Does everything have a start?

342 posts / 0 new

Last post

Sun, 10/21/2018 - 14:56

(Reply to #271) #272

Sheldon

We're not eternal, get over

We're not eternal, get over it.

Sun, 10/21/2018 - 17:29

(Reply to #272) #273

Sapporo

Dan: BTW, here is a simple

Dan: BTW, here is a simple proof Eternalism is correct:

Eternalism is the belief that past present and future are real. The opposing view, Presentism posits that only now exists. I show that Presentism is wrong, thus Eternalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) ) is true:

1. Presentism posits that only now exists
2. Therefore only now always existed
3. Therefore time did not have a start
4. But if you take away the start (Monday) does the rest of the week (Tuesday...) still exist?
5. No, so time has a start
6. Hence Presentism is false
7. Hence Eternalism must be true

You cannot know for certain that reality is not composed of static states

Sun, 10/21/2018 - 08:02

#274

Randomhero1982

If one felt compelled to

If one felt compelled to accept that 'something' outside of this reality actually triggered an initial starting 'cause' then the possibilities of what this phenomena was is as equally improbable and incalculable to know as anything dreamt of by any physicist to have ever lived, combined.

The intellectually honest answer is, we don't know!

And we likely never will!

For any theist to claim otherwise is simply ridiculous to the highest order, and smacks of some child desperately trying to get the entire world to believe that his imaginary friend is real, contrary to any actual evidence.

Sun, 10/21/2018 - 17:24

#275

Sapporo

@Dan

@Dan
Define what you mean by "time".

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 00:51

(Reply to #275) #276

Devans99

The speed that natural and

The speed that natural and mechanical process operate.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 06:36

(Reply to #276) #277

David Killens

@ Dan

"The speed that natural and mechanical process operate."

That is not an answer. Some processes at the subatomic level operate in picoseconds, while some galactic processes take millions of years.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 07:00

(Reply to #277) #278

Devans99

Yes but they all do so at a

Yes but they all do so at a rate that is determined by general relativity. The electrons orbiting a nucleus is a periodic periodic process just like the stars orbiting the galactic centre; they are both governed by time and the rate at which they occur is the speed of time.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:14

(Reply to #278) #279

Nyarlathotep

Dan - The electrons orbiting

Dan - The electrons orbiting a nucleus is a periodic periodic process just like the stars orbiting the galactic centre...

That is very wrong.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:23

(Reply to #279) #280

Tin-Man

Re: The speed of time

So, is the speed of time one second per second, or is it one hour per hour? I always get those confused.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:34

(Reply to #280) #281

David Killens

Now you're just inventing

Now you're just inventing shit.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle negates finding any electron orbit, and just WTF is "speed of time"?

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 10:45

(Reply to #281) #282

Sheldon

"speed of time."

What's this now?

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:13

(Reply to #282) #283

Nyarlathotep

Sapporo - Define what you

Sapporo - Define what you mean by "time".

Dan - The speed that natural and mechanical process operate.

-------------------------------------------------------------
@Dan:
Speed is length/time; so your definition is not only recursive, it is dimensionally inconsistent!

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:16

(Reply to #283) #284

Devans99

Its more of a dimension that

Its more of a dimension that we progress through according the the theory of relativity.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:19

(Reply to #284) #285

Nyarlathotep

You just told us it was a

You just told us it was a speed, now it's a dimension?!? Perhaps you should get your story straight before trying to convince others.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:58

(Reply to #285) #286

Tin-Man

Re: "You just told us it was

Re: "You just told us it was a speed, now it's a dimension?!?"

Here you go, Nyar. This should help clear your confusion.

https://youtu.be/ORbseYAkzRM

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 11:04

(Reply to #286) #287

Randomhero1982

Captain, Sensors are

Captain, Sensors are detecting Utter Bollocks from the starboard...

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 09:50

(Reply to #287) #288

LogicFTW

@Dan

The speed that natural and mechanical process operate.

Well there's your problem Dan, your definition for time does not match what most people consider what time is.

A more accurate definition:

Time is: a human made "measuring tool" of using certain events to measure other events.

The human created measurement tool of: "time" facilitates communication and accuracy among humans but is purely a human construct, that: yes, can be very useful, but reality/the universe does not consider time there is no "time" to the universe.

When people say "time" began when the big bang happened, first: they are assuming there was nothing before the big bang, (we have no way to verify that with current technology, and may never be able to verify that beyond a simple guess.)

And Second: if there was nothing before the big bang, "time" did not exist simply because there was nothing to measure against anything. So human measurement tool of "time" no longer works and that is why time goes away, its not some "force" like gravity even if we humans like to wax poetical about it. There was no earth revolving around the sun for the measurement "year" There was no spin of the earth for the "day" there was no "day" to divide into 24 for the "hour" There was no "cesium radiation charged vibration" cycle to measure the latest official definition of a second.

And perhaps most importantly: there was no "humans" around to make the measurement tool concept of "time."

So to say that "god" is outside of time and space is actually nonsensical, a hard twisting and lack of understanding of what the human made term of "time" is.

There is no "paradoxes" of time, these supposed time paradoxes or "butterfly effect" etc. only pop up because people misuse the term time. Just because you can press fast forward or rewind on media recordings does not mean you can do the same with the human concept of time as a measurement tool. All this stuff of "time travel" makes for fun Sci Fi movies, but have no basis in reality, only concepts in our heads and due to faulty understanding of what "time" really is do these paradoxes present themselves at all.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sun, 10/21/2018 - 17:42

#289

xenoview

@Dan

Still waiting on the objective evidence that your god is real.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 03:02

(Reply to #289) #290

Sheldon

"Still waiting on the

"Still waiting on the objective evidence that your god is real."

