Time and evolution

[FoeHammer]

Because your statement is false and the concept of "before time" is nonsensical.

Without time there is no before.

It's very simple. If you mean outside time, then say so, but don't pretend it's before time.

I believe that God is the creator of the universe and therefore existed before time, how is that nonsensical?
I'll tell you what I think is nonsensical and that is that someone can believe that space, matter, and energy (without which there would be no time) popped into existence out of absolutely nothing without a cause.

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe that God is the creator of the universe and therefore existed before time, how is that nonsensical?

Nonsensical: does not make sense (e.g., the question 'what existed before time?' is nonsensicle; the statement 'I am a married bachelor' is nonsensicle).

You posit that an entity exists in a certain state (i.e., 'before time'). Since this state cannot by definition exist, your statment is as nonsensicle as stating that you are a married bachelor.

I'll tell you what I think is nonsensical and that is that someone can believe that space, matter, and energy (without which there would be no time) popped into existence out of absolutely nothing without a cause.

Arguements from personal incredulity to not warrent calling the opposed argument nonsensicle. Indeed, we have observed matter and energy spontaneously manifesting in the univsere (albiet to be annihilated again by the antiparticle that manifests with it; no net energy change, so the conservation laws are not broken). Qv. Quantum foam, virtual particles, quantum gravity, and/or the Casimir effect.

 

[flatworm]

I believe that God is the creator of the universe and therefore existed before time, how is that nonsensical?

Because the term before is a reference to a temporal relationship, which by definition cannot exist outside of time.

Apparently you believe something self-contradictory.

I'll tell you what I think is nonsensical and that is that someone can believe that space, matter, and energy (without which there would be no time) popped into existence out of absolutely nothing without a cause.

FoeHammer.

You are presupposing that time continues into the past beyond the existence of the universe, including before the existence of time. This is utter lunacy- a direct self-contradiction.

What amuses me further is you apparently have no problem with a self-existing god.

Have we come back full-circle to where you claim logic doesn't apply to God? Because if you're going to once again abandon logic don't expect me to consider your arguments logical.

 

[FishFace]

I believe that God is the creator of the universe and therefore existed before time, how is that nonsensical?

Because before time doesn't make any sense, i.e. it is nonsensical.

I'll tell you what I think is nonsensical and that is that someone can believe that space, matter, and energy (without which there would be no time) popped into existence out of absolutely nothing without a cause.

Who's claiming that, and why does your personal disbelief count for anything? How do you think God came into existence, and why can that not be applied to "space, matter and energy?"

 

[FoeHammer]

Nonsensical: does not make sense (e.g., the question 'what existed before time?' is nonsensicle; the statement 'I am a married bachelor' is nonsensicle).

You posit that an entity exists in a certain state (i.e., 'before time'). Since this state cannot by definition exist, your statment is as nonsensicle as stating that you are a married bachelor.

Arguements from personal incredulity to not warrent calling the opposed argument nonsensicle. Indeed, we have observed matter and energy spontaneously manifesting in the univsere (albiet to be annihilated again by the antiparticle that manifests with it; no net energy change, so the conservation laws are not broken). Qv. Quantum foam, virtual particles, quantum gravity, and/or the Casimir effect.

Again, I believe that God created time and therefore existed before time, the order would be God then time so God was before time. the fact that you can't get your head around this idea does not make it nonsensical it simply denote a lack of understanding on your part.

Also, observing ''matter and energy spontaneously manifesting in the universe'' tells us nothing about the universe popping into existence out of nothing.

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

Again, I believe that God created time and therefore existed before time, the order would be God then time so God was before time. the fact that you can't get your head around this idea does not make it nonsensical it simply denote a lack of understanding on your part.

The lack of understanding is not ours. You have not yet said how you can have a temporal relation - "before" - without a time in which the relation can exist.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense for God to create time, since creation, indeed nothing, cannot be done if there is no time. Any act of doing, including creation, implies change. How do you propose their being a change if there is no time? Change, by it's very nature implies that at one point in time, there was one state of affairs, and that at another state of time, there was another.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again, I believe that God created time and therefore existed before time, the order would be God then time so God was before time. the fact that you can't get your head around this idea does not make it nonsensical it simply denote a lack of understanding on your part.

You can believe what you want. But, unless there is a secondary temporal dimension in which your god could operate, this particular belief is (much to your continued dismay) nonsensicle. Even your god must obey the laws of logic, and thus cannot break definitions, even human ones. We define time as the flow of events, and order of events.

You are asking what event precludes the very first event (indeed, you presuppose that the causal web has a start). Try asking a programmer the code at root-minus-1, or a mathematician for the value of 1/0.

