How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

[Neverbeendead]

Since you’re the one who does not understand the concept of time i’ll start with a simple question.
In this clip we see a non existent car suddenly becoming existent
So i’ll start with the question how long or for how much time was the car non existent?

 

[Candide_West]

Since you’re the one who does not understand the concept of time i’ll start with a simple question.
In this clip we see a non existent car suddenly becoming existent
So i’ll start with the question how long or for how much time was the car non existent?

As I’m sure you know the clip shows nothing of the sort. It’s a simple piece of video editing. Macroscopic things do not just pop into existence in everyday life.

However, even if we ignore that for the moment, it is obvious that your question does not really make sense. It’s like asking “how old is a non-existent person?” non-existent things do no experience time because they do not experience change. Or “is a non-existent 20 year old mustang older than a non-existent 5 year old nissan?”. Or “what time does a non-existent clock show?”. Ascribing properties to things which don’t exist doesn’t work.

Perhaps what you meant to say was “how many seconds after the video started did the car appear?” that would be a meaningful question.*

The explanation of time I provided was obviously simplified, but accurate enough to be useful. Perhaps if you tell me what part you didn’t understand I’ll be able to find some further explanation to help you out.

Here’s a simpler one if you find it easier, “time is what clocks measure”.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Ascribing properties to things which don’t exist doesn’t work.

That is why we take another look at your big crunch that takes everything that exists out of existence and your big bang that takes it from out of existence back into existence.
Let’s call the result of the big crunch the biggest thing that doesn’t exist.
Then we get:
Ascribing properties to the biggest thing that doesn’t exist doesn’t work.
Ascribe the big bang to it as much as you like but it does not work.
Or how a big bang does not work.

 

[Candide_West]

That is why we take another look at your big crunch that takes everything that exists out of existence and your big bang that takes it from out of existence back into existence.

Again, it’s not “my” big crunch. And again, we do not know what if anything is outside the temporal boundaries of the universe. What part of this are you finding difficult to understand?*

Let’s call the result of the big crunch the biggest thing that doesn’t exist.

Not a meaningful term. Things that don’t exist don’t have size either.

Then we get:
Ascribing properties to the biggest thing that doesn’t exist doesn’t work.

Again, it’s not a meaningful term. If you struggle with this, try to work out which is bigger, a non-existent beach ball or a non-existent marble. (clue the answer is neither).

Ascribe the big bang to it as much as you like but it does not work.

Meaningless statement, you cannot ascribe an event to a different event. It’s like saying that an explosion *is a property of having a shower. utterly meaningless.

Or how a big bang does not work.

By all means, you go out there and tell all those physicists and cosmologists that all their measurements and models of the universe are wrong and launch your own theory.*

I’m being somewhat silly obviously, the facts of science speak for themselves. Clearly the big bang theory DOES work.

 

[Neverbeendead]

A big crunch takes everything that exists out of existence and results in the non existence of everything.
A big bang then puts everything back into existence and results in the existence of everything.
That is your definition of things that can happen.
Your description of the result of the big crunch is a reality and not just any reality.
That result is a description of all realities.
When one describes a car one describes a reality of all realities because one is not describing all other existing things.
But when you describe the result of a big crunch or the non existence of everything you have described all realities.
And in all realities your prime mover needs to be found to make everything existent again but there is no prime mover in all realities because everything is non existent in all realities.
Therefor there is no big bang.

 

[Candide_West]

A big crunch takes everything that exists out of existence and results in the non existence of everything.
A big bang then puts everything back into existence and results in the existence of everything.

Er, you got them the wrong way around, the start of the universe (big bang) has already happened, the end of the universe (big crunch) MAY happen in the future.

That is your definition of things that can happen.
Your description of the result of the big crunch is a reality and not just any reality.
That result is a description of all realities.

Nope, essentially it’s the end of existence (as we know it at least, we still don’t know what (if anything) exists outside the bounds of the universe).

When one describes a car one describes a reality of all realities because one is not describing all other existing things.

Er no, when you describe a car you describe a car. It takes a lot more effort to describe all existing things.

But when you describe the result of a big crunch or the non existence of everything you have described all realities.

Are you trying to say that the big crunch (if it occurs) will be the end of the universe? If so then yes, that’s correct.

And in all realities your prime mover needs to be found to make everything existent again but there is no prime mover in all realities because everything is non existent in all realities.

Therefor there is no big bang.

