Feel free to discuss, I'm not trying to declare a truth, merely to arouse minds to disagree or agree.

If "time" exists more than a way for our minds to understand the progression of events, then that would mean there is a 'before', 'present', and 'future'. This would mean God had a starting point, which means God would had to have come from somewhere. Something cannot come from nothing.

Maybe God is Time? shit. thats a fucking ridiculous question and its way too late for me to think that deeply.

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

Going by that logic, if time exists not only can a god cannot exist but neither can we.

I was about to say the very same thing. I'm a nonbeliever, and even I have to speak up and say that that is not a good logical argument for the nonexistence of god.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

I was about to say the very same thing. I'm a nonbeliever, and even I have to speak up and say that that is not a good logical argument for the nonexistence of god.

I think it's fine logic. Care to explain how it's not logical?

If time doesn't exist, why do we age? Could it be that they're different layers? or perceptions of time?

For the record I'm also a non-believer.

Am I supposed to believe that the universe doesn't exist as well?

The human mind has to think there is a beginning and an end, that's just the way it works. We cannot comprehend the notion that the universe has 'just always been there'.

Maybe existence has to be, in order for non-existence to be maintained? And even if there is non-existence, that exists in itself, so maybe non-existence is impossible? I believe god (lower case g), is nothing more than a tooth fairy for adults anyway. Extremely gullible adults that is.



~Q~

[This message has been edited by Q (edited 10-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

We cannot comprehend the notion that the universe has 'just always been there'.

I guess you don't believe in the Big Bang theory or any similar theory that says the universe is x years old?

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

The big bang theory doesn't tell us that the universe was put here X amount of years ago or was created, it tells us when a very significant event happened.

What's the difference?



quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

The big bang theory never says that something is coming from nothing,

I never claimed that it did.

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

in fact it supports the notion that the universe is perpetual.

No, it doesn't. The Big bang theory have lead most scientists to conclude that the universe is between 10-20 billions of years old.

The number I've heard is 13 billion, with earth coming in about 4.5 billion years ago.

13.5bya me thinks. Anyway, it seems no one has stated the obvious. God, by most definitions, is supernatural - not of this plane of existence. Therefore time can exist within this realm, but god is outside of its constraints. Furthermore, I would say many believers would say that since time is a dimension of this realm, it was created by god, along with the rest of the universe. This is also how believers explain how god can know all, our "past," "present," and "future."

Just some thoughts of how I would defend if I were such a believer.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Therefore time can exist within this realm, but god is outside of its constraints.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Tree:



If "time" exists more than a way for our minds to understand the progression of events

That's what I meant

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

The big bang theory never says that something is coming from nothing

Actually, it does. Or rather, one version does. Something can, indeed, come from nothing: this has been proven with so-called "virtual" particles, which pop in and out of existance all the time. See this. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)

To the twisted, they aren't just popping from nothing they are coming from energy. when a particle is "created" it is simply energy converted to matter and when it is "destroyed" it is simply converted to energy.

That is what the big bang theory is, that there was energy and it expanded and converted to matter.

where the energy came from...go figure

To martini, the scientists think that the current universe is x amount of years old, they think that the universe might be perpetual. Stephen Hawking has a theory and is trying to figure out the truth right now, instead of starting at the beginning with a theory of what happened, he is starting now and working backwards.

I could post the source of what he is doing if you want to know more about it. The article was a little fasinating to me.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 10-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

To the twisted, they aren't just popping from nothing they are coming from energy.

No, they are not.

quote:# n the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)

# The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)

Just the first two quotes on that page.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

We cannot comprehend the notion that the universe has 'just always been there'.

I guess you don't believe in the Big Bang theory or any similar theory that says the universe is x years old?

No, I do, but the big bang theory has nothing to do with the actual 'bang', only what happened after the 'bang'.

bang=expansion

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

No, I do, but the big bang theory has nothing to do with the actual 'bang', only what happened after the 'bang'.

bang=expansion

Not only is that statement not true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I was correcting your assertation that the universe has always been.

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

bang=expansion

What did the universe expand into? o.0

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by Graemy:

To the twisted, they aren't just popping from nothing they are coming from energy.

No, they are not.

quote:# n the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)

# The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)

Just the first two quotes on that page.

wait we were talking about two different things, you were talking about the sea of virtual particles called space. I was talking about here on earth where they have detected particles absorbing energy and existing.

Time may be used as a measurement:

"It took ten minutes to walk from Mac Donalds to Big Mac"

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

this explains that such is a measurement properly.

You may consider that time has nothing to do with religion or God. Maybe, time is the unwritten spaces that make the universe so;

"The earth takes three hundred and sixty five days to cirlce the sun."

and so forth....

Well, I reckon it's possible the universe always existed. It was a hot dense little ball, expanded, then returned like a rubber band to a dense little ball again, loop.

