Does time have a beginning?

[sidbrown]

It is not at all true that ALL things are relative because some “things” are not physical objects (“2+2=4” does not change regardless of what gravity field you are in or how fast you are moving).

I have shown this statement to be false.

 

[sidbrown]

You provided 2 irrelevant issues.

As long as there is change, there is time to be measured. The physical universe is made of that changing and nothing else.

But God is the consistency, the immutable that doesn’t change, the Logos (by definition). God is the unchangable part of reality that causes change, creates the physical made of the changing.The existence of God causes change. As long as there is God, there will be change.

There was no beginning of the unchangable cause of changing. There was no beginning of the changing. There was no beginning of time.

If someone believes that it all started with the BB, he would probably disagree and say that the BB was the beginning of time.

 

[AlbertBall]

But God is the consistency, the immutable that doesn’t change, the Logos (by definition). God is the unchangable part of reality that causes change, creates the physical made of the changing.The existence of God causes change. As long as there is God, there will be change.

There was no beginning of the unchangable cause of changing. There was no beginning of the changing. There was no beginning of time.

This is meaningless. You need to show a god even exists in the first place. Please provide one piece of empirical evidence that supports a god even existing.

 

[AlbertBall]

If someone believes that it all started with the BB, he would probably disagree and say that the BB was the beginning of time.

Yep, or at very least say as far as we can decipher time as we know it started with the big bang.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I have shown this statement to be false.

No. You attempted obfuscation to hide the truth of it. Your examples had nothing to do with what was said, as I explained.

If someone believes that it all started with the BB, he would probably disagree and say that the BB was the beginning of time.

And so? That would be the first time someone disagreed with truth??

This is meaningless. You need to show a god even exists in the first place. Please provide one piece of empirical evidence that supports a god even existing.

Not if God is already defined as the Cause of the physical universe. Since the physical universe IS the changing, the Cause of that changing is God, by definition.

 

[AlbertBall]

Not if God is already defined as the Cause of the physical universe. Since the physical universe IS the changing, the Cause of that changing is God, by definition.

God is not already defined as the cause of the universe. You cannot just define and work from there for if your first definition is meaningless, so are the rest of you conclusions.

 

[James_S_Saint]

God is not already defined as the cause of the universe. You cannot just define and work from there for if your first definition is meaningless, so are the rest of you conclusions.

I guess you never heard the expression, “God the Creator” or “First Cause”? Yes, God has been defined as the Creator and Cause for a very long time.

And starting with definitions and “working from there” is EXACTLY how sane people do it.

The eternal Cause of change had no beginning. The eternal change had no beginning. Time had no beginning.

 

[AlbertBall]

I guess you never heard the expression, “God the Creator” or “First Cause”? Yes, God has been defined as the Creator and Cause for a very long time.

And starting with definitions and “working from there” is EXACTLY how sane people do it.

The eternal Cause of change had no beginning. The eternal change had no beginning. Time had no beginning.

Yes i have heard these expressions and they have been throughly REJECTED by science.

Oh and no that is NOT how sane people do it. I can’t just define something to suit my position and move on, i have to SHOW WHY i am defining it as such. If you try to define you leg as a TV, then unless you can show why, people are going to reject your definition because your leg has none of the characteristics of a TV!

Defining something would go something like…

*"There is no universally accepted definition of e-learning. E-learning refers to the use of electronic technology to deliver instruction. However this is an extremely broad definition, therefore for the purpose of this project e-learning will be defined in the context of the HEFCE e-learning Strategy. “The Government e-learning strategy defines e-learning as any learning that uses ICT. In embedding this strategy we want to ensure that there is confident use of the full range of pedagogic opportunities provided by ICT. For HE this will encompass flexible learning as well as distance learning, and the use of ICT as a communications and delivery tool between individuals and groups, to support students and improve the management of learning.” (HEFCE e-learning Strategy, 2005).

Traditional e-learning environments will refer to any e-learning environment currently in place within further and higher education, e.g. Blackboard Academic Suite"*

My definition stands, for every characteristic and definition of my environment fits the understanding of other’s. In essence i have clearly defined “what” is it and “why”. I have JUSTIFIED my definition.

Don’t tell me you “know how this works”, you just decided to over look that small point and make such a flawed generalisation.

Now again, reject your definition, in fact the whole of science rejects your definition (hence why the god hypothesis is NOT scientific). Due to this fact i reject every conclusion that follows on form your until flawed definition.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yes i have heard these expressions and they have been throughly REJECTED by science.

**ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!

You point to even ONE actual, real Scientific report that God is not “the Creator”**

Oh and no that is NOT how sane people do it.

And you would know?? …hahaha

 

[AlbertBall]

**ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!

You point to even ONE actual, real Scientific report that God is not “the Creator”**

Oh dear, this is not how science works. Unprovable positions are NOT given some sort of default status. You must support a hypothesis. The above is in line with creationist logic, how have to prove my position to be false, well… no i DON’T!

And you would know?? …hahaha

A thorough rebuttal! I take it will not be making the same sloppy mistake with definitions in the future .

 

[James_S_Saint]

Oh dear, this is not how science works. Unprovable positions are NOT given some sort of default status. You must support a hypothesis. The above is in line with creationist logic, how have to prove my position to be false, well… no i DON’T!

Science makes NO statements in ANY direction without “proof” (although often merely substantial evidence in which case it is merely one possible theory out of many).

A thorough rebuttal! I take it will not be making the same sloppy mistake with definitions in the future .

Actually I half expected for you to pull that one on me… grin.

 

[AlbertBall]

Science makes NO statements in ANY direction without “proof” (although often merely substantial evidence in which case it is merely one possible theory out of many).

