You’re confusing circumference with creation. We’re talking about matter and energy having always existed, which precludes the possibility that matter and energy were created. Logically, it’s impossible for both to be true, since something cannot be created if it has always existed.[/quote]
No. It is only impossible if you are applying the time laws of the universe to an initial cause.
You are trying to assign a date to a causal event for time. You can’t mark a date on the calendar for a “period” before time was created. If you could say before date x there was no time, then before date x wasn’t entirely outside of time.
Something creating time cannot be logically deduced by the rules of time.[/quote]
If there is no time, there can be no creation, since everything already exists. Creation is unavoidably linear, because it requires a state in which something didn’t use to exist, but now does.
You’re confusing circumference with creation. We’re talking about matter and energy having always existed, which precludes the possibility that matter and energy were created. Logically, it’s impossible for both to be true, since something cannot be created if it has always existed.[/quote]
No. It is only impossible if you are applying the time laws of the universe to an initial cause.
You are trying to assign a date to a causal event for time. You can’t mark a date on the calendar for a “period” before time was created. If you could say before date x there was no time, then before date x wasn’t entirely outside of time.
Something creating time cannot be logically deduced by the rules of time.[/quote]
Creation is unavoidably linear
[/quote]
Why?
Why does it have to be linear in time. Why can’t something external to time create something infinite in time? You seem to be simply stating that a god cannot create something infinite, and I don’t see the logic.
Just because we experience time linearly, doesn’t mean that all things are linear.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Because infinite definitionally means that something has always existed. If it has always existed, how can it be created?[/quote]
Okay, so you are an ant on the metal ring and you walk around the ring continuously your whole life. It is logical for the ant to assume that the ring goes on for ever and there is no way to get either to the beginning or the end. However, the creation process of the metal ring isn’t bound by that perspective. The ant cannot grasp the existence of a forge or blacksmith. You cannot apply the perspective of the ant and the way it experience the ring to its’ creation.
Time, as we experience it can’t be applied as a rule to the creation of the universe.
I’m not claiming to know or to understand the creation of something infinite, but I am forced to acknowledge it as a possibility outside of my perspective.
Look at it this way. If matter and energy have always existed, if nothing else this fact at least proves that creation of matter and energy by a supernatural being isn’t necessary to explain the existence of matter and energy. We may disagree on whether or not it’s even possible to create something that has always existed, but this disagreement isn’t core to the point I’m trying to make.
Hypothesis 1
Matter and energy have always existed.
Hypothesis 2
Matter and energy have always existed, but paradoxically were created by an infinite supernatural being.
Both are theoretically possible, but Hypothesis 1 is far more parsimonious. It is simpler, requires fewer assumptions, and according to Occam’s Razor is thus preferred over Hypothesis 2.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Look at it this way. If matter and energy have always existed, if nothing else this fact at least proves that creation of matter and energy by a supernatural being isn’t necessary to explain the existence of matter and energy. We may disagree on whether or not it’s even possible to create something that has always existed, but this disagreement isn’t core to the point I’m trying to make.
Hypothesis 1
Matter and energy have always existed.
Hypothesis 2
Matter and energy have always existed, but paradoxically were created by an infinite supernatural being.
Both are theoretically possible, but Hypothesis 1 is far more parsimonious. It is simpler, requires fewer assumptions, and according to Occam’s Razor is thus preferred over Hypothesis 2. [/quote]
But number one doesn’t explain the existence to begin with.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
In the same way that God just always exists, yes. It’s just one less assumption.[/quote]
The theory of god is that its something outside of time, not infinite in time. There is a difference.[/quote]
The difference is arbitrary.[/quote]
I disagree. I think it’s pretty significant. People always seem to limit the theory of a creator or higher power to our own experience. It’s one of my favorite things to think about.
It is certainly significant when people make arguments against the idea based upon that incorrect distinction.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?[/quote]
It’s a chicken or the egg scenario. It doesn’t explain the modern existence of chickens or eggs. It’s just a repetitive loop.
You are including infinity in your explanation when in truth it’s as impossible to conceptualize as an uncaused cause. If we are removing all ideas beyond human comprehension, your explanation fails too.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?[/quote]
It’s a chicken or the egg scenario. It doesn’t explain the modern existence of chickens or eggs. It’s just a repetitive loop.
You are including infinity in your explanation when in truth it’s as impossible to conceptualize as an uncaused cause. If we are removing all ideas beyond human comprehension, your explanation fails too.[/quote]
But again, my explanation (Hypothesis 1) is far more parsimonious than yours (Hypothesis 2).
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
In the same way that God just always exists, yes. It’s just one less assumption.[/quote]
The theory of god is that its something outside of time, not infinite in time. There is a difference.[/quote]
The difference is arbitrary.[/quote]
I disagree. I think it’s pretty significant. People always seem to limit the theory of a creator or higher power to our own experience. It’s one of my favorite things to think about.
It is certainly significant when people make arguments against the idea based upon that incorrect distinction.[/quote]
Correct me if i’m wrong:
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?[/quote]
It’s a chicken or the egg scenario. It doesn’t explain the modern existence of chickens or eggs. It’s just a repetitive loop.
You are including infinity in your explanation when in truth it’s as impossible to conceptualize as an uncaused cause. If we are removing all ideas beyond human comprehension, your explanation fails too.[/quote]
But again, my explanation (Hypothesis 1) is far more parsimonious than yours (Hypothesis 2). [/quote]
There is nothing “parsimonious” about infinity.
Additionally in the past parsimony has been very wrong about many things. Geocentric universe. Creation. Lightning = gods angry. All these things were the simplest answer at one point in time.
There is nothing inherently good or more right about the simplest answer.