God exists outside of time?

[Davian]

Doesn't seem like it. So, in the same way, isn't there a way to define what you mean by 'god' without supposing its existence?

Edit: I used to miss the point of why people insisted on defining 'god' before answering, until I realized that people call 'god' anything from whatever created the universe to the universe itself. So, if you define 'god' as the universe, then I do believe what you call 'god' exists. If you define it as an omnimax being who punishes and rewards people for their behavior and beliefs, then no I do not think that such a god exists.

Therein lies the problem with me providing the definition. I could work my way through 27 definitions of "God" ranging from "maniacal egocentric bully that demands worship or you will burn in hell" to "something akin to the weak nuclear force", and each time he could just say that I have it wrong. Or we can try to 'reason' a god into a gap that 'science can't touch'. That's why *he* needs to do it. If *I* place a testable attribute into the definition, I have to justify it.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing."
NMS, on alt.atheism

 

[ElijahW]

I hate to say this, but I have no earthly idea what you mean by "presupposes," then, since giving a definition of a unicorn: "A horse with a horn on its head," doesn't presuppose its existence in any way.

I'm confused as well. I have no idea what the hope is in the definition that is desired.

I don't understand what you mean here, either. Are you asking what an acceptable definition of "god" or "God" would be? I don't care which definition you use. I just need to know so I can be sure we're talking about the same thing and not just talking past each other.

I gave Justin's definition which I felt was acceptable and haven't fully understood why it wasn't. I'm looking for the definition that doesn't presuppose God's existence but I don't know what that looks like.

Actually this latest problem started because you don't accept his definition of God with a capital "g" when he said it's a character in a book. It's like if you asked who Batman is and he tells you "A character in a series of comics." You then say, "That's not Batman. That's a representation of the real Batman."

You could say Batman is a fictional character but when you say he's in a comic then you are speaking of how he is presented.

The comparable example would be saying that "energy" is the letter "E" because that is how it gets represented mathematically.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm confused as well. I have no idea what the hope is in the definition that is desired.

Communication and understanding of your position. You claim that God is more than a character in a book. Then describe your god is a manner in which he can perceived outside of a book to those who don't already believe.

I gave Justin's definition which I felt was acceptable and haven't fully understood why it wasn't. I'm looking for the definition that doesn't presuppose God's existence but I don't know what that looks like.

You could say Batman is a fictional character but when you say he's in a comic then you are speaking of how he is presented.

The comparable example would be saying that "energy" is the letter "E" because that is how it gets represented mathematically.

So, bottom line, you're saying that God is more than a character in a book?

 

[ElijahW]

Communication and understanding of your position. You claim that God is more than a character in a book. Then describe your god is a manner in which he can perceived outside of a book to those who don't already believe.

It can’t be perceived. Your perception is limited to the physical (what is in flux). What we are discussing is metaphysics. You will need to use reason for this section.

So, bottom line, you're saying that God is more than a character in a book?

Obviously. Now if God is real or the universe is eternal is debatable but that God is more than a character in a book is a given. God is the word we use to designate the creator of the universe. You may think that it doesn’t exist or is limited to being a character in a book but that doesn’t change the definition of the word. You not believing in God doesn’t mean that it gets defined as a character in a book because you don’t believe in the actual definition existing.

Like me believing or not believing in leprechauns doesn’t change that they are elves. Their existence or non existence doesn’t change the definition from being elves, to just characters in a story.

 

[quatona]

Obviously. Now if God is real or the universe is eternal is debatable but that God is more than a character in a book is a given. God is the word we use to designate the creator of the universe.

A word isn´t more than a character in a book, in my understanding.
I think it would be helpful if you´d find a way to make clear what you are talking about in any given situation:
a. a particular god concept
b. the word "god"
c. the supposedly existing entity itself.

You may think that it doesn’t exist or is limited to being a character in a book but that doesn’t change the definition of the word.

I´d agree that "character in a book" is not a definition of a word - unless it means something like "a hypothetically existing entity as described in this book".

You not believing in God doesn’t mean that it gets defined as a character in a book because you don’t believe in the actual definition existing.

Except that there isn´t "the actual definition [of the word "God"] existing" - there are countless definitions existing.
Thus, if you want us to discuss your god concept, you would have to give us a proper definition as to how you use this word. Thankfully, you have already given one information: "The creator of the universe". Unfortunately, this is still very far from a proper definition that allows for meaningful discussion. We would have to learn what you think "creating a universe" means and entails (this phrase has no resemblence whatsoever in our experiences, after all), how this is done, why you think it´s necessary for a universe to be created etc. etc.

 

[quatona]

What we are discussing is metaphysics. You will need to use reason for this section. [...]
Now if God is real [...] is debatable[...]

For even starting to debate whether "God is real" we would have to get an idea what "being real" means in metaphysics.
Is, e.g. (in the metaphysical terminology) a thought considered to be real? A concept? A feeling?

 

[sandwiches]

It can’t be perceived. Your perception is limited to the physical (what is in flux). What we are discussing is metaphysics. You will need to use reason for this section.

So, I'll need to imagine the whole thing?

Obviously. Now if God is real or the universe is eternal is debatable but that God is more than a character in a book is a given. God is the word we use to designate the creator of the universe. You may think that it doesn’t exist or is limited to being a character in a book but that doesn’t change the definition of the word. You not believing in God doesn’t mean that it gets defined as a character in a book because you don’t believe in the actual definition existing.

So, Batman is more than a character in a comic book series?

Like me believing or not believing in leprechauns doesn’t change that they are elves. Their existence or non existence doesn’t change the definition from being elves, to just characters in a story.

So, leprechauns aren't elves from folklore?

 

[ElijahW]

A word isn´t more than a character in a book, in my understanding.

A word is a representation of something else in mine that is why we have dictionaries to go see what idea the word represents.
The idea of a word just being a character in a book seems weird. Do you mean characters? As in letters? Words are letters in a book?

I think it would be helpful if you´d find a way to make clear what you are talking about in any given situation:
a. a particular god concept
b. the word "god"
c. the supposedly existing entity itself.

I don’t know what the difference between talking about the entity or the concept is and would definitely clarify if I was merely talking about the word for some unknown reason.

I´d agree that "character in a book" is not a definition of a word - unless it means something like "a hypothetically existing entity as described in this book".

That’s fine but you aren’t defining it, just pointing out one of the places where the concept gets presented and pointing out that it is hypothetical. We still don’t know who the character in the book is supposed to be. Once we find out that it is God then the definition of the character is already commonly known and we are merely looking at a presentation of the concept within a work.

It would be like saying God is character in a movie or more specifically God is George Burns. You are only identifying the presentation, not what the word actually means.

Except that there isn´t "the actual definition [of the word "God"] existing" - there are countless definitions existing.
Thus, if you want us to discuss your god concept, you would have to give us a proper definition as to how you use this word. Thankfully, you have already given one information: "The creator of the universe". Unfortunately, this is still very far from a proper definition that allows for meaningful discussion. We would have to learn what you think "creating a universe" means and entails (this phrase has no resemblence whatsoever in our experiences, after all), how this is done, why you think it´s necessary for a universe to be created etc. etc.

You can go with Justin’s definition from earlier if you would like.

I think God is necessary because the alternative of a universe that has been around and infinite amount seems impossible to me. That is why I go with trying to understand God, because the alternative isn’t possible. How the universe gets created is debatable but there has been no argument made from anyone here that can support a universe that doesn’t have a beginning.

For even starting to debate whether "God is real" we would have to get an idea what "being real" means in metaphysics.
Is, e.g. (in the metaphysical terminology) a thought considered to be real? A concept? A feeling?

Let’s start with the beginning and work our way forward to the present and see what looks real to us and what being “real” actually means. Let’s try to stay on topic if we could.

 

[ElijahW]

So, I'll need to imagine the whole thing?

Yep. You will need to be able to imagine the concepts and consider which ones you think are rational and which one falls apart under consideration.

So, Batman is more than a character in a comic book series?

Yes, Batman appears in more things than comics.

The comparable example is “energy” more than the letter E? Or is that just one of the ways it gets represented?

So, leprechauns aren't elves from folklore?

