If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[Barnesy]

You are making a logical error, time had to have a beginning out of both common sense and scientifically corroborated.

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation.

If time had to have a begining there was no dimension of time at some point and you said if there was no dimension of time then you wouldnt need a cause. Lots of people agree with that but if they are right and what you say is right then we dont need anything to cause the universe like god. And mr penrose has said that if the universe eventually dissapates and theres nothing at all then there cant be any change and therefore there cant be any time or distance so its exactly like the conditions at the big bang and it starts again. I dont know if he believes in god but what he says agree with you that theres no cause.

Sorry its professor penrose.

 

[IWantGod]

If time had to have a begining there was no dimension of time at some point and you said if there was no dimension of time then you wouldnt need a cause.

Just because there is no before a point, it doesn’t follow that anything that proceeds that point or the point itself necessarily exists. It only means that before is meaningless because there is no time before that point. And the fact that a thing proceeds from a point that has no time before it, is reason to think that it’s cause has no location or extension or temporal nature, because change doesn’t just begin for no reason. There is no reason to think that a point just so happen to exist and time proceeded from it, because it’s arbitrary, a brute fact. A change without a cause. A just so story that doesn’t make any sense but is appetising if you just-so-happen to prefer the idea that there is no cause.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

If time had to have a begining there was no dimension of time at some point and you said if there was no dimension of time then you wouldnt need a cause.

Just because there is no before a point, it doesn’t follow that anything that proceeds that point or the point itself necessarily exists. It only means that before is meaningless because there is no time before that point. And the fact that a thing proceeds from a point that has no time before it, is reason to think that it’s cause has no location or extension or temporal nature, because change doesn’t just begin for no reason. There is no reason to think that a point just so happen to exist and time proceeded from it, because it’s arbitrary, a brute fact. A change without a cause. A just so story that doesn’t make any sense but is appetising if you just-so-happen to prefer the idea that there is no cause.

I didnt say there was no cause. John said that. He said that if there was no dimension of time then there is no cause. And profesor penrose is pretty smart and he agrees as well. If theres no cause then that means theres no reason. Thats what no cause means.

 

[IWantGod]

And profesor penrose is pretty smart and he agrees as well.

Pretty smart doesn’t mean much if what a person thinks doesn’t follow logically.

It doesn’t follow logically that removing the possibility of a temporal cause means that it doesn’t need a cause at all. Otherwise it is no different from saying that space-time proceeds from absolutely nothing, and you would have exactly the same results since there is no “before” in absolutely nothing.

So it is not enough to say there is no before. It’s just semantic trickery.

 

[John10]

Regarding Roger Penrose:

“Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God.”

Stephen W. Hawking “Origin of the Universe” lecture.

If time had to have a begining there was no dimension of time at some point and you said if there was no dimension of time then you wouldnt need a cause

I’ve said God is eternal since he exists within a dimension outside of time, a timeless being is by it’s own definition eternal and thus exempt from needing to being created. However that does not mean time itself is also eternal as I have already explained before.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

And profesor penrose is pretty smart and he agrees as well.

Pretty smart doesn’t mean much if what a person thinks doesn’t follow logically.

It doesn’t follow logically…

There are lots of things in science that we dont think happen logically. If thats all the reason that your arguing against it is that it doesnt seem logical to you then its a bad reason. If what profesor penrose says is true then it doesnt mean that god doesnt exist. Maybe god wanted it to work out just like proferor penrose said. But who is the person i should listen to?? Some person on a forum or profesor penrose? Who do you think understands it the best? I know ive said stuff lkme this efore and some one said its a fallacy called appeal to authority. But its not good if you ignore what an expert says if you dont understand it.

 

[IWantGod]

There are lots of things in science that we dont think happen logically.

But there are somethings we know are impossible, and do not merely appear paradoxical. We do not need science to know that.

 

[Barnesy]

Regarding Roger Penrose:

“Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God.”

Stephen W. Hawking “Origin of the Universe” lecture.

Barnesy:

If time had to have a begining there was no dimension of time at some point and you said if there was no dimension of time then you wouldnt need a cause

I’ve said God is eternal since he exists within a dimension outside of time, a timeless being is by it’s own definition eternal and thus exempt from needing to being created. However that does not mean time itself is also eternal as I have already explained before.

No one said time is eternal. Thats just dumb. Eternal means outside of time so how can time be outside itself. But maybe there was a time when it didnt exist when there was nothing to change because time is just a measure of change. Before there was a dimension of time like you said. And you said that if there wasnt a dimension of time then there doesnt need to be a cause. Profesor penrose says exactly that and i agree with him.

 

[IWantGod]

If thats all the reason that your arguing against it is that it doesnt seem logical

But that’s the thing. I’m not just saying it appears illogical, i am saying that if what you are saying is true, then there is no such thing as the logically impossible. If you are willing to go that far, then your thesis is necessarily wrong. Things do not pop out of absolutly nothing. So either your interpretation of penrose is wrong, or penrose is wrong.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

There are lots of things in science that we dont think happen logically.

