Did The Christian "God" Have A Beginning?

[Darth Wong]

Hey, I never said that I had a better idea, or a more or less viable one. And yes, I may be delving in over my head, but you can't say I am doing such-and-such because I don't know anything.

Well you see, that's the whole point, isn't it? If nobody's got a better idea, then this means this one is the best explanation available. Is it 100% perfectly guaranteed? Of course not. But any other idea is inferior to the best one, and you don't go with an inferior explanation, do you?

[data_link]

Hey, I never said that I had a better idea, or a more or less viable one. And yes, I may be delving in over my head, but you can't say I am doing such-and-such because I don't know anything.

Actually, I can say that. Verilon is delving in over his head because he doesn't know anything.

[haas mark]

Hey, I never said that I had a better idea, or a more or less viable one. And yes, I may be delving in over my head, but you can't say I am doing such-and-such because I don't know anything.

Well you see, that's the whole point, isn't it? If nobody's got a better idea, then this means this one is the best explanation available. Is it 100% perfectly guaranteed? Of course not. But any other idea is inferior to the best one, and you don't go with an inferior explanation, do you?

Just because this may be the only one anywhere near justifiable does not mean that a lesser "valid" theory can't take place. It just seems that there hasn't been a better theory yet.

[Darth Wong]

Just because this may be the only one anywhere near justifiable does not mean that a lesser "valid" theory can't take place. It just seems that there hasn't been a better theory yet.

True. That's how the scientific method works; it does not presume finality, but it does not countenance bluffing either. If you've got a better theory, bring it. Otherwise, you're just trying to promote inferior theories with a lot of hot air.

[haas mark]

Just because this may be the only one anywhere near justifiable does not mean that a lesser "valid" theory can't take place. It just seems that there hasn't been a better theory yet.

True. That's how the scientific method works; if you've got a better theory, bring it. Otherwise, you're just trying to promote inferior theories with a lot of hot air.

Okay. And I am done with this, because I *don't* have a better theory, and am not willing to try to come up with one. And hot air? Pah. I was never supporting anything other than the possibilities, which are endless.

[lgot]

and Wong just used the scietific method to uphold the most probally of all endless possibilities...
I see you are making questions to the sake of making questions (sorry for wrong name spelling) and nothind wrong with that, just in a debate there is a time to conclude with something, not to keep bringing all that is possible, even because, we are not able to even guess all that is possible.

[data_link]

Minor nitpick with Wong's argument here: Wong ,you seem to be saying that the universe is composed of spacetime. It is not. Spacetime is a property of the universe, much like color or size. The universe is not "composed" of spacetime any more that a stop sign is "composed" of red. Just thought I'd clear that up.

- data_link

[Darth Wong]

Minor nitpick with Wong's argument here: Wong ,you seem to be saying that the universe is composed of spacetime. It is not. Spacetime is a property of the universe, much like color or size. The universe is not "composed" of spacetime any more that a stop sign is "composed" of red. Just thought I'd clear that up.

- data_link

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

[haas mark]

Minor nitpick with Wong's argument here: Wong ,you seem to be saying that the universe is composed of spacetime. It is not. Spacetime is a property of the universe, much like color or size. The universe is not "composed" of spacetime any more that a stop sign is "composed" of red. Just thought I'd clear that up.

- data_link

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

Just so you know, I got that. I personally thought it was clearly implied, but maybe some others didn't. *shrug*

[data_link]

Minor nitpick with Wong's argument here: Wong ,you seem to be saying that the universe is composed of spacetime. It is not. Spacetime is a property of the universe, much like color or size. The universe is not "composed" of spacetime any more that a stop sign is "composed" of red. Just thought I'd clear that up.

- data_link

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

I see you've completely missed the point. You keep talking about spacetime as though it was an object, a real physical thing. Spacetime is not an object, it is a property of objects which defines their relation to each other. Spacetime is not a fabric, any more than a table's surface is a mathematical plane. These are descriptive analogies, which are used to define abstract concepts to people who cannot visualise the truly abstract. These analogies are admittedly very useful - but by using the verb is instead of like, you have committed a grave logical error.

