree with 1.
2. it depends - there are some ideas that don't require a beginning, but see our observable universe as a part of something bigger.
3. Why is this cause God?
1. So, if you heard a loud "bang" and asked "what was that?" and I replied "nothing", you would have no troubles accepting that? Why should it be any different for the "big bang"?

2. As far as I am aware, all other theories that propose an eternal universe haven't gained much scientific support and are problematic in a few ways.

3. I didn't say it did. My point here was only to show that I don't feel that you can just dismiss this whole idea because time had not existed. There are some other reasons, which lead me to think that God may be the cause - but I'll leave that for another day, as I'm going to bed :)

Cheerio.
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
BradCube said:
1. So, if you heard a loud "bang" and asked "what was that?" and I replied "nothing", you would have no troubles accepting that? Why should it be any different for the "big bang"?

2. As far as I am aware, all other theories that propose an eternal universe haven't gained much scientific support and are problematic in a few ways.

3. I didn't say it did. My point here was only to show that I don't feel that you can just dismiss this whole idea because time had not existed. There are some other reasons, which lead me to think that God may be the cause - but I'll leave that for another day, as I'm going to bed :)

Cheerio.
1. You're talking about things on the macroscopic, every day scale. If you observed a quantum fluctuation and asked what caused it, the answer would be nothing.

2. Some versions of string theory/M-theory have an infinite multiverse, there are ideas with 'bubble' universes. Really, we don't have a Theory of Everything yet, so our laws break down when you get to close to t = 0. We don't even know if there is a t = 0 in the sense that we usually think of it.

3. Ok we'll leave it for another day. :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 11)

Top