But there are somethings we know are impossible, and do not merely appear paradoxical. We do not need science to know that.

You didnt say impossible you said not logical. Those arent the same things. If something looks illogical to us it doesnt mean its impossible.

 

[IWantGod]

You didnt say impossible you said not logical. Those arent the same things. If something looks illogical to us it doesnt mean its impossible.

Now you are playing a game of semantics. Lets just say that i mean impossible, and i have given my reason why i think that penroses or your interpretation of penrose is arguing the impossible.

Take it or leave it.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

If thats all the reason that your arguing against it is that it doesnt seem logical

But that’s the thing. I’m not just saying it appears illogical, i am saying that if what you are saying is true, then there is no such thing as the logically impossible. If you are willing to go that far, then your thesis is necessarily wrong. Things do not pop out of absolutly nothing. So either your interpretation of penrose is wrong, or penrose is wrong.

Nothing doesnt exist. Profesor penrose doesnt say things apoear out of nothing. He says that if no thing exists (not nothing but no thing and theres a difference) then there is no time and there is no distance and there are no causes. If you want to say thats illogical then you can say that but if you want to say its impossible then you cant. Maybe you need to read what profesor penrose says. Ill try to find it.

 

[IWantGod]

Nothing doesnt exist.

Exactly. And if there is no cause (any logically conceivable cause) to space-time, no before the procession of time and space, if space-time isn’t just some timeless being given the label of temporality, then what Penrose is essentially arguing is not scientific but rather it is the philosophical opinion that space-time proceeded from absolutely nothing, which is exactly what you get if there is no before and nothing but space-time.

Now if all that Penrose is saying, is that there is no absolute temporal-cause of space-time, then that is scientifically acceptable and is a reasonable hypothesis.

 

[John10]

But maybe there was a time when it didnt exist when there was nothing to change because time is just a measure of change.

This is a self-defeating argument, a timeless omnipotent being could create a non-timeless dimension where time/space/matter exists.

 

[IWantGod]

and there are no causes

And this is where you are either being dishonest or you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting Penrose. Because if Penrose is doing science, then the only kind of cause he could be talking about is a temporal cause. And therefore your interpretation that this extends to any other possible kind of cause is wrong and impossible; not just paradoxical.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Nothing doesnt exist.

Exactly. And if there is no cause (any logically conceivable cause) to space-time, no before the procession of time and space, if space-time isn’t just some timeless being given the label of temporality, then what Penrose is essentially arguing is not scientific but rather it is the philosophical opinion that space-time proceeded from absolutely nothing…

Not nothing. But an absence of things which is different. If no thing exists then what have is eternal because there is no time. And john says and profesor penrose agrees that there are then no causes. So if we have another big bang nothing caused it because nothing can cause it. You can still say god caused it if you want but your adding something which isnt needed.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

But maybe there was a time when it didnt exist when there was nothing to change because time is just a measure of change.

This is a self-defeating argument, a timeless omnipotent being could create a non-timeless dimension where time/space/matter exists.

No. You can only have no time if there is nothing to change and if you have matter then it has to change and the change is over time. Time doesnt exist by itself and it cant not exist if something else does. How can you have a timeless dimension where time exists???

 

[IWantGod]

Not nothing.

Semantics.

But an absence of things which is different.

A complete absence of any reality is what is meant.

If no thing exists then what have is eternal

Wrong. What you have is a complete absence of any logically possible thing. No existence at all. So calling it eternal is meaningless.

And john says and profesor penrose agrees that there are then no causes.

No physical causes, otherwise it is not a scientific hypothesis and is instead a philosophical conjecture. But i don’t think that you really understand what Penrose is saying. You are just adding in your own inferences.

So if we have another big bang nothing caused it because nothing can cause it.

Nothing physical can cause it.

You can still say god caused it if you want but your adding something which isnt needed.

If you are arguing that space-time proceeds from a complete absence of reality, absolutely nothing, by itself, then you are wrong necessarily because it’s impossible.

What the cause actually is, is obviously not something that science can tell us since it no longer has any authority on the matter.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

But an absence of things which is different.

A complete absence of any reality is what is meant.

No. An absence of physical reality. No matter exists so nothing changes so there is no time either. The universe exists but there is nothing in it so it has no size and it has no time so it is eternal.

 

[IWantGod]

No. An absence of physical reality. No matter exists so nothing changes so there is no time either. The universe exists but there is nothing in it

What you are saying is meaningless and not scientific at all

The universe is space-time and energy. That is physical reality scientifically speaking. When that no longer exist, there is no meaningful scientific sense in which you can speak of our universe. You are just making things up.