Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: beatmaster on February 08, 2008, 05:58:02 PM
-
how can i put this?
time was there before god or not?
-
how can i put this?
well, if god invented everything, he couldn't invented time, because from nothing to everything you need a starting time and an ending time, something, from one point to another time is always there, so time was there before god?
how can this be? does it make sense?
and what was there before god? where does he come from? there too you need time, elapse or something...
Ta grammaire, mon frere!
De toute facon, invented, invent....
-
Ta grammaire, mon frere!
De toute facon, invented, invent....
oops , lolll
-
how can i put this?
well, if god invent everything, he couldn't invent time, because from nothing to everything you need a starting time and an ending time, something, from one point to another time is always there, so time was there before god?
how can this be? does it make sense?
and what was there before god? where does he come from? there too you need time, elapse or something...
Slow night in Montreal, huh?
-
lolllllll, that bad?
maybe i should rephrase that , lmao
guess i'm a little slow today
-
lolllllll, man what can i say, that bad?
I just don't get your argument is all :)
-
take 2, lolllllll
to go from nothing to everything (since god invent everything) you need a starting time and an ending time, so time was there before he did all that, so god did not invent everything... lollllll
-
take 2, lolllllll
to go from nothing to everything (since god invent everything) you need a starting time and an ending time, so time was there before he did all that, so god did not invent everything... lollllll
Well, I guess you have the Genesis account in mind. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The starting point was time t_0 in our frame of reference... of course, assuming this narrative is true, which I don't believe it is.
If it helps, you can postulate "negative time" for what came before the moment of creation, if such a creation had occurred.
-
something like that, today i was thinking about that, i had the perfect question, but damn i can't find the words (since i'm a frenchy quebecois, lollllll)
-
Tu peux poser tes questions en Francais si tu veux. On peut toujours traduire.
-
Tu peux poser tes questions en Francais si tu veux. On peut toujours traduire.
oooh, parle très bien francais en plus, plein de surprise columbusdude! soit que tu est francais ou très bon à l'école!
-
oooh, parle très bien francais en plus, plein de surprise columbusdude! soit que tu est francais ou très bon à l'école!
Je me debrouille... 8)
-
oooh, parle très bien francais en plus, plein de surprise columbusdude! soit que tu est francais ou très bon à l'école!
Tu dis ca a tout le monde!
-
OK so here's Frenchy's question:
tu vois, du moment ou il as pensé a tout faire j'usqu'au moment ou il as tous réaliser, ou meme du moment ou il as été conscient qu'il pouvait le faire....... le temps sécoulait (une période) il y avait donc un espace temps.
en plus il arrive de nul part, d'un vide total......
ma conclusion est que le temps a toujours existé (peu importe comment on l'appelle).
Tu as raison quand tu dis qu'une personne (humaine ou divine, n'importe pas) commence par penser. Alors le temps (un instant ou une eternite) s'ecoule la. La Bible n'est pas claire sur ce point la. Mais laissons la mythologie pour les cons et parlons science!
Ta conclusion "que le temps a toujours existé" est disputee par la physique moderne. Comment dit-on "Big Bang Singularity" en Francais? As-tu lu Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"? ;D
In brief, my answer to Frenchy is that Genesis is unclear about any periods of time that may have elapsed (between verses), but his conclusion that time has no beginning does not follow, and is disputed by modern physics :)
-
OK so here's Frenchy's question:
Tu as raison quand tu dis qu'une personne (humaine ou divine, n'importe pas) commence par penser. Alors le temps (un instant ou une eternite) s'ecoule la. La Bible n'est pas claire sur ce point la. Mais laissons la mythologie pour les cons et parlons science!
Ta conclusion "que le temps a toujours existé" est disputee par la physique moderne. Comment dit-on "Big Bang Singularity" en Francais? As-tu lu Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"? ;D
In brief, my answer to Frenchy is that Genesis is unclear about any periods of time that may have elapsed (between verses), but his conclusion that time has no beginning does not follow, and is disputed by modern physics :)
There are verb conjugation errors involving conflation of the second person singular conjugation of avoir with that of the third person singular.