Respectively, 'TIME' is a measurement. How MUCH time did it take you to do this or that? If you can have a quantity of something, then it has to potential to be measured. If it has the potential to be measured, when measured, it becomes a measurement. God said, "I AM THE BEGINNING AND THE END."

quote:Originally posted by Source:

What did the universe expand into? o.0

God?

Matter obeys time, and yet doesn't at the same time, if you were to take a "screenshot" of the physical universe, except as a physical object, you would have a "frozen" copy of physical existence, hence time is part of matter in order for it to be anything other than almost how people describe the nature of God...just there.

And to evaluate, extend or to do ANYTHING with that physical "copy" would involve time.

Geh, brain hurts http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I didnt bother reading through everyones replies so im sorry if someone has already said this. time is an illusion created by man because of the rising and falling of the sun. thats all it is.

quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

I didnt bother reading through everyones replies so im sorry if someone has already said this. time is an illusion created by man because of the rising and falling of the sun. thats all it is.

Time is not an illusion even though it is relative to the observer. Speed = distance/time. If time doesn't exist, then neither does speed.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Time is not an illusion even though it is relative to the observer. Speed = distance/time. If time doesn't exist, then neither does speed.

... I revoke my last statement.

What is time then?

Is it our perception?

Do we have the ability to change our perception of time?

If we did, wouldn't time become something of a biological affect? Or a imposition on reality?

Not really existing without us thinking it there?

If so is it real?

Or is it really just something that we're currently perceiving in a very primitive manner?

Isn't it simple? Don't we perceive time very linearly? Wouldn't it be possible to linearly remember more than a few hundred years? Isn't it impossible to remember more than a few hours?

I only know of autistics that can do that, while normal adults can remember large events, creating labels and representations of a time, but never the whole thing.

So then what would time be?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



Not only is that statement not true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I was correcting your assertation that the universe has always been.



What I said was absolutely 100% correct. Find evidence to prove otherwise. Plus, my point was that _something_ has always been. Such as the singularity.

[This message has been edited by AstronomyDomine (edited 10-30-2006).]

Most theorists believe that time has no beginning or end, but just loops, making time eternal, which I think is a very accurate description of god.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

What I said was absolutely 100% correct. Find evidence to prove otherwise. Plus, my point was that _something_ has always been. Such as the singularity.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.



As far as your assertation that "the big bang theory has nothing to do with the actual bang", I'll let you try to prove that one.

Eternal hell fire for all you doubters.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.



As far as your assertation that "the big bang theory has nothing to do with the actual bang", I'll let you try to prove that one.



The universe expanded FROM the singularity. I'm not going to bother proving you wrong, as I'm am correct. You should try proving me wrong.

The Big Bang Theory explains NOTHING except for the events IMMEDIATELY after the expansion.

You can't just prove me wrong by asking me to prove you wrong. But I'll save you some time--I'm right.

sun rise, sun set. Sun move around in a circle, up and down. Sun change. Molecules rearrange. Shift, transform. What is time?

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

What I said was absolutely 100% correct. Find evidence to prove otherwise. Plus, my point was that _something_ has always been. Such as the singularity.



See my link and post(s).

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

I'm not going to bother proving you wrong, as I'm am correct. You should try proving me wrong.

What kind of logic is that?

I stated fact, cite ONE source to prove me wrong.

you won't be able to.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



What kind of logic is that?

hey...wait a minute...all of this is directed at Martini, not you.

edit:Yes, the virtual particles theory is very interesting, but that's not what me and Martini are arguing about. We are talking about The Big Bang theory.



[This message has been edited by AstronomyDomine (edited 10-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

I stated fact, cite ONE source to prove me wrong.

you won't be able to.

Martini already did that. You stated that the universe has "just always been there". He showed you that the standard theory cosmologists hold is that the universe is between 10 and 20 billions of years old. What more do you want?

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

edit:Yes, the virtual particles theory is very interesting, but that's not what me and Martini are arguing about. We are talking about The Big Bang theory.

Well, it's a way that the universe could've not "always been here"... I thought you were saying that there's no way the universe was ever "not here." My mistake!

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

I stated fact, cite ONE source to prove me wrong.

you won't be able to.

Martini already did that. You stated that the universe has "just always been there". He showed you that the standard theory cosmologists hold is that the universe is between 10 and 20 billions of years old. What more do you want?

Yes, and I'm talking about the possible eternal existence of the singularity, which is the universe.

He is also wrong about saying that the big bang theory explains what happened before the bang, or explains the actual bang. This is wrong, it only explains what happened after.



[This message has been edited by AstronomyDomine (edited 10-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

[QUOTE]

Yes, and I'm talking about the possible eternal existence of the singularity, which is the universe.

What sort of proof did you expect? Did you want him to prove that there are no other possibilities?

You stated that you are right and he is wrong. Are you going to show us the proof of what you are now only calling a possibility?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.



