If time itself came into being with creation could one even talk about a "time" before creation in any literal sense?
Not in a literal sense. But in a conceptual sense. That is, you have a concept of an absence of time prior to the start of the universe. Physicists do this all the time (pardon the pun). In Quantum Fluctuation, the universe -- including time -- is viewed as a quantum fluctuation in that state of no time, no space, no matter/energy. Back in the 1970s, there was an article in Science discussing that our universe arose as a "bubble" in Hibbert space.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Not in a literal sense. But in a conceptual sense. That is, you have a concept of an absence of time prior to the start of the universe. Physicists do this all the time (pardon the pun). In Quantum Fluctuation, the universe -- including time -- is viewed as a quantum fluctuation in that state of no time, no space, no matter/energy. Back in the 1970s, there was an article in Science discussing that our universe arose as a "bubble" in Hibbert space.
"Hibbert" space, eh? Never heard of it. Perhaps you meant "Hilbert" space, which is a type of vector space, possessing an inner product and such that all convergent sequences have limits in the space. It is a purely mathematical concept, although widely used in physics.
So you are saying that our universe arose as a "bubble" in mathematics?
For starters, the universe we see around us cannot be infinitely old. For one thing, if it were, then the night sky would be white instead of dark.
Not necessarily. Our universe, if it expands hyperbolically, will never get white or even get warmer. It is cooling, for gosh sakes.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Nor can the universe be an infinite series of expansions and collapses.
So you say.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
But No Boundary eliminates creation all together. Hartle-Hawking's No Boundary has a self-contained finite but unbounded universe that just IS.
Yes, well, if it couldn't have been created, then the model couldn't have been conceived. The conception of the model is an action of creation in the human mind. Obviously, the mathematical time coordinate in the model is not the time coordinate in which it was conceived.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
IMO, either one of these, if they could be shown to be true, would wipe out God.
I disagree.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
I understand what you are doing. You are trying to find a counter to Aristotle's possibility of an infinitely old universe without a creator God.
Aristotle was the furthest thing from my mind.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
However, I don't think it works. In order to be God, a being has to have created the universe.
Yes, in meta-time, if necessary.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
That isn't what you have shown. What you have shown is that, in the absence of God, people will invent a religious meaning for their lives! You've just made the atheist's argument for him.
Linear Mode