So? What changes about the definition because of that? It doesn’t say if they are real or not, only the source of the tale. If the God tale came exclusively from the Bible, you could say the creator of the universe, as presented in the Bible but since the concept comes from all over the world and through history, that kind of labeling isn’t possible. Also it assumes the understanding of God is the same for all the authors of the books in the Bible but you should get the point.

 

[quatona]

That’s fine but you aren’t defining it, just pointing out one of the places where the concept gets presented and pointing out that it is hypothetical. We still don’t know who the character in the book is supposed to be. Once we find out that it is God then the definition of the character is already commonly known and we are merely looking at a presentation of the concept within a work.

Yes, that´s exactly what I meant with the first part of the paragraph you have quoted.

I think God is necessary because the alternative of a universe that has been around and infinite amount seems impossible to me.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
Why would something that has a beginning to be created by a god (particularly when, as is your suggestion, this god had a beginning itself)?

That is why I go with trying to understand God, because the alternative isn’t possible.

Is it the only alternative? How so?

How the universe gets created is debatable but there has been no argument made from anyone here that can support a universe that doesn’t have a beginning.

So let´s, for argument´s sake, work from the premise that the universe had a beginning. How does this necessitate the existence of a creatorgod?

Let’s start with the beginning and work our way forward to the present and see what looks real to us and what being “real” actually means.

You used the word "real" in the context of metaphysics. If you want me to accept it as meaningful you would have to give me an idea what that´s supposed to mean.

Let’s try to stay on topic if we could.

The question what it means to be "real" for a god is right on topic here.
And it became even more on topic when you used the term "real" as a metaphysical characteristic.

 

[ElijahW]

Yes, that´s exactly what I meant with the first part of the paragraph you have quoted.

I’m lost on what you are trying to say.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
Why would something that has a beginning to be created by a god (particularly when, as is your suggestion, this god had a beginning itself)?
Is it the only alternative? How so?

If you can come up with a third option then I have presented a false dichotomy. If you can’t then I will remain comfortable that those are the only two options. Beginning or no beginning, that’s the only two options I can see. If you know of something else then let me know.

God is what we label the beginning. It is the beginning. There is no beginning to God before the universe because there is no time before the universe.

So let´s, for argument´s sake, work from the premise that the universe had a beginning. How does this necessitate the existence of a creatorgod?

God is what we label the beginning. If by “creatorgod” you are still working with an anthropomorphic superstitious understanding of a “creator”, then you need to update your understanding of the conversation about God, for us to be able to continue forward in any meaningful way.

You used the word "real" in the context of metaphysics. If you want me to accept it as meaningful you would have to give me an idea what that´s supposed to mean.

Existed or existing as part of the universe.

The question what it means to be "real" for a god is right on topic here.
And it became even more on topic when you used the term "real" as a metaphysical characteristic.

Yeah if you stay on the subject of God then you’re fine. But if you try to go into questioning feelings and concepts

 

[quatona]

If you can come up with a third option then I have presented a false dichotomy. If you can’t then I will remain comfortable that those are the only two options. Beginning or no beginning, that’s the only two options I can see. If you know of something else then let me know.

Sure. The universe had a beginning and there was no creator entity of sorts.

God is what we label the beginning. It is the beginning.

Fine. When "God" is just a synonym for "beginning", that´s ok. Anticipating your permission, I will just keep using the established word "beginning" and not use any obscurities such as capitalization for an entirely trivial concept.
Anyway, up to now you used to call "God" a "creator" - which is far more than a mere "beginning". I guess that´s what was misleading me.

There is no beginning to God before the universe because there is no time before the universe.

So the concept of god as the creator of the universe is off the table.

God is what we label the beginning. If by “creatorgod” you are still working with an anthropomorphic superstitious understanding of a “creator”, then you need to update your understanding of the conversation about God, for us to be able to continue forward in any meaningful way.

I have no god concept of my own. I am dependent on the concept of the individual believer who want to discuss their concepts with me. I am trying to make sense of your concepts. Unfortunately you have been very reluctant to offer them, and they come in small bits and pieces. On top, you seem to change your definition as you see fit.
Last definition was "beginning of the universe". Formerly it was "creator of the universe", and before that it was something to the effect of "creator and sustainer of the universe".
On top your idea is that universe and god started existing simultaneously.

Existed or existing as part of the universe.