...and wait you shall, as it is clear no such evidence is coming. All we've been presented with is a fallacious God of the gaps argument.

I'm also wondering if Dan has ever been a caller on the atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty? His name and spiel sound vaguely familiar.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 04:18

(Reply to #290) #291

Devans99

I've presented evidence that

[removed by moderator, read it here.]

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 06:39

(Reply to #291) #292

Tin-Man

@Dan Re: "You've present no

@Dan Re: "You've present no evidence that God does not exist."

Aw, shucks. However, I might point out that YOU have presented no evidence that an invisible ginormous blue universe-pooping bunny does not live in my basement. His name is Carl.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 06:54

(Reply to #292) #293

Devans99

You clearly have a very

You clearly have a very different view of God than me. For me God is just the creator of the universe; not some supernatural being, but a real physical entity.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 08:04

(Reply to #293) #294

Tin-Man

@Dan Re: "For me God is just

@Dan Re: "For me God is just the creator of the universe; not some supernatural being, but a real physical entity."

That's amazing! So is Carl! What are the odds? Maybe your god and Carl could get together and discuss better universe design options. After all, two brains are better than one, right? Oh, your god might want to bring a good supply of carrots to the meeting, though. They help Carl think better.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 10:58

(Reply to #294) #295

David Killens

@ Dan

"You clearly have a very different view of God than me. For me God is just the creator of the universe; not some supernatural being, but a real physical entity."

I sure do. To me, a "god" is an invented character, created to fill out the fairy tales from thousands of years ago.

We have a very good understanding on how this universe we inhabit came into being. And we do not need a "god" injected into the equation.

I do have a question ... if this entity created the universe, why do you call it "god"? Why not Mentor of Arisia or Fred? The G word carries a lot of baggage.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 11:06

(Reply to #295) #296

Sheldon

Well quelle surprise, David

Well quelle surprise, David is an atheist, so it's not much of a shocker he views the word god differently to a deist.

"not some supernatural being, but a real physical entity."

That can't demonstrate any objective empirical evidence for, dear oh dear. If a physical deity exists then it is falsifiable, so how would your deity be falsified exactly beyond refuting your risible fallacious arguments?

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 12:06

(Reply to #296) #297

LogicFTW

@Dan

You need to look up the definition of the word god. What you are describing is not a "god." As the generally widely accepted definition of god in various english dictionaries. And it is poor form (at best!) to sell your idea of god, but in reality you are only changing around definitions to suit you without telling anyone, you are wasting your time and everyone else's when you try to debate but change the rules of the debate as it suits you by swapping out definitions when convenient. The end result is just childlike babble instead of coherent thought.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 12:34

(Reply to #297) #298

Devans99

Im trying to get to the truth

Im trying to get to the truth. I've been quite clear about my definition of God as the creator of the universe all along. The term God is not tightly defined; for example the 3O's are an optional part of the definition.

Mon, 10/22/2018 - 13:01

(Reply to #298) #299

Sheldon

"Im trying to get to the

"Im trying to get to the truth."

By endlessly repeating the same unevidenced claims over and over, while ignoring every response? Do behave Dan, you have so clearly made up your mind it isn't even funny.

Tue, 10/23/2018 - 10:26

(Reply to #299) #300

LogicFTW

@Dan

Im trying to get to the truth. I've been quite clear about my definition of God as the creator of the universe all along. The term God is not tightly defined; for example the 3O's are an optional part of the definition

I encourage you for trying to get to the truth. Always a worthwhile endeavor, keep working to get to the truth, it is likely to require you opening yourself up to all possibilities even if they are uncomfortable at first.

If your definition of "god" is: "the creator of the universe" and that is it, (you did not take the time to add anything else.) Then I think the big bang falls in as a very likely (based on available evidence gathered so far) that your "god" is the big bang.

However here is what your god definition does not cover:

1. Something to be worshiped or prayed to
2. (the 3 O's as you mentioned)
3. Intelligent or even sentient
4. Capable of being aware of you, caring about you, or changing your life or afterlife in anyway in an intelligent fashion. (Certainly no afterlife!)
5. Something to organize with other people with. It may make for fun philosophical conversation but there is no framework, it would be like talking about the sun, you do not organize with other people weekly to talk about the sun and "pack up" on ideals around the "sun."
6. I as a anti-theist, and atheist, actually agree with your weird definition of god as likely existing. I do believe it is possible "something" created the universe, and that is likely to be the big bang.
7. Has nothing to do with any of the major or minor organized religions around the world.

You will also find a vast majority of all religious people once they examine your definition of god will strongly disagree with you, you are more likely to find like mind and more acceptance here, among the atheist community.

Does this describe you? Do you want to change your definition of "god" yet?

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 04:11

(Reply to #300) #301

Devans99

1. Who cares about worship or

1. Who cares about worship or prayer. Doubt God gives a shit about it.
2. The 3Os are illogical. God can merely be very powerful
3. God probably cares about beings in a general sense without knowing anything about us specifically.
4. God could provide an extended longevity. If the time dimension is circular for example, we all get to live again in a loop.
5. There is some organisation for example; http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
6. I would not describe God as the Big Bang, rather the cause of the Big Bang. Because of the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe, I have this cause as intelligent.
7. Good, those religions are not logical

Well Im not a theist and not a atheist, I'm a deist so my opinions differ from the typical theist...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages