Does time have a beginning?

[AlbertBall]

I could go on for days quoting references concerning the new religion of Scientism There are recent movies exposing the protectionism atrocities involved.

Your mind is in the dark recesses of the cult of Secular Scientism pretending to not be a religion for sake of political power.

And? I could quote sources that claim the earth is 6000 years old and at the center of the universe. Or claims that man didn’t land on the moon, or that the holocaust didn’t happen. That is the level you have now descended to.

This is all further proof that you do not understand how scientific research works.

Tell me… Why to all the Christian scientists, of which there are MILLIONS participate in this great conspiracy against god?

What is more likely… There is a great conspiracy, which millions of Christians are part of, against god. Or as you have proved several times throughout this thread do not have a proper understanding of how scientific research is carried out?

I think i will go with the latter.

PS. I hope you weren’t going to use expelled as an example of such a movie???

 

[James_S_Saint]

The point is that it is no more of an incredible “conspiracy theory” than your theory that billions of religious people are just superstitious and/or power mongers.

REAL Science and REAL Religion have nothing to do with any of it. But you need to wake up to that in order to begin seeing who is right or wrong on each issue. What you THINK is Science, isn’t and what you THINK is religion, isn’t.

Merely wake up to the distinction between what you are hearing and what is really out there as society. You will find that no “side” is being represented by anything you hear. You have to think for yourself, or just sign up to be a team player (but that means that you have no chance of debating with me. )

 

[AlbertBall]

The point is that it is no more of an incredible “conspiracy theory” than your theory that billions of religious people are just superstitious and/or power mongers.

REAL Science and REAL Religion have nothing to do with any of it. But you need to wake up to that in order to begin seeing who is right or wrong on each issue. What you THINK is Science, isn’t and what you THINK is religion, isn’t.

Merely wake up to the distinction between what you are hearing and what is really out there as society. You will find that no “side” is being represented by anything you hear. You have to think for yourself, or just sign up to be a team player (but that means that you have no chance of debating with me. )

I have no want to debate with you, as i explained a few posts back…

“Your argument is the exact same as that of a creationist, “science is a great conspiracy”. It is now pointless to continue this conversation as you clearly delusional.”

Like i said, if you want to draw conclusions based on your assertion there is a god, you must first provide empirical evidence there is a god. If you can’t then what you have is NOT science. This is basic stuff.

So prove away, the world awaits… As does your Nobel Prize .

“So, what do we mean by “science as a process?” In other words, how does science work? Science and scientists utilize the scientific method, a standard, rigorous, and step-wise process to understand the world. After an idea or observation, scientists pose a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation or assumption about some particular aspect of nature.** To be valid, the hypothesis must be testable, and, more importantly, it must be refutable.** When the hypothesis is tested, it is either supported or refuted. If the hypothesis is refuted, then an alternative hypothesis is posed and the process continues. If a hypothesis is not refutable (or falsifiable), it does not meet the minimum requirements of the scientific method.** For example, a hypothesis that God created the earth cannot be refuted, and therefore it cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”**

• agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml

 

[AlbertBall]

The point is that it is no more of an incredible “conspiracy theory” than your theory that billions of religious people are just superstitious and/or power mongers.

Oh and i have never said the above, i merely said that your assertions are not scientific.

 

[sidbrown]

So, time does have a beginning…

Correct. As I have noted above there is evidence for the Big Bang and if it is true, which seems likely, then that is when time began for this universe.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, we can play that game forever. Neither of you can provide evidence for your claims and when you try, you only display how much you misunderstand about your own references. Neither of you are adding anything to the subject itself in either explanation nor actual referenced information. You are both merely repeating rumors. Rumors that got started long ago and happen to be false.

Time never began.

 

[sidbrown]

Well, we can play that game forever. Neither of you can provide evidence for your claims and when you try, you only display how much you misunderstand about your own references. Neither of you are adding anything to the subject itself in either explanation nor actual referenced information. You are both merely repeating rumors. Rumors that got started long ago and happen to be false.

Time never began.

The currently most accepted model for the universe is the lambda cold dark matter big bang model of a universe of about 14 billion years. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted because of many factors such as for example, the time dilation in supernova light curves, quasar counts, existence of blackbody CMB, and the abundance of deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li as predicted occurring in the first three minutes: See:
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553246828/nedwrightscosmol

 

[James_S_Saint]

The currently most accepted model for the universe is the lambda cold dark matter big bang model of a universe of about 14 billion years. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted because of many factors such as for example, the time dilation in supernova light curves, quasar counts, existence of blackbody CMB, and the abundance of deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li as predicted occurring in the first three minutes: See:
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553246828/nedwrightscosmol

There you go again, quoting things you do not understand.

The issue is simple;

1. Whatever is proposed to have caused time could have no change concerning it because change IS time, thus it must be changeless and timeless and thus “eternal”.
2. If the cause of time exists and cannot change, then it cannot become the cause, but rather has always been the cause.
3. The cause of time cannot exist without causing time, else it would not be the cause of time.
4. If the cause of time is present, time is present.
5. The cause of time had to be eternal and thus what it causes had to be eternal as well.
6. Time is eternal - never began.

–

Now which of those steps was incorrect, illogical, or just something you don’t understand?

---

 

[sidbrown]

There you go again, quoting things you do not understand.----------

Of course ad hominem arguments generally show that the opponent’s reasoning is fairly weak. Unfortunately, the BB theory is the one which is generally accepted now and this can be easily verified and understood by anyone with a high school education and an interest in the question. It is true that there are those who are proposing a multiverse theory; however, I don’t see where this would ever be verifiable.

 

[James_S_Saint]

"Now which of those steps was incorrect, illogical, or just something you don’t understand?"

 

[Leela]

What time do you think it was when time began? I’m guessing that time began on June 17th at 3:52 pm on a Wednesday though I don’t know the exact year.

These sorts of questions are the kind that result in unhelpful answers like God or 42. Doesn’t “beginning” presuppose that nothing came before? Does it make any sense to ask about the beginning of time when concepts like beginning, ending, before, and after presuppose the existence of time? I don’t think so. This is a nonquestion like “where did the universe begin?”

Does Einstein’s relativity shed any light on the question? I think it says that the experience of time depends on a given perspective.

 

[JDaniel]

What time do you think it was when time began? I’m guessing that time began on June 17th at 3:52 pm on a Wednesday though I don’t know the exact year.

These sorts of questions are the kind that result in unhelpful answers like God or 42. Doesn’t “beginning” presuppose that nothing came before? Does it make any sense to ask about the beginning of time when concepts like beginning, ending, before, and after presuppose the existence of time? I don’t think so. This is a nonquestion like “where did the universe begin?”

Does Einstein’s relativity shed any light on the question? I think it says that the experience of time depends on a given perspective.

I think it was precisely .00000000000000000000000000000000000~1 o’clock, or thereabouts. It’s only a “nonsense question” for someone wishing to deny someone, such as God, perhaps.

Anyway, “time” is not the essential question here. “Motion” is. Perhaps a better question to ask would be, "What time did motion begin? If we can figure out the answer to that question, we would know what time the measuring phenomenon called time began. And, of course, if we could answer this question empirically, you would not be a doubting Thomas any more.

God bless,
jd

 

[Just_Lurking]

Does Einstein’s relativity shed any light on the question? I think it says that the experience of time depends on a given perspective.

According to relativity, each reference frame will have its own notion of the beginning of time. For example, observer 1 might think space-time point A has the earliest time coordinate, whereas observer 2 would see a different space-time point B as the the earliest.

In general relativity it gets worse, because all reference frames are local, that is, they only cover a local portion of space-time, so chances are most reference frames wouldn’t even include what some observer might consider to be the “first” point in space-time.

 

[Leela]

According to relativity, each reference frame will have its own notion of the beginning of time. For example, observer 1 might think space-time point A has the earliest time coordinate, whereas observer 2 would see a different space-time point B as the the earliest.

In general relativity it gets worse, because all reference frames are local, that is, they only cover a local portion of space-time, so chances are most reference frames wouldn’t even include what some observer might consider to be the “first” point in space-time.

Very interesting. Do you think this theory is a problem for Aquinas’s First Cause “proof”? If you can explain the beginning of time question in light of relativity in more detail or can recommend a link for further reading I’d appreciate it.

Best,
Leela

 

[James_S_Saint]

Very interesting. Do you think this theory is a problem for Aquinas’s First Cause “proof”? If you can explain the beginning of time question in light of relativity in more detail or can recommend a link for further reading I’d appreciate it.

Best,
Leela

Relativity actually has nothing at all to do with the beginning of time, but I found this link to be pretty good, posted by sidbrown, relativitycalculator.com/addition_relativistic_velocities.shtml

Four of Aquinas’ 5 ways depend entirely on the universe having a beginning and thus are invalid.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is the Wikipedia article on the relativity of simultaneity. From the first paragraph:
But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crashing in America and another in China, the question of whether such events are simultaneous is relative; in some reference frames the two accidents happen “at the same time”, in others, in a different state of motion, the American crash occurs first, and still others describe the Chinese crash as occurring first.
So the concept of which space-time point occurs first is not absolute, but depends on the observer.

 

[Leela]

Here is the Wikipedia article on the relativity of simultaneity. From the first paragraph:
But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crashing in America and another in China, the question of whether such events are simultaneous is relative; in some reference frames the two accidents happen “at the same time”, in others, in a different state of motion, the American crash occurs first, and still others describe the Chinese crash as occurring first.
So the concept of which space-time point occurs first is not absolute, but depends on the observer.

Wow. The universe is a strange place.

 

[yppop]

Pithy comments from and interested observer:

On the question of time, there seems to be two points of view: (1) that time began with the big bang, and (2) time had no beginning. JamesSS, who advocates the second view, seems to be saying that God and time are synchronous and since God is eternal, so is time, hence time has no beginning. James and others, for example, JD, define time as the manifestation of change/motion. We know that the time that is claimed to have begun with the big bang is the manifestation of motion of matter and perhaps the motion of space (radiation). But what is in motion in the era before the big bang? It certainly wasn’t matter, could it have been space?

In post #12 on thread “Dear Thomas, Cause and Causality in the Beginning” now on page 6, JamesSS alludes to a big bang resulting from the collision of two black holes. Now I am not certain whether or not the big bang JamesSS is proposing is the same big bang that others (including me) think was the beginning of what we might refer to as cosmological time. If JamesSS does concede that his big bang was the same as the one I believe in — he does refer to it in the same post #12 as “the beginning”— I suggest we recognize two forms of time: cosmological time and “pre-big bang time”, which is concomitant with God for all eternity. So, if time is the manifestation of change, the question then is: what was changing during God’s time? Perhaps it was nothing more than God’s thoughts in which case James’ analysis makes sense since God and His thoughts surely were/are synchronous and it was the Mind of God that caused the big bang and the beginning of cosmological time. And we can all have our cake and eat it to!

Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

Pithy comments from and interested observer:

On the question of time, there seems to be two points of view: (1) that time began with the big bang, and (2) time had no beginning. JamesSS, who advocates the second view, seems to be saying that God and time are synchronous and since God is eternal, so is time, hence time has no beginning. James and others, for example, JD, define time as the manifestation of change/motion. We know that the time that is claimed to have begun with the big bang is the manifestation of motion of matter and perhaps the motion of space (radiation). But what is in motion in the era before the big bang? It certainly wasn’t matter, could it have been space?

In post #12 on thread “Dear Thomas, Cause and Causality in the Beginning” now on page 6, JamesSS alludes to a big bang resulting from the collision of two black holes. Now I am not certain whether or not the big bang JamesSS is proposing is the same big bang that others (including me) think was the beginning of what we might refer to as cosmological time. If JamesSS does concede that his big bang was the same as the one I believe in — he does refer to it in the same post #12 as “the beginning”— I suggest we recognize two forms of time: cosmological time and “pre-big bang time”, which is concomitant with God for all eternity. So, if time is the manifestation of change, the question then is: what was changing during God’s time? Perhaps it was nothing more than God’s thoughts in which case James’ analysis makes sense since God and His thoughts surely were/are synchronous and it was the Mind of God that caused the big bang and the beginning of cosmological time. And we can all have our cake and eat it to!

Yppop

You make for an interesting “observer”.

Although to prove such would be far outside the scope of this kind of forum, the reality is that what we call the physical universe is actually no more (or less) than “that which changes”. Anything and everything that changes is within the realm of “physical universe”.

Thus, without explicidation, any cause of change necessarily cannot have change of any type within it. Without change, there can be no measure of it or what we call “time”.

The cause of the changing, God, cannot take time to decide to cause change fore to do so would be change already occurring. To say that time began at any moment in history and for whatever reason, is to say that God, the cause of change, began at that very same moment.

You can’t have it both ways. Either God AND the physical universe are eternal or neither is.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In addition, it might be worth noting that Science merely discovered that our known universe is spreading from a central location. From that observation it was speculated that perhaps it all began from a singularity and Einstein’s relativity equations would indicate that such was possible. The problem is that a singularity is impossible and Einstein wasn’t aware of that. He had over extended the implications of his equations into levels of reality where they do not apply. Such was realized later. Thus there is no Science that says that the Big Bang was the beginning of anything other than a current spreading.