• Devans99
    851
    [1] If time infinite
    [2] And matter/energy creation is a naturally occurring event;
    [3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now.
    [4] So time finite; IE created by God,
    [5] Or matter/energy creation is not natural IE God did it.
  • Devans99
    851
    If energy/matter were not created, there must be periodic entropy reset events (else entropy would be at a maximum by now). Those would be Big Bang/Big Crunch events. If time was infinite, there would be no first such event which does not make sense (time is finite).
  • tim wood
    1.8k
    If, if, if, if,..., if. Grant enough ifs and you can prove anything. It collapses to this: If God exists, and it we grant that God exists, then God exists. Not worth the trouble. Find a worthier and more doable goal.

    And In this Youtube video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IihcNa9YAPk,

    on the large number Tree(3) there is reference to something called a Poincare recurrence (also Wiki, here)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem.

    The idea is that certain well-defined systems do "reset," and the universe is such a system (but it takes a really, really,..., really long time. Interesting stuff!
  • Devans99
    851
    The idea is that certain well-defined systems do "reset," and the universe is such a system (but it takes a really, really,..., really long time. Interesting stuff!tim wood

    Existing requires coming into being. So stuff can’t have existed for ever; it must of been created. Modern cosmology points this way too; in eternal inflation theory, matter/energy is created in exchange for negative gravitational energy. So that leads naturally to a creation event.
  • tim wood
    1.8k
    Existing requires coming into being. So stuff can’t have existed for ever; it must of been created.Devans99

    This is an epistemological problem, not a problem for anything actually existing. Instead of trying to prove the impossible or disprove reality, why not try something more useful and less foolish Things exist or they do not exist. If nothing exists, that leaves one set of problems. If anything exists, a different set of problems. And if anything exists, you're always stuck with the problem of ultimately where it all came from. You can call that God, but then the term is merely an inadequate and deceptively uninformative stop-gap answer - which is often hijacked into reifying something out of nothing.

    Try calling that "God" by some other name, then see how far you get with an idea of God.
  • Judaka
    93
    For argument's sake, let's say you're right.

    How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong...
  • Devans99
    851
    How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong...Judaka

    Correct, I'm not saying anything about the nature of God beyond his ability to create the universe. So he could be completely different to the normal religious definitions of God.

    I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time.
  • Christoffer
    371
    (else entropy would be at a maximum by nowDevans99

    Why would it be maximum by now?
  • Christoffer
    371
    I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time.Devans99

    There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas.
  • Devans99
    851
    Why would it be maximum by now?Christoffer

    Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum. It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events. These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches. But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event is still required; the initial Big Bang.

    There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas.Christoffer

    I notice you avoid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities.
  • Christoffer
    371
    Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum.Devans99

    How do you prove time to be infinite? Why would infinity be reached at this time?

    It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events.Devans99

    This demands that your first statement to be true, which you haven't proved and no physics provide support for a definite conclusion to this as well.

    These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches.Devans99

    "Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics.

    But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event.Devans99

    You have no true premises for this conclusion.

    I notice you avid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities.Devans99

    I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises.

    You cannot deduce anything about God at this time, there is neither data or enough evidence to prove anything. You make an assumption before making the conclusion, meaning your argument is flawed.

    Think about this: why do you think no one has been able to prove the existence of God for thousands of years? Do you think you are able to do it in here easily? You might, but you need to be rock solid in your argument, you cannot have any flaws and if you put blame on criticism of your argument you are not helping yourself in reaching a conclusion that makes sense.

    You might need to research physics before making claims on your premises being true because they aren't by current physics.
  • Devans99
    851
    "Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physicsChristoffer

    How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy.

    You have no true premises for this conclusionChristoffer

    An infinite regress of events is impossible; the number of events in it would be greater than any number; which is a contradiction so its impossible.


    I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises.Christoffer

    Well we have half of the evidence; the Big Bang. It was not a naturally occurring event else there would be multiple occurrences of them (an infinite number with infinite time) and there is only evidence of one Big Bang - a non-natural event caused by God.
  • Christoffer
    371
    How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy.Devans99

    What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset?

    Well we have half of the evidenceDevans99

    So your argument fails right there, right? You need more evidence to end up with a conclusion that is true, right?

    It was not a naturally occurring eventDevans99

    How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this?

    a non-natural event caused by God.Devans99

    This conclusion is based on nothing, you have no evidence in physics and you make assumptions about what hasn't been proven at all.

    What is your knowledge of physics? Are you using any physics to support your premises and a conclusion?
  • Devans99
    851
    What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset?Christoffer

    If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened.

    How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this?Christoffer

    If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God.

    I don't address time is finite as that means there was a God (who created time).
  • Christoffer
    371
    If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened.Devans99

    How do you know time is infinite?

    If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God.Devans99

    You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one".

    So we can conclude nothing and certainly not that it was caused by God.

    I ask again, what evidence within physics support your claims and conclusions?
    You are making assumptions about physics that simply do not have any support to them. If you make things up about physics you do not have a solid argument. Period.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.2k
    There is almost complete scientific consensus of the Big Bang, down to a very small fraction of a second before time 0. And that is where the physics ends right now. Everything anyone says about what happened before that fraction of a second, if it is God, or a singularity, or a pure quantum energy wave, or anything else are all a possibility and one has no superior claim than another. That may change, but that is where we are.
  • Devans99
    851
    How do you know time is infinite?Christoffer

    If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case).

    You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one".Christoffer

    We have evidence of only one Big Bang / Eternal Inflation event. If time was infinite we should expect an infinite number of such events (if they were naturally occurring) and there is no evidence for that. So the Big Bang must be a non-natural event or time is finite.
  • Christoffer
    371
    If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case).Devans99

    You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed.

    Prove time is infinite before the rest of your argument. It's that simple.
  • Devans99
    851
    You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed.Christoffer

    You are misunderstanding me; I believe time is finite and that finite time is the strongest evidence there is for a God. So therefore I am addressing only the case was time is infinite (and showing that in that case there is also a God).
  • Christoffer
    371
    I believe time is finiteDevans99

    Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all.
  • Devans99
    851
    Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all.Christoffer

    Well for example, if time was infinite then the number of seconds past so far is greater than any number; which is a contradiction, hence time is finite. But the point was, God is the solution whether time is finite or not.

    There is almost complete scientific consensus of the Big Bang, down to a very small fraction of a second before time 0. And that is where the physics ends right nowRank Amateur

    We can still use statistics to find out about what happened; a single big bang and infinite time clearly point to a non-natural cause of the Big Bang. Else we'd expect an infinite number of Big Bangs and there is only evidence of one.
  • Christoffer
    371
    if time was infiniteDevans99

    Stop persisting with an argument you have no initial proof for.
    You have no argument.

    We can still use statistics to find out about what happenedDevans99

    No, we can't, learn physics. You ignore actual science and you just keep going. It's frustrating that you just don't get it.

    Your argument is not working. Period.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.2k
    I am a theist, and an uncreated creator we can call God, is a reasonable belief for the cause of the Big Bang, but it is not a scientific proof. Science says nothing yet about that millisecond we don't understand. So, you and I can hold a reasonable belief it is God, someone else can hold a reasonable belief there is such a thing as a singularly, someone else can reasonably believe in something else.
  • tim wood
    1.8k
    or anything else are all a possibility and one has no superior claim than another.Rank Amateur

    Really? None has a superior claim? So it really could be turtles all the way down? Or turtledoves all the way up? Or anything at all? I myself am inclined to think that of all possible theories, some of them probably are superior to some others of them, don't you think?
  • Rank Amateur
    1.2k
    you are 100% right I should have been more specific and eliminated turtle and turtle dove options.
  • Echarmion
    190
    [1] If time infinite
    [2] And matter/energy creation is a naturally occurring event;
    [3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now.
    Devans99

    3 only follows from 1 and 2 if the matter that is being created is also infinite. If it "decays" in some way the conclusion isn't necessary.

    [4] So time finite; IE created by God,Devans99

    Why could a finite time only be created by God?
  • Walter Pound
    173
    I once watched a debate between Arif Ahmed and William lane Craig and Arif Ahmed said, in response to Craig's argument for a finite time, something akin to, "time existed for all time."

    I am going to google it right now.
    Edit: its at 29:20.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7vMl-CkCwA

    Ahmed states, "at every time the universe existed and there was no time before the universe existed; there was no time in which God could have acted."

    What do you make of this argument?

    It seems like Ahmed wants to argue that time never began to exist, even if it does not extend back infinitely; therefore, it does not have a cause.
  • Devans99
    851
    Ahmed states, "at every time the universe existed and there was no time before the universe existed; there was no time in which God could have acted."Walter Pound

    As I mentioned above:

    I would guess he (God) would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time.Devans99

    I think god, if he exists, exists outside our time so he would still be able to act without time to initiate the creation of our universe.

    3 only follows from 1 and 2 if the matter that is being created is also infinite. If it "decays" in some way the conclusion isn't necessary.Echarmion

    I would have thought matter would decay into energy and energy would not decay at all, but probably best to say (in 2) that energy/matter is created on average.

    Why could a finite time only be created by God?Echarmion

    Creation of time is a non-natural event so it requires some sort of timeless intelligence. So some sort of creator. This might not be quite the same as the traditional interpretation of God.

    So it really could be turtles all the way down?tim wood

    Turtles all the way down is just an infinite regress and all infinite regresses are nonsense. Another infinite regress is infinite time; it's just as bad as the turtles as the way down. The turtles are missing a bottom turtle to hold the whole thing up; with infinite time we are missing a coming into being event to give the universe substance. They are both equally bad and invalid.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    [3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now.
    [4] So time finite; IE created by God,
    Devans99

    There's no reason at all to believe either one of these premises.

    Re (3), time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it. Or space could be infinite, too. Or matter/energy could disappear, too. There are any number of possibilities that would make (3) false.

    As for (4), the notion that finite time requires a God is completely arbitrary.
  • Echarmion
    190
    I would have thought matter would decay into energy and energy would not decay at all, but probably best to say (in 2) that energy/matter is created on average.Devans99

    Yeah but now we're making fairly random assumptions, are we not?

    Creation of time is a non-natural event so it requires some sort of timeless intelligence. So some sort of creator. This might not be quite the same as the traditional interpretation of God.Devans99

    What if time is merely a human perception of a world that really is timeless? In that case, it would be "created" by you and me.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.2k
    the overwhelming scientific consensus is the universe is finite. It could not be, but any other possibility would be against today's best science. The same exact thing could be said for man's impact on climate change. So if you are allowing for an infinite universe against science, would you also welcome an alternative view of climate change?

    Now, all a finite universe does in this instance is make an uncreated creator a reasonable possibility. It in no way elevates it to the only possibility as D99 would suggest.

    Before we had an understanding of the Big Bang, the best argument against the CA was, "who created the creator", a non scientific way of implying infinity. After the Big Bang science that response is now in violation of the best science.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.