I'll say it again - the universe is a mathematical set that includes everything that exists. The universe is not a fabric, or a region of space, or anything which can be visualized. The universe is the set of that which exists. The universe has property spacetime, which defines the relationship between its objects. Spacetime is a property, much like color is a property. Because spacetime is a property of set universe, it is also a property of all objects within the universe. There is a fundamental distinction between objects and properties. 'the book' is an object, 'color' is a property. Existence is also a property. The universe is the set of all things that have the property of existing. The universe does not have a fabric or composition because it is not an object.

I realize that abstract concepts are difficult to visualize, so here's a literary analogy (albiet an imperecise one): objects are nouns, properties are adjectives. To call one the other is a fallacy, and it is what Mike Wong has done here.

[haas mark]

Minor nitpick with Wong's argument here: Wong ,you seem to be saying that the universe is composed of spacetime. It is not. Spacetime is a property of the universe, much like color or size. The universe is not "composed" of spacetime any more that a stop sign is "composed" of red. Just thought I'd clear that up.

- data_link

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

I see you've completely missed the point. You keep talking about spacetime as though it was an object, a real physical thing. Spacetime is not an object, it is a property of objects which defines their relation to each other. Spacetime is not a fabric, any more than a table's surface is a mathematical plane. These are descriptive analogies, which are used to define abstract concepts to people who cannot visualise the truly abstract. These analogies are admittedly very useful - but by using the verb is instead of like, you have committed a grave logical error.

I'll say it again - the universe is a mathematical set that includes everything that exists. The universe is not a fabric, or a region of space, or anything which can be visualized. The universe is the set of that which exists. The universe has property spacetime, which defines the relationship between its objects. Spacetime is a property, much like color is a property. Because spacetime is a property of set universe, it is also a property of all objects within the universe. There is a fundamental distinction between objects and properties. 'the book' is an object, 'color' is a property. Existence is also a property. The universe is the set of all things that have the property of existing. The universe does not have a fabric or composition because it is not an object.

I realize that abstract concepts are difficult to visualize, so here's a literary analogy (albiet an imperecise one): objects are nouns, properties are adjectives. To call one the other is a fallacy, and it is what Mike Wong has done here.

Sort of....it is like calling time a noun, which it is not. It is a property. Properties are actually nouns in themselves.....but as for it being an object, that's debatable.

[Darth Wong]

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

I see you've completely missed the point. You keep talking about spacetime as though it was an object, a real physical thing. Spacetime is not an object, it is a property of objects which defines their relation to each other. Spacetime is not a fabric, any more than a table's surface is a mathematical plane.

You have some kind of anal-retentive problem with the use of descriptive imagery? People refer to plane surfaces too; the fact that this is technically a property of that surface rather than the surface itself is semantically more accurate, but I don't see what the point is of arguing over it.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose I should also add that spacetime is not an object, but it "exists" in the sense that it has properties of its own; unusual for a property. For example, it is curved. And its curvature is affected by mass/energy density.

[data_link]

True; I should have stated more clearly that the fabric of the universe is composed of spacetime. There are other things in the universe besides the spacetime "fabric".

I see you've completely missed the point. You keep talking about spacetime as though it was an object, a real physical thing. Spacetime is not an object, it is a property of objects which defines their relation to each other. Spacetime is not a fabric, any more than a table's surface is a mathematical plane.

You have some kind of anal-retentive problem with the use of descriptive imagery? People refer to plane surfaces too; the fact that this is technically a property of that surface rather than the surface itself is semantically more accurate, but I don't see what the point is of arguing over it.

When it leads to confusion in a logical argument, yes.

[Patrick Degan]

"You know, of course, that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane. These things are mere abstractions."
"That is all right," said the Psychologist.
"Nor, having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a real existence."
"There I object," said Filby. "Of course a solid body may exist. All real things—"
"So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube exist?"
"Don't follow you," said Filby.
"Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?"
Filby became pensive. "Clearly," the Time Traveler proceeded, "any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and —Duration."

—H.G. Wells, The Time Machine (1895)

The above is one of the most elegant explanations I've found in contemporary literature of the concepts we're attempting to grapple with here. Good old Herbert. Decades ahead of his time.