Ok, you seem to be struggling with this, but it really is an important point. Read this part carefully - we do not yet know what (if anything) exists outside the temporal (that means time) boundaries of our universe. So we don’t yet know what the PM was, if such a thing exists. Again, there are many theories, none of them are decisive yet.*

I have explained this several times before, please if you let me know what part you are finding difficult to understand I’ll try to help you out.

 

[Neverbeendead]

When you wrote that there does not exist something that can only exist to prove me wrong you wrote about a big crunch that takes everything that exists out of existence.
And it is easy to see that when everything that exists has become non existent it is a result that describes all realities.
That result of a big crunch, the non existence of everything, is what lead to the existence of the first thing when you wrote about a big bang that includes one that even started time for the first time.
And so it is equally easy to see that when the result called the non existence of everything describes all realities a prime mover needs to be found in all realities to get the first thing existing and that can’t be done because the prime mover needs to be found in all realities where everything that exists is non existent.
And so you should have replied:
We don’t know yet if there exists a reality outside all realities.
So we don’t yet know what the PM was, if such a thing exists. Again, there are many theories, none of them are decisive yet.
Then you would have seen your mistake a bit better because i know that there does not exist a reality outside all realities.

 

[Neverbeendead]

In short:
When we have a result called the non existence of everything that exists we have a result that describes reality completely.
The first existing thing can then only be found outside reality that has been described completely but there is ofcourse no reality outside reality that has been described competely.

 

[Candide_West]

When you wrote that there does not exist something that can only exist to prove me wrong you wrote about a big crunch that takes everything that exists out of existence.

It’s the end of our universe, time and space and everything in it, yes. Obviously it doesn’t apply to anything that exists “outside” our universe (if anything does exist).

And it is easy to see that when everything that exists has become non existent it is a result that describes all realities.

Nope, take a look out the window, is the big crunch happening? And this is reality, so clearly it DOESN’T, describe this reality right now. It MAY become reality in the future.*

That result of a big crunch, the non existence of everything, is what lead to the existence of the first thing when you wrote about a big bang that includes one that even started time for the first time.

I wrote nothing of the sort. I even explained that if this does occur then there is no temporal link between the two, so saying one comes before the other, is meaningless.

You are now assuming some sort of repeating bubble universe cycle, it is possible, it’s one of many theories out there at the moment, it’s not one I find very compelling.*

And so it is equally easy to see that when the result called the non existence of everything describes all realities a prime mover needs to be found in all realities to get the first thing existing and that can’t be done because the prime mover needs to be found in all realities where everything that exists is non existent.

Nope, I don’t know how many times I’m going to need to repeat this statement before you read it, but I’ll try again

“we don’t know what (if anything) exists outside the temporal bounds of the universe”.

If you feel a need to posit a prime mover outside the universe you can do, some physicists have theories pointing to a sort of timeless quantum foam, plenty of theologians (particularly catholic ones) talk about a timeless god. At the moment there is little by way of evidence to support either to be honest, so I’m waiting on further evidence.

And so you should have replied:
We don’t know yet if there exists a reality outside all realities.*
So we don’t yet know what the PM was, if such a thing exists. Again, there are many theories, none of them are decisive yet.
Then you would have seen your mistake a bit better because i know that there does not exist a reality outside all realities.

Nope, I didn’t write that and I shouldn’t have either because that makes no sense (just like the possible impossibilities you used to talk about).

By definition there doesn’t exist a reality outside all realities. That’s why I didn’t write that. You trying to “correct” what I wrote to say something meaningless so you can then argue against it. This is called a straw-man fallacy.

So I’ll stick to my original statement thanks, and you can argue again that or not as you please, I will not support a meaningless position you made up and ascribed to me. To remind you, my original statement was*

we do not yet know what (if anything) exists outside the temporal (that means time) boundaries of our universe. So we don’t yet know what the PM was, if such a thing exists. Again, there are many theories, none of them are decisive yet.*

I can tell that you’re struggling to understand this one, but I’m sorry I really can’t see why. I’ve tried explaining in different ways to help you out, again, could you let me know where you are finding it difficult and I’ll target my efforts there.

In short:
When we have a result called the non existence of everything that exists we have a result that describes reality completely.
The first existing thing can then only be found outside reality that has been described completely but there is ofcourse no reality outside reality that has been described competely.

The quote above from my previous post covers this neatly so no further reply is needed here I think.

Take care.