Also, observing ''matter and energy spontaneously manifesting in the universe'' tells us nothing about the universe popping into existence out of nothing.

FoeHammer.

On the contrary, it tells us that creation ex nihilo is indeed possible. This is something Creationists do not like, since they are fundamentally poised at creation ex deus.

 

[FoeHammer]

[/color].....

.....How do you think God came into existence, and why can that not be applied to "space, matter and energy?"

Because I believe God exists regardless of time. I believe He created space,matter and energy (without which there would be no time) and therefore that the universe (including time) had a beginning.


FoeHammer.

 

[Edx]

Because I believe God exists regardlessof time. I believe He created space,matter and energy (without which there would be no time) and therefore that the universe (including time) had a beginning.


FoeHammer.

"I believe... I believe... I believe...". Right okay, now what FoeHammer? I dont care what you believe, only why you believe it and apparently its for no other reason at all other than your own faith demands you do. You cant even respond to what people are saying in this thread. You arent going to convince anyone your arguments are correct just by stating what you believe over and over.

 

[flatworm]

Because I believe God exists regardless of time. I believe He created space,matter and energy (without which there would be no time) and therefore that the universe (including time) had a beginning.


FoeHammer.

God existing regardless of time is, at least, not self-contradictory. It's also quite possible that time had a beginning. The problem comes when you try to infer a causal relationship between the beginning of time and something that precedes it, because the whole idea of to precede and causality utterly depend on time.

 

[FoeHammer]

.....

On the contrary, it tells us that creation ex nihilo is indeed possible. This is something Creationists do not like, since they are fundamentally poised at creation ex deus.

The universe is not nothing.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

"I believe... I believe... I believe...". Right okay, now what FoeHammer? I dont care what you believe, only why you believe it and apparently its for no other reason at all other than your own faith demands you do. You cant even respond to what people are saying in this thread. You arent going to convince anyone your arguments are correct just by stating what you believe over and over.

My existence demands it because... ''From nothing, nothing, comes, since nothing is nothing it can do nothing therefore it can cause nothing hence whatever began to exist needs a cause for it’s existence.'' (Dr Phil Fernandes) That cause, I believe, is God.

FoeHammer.

 

[Edx]

My existence demands it because...

''From nothing, nothing, comes, since nothing is nothing it can do nothing therefore it can cause nothing hence whatever began to exist needs a cause for it’s existence.'' (Dr Phil Fernandes) That cause, I believe, is God. FoeHammer.

And what science (astrophysics) can we read from the great scientist Dr Phil Fernandes president of the Institute of Biblical Defense, to support his beliefs?


Ed

 

[FishFace]

Because I believe God exists regardless of time. I believe He created space,matter and energy (without which there would be no time) and therefore that the universe (including time) had a beginning.


FoeHammer.

You didn't answer the question. First of all, the first part was about time, and you didn't even attempt to address it. The second part was:

"How do you think God came into existence, and why can that not be applied to "space, matter and energy?""

Why can space matter and energy not exist "regardless of time?" Because you believe something is not a reason for the above being impossible. The act of belief is not incompatible with it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The universe is not nothing.

Correct. But the particles I spoke of are not created from the universe, they are created from nothing: creation ex nihilo. We have observed creation ex nihilo; we know it to be possible. So what is your problem with a causeless creation of the univserse?

 

[FoeHammer]

And what science (astrophysics) can we read from the great scientist Dr Phil Fernandes president of the Institute of Biblical Defense, to support his beliefs?


Ed

Watch the video here:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492&q=debate

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Correct. But the particles I spoke of are not created from the universe, they are created from nothing: creation ex nihilo. We have observed creation ex nihilo; we know it to be possible. So what is your problem with a causeless creation of the univserse?

Define nothing and then explain to me how you get something from nothing.

FoeHammer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My existence demands it because... ''From nothing, nothing, comes, since nothing is nothing it can do nothing therefore it can cause nothing hence whatever began to exist needs a cause for it’s existence.'' (Dr Phil Fernandes) That cause, I believe, is God.

FoeHammer.

And that cause, I believe, is strawberry custard.

So what?

 

[FoeHammer]

And that cause, I believe, is strawberry custard.

.....

Really?

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Define nothing and then explain to me how you get something from nothing.

FoeHammer.

Nothing = vacuum
something = atomic particles

Matter/energy flits into our universe all of the time without cause. Neutrons tunnel out of the nucleus for no cause other than it is possible for them to do so.

If things can be uncaused, and matter/energy can be suddenly created without cause, then where exactly are the problems for an uncaused universe?