Everything was always

[Vico]

There was always everything, including your God.

At least from Catholic dogma the teaching is that God created the world from nothing, and God is not a creature. Catholic dogma rejects pantheism.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s a theory of space and time, which posits that time isn’t just the movement thru space, time is also the movement of space. ( Sorry, I can’t recall what this theory is at the moment )

Hmm… you’re not thinking of “growing block universe” theory, are you?

It proposes that if space is expanding, and space and time are connected, then time must be expanding as well. And it’s this constant expansion of time that we perceive as the flow of time.

That would imply that time isn’t constant, wouldn’t it? That there would necessarily be a certain “red-shift” in time itself, right? And, that would imply that time isn’t a measure at all, but merely an effect. (It would kinda be like saying that one meter was a certain length 1000 years ago, but it’s a different length today… which would make the notion of measurement moot.)

Ask almost any of the theists on this forum if they know for certain that God exists and they’ll almost universally reply yes. And yet they can’t know that for certain, and if they’re intelligent, free thinking beings, then they should realize that they can’t know that.

You seem to be conflating “what one person thinks” with “what a person, in general, can know.” They’re not the same thing.

Now I could come up with any number of theories as to why they do this, but perhaps the simplest explanation is that they’re just one step removed from being monkeys.

Nice. Those who think different than you are sub-human. Good approach. Hope it works out for you…

To a great extent we’re still acting like monkeys. My troop against your troop.

I don’t think I would characterize that as “monkey” behavior. It seems to be pretty common in the world, so perhaps it’s simply “living being behavior.”

So how do you stop doing that? First, realize that you’re doing it. You’ve formed a set of beliefs, and now you’re ardently defending those beliefs against anyone who might question them.

Why are you presuming that’s a bad thing? After all, that’s precisely what you’re doing, here, as well… .

when it comes to the question of why there’s something rather than nothing, the correct answer is…I don’t know.

Two thoughts:

• That might be the correct answer for you. That doesn’t imply that it’s the correct answer (full stop).
• That you don’t know something doesn’t imply that it’s not knowable.

 

[Gorgias]

Contrary to what you believe, I think that the answer to this question may actually be yes. To be said to exist, something must exist within space and time.

OK, so… why?

This tends to look a lot like ‘materialism’. Is that where you’re coming from?

So even a concept, like the number one, requires a context in which to give it meaning. What does the concept of “ one ” refer to, if not to something that has an expression in space and time?

So then, all you’ve done is discover that there exist concepts which only have meaning in the context of the physical universe. Again, this does not prove that all concepts require this particular context!

But not just meaningless, it’s impossible to construct the concept of things outside of the concept of space and time.

Only when you constrict your worldview by pre-defining that God does not exist.

 

[bquinnan]

I don’t have time to really get into this conversation, but I did here a great Pints With Aquinas podcast not too long ago that explores the idea of origin and the necessity of cause: https://pintswithaquinas.libsyn.com/151-aquinas-2nd-argument-for-gods-existence

One thing that interested me was that Aquinas did not feel that the universe necessarily needed to have had a beginning, but that it had to have had a cause whether it always was or came to be at some point. I think the podcast is worth listening to if you have 24 minutes or so to spare.

 

[Gorgias]

Then I just wish that if I ask someone if they “ know ” that God exists, that they’d be forthright enough to admit that they don’t. If you can do that, then you’ve gone a long way in earning my respect.

I think you’re answering a different question than the one you’d asked. You were talking about your answer, and somehow extrapolating from it what anyone can know. Those are two vastly different notions, my friend!

Moreover, the way we “know” things differs, depending on the type of thing. You can “know” that the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 by virtue of axioms and formal proofs. You can “know” the weight of an object by calculating it from its size and density, or by directly measuring it. These are objective means, and they don’t admit of subjective disagreement. However, there are other things that we wish to know which do require subjective means to determine. In this case, the question really does come down to the subjective application of personal reason to the question. Newman discusses this as the “illative” sense. It’s a good thing to read up on and to understand. We could talk about what causes one person’s illative sense to say “yep, I’m satisified – this proposition is true!” and the another’s to say “nope, not yet – I can’t yet say this is true”… but we’ll probably not decide that the reason for differing opinions is that one person is more monkey-like than the other.

One last thought:

they’d be forthright enough to admit that they don’t. If you can do that, then you’ve gone a long way in earning my respect.

You mention that you’re a solipsist. That means that your base position is “I don’t know.” If what earns respect in your book is that someone admits “I don’t know”, then aren’t really just saying that what earns your respect is that someone assents to the validity of your position? Isn’t that what you just complained about, a few posts up – that people form sets of beliefs and “ardently defend those beliefs against anyone who might question them”? Perhaps your advice – “stop doing that by first, realizing that you’re doing it” – applies particularly well to you, as well…

And the reason that it’s bad is that if you’re as rational and reasonable as you contend, then you should be able to admit that you don’t know. What I find interesting, is that a great many people won’t. So once again I have to ask myself…why.

Because people don’t have to accede to your worldview. I think the question you have to ask yourself is “why do I think that all must accept my position in order for me to consider them ‘rational’?”

 

[younique]

Some accept a god. i accept no first cause.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Does “how long ago?” Really matter?

It sounds more like you have issues with institutional church and traditional teachings about God.

The way i see it, there is either an ultimate consciousness or an ultimate inconsciousness.

I choose consciousness. It is all consciousness.

 

[younique]

i don’t have issues with, to me, a fictitious god.
i have issues with those who try to force their fictitious god on me.

 

[younique]

Infinity is infinity, a place only.
Time is movement of something in infinity.
To me it must relate to the smallest thing, i call it “the something”.
Is it solid, or a force? Does it have gravity? How does it combine? Is it multi state?
I try to think of answers. To me everything is made up of these “somethings”.
Mathematicians have great formulas, but they “roundoff”, the solids and forces in infinity don’t
roundoff. Every little something is accounted for.