 

[Neverbeendead]

My description of the present reality completely is the combination of all existent matter and all existent 3dimensional empty space.
Nobody can define an extra existence, describe what it exactly is and what it is that makes it logical.
You say that you can’t but that that does not mean that it is impossible.
If you stick with that we both win and lose now while i know that i will win in the future because i know that the title of this topic is correct.
When someone tries to convince me with logic that all matter and all existent 3dimensional space was not existent to prove that they have not always existed that will never work because that does take more than logic.
Matter cannot become non existent with logic alone, not even the smallest particles.
If the smallest particles that make all the objects we see around us could become none existent with logic alone it is not unthinkable that somebody discovers this logical method and finds a way to build a logical method tool that can selectively make the smallest particles non existent. And when this tool goes through a lot of upgrades it is not unthinkable that he can selectively use this tool at the same time on every smallest particle of a car so that it does suddenly become non existent. But everybody knows that that is only video edited footage in a clip on YouTube.
Empty space can also not become non existent because one cannot make more empty that which is empty.
And even when this is not part of knowledge we still get that the description of the non existence of every of these two things is the description of reality completely.
The first existing thing is not in that complete reality as is not whatever it is that causes the first existing thing and so it is a waste of time to try and find these outside the description of reality completely because there is no reality outside the description of reality completely.
You will read this post and will once again write that you are going to stick with what i wrote in the beginning of this post.
And so in a matter of speaking we can both keep writing the same until the server of this website is full but i am not into that and so this is my last post.
And in the spirit of this post i am going to put up a link to a clip that for now is still in its sugarcoated version.

 

[Candide_West]

My description of the present reality completely is the combination of all existent matter and all existent 3dimensional empty space.

So that’s our universe and everything in it then. No worries.

Nobody can define an extra existence, describe what it exactly is and what it is that makes it logical.

Agreed, we don’t know what if anything exists outside our universe. Glad we’ve got there in the end.

You say that you can’t but that that does not mean that it is impossible.

Entirely agree, one day someone may work it out.*

If you stick with that we both win and lose now while i know that i will win in the future because i know that the title of this topic is correct.

Er, well not as yet because you haven’t presented a proof of Gods existence. Hopefully though we’ve sorted out some of your misunderstandings about physics.*

When someone tries to convince me with logic that all matter and all existent 3dimensional space was not existent to prove that they have not always existed that will never work because that does take more than logic.

You’re right, it takes evidence, fortunately there are stacks of evidence from physics and cosmology, so we can be confident in the conclusion.

Matter cannot become non existent with logic alone, not even the smallest particles.

Correct, logic is something that goes on in human heads, we cannot make things appear and disappear with it. However, as we know from quantum physics, the smallest particles exist and probability waveforms and can indeed DO appear and disappear.*

If the smallest particles that make all the objects we see around us could become none existent with logic alone it is not unthinkable that somebody discovers this logical method and finds a way to build a logical method tool that can selectively make the smallest particles non existent.*

Nope, again, logic is something that goes on in people’s heads, we can’t use it to affect physics.*

And when this tool goes through a lot of upgrades it is not unthinkable that he can selectively use this tool at the same time on every smallest particle of a car so that it does suddenly become non existent. But everybody knows that that is only video edited footage in a clip on YouTube.

Right, so we know we don’t need to worry about that.

Empty space can also not become non existent because one cannot make more empty that which is empty.

This is a common error, people thinking that empty space is “nothing”. It isn’t, there is space there. So yes, space can become non-existent.

And even when this is not part of knowledge we still get that the description of the non existence of every of these two things is the description of reality completely.
The first existing thing is not in that complete reality as is not whatever it is that causes the first existing thing and so it is a waste of time to try and find these outside the description of reality completely because there is no reality outside the description of reality completely.

Right, so as you noted at the start of your post we don’t know what exists outside the universe. I agree.*

You will read this post and will once again write that you are going to stick with what i wrote in the beginning of this post.
And so in a matter of speaking we can both keep writing the same until the server of this website is full but i am not into that and so this is my last post.

Ahhh, that’s a shame. Still, hopefully you have more knowledge of physics and cosmology now. Take care of yourself.

 

[Neverbeendead]

When everything is timeless there is nothing that can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.
So there was always something that wasn’t timeless and that has completed the counting to infinity, something that never ends.
A little bonus for those who don’t follow lyrics.

 

[Candide_West]

When everything is timeless there is nothing that can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

Right, so whatever exists or existed beyond the bounds of our universe is not in time. I agree.

So there was always something that wasn’t timeless and that has completed the counting to infinity, something that never ends.

Nope, this does not follow at all, in fact it’s contrary to your statement above about everything being timeless. If you are talking about events happening in time, then you are already talking about events in our universe, so that’s within the last 13.7 billion years.