I did not say that science proved there is no god, i said that it rejects the god hypothesis as being scientific there is a big difference. You have made a claim you can not substantiate with evidence, i.e there is a god. On the basis that your claim is not supported by evidence, i reject it.

Actually I half expected for you to pull that one on me… grin.

Can you blame me?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I did not say that science proved there is no god, i said that it rejects the god hypothesis as being scientific there is a big difference. You have made a claim you can not substantiate with evidence, i.e there is a god. On the basis that your claim is not supported by evidence, i reject it.

Oh, I certainly CAN prove the existence of God. So can Science. I have merely stated that Science doesn’t try.

Yes i have heard these expressions and they have been throughly REJECTED by science.

That is saying that Science judged and rejected a theory. That constitutes a “statement” from Science. But Science made no such statement nor judgment,

 

[AlbertBall]

Oh, I certainly CAN prove the existence of God. So can Science. I have merely stated that Science doesn’t try.

Then what are you waiting for, your Nobel Prize awaits.

That is saying that Science judged and rejected a theory. That constitutes a “statement” from Science. But Science made no such statement nor judgment,

No, i said it is unscientific, and as such it is rejected. For a hypothesis to be scientific it MUST be testable, the god hypothesis is not even a proper hypothesis.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, i said it is unscientific, and as such it is rejected. For a hypothesis to be scientific it MUST be testable, the god hypothesis is not even a proper hypothesis.

The only thing it is missing to make it a “proper hypothesis” is a definition for what “God” means. Science cannot look for something if it doesn’t know what it is looking for. But Science WILL not allow it to be defined for political reasons. Once Science defines God, it instantly becomes a religion and therefore CANNOT be legally supported by the government/Secularism. Without a definition, Secularism can make it a religion without legally calling it one (which it has done) and thus can create devoted supporters like yourself while establishing a Pharaoh Priest-King.

 

[AlbertBall]

The only thing it is missing to make it a “proper hypothesis” is a definition for what “God” means. Science cannot look for something if it doesn’t know what it is looking for. But Science WILL not allow it to be defined for political reasons. Once Science defines God, it instantly becomes a religion and therefore CANNOT be legally supported by the government/Secularism. Without a definition, Secularism can make it a religion without legally calling it one (which it has done) and thus can create devoted supporters like yourself while establishing a Pharaoh Priest-King.

“Science cannot look for something if it doesn’t know what it is looking for. But Science WILL not allow it to be defined for political reasons”

Your credibility is now in tatters.

However if you really actually believe what you are saying, then why don’t YOU define god then empirically prove its existence, like i said your Nobel Prize awaits. You would also become the most famous human ever to walk the earth.

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. However i will watch the morning news with great anticipation, as i will one day be able to claim i have had a conversation about god with the most famous human that ever lived… The man who proved there is a GOD!

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Science cannot look for something if it doesn’t know what it is looking for. But Science WILL not allow it to be defined for political reasons”

Your credibility is now in tatters.

However if you really actually believe what you are saying, then why don’t YOU define god then empirically prove its existence, like i said your Nobel Prize awaits. You would also become the most famous human ever to walk the earth.

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. However i will watch the morning news with great anticipation, as i will one day be able to claim i have had a conversation about god with the most famous human that ever lived… The man who proved there is a GOD!

You have an excessively naive worldview, but common among atheist devotees (its that cult thing).

 

[AlbertBall]

You have an excessively naive worldview, but common among atheist devotees (its that cult thing).

Sure it is, just like science is a conspiracy .

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sure it is, just like science is a conspiracy .

Wiki:

For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the rationalization of modern Western culture, to the extent that scientific thinking becomes something similar to ideology itself.

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson detects two main broad themes:

1. It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
2. It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.

The Religion of Scientism by Don Watson:

The scientific community formally adopted materialism as the basis of its belief system in 1667 when Thomas Sprat wrote a letter to King Charles II on behalf of the Royal Society. To protect English scientists from the persecutions that were rampaging in Europe, the Royal Society solemnly promised that its scientists would not “meddle . . . with Divine things,” and would limit their studies of humans to “their bodies” and “the products of their hands.” The Royal Society thus promised that, while scientists would avoid the subjects of God and the Soul, “in all the rest, [they] wander at their pleasure.”

With this oath, Scientism became the religion of materialism, and the basic tenets of materialism became the Scientist’s Creed.

Exposing the Religion of Scientism by Chuck Colson:

Scientism assumes that science is the controlling reality about life, so anything that can be validated scientifically ought to be done. Other things are subjective fantasy—like love, beauty, good, evil, conscience, ethics.

So science, which originally simply meant the study of the natural world, has in this view been conflated with scientific naturalism, a philosophy that the natural world is all that exists.

Humans are reduced to “objects” that can be inspected, experimented on, and ultimately controlled. In 1922, G.K. Chesterton warned that scientism had become a “creed” taking over our institutions, a “system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics.”

‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’

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.

 

[sinnegam]

This thread has been completely taken over by you guys with mathematical and scientific arguments along with other sciences that most of us cannot even pronounce and like other similar threads it finishes up with a no answer conclusion. Allow me to give you a commonsense answer. God gave me a brain and because he made me human He didn’t give me the intellect and intelligence to compete with Him and I thank him for that! He did give me the gift of humility and 10 well reasoned out commandments by which he wants me to live and serve Him…My human time started way back sometime in 1951 at the moment of conception and my human time will end when He decides that He has had enough of Sinnegam…Thereafter I am into Eternity and as long as I am with Him I will have no need for my watch and that’s all that is important. So, time does have a beginning…it’s embedded in your brain for as long as you live and that’s all guys…if you successfully make it to the other side I reckon He might share His secrets of creation and the universe with you who are really interested…in the meantime Pray to Him and refrain from trying to lock into His super intelligence…GOD BLESS YOU ALL