This doesn´t answer the question what "existing" (which is a pretty well understood term for physical objects) actually means when it comes to a metaphysical entity.

Yeah if you stay on the subject of God then you’re fine. But if you try to go into questioning feelings and concepts

I haven´t questioned them. I have merely asked whether you´d call a concept as "metaphysically existing". In which case I would readily admit that countless gods do exist - as concepts.

 

[ElijahW]

Sure. The universe had a beginning and there was no creator entity of sorts.

Ok so we are in agreement that the universe had a beginning and that it being around infinitely isn’t possible? So there is no false dichotomy. You just don’t like the beginning or source of the universe be to labeled “creator” because you assume a magic man in the sky when you hear the word?

Fine. When "God" is just a synonym for "beginning", that´s ok. Anticipating your permission, I will just keep using the established word "beginning" and not use any obscurities such as capitalization for an entirely trivial concept.

Anyway, up to now you used to call "God" a "creator" - which is far more than a mere "beginning". I guess that´s what was misleading me.

No, it’s only misleading because you work with assumptions. As soon as I defined God as constant, you should have immediately known I wasn’t referring to a “creator” like you understand the concept from childhood.

So the concept of god as the creator of the universe is off the table.

The word use of “god” would probably be best to be avoided since so many people assume superstitious understandings of the word. That the universe had a beginning we agree on. Let’s see if we can move the conversation now to what the nature of the beginning was.

I have no god concept of my own. I am dependent on the concept of the individual believer who want to discuss their concepts with me. I am trying to make sense of your concepts. Unfortunately you have been very reluctant to offer them, and they come in small bits and pieces. On top, you seem to change your definition as you see fit.
Last definition was "beginning of the universe". Formerly it was "creator of the universe", and before that it was something to the effect of "creator and sustainer of the universe".
On top your idea is that universe and god started existing simultaneously.

”The beginning” of the universe and creator of the universe is the same thing. The universe comes from the beginning. The nature of “the beginning” is what leads and maintains what we see now.

What do you mean “god concept”? Aren’t you understanding the word to just mean anthropomorphic entity and disregarding any rational understanding of the source of the universe… beginning of the universe… creator of the universe? Not “creator” as in a guy but in what actually created the universe. The step one, that led to step two, that led to step three, which led to what we see now.

What was the nature of “step one” that led to the creation of the universe? You don’t have to call it creator if that gives you problems. You can choose the label of your choice.

This doesn´t answer the question what "existing" (which is a pretty well understood term for physical objects) actually means when it comes to a metaphysical entity.

You were the same person I did the round and round with the definitions before right? If so, no thanks to this routine again. I don’t want to define “exists” and you get upset because the word “real” is in there.

I haven´t questioned them. I have merely asked whether you´d call a concept as "metaphysically existing". In which case I would readily admit that countless gods do exist - as concepts.

No I’m not making that point. It could be argued that memes exist in a fashion but not in the same fashion as the source or laws.

 

[Davian]

ElijahW, I'm still wondering if this God you talk about is the same as the character "God" in the Christian bible?

Or is this god that you positing is/at/was/before/caused the beginning of the universe a difference God/god?

Were you planning to link them together at some point?

And one more thing:



I'm Batman.




YouTube - ‪I'm Batman‬‏

 

[quatona]

Ok so we are in agreement that the universe had a beginning and that it being around infinitely isn’t possible?

I have accepted that premise for the sake of the argument.

So there is no false dichotomy. You just don’t like the beginning or source of the universe be to labeled “creator” because you assume a magic man in the sky when you hear the word?

Telling me what my motives are comes across as condescending. I´d urgently ask you to stop that.
I don´t see how the assumption of a source is necessary. Please explain this part without making up positions for me.

The word use of “god” would probably be best to be avoided since so many people assume superstitious understandings of the word.

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid this word.

That the universe had a beginning we agree on.

No, we don´t necessarily agree on that. What we have agreed upon was that it hasn´t existed inifintely. It has always existed, though, since, as you have said previously, there was no "state before time". "always" means "all the time", and the universe has existed all the time.

”The beginning” of the universe and creator of the universe is the same thing. The universe comes from the beginning. The nature of “the beginning” is what leads and maintains what we see now.