As far as your assertation that "the big bang theory has nothing to do with the actual bang", I'll let you try to prove that one.



This is incorrect, no proof is necessary.

Citing sources to prove my argument would be like asking someone to prove that the earth is round. It is widely accepted that it is, if you go against a widely accepted belief, you best provide some proof. Not the other way around.

Eh hem, are you going to respond to this?:

"You stated that you are right and he is wrong. Are you going to show us the proof of what you are now only calling a possibility?"

You said you were right. Where is your proof that the universe has "just always been there"?

You state that the Big Bang is not concerned with the actual bang. You then state that that is as widely accepted as the Earth being round.

From big-bang-theory.com:

quote:Big Bang Theory - The Premise

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

It's a lot more noble to just admit you were wrong than continue to argue.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Eh hem, are you going to respond to this?:

"You stated that you are right and he is wrong. Are you going to show us the proof of what you are now only calling a possibility?"

You said you were right. Where is your proof that the universe has "just always been there"?

You state that the Big Bang is not concerned with the actual bang. You then state that that is as widely accepted as the Earth being round.

From big-bang-theory.com:

It's a lot more noble to just admit you were wrong than continue to argue.



This information is coming from some bullshit website. My information comes from published books. One I have right beside me:

From, A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson,

"further more, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang"

What you cited was a 'premise'

the fact remains that the big bang theory DOES NOT explain anything but the events right after the expansion.

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

"further more, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang"



No one said anything about "before" the Big Bang. You said the theory doesn't have anything to do with the actual bang itself- it does.

Not going to show proof that you were correct about the universe universe has "just always been there", even after being asked several times?

You're not interested in learning, but only in defending your ego. I'm done with you.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

"further more, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang"



No one said anything about "before" the Big Bang. You said the theory doesn't have anything to do with the actual bang itself- it does.

Not going to show proof that you were correct about the universe universe has "just always been there", even after being asked several times?

You're not interested in learning, but only in defending your ego. I'm done with you.



It doesn't have anything to do with the actual bang/expansion in the sense that we have no idea what caused it, therefore, it cannot be included in the theory beyond the fact that 'it happened'.

The universe has 'always been there':

I never said I had concrete evidence of this, this statement is all theory. If something didn't come from nothing, something must have always been. These, however, are things we cannot understand, as our minds are not meant to understand concepts of eternity.

"I'm done with you"

ha, now that you're wrong, I accept your apology.

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

The big bang theory doesn't tell us that the universe was put here X amount of years ago or was created, it tells us when a very significant event happened.

The big bang theory never says that something is coming from nothing, in fact it supports the notion that the universe is perpetual.

He has the right idea.

Get out of here, xray.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

No one said anything about "before" the Big Bang. You said the theory doesn't have anything to do with the actual bang itself- it does.



Absolutely correct, because there is no such thing as before the Big Bang.

AstronomyDomine claims that his information comes from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

No where in that book does the author claim that the universe has "just always been there", or that the Big Bang theory is not concerned with the bang itself.

From Publisher's Weekly:

quote:As he states at the outset, this is a book about life, the universe and everything, from the Big Bang to the ascendancy of Homo sapiens. "This is a book about how it happened," the author writes. "In particular how we went from there being nothing at all to there being something, and then how a little of that something turned into us, and also what happened in between and since."

I'm done with this too.

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

He has the right idea.

Get out of here, xray.

Hah! You say he has the right idea, but the very book you say you got your info from does say that something came from nothing!

Pwned!!!!!!!

Explain to me the singularity then, or how something came from nothing.

You be the teacher, I'll be the student.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

He has the right idea.

Get out of here, xray.

Hah! You say he has the right idea, but the very book you say you got your info from does say that something came from nothing!

Pwned!!!!!!!



I have the book right in front of me, he read a blurb about it...pwned? No. That's a direct quote.

Does that mean that you now accepted that that's how it happened, especially since that's exactly what was said by the author of your book?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Does that mean that you now accepted that that's how it happened, especially since that's exactly what was said by the author of your book?

No one quoted the book but me. Out of all of us, I'm the only one who has the book. He quoted 'publishers weekly'.

quote:Originally posted by AstronomyDomine:

That's a direct quote.

Exactly. Which means that he believes that something came from nothing x number of years ago- that something being our universe.

It was a direct quote from the author. It's blatantly obvious that you just can't deal with being wrong. Now I really am done with you.

Just so we're clear:

I said:

The Big Bang Theory does not explain what happened before, nor does it explain the actually bang. It only explains what happened right after the bang.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

It was a direct quote from the author. It's blatantly obvious that you just can't deal with being wrong. Now I really am done with you.

right, but it's taken out of context with regards the the big bang theory. He was quoted for the purpose of a summary.

Time is not a 'thing' it is a concept describing what appears to be happening to reality.