Vide total= videsse totale
Neanmoins tu m'as franchement impose! School?
-
There are verb conjugation errors involving conflation of the second person singular conjugation of avoir with that of the third person singular.
Where?
Vide total= videsse totale
Huh?
Neanmoins tu m'as franchement impose! School?
8)
When I sold my soul to Satan in order to become an atheist, part of the deal was that I would "speak in tongues" to deceive the faithful ;) ;) ;)
-
Tu dis ca a tout le monde!
mais non, j'ai eu la meme reaction avec toi, avoue que c'est quand meme surprenant de voir un anglophone écrire presque parfaitement en francais!
c'est soit francais ou l'école!
-
thank columbusdude!
so i guess we will never have the answer.
but if you use logic, time (or whatever you call it) was always there, before god or the time he knew he could do his creation...
Stephen Hawking's : A Brief History of Time .... no, but i will read it!
frenchy ;D
-
A given reality will create that which is necessary for its existance.
Time is a construct of a 3 dimensional world, which our reality is contained in.
Time created itself.
-
Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
I guess you could say the above could indicate that God invented time.
Je parle un peu francais aussi, mais je suis tres terrible! :)
-
Sounds catchy but lacks substance. How can reality create something? Reality is the creation itself. The word 'creation' automatically assumes 'something' by which means forms can manifest. Quite obviously, this something cannot be part of manifested reality itself.
And why should time be a construct of space?
The rule of falcity.
Without space, there is no need for time.
The laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
hope this helps.
-
The rule of falcity.
Without space, there is no need for time.
That maybe right but does not prove that time is a construct of space
The laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
hope this helps.
Hmm, who wrote that?
In any case, I don't see a deduction of your original statement that time creates itself or that a reality creates its necessities. Other than that, it is an interesting article, although it fails to explain what this mysterious 'realm of boundless potential' or 'logically unquantified potential' is, space and time emerges from.
IMO this 'potential' is what is really out there without human consciousness. Space and time only exist in the human realm, they are the forms of human perception. If we break down what space and time really are, we quickly see that there is no objective reality to them.
-
That maybe right but does not prove that time is a construct of space
Hmm, who wrote that?
In any case, I don't see a deduction of your original statement that time creates itself or that a reality creates its necessities. Other than that, it is an interesting article, although it fails to explain what this mysterious 'realm of boundless potential' or 'logically unquantified potential' is, space and time emerges from.
IMO this 'potential' is what is really out there without human consciousness. Space and time only exist in the human realm, they are the forms of human perception. If we break down what space and time really are, we quickly see that there is no objective reality to them.
e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space.
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared. So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space. (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.
By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to (again) e=mc2, this applies to matter as well. That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. How could it do this? By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.
-
e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space.
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared. So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space. (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.
By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to (again) e=mc2, this applies to matter as well. That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. How could it do this? By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.
Jebus did it! ;D
-
Hmm, who wrote that?
Looks to be stolen from an interview:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102500
-
e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space.
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared. So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space. (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.
Shut the fuck up. You're posting freshman philosophy drivel. Show me the derivation of Einstein's equations. There is no time in that equation and there's a shit ton more in physics than that single rabidly mis-understood equation.
-
Shut the fuck up. You're posting freshman philosophy drivel. Show me the derivation of Einstein's equations. There is no time in that equation and there's a shit ton more in physics than that single rabidly mis-understood equation.
Why is no one listening...Jebus! ;D
-
e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space.
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared. So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space. (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.
So what you are saying is that because there is a scientific formula which contains references to space (as a pre-condition to mass) and time (as a component of velocity), this somehow proves that time should be a construct of matter? Doesn't that sound just a little bit far-fetched? How about v=x/t. It's a much simpler formular and contains both space and time directly.