So, when following these your definitions and abstaining from any further assumptions, the "beginning" and the "creator" aren´t even necessarily entities.

What do you mean “god concept”?

By "god concept" I mean what a certain person thinks god is. Some people conceptualize god as the skydaddy, some as an unpersonal force, and so on. Every believer have their own god concepts. You have yours. I am trying to understand it.

Aren’t you understanding the word to just mean anthropomorphic entity and disregarding any rational understanding of the source of the universe… beginning of the universe… creator of the universe?

Yes, I am not. Why don´t you finally stop ascribing positions to me? I have no god concept of my own. I am discussing god concepts as they come. If person B tells me "god is the monitor on my desktop" I will work from that definitions for purposes of discussing their god concept.

Not “creator” as in a guy but in what actually created the universe. The step one, that led to step two, that led to step three, which led to what we see now.

So there was a temporal sequence, and the "creator" existed before the universe existed? Which would mean that time was around before the universe existed, too?

What was the nature of “step one” that led to the creation of the universe?

By your own definitions there was nothing that led to the creation of the universe - because there was nothing before the universe.

You were the same person I did the round and round with the definitions before right? If so, no thanks to this routine again. I don’t want to define “exists” and you get upset because the word “real” is in there.

I am not getting upset. What is it with you and constantly making personal assumptions about me?
You either define your terms, or you leave it - in which latter case I will consider them undefined and meaningless and unusable for the discussion.

No I’m not making that point. It could be argued that memes exist in a fashion but not in the same fashion as the source or laws.

So, in which fashion do the source or laws "exist". What does it mean for the source or laws to "exist"?

 

[ElijahW]

I have accepted that premise for the sake of the argument.

And what is the nature of the beginning of the universe?

Telling me what my motives are comes across as condescending. I´d urgently ask you to stop that.
I don´t see how the assumption of a source is necessary. Please explain this part without making up positions for me.

You already assume a source you just haven't labeled it or explained what you think it was like. I don't mean to make assumptions, it's just that you seem like you are in agreement that the universe had a beginning.

I don’t need to explain this part. You do. You need to explain why you think it is a false dichotomy. You have been unable to present a third option other than the universe has a beginning or it doesn’t.

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid this word.

And they are?

No, we don´t necessarily agree on that. What we have agreed upon was that it hasn´t existed inifintely. It has always existed, though, since, as you have said previously, there was no "state before time". "always" means "all the time", and the universe has existed all the time.

That’s just a play on words. Yes the universe existed for as much time as there has been but it hasn’t always existed, as in always been around.

What is the nature of the beginning?

So, when following these your definitions and abstaining from any further assumptions, the "beginning" and the "creator" aren´t even necessarily entities.

What do you mean by “entity” and what other label is available?

Yes, I am not. Why don´t you finally stop ascribing positions to me? I have no god concept of my own. I am discussing god concepts as they come. If person B tells me "god is the monitor on my desktop" I will work from that definitions for purposes of discussing their god concept.

OK good to know. So we are working with Justin's definition of "God" then?

So there was a temporal sequence, and the "creator" existed before the universe existed? Which would mean that time was around before the universe existed, too?

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. Not in a magical time, before time.

By your own definitions there was nothing that led to the creation of the universe - because there was nothing before the universe.

Again playing with words by attributing a function/effect to “nothing” instead of understanding it as actually nothing.
What was the nature of the beginning of the universe?

I am not getting upset. What is it with you and constantly making personal assumptions about me?

You either define your terms, or you leave it - in which latter case I will consider them undefined and meaningless and unusable for the discussion.

Go with the dictionary. If you get a definition that doesn’t match up with what I am saying let me know but I don’t want to play that game anymore.

So, in which fashion do the source or laws "exist". What does it mean for the source or laws to "exist"?