Try to define the Universe without time. You may as well attempt to define it without either space, energy, or matter.

These properties of existence are inextricably interrelated to one another. This was what Uncle Albert meant by there being no privileged frame of reference. It is as impossible to seperate Space and Time as it is to seperate Energy and Matter. Time, to be more precise, should be said to be an essential function of the Universe; a function of the space/energy/matter curve.

Time defines the difference between conditional state A and conditional state B of the Universe, or any given part of it, through a given measure of duration of the event being observed.

[XPViking]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

[data_link]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

And yet ironically, they don't have any problem with Apple Jacks.

[haas mark]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

And yet ironically, they don't have any problem with Apple Jacks.

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Spoonist]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

In my world, the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions is because they know that they cannot answer the "how" questions.
The problem is that they fail to answer the "why" questions as well.

-Why did your god create the universe?
-Why did god create satan?
-Why doesn't your god manifest itself in its creation?
etc

[pecker]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

In my world, the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions is because they know that they cannot answer the "how" questions.
The problem is that they fail to answer the "why" questions as well.

-Why did your god create the universe?
-Why did god create satan?
-Why doesn't your god manifest itself in its creation?
etc

1) He was bored?
2) God didn't 'create' Satan, assuming said entity exists. As story goes, Lucifer was a fallen angel.
3)http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=39006

[haas mark]

I think the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions (why does the universe exist, why does time exist, etc...) with "God" is because science says "it just is." Religious people aren't so comfortable with that kind of explanation.

XPViking

In my world, the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions is because they know that they cannot answer the "how" questions.
The problem is that they fail to answer the "why" questions as well.

-Why did your god create the universe?
-Why did god create satan?
-Why doesn't your god manifest itself in its creation?
etc

1) He was bored?
2) God didn't 'create' Satan, assuming said entity exists. As story goes, Lucifer was a fallen angel.
3)http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=39006

So you are saying that God did not create the angels (should such beings exist)?

[pecker]

In my world, the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions is because they know that they cannot answer the "how" questions.
The problem is that they fail to answer the "why" questions as well.

-Why did your god create the universe?
-Why did god create satan?
-Why doesn't your god manifest itself in its creation?
etc

1) He was bored?
2) God didn't 'create' Satan, assuming said entity exists. As story goes, Lucifer was a fallen angel.
3)http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=39006

So you are saying that God did not create the angels (should such beings exist)?

Assuming said angels exist, then I suppose he did. But as God cannot (or more liekly, will not) interfere with the free will of his creations, he would have made Lucifer anyway, even though he knew the angel's destiny.

That's just what I figure.

[pecker]

This is assuming Satan even exists, mind you.

[haas mark]

Assuming said angels exist, then I suppose he did. But as God cannot (or more liekly, will not) interfere with the free will of his creations, he would have made Lucifer anyway, even though he knew the angel's destiny.

That's just what I figure.

Which, just like everything else, makes hima sadistic litlle bastard. And assuming that Satan exists. Pah. Satan = Lucifer = fallen angel = FORMER angel = angel nonetheless. So if Angels exist, then Satan (Lucifer) exists.

[Darth Wong]

In my world, the reason why religious people try to answer the "why" questions is because they know that they cannot answer the "how" questions. The problem is that they fail to answer the "why" questions as well.

-Why did your god create the universe?
-Why did god create satan?
-Why doesn't your god manifest itself in its creation?
etc

1) He was bored?
2) God didn't 'create' Satan, assuming said entity exists. As story goes, Lucifer was a fallen angel.
3)http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=39006

You're an idiot. He asked those questions in order to point out that religionists' claims of answering the "why" questions are blatantly false; they answer nothing. As for your "answers":

1) Idle, unfalsifiable speculation is not an answer.
2) God supposedly created everything, including angels.
3) Ah, the old "God does not want to show himself because he wants us to believe in him of our own free will" argument. OK, why does he want us to believe in him of our own free will? You don't get it; you are not answering any questions; you are merely punting to other questions and hoping no one will ask them.

The point remains: religion does not answer the question "why", nor does it answer the question "how". It answers nothing at all.