 

[Gorgias]

Would you agree that the universe, or the multiverse, or whatever space and time ultimately consists of, has existed forever? That it has existed since the beginning of time? And that it’s meaningless to refer to something as existing “ before ” the existence of time?

Good questions. They’re three distinct questions, and if we’re speaking with precision, they don’t follow on one another! Let’s look closely at them:

• Has the physical universe/multiverse existed forever? Has it existed since the beginning of time?
  • I would answer that these two descriptions (‘forever’ and ‘since the beginning of time’) have two different sets of presumptions, and it’s important to understand what those presumptions are, and how they color the discussion:
    • ‘forever’ seems to imply the notion of eternity. So, if the question is “has the physical uni/multiverse existed eternally?”, then there are two ways to approach the question:
      • “Is the uni/multiverse eternally uncreated?” – The answer to this question, in terms of classical philosophy, is “no”. This is where Aquinas and his demonstrations of the existence of God are applicable. If God is necessary and the universe contingent, then we would ascribe ‘eternity’ to the former, not the latter.
      • “How can we describe the existence of the universe – outside its own context – in terms of ‘eternity’?” – This is a really interesting question. It asks us to step outside the universe and examine it as God would. From that perspective, I think, we would find the universe itself (as if we viewed it as if it were wrapped in a container) to be ‘atemporal’, not ‘eternal’, per se.
  • What about the question of “since the beginning of time”? That’s an even more interesting one.
    • I would assert that the “beginning of time” is coincident with the beginning of the universe; more to the point, it’s only relevant within the universe. So, again, if we’re thinking of the universe as if it were in a container, we can’t talk about this entity (which exists atemporally) in temporal terms. Inside the universe, we can talk about ‘time’, but not outside it. So, in a trivial sense – since time came into existence when the universe did – we can say “yes, the universe existed since the beginning of time.” However, that’s not a helpful answer, since it merely asserts that the universe has existed since it came into existence.
• “is it meaningless to refer to something as existing before the existence of time?”
  • If you’re talking about temporal precedence, then yes – that’s a meaningless phrase.
  • If, on the other hand, you’re talking about a different kind of precedence, then no – it can be answered meaningfully.

 

[Shakuhachi]

That is what I said institutional church and traditional teachings about God.

 

[younique]

The search for a first cause, called a search for a first cause.
Why does your first cause have to be a constant controller?

 

[younique]

First cause may then have “created” 916,499,216,838,412,318,647,229
big bangs. Feel better?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Are ypu responding to me?

 

[IWantGod]

But the odd thing is that a lot of people don’t end up with that answer. Ask almost any of the theists on this forum if they know for certain that God exists and they’ll almost universally reply yes. And yet they can’t know that for certain, and if they’re intelligent, free thinking beings, then they should realize that they can’t know that. Yet if they do, they won’t admit it. Why?

The reason any theist would say that they are certain of an ultimate intelligent being that is the cause of our reality is because it follows necessarily according to the principles of reason. They are certain because reason would not be possible otherwise and the idea of existence itself would be rendered incoherent if such a being did not exist.

There is one thing the theist could consider, and that is the idea that reality itself is fundamentally irrational. But that is an impossible thing for a rational person to consider because reason by it’s very definition is to make rational sense of existence and thus irrationality could never be it’s necessary conclusion.

There is one other possibility that you have not considered. You are not reasoning properly.

 

[PetraG]

Infinity is infinity, a place only.
Time is movement of something in infinity.
To me it must relate to the smallest thing, i call it “the something”.
Is it solid, or a force? Does it have gravity? How does it combine? Is it multi state?
I try to think of answers. To me everything is made up of these “somethings”.
Mathematicians have great formulas, but they “roundoff”, the solids and forces in infinity don’t
roundoff. Every little something is accounted for.

You don’t even know that infinity exists. You have no evidence that reality is not finite. It was recently thought that matter could neither be created nor destroyed, but now it is thought that matter and energy are two forms of the same things, but the reality is that you can’t know that, either, because you don’t accept that anything can actually be known based on faith or the testimony of external authority.

How, after all, can you maintain that every little something is accounted for when you know of no one who could ever render such an account? It is far beyond the capacity of any sentient being that you admit existing. A theist can say it, if the theist’s deity has the capacity for infinite knowledge, but someone who believes there are only beings of limited sentient capacity? Explain how an infinite accounting can possibly be made by very finite accountants. It can’t happen. It is impossible.

 

[younique]

Can god talk?
If we are the image of god, he/she must have vocal cords.
Does your god also hold his cell phone number onto him/her self?
Is he/she toying with you? Or are you toying with yourself?

 

[goout]

Can god talk?
If we are the image of god, he/she must have vocal cords.

You think like a religious fundamentalist.

 

[PetraG]

Can god talk?
If we are the image of god, he/she must have vocal cords.
Does your god also hold his cell phone number onto him/her self?
Is he/she toying with you? Or are you toying with yourself?

You’re saying it is impossible for energy to interact with a human brain without use of something to physically generate sound? Surely you jest.

As one monkey to another, may I point out that you’ve dodged the question of what accountant is rendering the account which is assuring you that every little something is accounted for?

No accountant, no account. No account, something could be gained or lost and you’d never know it. Accounting for the infinite requires an infinitely capable accountant and even accounting for that which is vast requires a vast capacity to account, something which you and I both know for certain that no one on Earth has when vast is defined from the energy of a photon up to the size of a universe.

Let’s not be on a high horse about what is accepted on faith then, shall we?

 

[younique]

How do you go from “faith” to law, cannon law?
——Forcing your faith.