It means they are the basis of what we call matter. The Heisenberg quote again:

In the philosophy of Democritus the atoms are eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can never be transformed into each other. With regard to this question modern physics takes a definite stand against the materialism of Democritus and for Plato and the Pythagoreans. The elementary particles are certainly not eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can actually be transformed into each other. As a matter of fact, if two such particles, moving through space with a very high kinetic energy, collide, then many new elementary particles may be created from the available energy and the old particles may have disappeared in the collision. Such events have been frequently observed and offer the best proof that all particles are made of the same substance: energy. But the resemblance of the modern views to those of Plato and the PythagoreansThe elementary particles in Plato's Timaeus are finally not substance but mathematical forms. "All things are numbers" is a sentence attributed to Pythagoras. The only mathematical forms available at that time were such geometric forms as the regular solids or the triangles which form their surface. In modern quantum theory there can be no doubt that the elementary particles will finally also be mathematical forms but of a much more complicated nature. The Greek philosophers thought of static forms and found them in the regular solids. Modern science, however, has from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries started from the dynamic problem. The constant element in physics since Newton is not a configuration or a geometrical form, but a dynamic law. The equation of motion holds at all times, it is in this sense eternal, whereas the geometrical forms, like the orbits, are changing. Therefore, the mathematical forms that represent the elementary particles will be solutions of some eternal law of motion for matter. This is a problem which has not yet been solved. can be carried somewhat further. ​

 

[ElijahW]

ElijahW, I'm still wondering if this God you talk about is the same as the character "God" in the Christian bible?

Or is this god that you positing is/at/was/before/caused the beginning of the universe a difference God/god?

Were you planning to link them together at some point?

Who knows what your understanding of the Christian God is. I provided a Christian definition of God. If you have problems connecting your understanding of the Christian God to that definition then maybe you should reconsider your previous understanding of the Christian God.

 

[quatona]

And what is the nature of the beginning of the universe?

I´m not understanding this question.

You already assume a source

No, I´m not. I have no idea why you feel the universe needs a source.

I don’t need to explain this part. You do. You need to explain why you think it is a false dichotomy. You have been unable to present a third option other than the universe has a beginning or it doesn’t.
And they are?

Ok, let´s say the universe began. How does that require a "nature of the beginning" or a source?
According to your idea god had a beginning, as well. Why does one (the universe require a source, but the other (god) doesn´t? Seems arbitrary to me.
That’s just a play on words. Yes the universe existed for as much time as there has been but it hasn’t always existed, as in always been around.

What is the nature of the beginning?

What do you mean by “entity” and what other label is available?

E.g. "to begin" is not an entity. It´s a verb.

OK good to know. So we are working with Justin's definition of "God" then?

As you wish. Could you please repeat it, for me?

What was the nature of the beginning of the universe?

I don´t understand the question. Seems to be word salad to me. What was the nature of the nature of the beginning?
The universe began. Why does this beginning have to have a "nature", and what kind of "nature of the beginning" would you find acceptable?

Go with the dictionary. If you get a definition that doesn’t match up with what I am saying let me know but I don’t want to play that game anymore.

Well, you yourself just asked me to define a term I used. So you apparently do know that that´s not a "game", but the basics of understanding what the other person means.

Whatever.
There are definitions of "existing" and "real" in the dictionary that suggest to me that a god "exists" and "is real": those definitions that also render a thought, an idea or a concept "existing" and "real". Gods do exist as such. If that´s not what you mean you would have to clarify what you mean.
(There are also definitions of "existing" and "real" in the dictionary that would render the god you are describing not existing and not real.)
So I am not going to play the "guess what I mean" game any more with you.

 

[ElijahW]

I´m not understanding this question.

No, I´m not. I have no idea why you feel the universe needs a source.

Ok, let´s say the universe began. How does that require a "nature of the beginning" or a source?
According to your idea god had a beginning, as well. Why does one (the universe require a source, but the other (god) doesn´t? Seems arbitrary to me.

E.g. "to begin" is not an entity. It´s a verb.

[FONT=&quot]Describe whatever you think happened at the beginning of everything. If you can only describe it in verbs then I will try my best to figure out the actors you are working with, unless you explain some other way the verbs occurred without nouns being involved.

As you wish. Could you please repeat it, for me?

[/FONT]
Justin: "That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God." To Typhro

 

[quatona]

[FONT=&quot]Describe whatever you think happened at the beginning of everything.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I have no idea what happened at the beginning of the universe.
Since your premise is that god, the universe and time came about simultaneously I guess it must be the same that happened at the beginning of god.

[/FONT]