Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Riet]

Whoa I just thought of an awesome extension to that idea. If you accept then that god didn't create the universe (as that would be a decision, which is incongruent with omniscience), and it just happened, it then why does it need god to just happen?

Edit: I concede this is a very esoteric argument but it's way more interesting than "he isnt in time he made it bible says."

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Not in a parallel universe as such, just not within the concept of space time as we experience it. Especially time.

And yeah.. he, she, it, a monkey. Its just easy to use he. (plus the word god is charged with cultural and historical references to a man). But I prefer to think of it as pure ominsience and omnipotence, a force.

Maybe its mother nature/

 

[Riet]

maybe it's quantum physics.

Also I hate the idea that god is separate from time and that is enough - the concept of time breaks down at the big bang too and so to say that there was anything before the big bang (for it to have been created) is nonsensical.

Essentially I think it is stupid that "god" can just exist and the universe can't.

 

[BlackDragon]

The concept that time began with the creation of the universe is but one of the many credible theories for space time. It is not non-sensical to posit that time existed before the creation of the universe. As a part of my honours year I am studying the metaphysics of spacetime.

There are four options really..

That time is infinite and had a beginning.
That time is finite and had a beginning.
That time is infinite and had no beginning.
That time is finite and had no beginning.

Although the last one seems nonsense its actually not.

 

[Riet]

Mate I mean from a physics standpoint not philosophy, within the context of the universe you cannot have a "before" time, but you're right I should have been more clear.

 

[BlackDragon]

Physics and philosophy are the same.

 

[Riet]

Well regardless, before time is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Cazic]

Physics and philosophy are the same.

*twitch* What the fuck?! If you want to rephrase as "physics can be considered a subset of philosophy for a sufficiently broad definition of philosophy", then we're cool.

 

[BlackDragon]

I meant in terms of their approach to metaphysics.

 

[Cazic]

How exactly does physics approach metaphysics? So far as I understand it they're non-intersecting.

 

[BlackDragon]

Physics approaches the same structures of space time that philosophy engages with using a mathematical foundation. They are completely intersecting. Physicists and philosophers are talking about exactly the same things.

 

[Enteebee]

I've brought up old Hawking quote "Saying what came before the big bang is like saying what's north of the north pole" before. There are some pretty good objections to this idea - Though I do think it's a pretty good candidate for a semi-final answer.

A lot of the objections attack the idea of time just 'starting' for no apparent reason - We do have examples in quantum and even newtonian mechanics to support this sort of thing happening, but for a lot of people it just isn't enough.

Furthermore, the idea of 'infinity' seems to present some conundrums and there are some other ways to think of causation without time.

As a rambling explanation of the debates I've had with people on that topic - in this thread.

 

[Cazic]

Physics approaches the same structures of space time that philosophy engages with using a mathematical foundation. They are completely intersecting. Physicists and philosophers are talking about exactly the same things.

I wasn't disputing that they discuss the same things, I was asking about their approaches.

 

[Cazic]

I've brought up old Hawking quote "Saying what came before the big bang is like saying what's north of the north pole" before. There are some pretty good objections to this idea - Though I do think it's a pretty good candidate for a semi-final answer.

A lot of the objections attack the idea of time just 'starting' for no apparent reason - We do have examples in quantum and even newtonian mechanics to support this sort of thing happening, but for a lot of people it just isn't enough.

Furthermore, the idea of 'infinity' seems to present some conundrums and there are some other ways to think of causation without time.

As a rambling explanation of the debates I've had with people on that topic - in this thread.

I don't have much of an understanding of time, but surely if there were a bigger frame of reference we could ask what happened "before" the big bang? If the only frame of reference is our universe, then sure, I agree it's meaningless to ask the question.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't have much of an understanding of time, but surely if there were a bigger frame of reference we could ask what happened "before" the big bang? If the only frame of reference is our universe, then sure, I agree it's meaningless to ask the question.

Why suppose that there IS 'a bigger frame of reference' ?

 

[BlackDragon]

Oh well, philosophy approaches it ontologically, examining the possibilities of what could exist and attempting to resolve notions of what we experience with what there could be. Philosophy also attempts to resolve the physics with what we experience and what this would mean in terms of structure.

Physics approaches it from a mathematical stand point, addressing reality in terms of systems of physical interaction and how these different areas can be reconciled. But ultimately the underlining logic is the same and they are congruent.

 

[Cazic]

Why suppose that there IS 'a bigger frame of reference' ?

Good question. An equally good question is, why not? I like the idea that there is some larger structure for which our universe is a part of, but I certainly can't argue for or against it. Has anyone?

 

[Enteebee]

Good question. An equally good question is, why not? I like the idea that there is some larger structure for which our universe is a part of, but I certainly can't argue for or against it. Has anyone?

In my opinion the most important thing when it comes to your own 'epistemology' is to be consistent, so as to avoid contradictions. I'd say that in general we all accept something along the lines of occam's razor, i.e. that the simplest explanation is the best.

Without a specific reason to consider a 'wider' frame of reference, I see no reason to - Just as I don't see a reason to consider the supernatural or anything of that sort...

 

[BlackDragon]

Good question. An equally good question is, why not? I like the idea that there is some larger structure for which our universe is a part of, but I certainly can't argue for or against it. Has anyone?

Hmm. although this isn't my forte, I think it is important not to percieve space and time as separate, that they are the one structure. On top of this, although the universe is finite it is important to avoid the idea that it has boundaries and the concept of outside.


..You should read my lecturers notes on this, super interesting

 

[Cazic]

In my opinion the most important thing when it comes to your own 'epistemology' is to be consistent, so as to avoid contradictions. I'd say that in general we all accept something along the lines of occam's razor, i.e. that the simplest explanation is the best.

Without a specific reason to consider a 'wider' frame of reference, I see no reason to - Just as I don't see a reason to consider the supernatural or anything of that sort...

That seems a little dogmatic. I have considered the supernatural, but I think it's a useless concept.

Hmm. although this isn't my forte, I think it is important not to percieve space and time as separate, that they are the one structure. On top of this, although the universe is finite it is important to avoid the idea that it has boundaries and the concept of outside.

I agree that we currently consider space-time as one structure, and I know this is incredibly helpful realisation of reality, but being a layman in matters of time I see not reason to rule out any other possibility.

I wasn't arguing for a boundary of space either, and this I have no problems with.

Have either you read much on Brane cosmology?

Edit: Lots of edits, sorry.