By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to (again) e=mc2, this applies to matter as well. That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. How could it do this? By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.
Did you write that or is it a quote? Is this supposed to be a scientific or a philosophic article? I really don't know where to start with, there are just too many inaccuracies and loose ends in this section. Let's just take one statement:
'That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter ... by configuring itself ....'
How exactly is the universe supposed to do that? Who do you imagine when you say someone or something made its own matter? How can something 'configure' itself?
-
So what you are saying is that because there is a scientific formula which contains references to space (as a pre-condition to mass) and time (as a component of velocity), this somehow proves that time should be a construct of matter? Doesn't that sound just a little bit far-fetched? How about v=x/t. It's a much simpler formular and contains both space and time directly.
Did you write that or is it a quote? Is this supposed to be a scientific or a philosophic article? I really don't know where to start with, there are just too many inaccuracies and loose ends in this section. Let's just take one statement:
'That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter ... by configuring itself ....'
How exactly is the universe supposed to do that? Who do you imagine when you say someone or something made its own matter? How can something 'configure' itself?
The same way there can be an end to an infinite universe.
You're looking for how the construction of the molecules that make up matter, I'm going a bit over your head here.
These are takes of how some of the most intelligent and well respected minds in the world have described "God," "time," and "reality."
Perhaps you should visit some top universities and clear up these "loose ends" they can't get straight.
-
The same way there can be an end to an infinite universe.
You're looking for how the construction of the molecules that make up matter, I'm going a bit over your head here.
These are takes of how some of the most intelligent and well respected minds in the world have described "God," "time," and "reality."
Perhaps you should visit some top universities and clear up these "loose ends" they can't get straight.
That's why I ask for references when I think something is quoted, to understand where it is coming from. Maybe the loose ends are cleared up in the complete article or book the quotes are from.
There is a lot of pseudo science out there and even more pseudo philosophy (mostly from very well respected scientists). I know a little bit about the scientific community and one thing is for sure: many well respected minds are criticized by other well respected mind for their leaps into fields they just do not have too much business tackling. Be asured that none of my critisism in this regard is in any way original. There are always much brighter people than ourselves who have thought through everything we talk about here and much more.
I hope I haven't offended you, I was only discussing the quotes you presented.
-
That's why I ask for references when I think something is quoted, to understand where it is coming from. Maybe the loose ends are cleared up in the complete article or book the quotes are from.
There is a lot of pseudo science out there and even more pseudo philosophy (mostly from very well respected scientists). I know a little bit about the scientific community and one thing is for sure: many well respected minds are criticized by other well respected mind for their leaps into fields they just do not have too much business tackling. Be asured that none of my critisism in this regard is in any way original. There are always much brighter people than ourselves who have thought through everything we talk about here and much more.
I hope I haven't offended you, I was only discussing the quotes you presented.
It's all from the ISCID and MEGA society. Mostly Chris Langan stuff, some rip off of Max Tegmart from the Princeton Institute for advanced studies.
Langan's stuff is kind of based off of Berkely's "proof" that we can know reality only through perception.
Either way, interesting stuff that all but a handful of people can even understand. Intelligence is really amazing. The unintelligent can't comprehend that they're not intelligent. The intelligent have a difficult time expressing their knowledge to the unintelligent. The unintelligent don't have the capabilities to grasp the extreme in abstract thought (or anything even close to it), which creates the belief that it must be false. Most likely some take off of the average person's inability to move beyond the 1 to 1 correlation of ideas (eg: Bill is tall, a building is tall, Bill is a building)
It is said that new thought is a phenomenon of the furthest SD of intelligence (IQ>175)
The problem is, there's only a handful of people with that level of intelligence....and they don't have the ability to relay that new thought to the average man's level of thinking.
