Burden of Proof for God's existence

Post Reply New Topic

I have no idea what fallacy you are talking about. You need to unpack your language in a more thorough way. If we go back a bit you claimed that space and time were the same thing, if we contrast that to your recent statement that I need to prove time to you, we arrive at a bit of a quandary. The option are that you are assuming they are the same, in which point I have nothing to prove, or you are saying they are not, at which point you were wrong to start with, or finally that you are just attempting to throw wrenches into my posts. Considering that my posts flow in response to yours, I think that you are either being disingenuous or silly.

If you want to discuss time giving way to space then you will need to show more apptitude with regards to space time as you have so far done. I pointed out that the Hartle-Hawking state supposes that time and space are separate things (which they are), you then just searched on of Hartles articles to find my statement. However you missed the point, I just gave you a popular but imprecise explantion of the Hartle-Hawking State, you wont find it in an academic article, especially if you don't know what to look for.

If you did go through the Hartle-Hawking state you would find that on the traditional singularity both space and matter reach infinite density, something which is unacceptable. The Hartle-Hawking State escapes these infinities by suggesting that in the initial condition there is no time only space; thus avoiding the need to have a beginning point that exists 'in' time. Atheists actually tend to support this model. I personally do not endorse the Hartle-Hawking initial condition interpretation as given by Hawking, I think it actually ruptures the limits of physics and proceeds in part into metaphysics but that is another discussion. I simply used the Hartle-Hawking concept of the initial state as an example of how your statement that time and space are separate was dramatically inaccurate.



Once again, this demonstrates how you changed your standard; you assumed that space and time were the same thing. If you want me to show that the universe is not timeless then we need to go all the way back to Newton. It has basically been considered proven since then, would you also like me to demonstrate the scientific method?




Local time may not be a component that has any value in most multiverse formulations but in general multiverse models contain time dimensions. There certainly could be a stable universe without time, it would be by definition stable. The reason I mention it is because these models do not avoid the problems of extending the past out to infinity. Even if there is a multiverse, the need to avoid an infinite past, reinforces the need for a terminus.

Also there is no evidence for a multiverse and increasing evidence against some of the present forumlations put forward. The LHC research gives us reason to think that models that depend on a large extra dimension may not work. It really is an fascinating time to be interested in physics.

CMS Collaoration, "Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider," http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375

unless reality is fractal, or... or... or... or...
you are cprrect in asuming one could be divine but there are so many alternatives with better grounding to reality.

There are many interesting hypothesis and I find them all worth studying... Physics is going to change in some profound ways in the next few years.

Hi 91,

Many are interesting, even many of those you are too bothered and pre-occupied with your own mind-set to try to make any sense of because of a basis in a different school of thought.

I hope you do realize that the physics operating in the Universes are going to remain the same, despite any new & improved, guaranteed complete, set of theories humans develop, or whatever bizarre Gods over other miraculous & dangerous Gods they foolishly follow & lemmingly worship.

Oh What Fools Those Mere Mortals Be!! !

Tadzio

From the beginning I am talking about the universe and time being a feature of part of the universe.


Where do yo uget the impression from the paper I quoted? The authors are talking about the amplitude from the zero three geometry to an arbitrary 3- geometry by summing over all 4 -geometries with those as end points. They even stress that the action is intrinsic to the 4 -geometry. That is similar to the Feynman path integral in standard relativistic quantum field theory. How is 'time and space are separate' has anything to do with the paper?


It is you who changed the standard. What do you really mean by something is timeless or not?

Of course, no one is disputing this, perhaps you need to go over my statements. I said that 'time gives way to space' and that is certainly the case as in the Hartle-Hawking model Planck time as we know it emerges from the Hartle-Hawking State.



Its physics time; I like physics time. You will have to excuse my reply taking a while, as I have been without internet for a couple of days. On the Hartle-Hawking Model the universe (prior to Planck time) exists as a timeless, three dimensional manifold. The only time prior to the Planck Epoch is 'imaginary time' which cannot be calculated and so all you are left with is space. On this theory the non-temporal parts explain the emergence of the temporal parts (Graham Oppy, “Professor William Craig’s Criticisms of Critiques of Kalam Cosmological Arguments by Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Adolf Grünbaum,” Faith and Philosophy 12 (1995): 242). You will find this on the bottom of page 28 (2961) in the article you posted.



I did not change any standard. I simply mentioned that treating time and space as necessarily the same thing, then you started banging on as if I was incorrect for pointing out that they can be treated as separate. The mere fact that we talk about 3+1 in the a-theory of time should be enough to point out that the universe has more than one dimension, discussing the universe as if this is necessarily the case is sloppy. As Oodain points out in his post on page '9', time is not even a necessary component of a stable system.

Strictly speaking ANY theory of time fails in the case above.

What do you think that we are in disagreement over? I claimed that time and space are separate, you said they were the same thing, now here you are postulating that time has always been a part of our universe. I agree with the last part, I pointed out that they are separate and that on Harte-Hawking time gives way to space, in that time as we know it does not exist before Planck Time (I did not claim that time never exists in the universe). Just stated, in my last post that no one disputes that time is not always part of the universe. I even clarified it earlier than that on page nine and I pointed out that time and space come into existence at the same point on page 5.

You hit someone with a plate of spaghetti, and before you know it, they start believing in FSMs!

73 DE N4RPS
Rob

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future." - Jeremiah 29:11, WEB

The problem is what do you mean by 'separate'. Your 'separation' between time and space is no different from separation of the Earth into longitude and latitude.

Again there is no such thing as 'before' Planck Time.


In any case if there is time fails in SOME part of the universe S. S is necessary timeless. Therefore the universe exists timelessly (because part of it is) and the premise of KAC fails.

I think, at the point you are mostly out to just throw spanners at my statements. But this one here is wrong, it is not inaccurate to discuss time 'before' Planck Time as it is not the singularity. In the Standard Model it occurs at 10^-43 seconds 'after' the singularity.



Nope, the universe would only be necessarily timeless if all possible universes could only be timeless (I would like to see you defend that claim since both the tensed and non-tensed theory of time are empirically equal). No one is claiming that time fails in some part of the universe, only that in order to avoid either an absolute beginning or an infinite curve you have to mess around with it at the initial state; which is the aim of the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal.



Firstly if you want to use an abbreviation use the correct one, it is KCA for Kalam Cosmological Argument not KAC. If the universe is timeless, the Kalam fails, Craig points that out in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. This is not news to anyone. What is the case is that Craig gives affirmative arguments in favor of the tensed theory of time.

why does no one realize that immaterial has 2 definitions? the first is nothing basically and the second is unimportant and neither of those are positive for God. generally when we say God is immaterial basically we are either saying God is nothing, he doesn't exist, or we are saying God is unimportant and Christians use that term the most

funny isn't it?

Not not funny, just a terrible argument. Using negative descriptions is just part of making a deductive argument. I posted a video a while back of the top ten objections to the Kalam, this one is 8b.

Do you believe that only what exists is that which can be empirically tested?

Why believe in the existence of something when there is no evidence for it? Does that make sense?

ruveyn