So still nothing which has existed for an infinite time.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

If everything is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.
Has everything been timeless then when we know the consequence of that?
No because we know that things can move forward in time in our present reality.
It means that whenever one says that everything has been timeless he is lying.
So what to say when speaking the truth?
It has to be something different from everything has been timeless.
And what is that?
There has always been at least one thing that was not timeless or there has always been time.
That makes the past infinite. The past has finished an infinity.

 

[Candide_West]

If everything is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.
Has everything been timeless then when we know the consequence of that?

That’s right everything in our universe is in time. So there was no time when time wasn’t there.*

No because we know that things can move forward in time in our present reality.

right, it’s taken about 13.7 billion years to reach now.

It means that whenever one says that everything has been timeless he is lying.

Right, everything that exists in our universe always existed in time.*

So what to say when speaking the truth?
It has to be something different from everything has been timeless.
And what is that?

That our everything in our universe exists in time. That seems to make sense and matches with observation well. I think we have our solution.

There has always been at least one thing that was not timeless or there has always been time.

Kinda, I think you meant to say that everything in the universe is not timeless.

That makes the past infinite. The past has finished an infinity.

Nope, we’ve established that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that’s all the time there has been. So still nothing infinitely old. No worries.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

So there was no time when time wasn’t there

This is your first truth in the previous post.
There was no time when time wasn’t there.
There was nothing existent in time when time wasn’t there.
Everything was timeless when time wasn’t there.
Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.
We call this truth 1: Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.

If everything is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

We call this truth 2: If everything or every thing is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

When we make a combination of these two truths we get another truth:
Every thing was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything and that’s when time wasn’t there.
Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’ there.

The combination of two truths turns out to be a lie.
And that’s because truth 1 is a lie.
When time wasn’t there is a theory that does not hold water.
Time has always been there no matter how far one goes back into the past.
Only to learn that that theory also holds no water because of the finished infinity.
But since one of them is the truth, we can get to pick our favorite possible impossibility to start examining the world of possible impossibilities.

 

[Candide_West]

This is your first truth in the previous post.
There was no time when time wasn’t there.
There was nothing existent in time when time wasn’t there.

You’re fine up to here.

Everything was timeless when time wasn’t there.

This is where you start to go off the rails, because presumably “everything” would include our universe. And since we already know our universe is in time, and has always been in time we can see that this is the first error. I think what you meant to say was that beyond the temporal bounds of our universe everything is timeless (at least as far as we know time).

Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.

We call this truth 1: Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.

Nope, there’s te error writ large, essentially what you’ve written is that there was a time when time wasn’t there. As we know from the above this is meaningless.

To remind you again, our universe has never been timeless. Thus not everything has been timeless.

We call this truth 2: If everything or every thing is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

So we can conclude that whatever (if anything) exists beyond the temporal bounds of our universe, then it is outside time. Yes.
*

When we make a combination of these two truths we get another truth:
Every thing was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything and that’s when time wasn’t there.

Yes, that which is outside the universe isn’t in time. Obviously this is no problem as we never expecting things outside the universe to behave as of they were in time.

Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’ there.

Fortunately our universe was because time does indeed occur in our universe. Phew hey.
*

The combination of two truths turns out to be a lie.
And that’s because truth 1 is a lie.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a lie, you didn’t mean to get the wrong idea, you just made an honest mistake. Don’t worry about it.

When time wasn’t there is a theory that does not hold water.
Time has always been there no matter how far one goes back into the past.

Right, until you get to the beginning of time (and the universe) 13.7 billion years ago. There was no “before” that point because there was no time “before” that point.

Only to learn that that theory also holds no water because of the finished infinity.
But since one of them is the truth, we can get to pick our favorite possible impossibility to start examining the world of possible impossibilities.

Ahhh possible impossibilities again, and I thought we’d managed to get past this. Once again it is a meaningless statement to say that something is a possible impossibility, it literally means nothing. You might as well say “it looks like a square circle”.*

If you decide to believe that impossibilities are possible then you’ve got no rational basis for anything any more. Afterall, I can claim that an invisible, non-existent pink unicorn created itself and the universe from nothing simultaneously, we can agree that this is totally impossible, and yet we cannot eliminate it as something that may have happened anyway. Because you claim that impossible things are possible. See the kind of trouble it causes?*

If you want to have any kind of reasoned discussion then you have got to accept that impossible things are impossible, and possible things are possible, and never the twain shall meet.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

There was no time when time wasn’t there

That is your Truth 1: There was no time when time wasn’t there
But you keep forgetting that you wrote that nothing was in time when time wasn’t there to prove me wrong when i said that something has always existed in time no matter how far back in time you go.
It means that your Truth 1 can be specified:
There was no time when time wasn’t there.
There was nothing existent in time when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
Everything was timeless when time wasn’t there.
Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.
We call this Specified Truth 1: Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.