Einsteing is probably as close as you can get. I've always thought that had some correlation to his seeming to have Asperger's. With Asperger's he has trouble relating to anyone, which probably left some of the elitist rhetoric out of a lot of his stuff.
An example of the opposite would be Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," which was meant to be written for the common man, but couldn't be further from that goal.
-
Mostly Chris Langan stuff...
Oh god. Seriously that guy is a loon and hasn't made a single decent contribution to society or philosophy. His writing sucks as well. Granted, he has a high IQ, but so does Stephen Wolfram another notoriously intelligent failure and quack.
As it's abundantly obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of physics why don't you start learning about the world by reading Richard Feynman's 6 easy pieces? Granted he only had an IQ of 135 but I seem to recall something about him winning a nobel prize.
-
Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.
-
Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.
Warum gibst Du es nicht einfach zu? Du bist Vertreter des Dualismus und liberalen Theismus!
Ketzerei! Hier werden nur Atheisten und Christliche Fundamentalisten geduldet! ;D
-
Warum gibst Du es nicht einfach zu? Du bist Vertreter des Dualismus und liberalen Theismus!
Ketzerei! Hier werden nur Atheisten und Christliche Fundamentalisten geduldet! ;D
I agree the world is so much easier (and much more fun) if there are only atheists and christian fundies ;D
Which side should I take?
-
Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.
He's not hard to find. You should go pick him apart when you get the chance.
-
Oh god. Seriously that guy is a loon and hasn't made a single decent contribution to society or philosophy. His writing sucks as well. Granted, he has a high IQ, but so does Stephen Wolfram another notoriously intelligent failure and quack.
As it's abundantly obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of physics why don't you start learning about the world by reading Richard Feynman's 6 easy pieces? Granted he only had an IQ of 135 but I seem to recall something about him winning a nobel prize.
Is this intro to physics? Did your professor just finish telling you about that laughable bloke Feynman's joke on succeeding "despite" his IQ? Why is it that every idiot that spent a semester in physics feels the need to bring him up? It is clearly a weak attempt at negating the importance of intelligence by stating one person (a genius level of intelligence, for certain) that holds a high status in the intellectual community with a supposed IQ below 145.
Boring.
-
I agree the world is so much easier (and much more fun) if there are only atheists and christian fundies ;D
Which side should I take?
Atheismus wird grundsaetzlich mit einem hoeheren Intelligenzquotient verbunden.
Die Mehrheit von Wissenschaftlern ist atheistisch.
Vernunft ist cooler als Dummheit.
Diese sind nur einige der mehrfach positiven Sachen, die man als Atheist haben kann.
Als Fundamentalist ist man grundsaeztlich nur auf Dummheit und Unwissenheit beschraenkt.
Die Wahl, die Du zu treffen hast, ist klar.
-
He's not hard to find. You should go pick him apart when you get the chance.
I have, in my mind, last time I think while I was listening to the audiobook of Universe in a Nutshell ;D
And I would not even consider myself a philosopher at all.
Of course his method of trying to explain modern science is ingenious, fortunally the pseudo-philosophic stuff only makes up a very small part in his books.
But as I said, leading scientists get criticized all the time for their attempts at philosophy, by much greater minds than I am.
-
Atheismus wird grundsaetzlich mit einem hoeheren Intelligenzquotient verbunden.
Die Mehrheit von Wissenschaftlern ist atheistisch.
Vernunft ist cooler als Dummheit.
Diese sind nur einige der mehrfach positiven Sachen, die man als Atheist haben kann.
Als Fundamentalist ist man grundsaeztlich nur auf Dummheit und Unwissenheit beschraenkt.
Die Wahl, die Du zu treffen hast, ist klar.
Hmm, I think I should try to obtain other opinions, yours might be just a little bit biased ;D
-
Hmm, I think I should try to obtain other opinions, yours might be just a little bit biased ;D
Ich bin im Laufe meines Lebens viele Dinge genannt...aber voreingenommen noch nie! ;D