If everything is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

We call this Truth 2: If everything or every thing is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.
When we make a combination of Specified Truth 1 and Truth 2 these two truths result in another truth:
Every thing was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything and that’s when time wasn’t there.
Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’t there.
The combination of two truths turns out to be a lie.
And that’s because truth 1 is a lie.
When time wasn’t there is a theory that does not hold water.
Time has always been there no matter how far one goes back into the past.
Only to learn that that theory also holds no water because of the finished infinity.
But since one of them is the truth, we can get to pick our favorite possible impossibility to start examining the world of possible impossibilities.

 

[Candide_West]

That is your Truth 1: There was no time when time wasn’t there
But you keep forgetting that you wrote that nothing was in time when time wasn’t there to prove me wrong when i said that something has always existed in time no matter how far back in time you go.

Nope, I’m not forgetting anything, you’re just misunderstanding what I wrote. I’ve explained already, perhaps you could tell me what you found too difficult?

It means that your Truth 1 can be specified:
There was no time when time wasn’t there.

Again you’re fine to this point. Basically what this is saying is that at all points in our universe time has been occurring, since it started. So there has never been a time (a chronological point) when time wasn’t occurring.

There was nothing existent in time when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.

No, you’re error here is to actually go directly against what you have called truth 1. You’ve made up a point in time when nothing existed. That’s exactly the point of “truth 1” there is no such point.*

Everything was timeless when time wasn’t there.

But our universe has never been timeless, so we know this makes no sense.*

Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.
We call this Specified Truth 1: Everything has been timeless and that’s when time wasn’t there.

And this is your error again, because you’ve taken “truth 1” and completely reversed its meaning. Your “specified truth 1” is exactly contradictory to “truth 1”.*

We call this Truth 2: If everything or every thing is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

Again, there’s no problem here. You’ve forgotten that if you are talking about things which are not in time, then you are talking about things beyond the temporal bounds of the universe. Its important you remember this.*

When we make a combination of Specified Truth 1 and Truth 2 these two truths result in another truth:
Every thing was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything and that’s when time wasn’t there.

Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’t there.

Here, let me fix that for you.

whatever exists outside the universe was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent in time outside something called the universe and that’s when time wasn’t there.

Nothing from beyond the universe was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing from beyond the universe could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’t there.

There you go. So again we come neatly to the conclusion that the 13.7 billion years the universe has been around for is all the time there has been. Because whatever is beyond the bounds of our universe is timeless. Nice and neat eh?

The combination of two truths turns out to be a lie.
And that’s because truth 1 is a lie.
When time wasn’t there is a theory that does not hold water.

Again, you were fine in this post with “truth 1” you just got confused when you tried to get to “specified truth 1” but theres no need to call yourself a liar because you made an honest mistake.*

Time has always been there no matter how far one goes back into the past.

Right, and 13.7 billion years is as far back as you can go, because there’s no more time beyond that. Just like you can walk north until you reach the north pole, and then there’s no more north to walk into.

Only to learn that that theory also holds no water because of the finished infinity.
But since one of them is the truth, we can get to pick our favorite possible impossibility to start examining the world of possible impossibilities.

Well, if we’re going to play with impossibilities then I’m going to select the invisible, non-existent pink unicorn making the universe. If you’re going to believe in impossible things you might as well make them entertaining

Incidentally, do you imagine that there are impossible impossibilities as well as possible impossibilities?

 

[Neverbeendead]

There was no time when time wasn’t there

You’ve put there was no time before when time wasn’t there and that is your specification.
So we can rewrite that in your place:
There was no time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there.
I wrote my specification and added why

There was nothing existent in time when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.

So now i rewrite my specification with the addition:
There was nothing existent in time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
You wrote that my specification was wrong

No, you’re error here is to actually go directly against what you have called truth 1. You’ve made up a point in time when nothing existed. That’s exactly the point of “truth 1” there is no such point.*

When my specification is wrong the only remaining correct one according to you is:
There was at least one thing existent in time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
But this only remaining one is obviously wrong and that means that my original specification just like my previous post is still correct.