The creation of time and space? What!

[shunyadragon]

No, what you actually said was that "eternal space time" is a part of the nature of God, to which I replied, if eternal space time is part of the nature of God, then he didn't create it. I think now, that perhaps you probably didn't mean to include space in your definition of Gods nature since you've omitted it here. But why would you think that time is eternal but not space since the two, as we know them, are entwined?
I think also that you are saying that the Greater cosmos, of which our particular universe is a part, was created by God. Is that correct? If so, do you have reason to believe that the greater cosmos, like time, could not itself be eternal?

I have no problem with time or space/time in the context of my answer. I am not willing to try and define God to the inclusion nor exclusion of any attributes. The greater cosmos as well as time could be an eternal reflection of God's attributes and nature. As long as God exists,the infinite eternal space/time would exist.

[37818]

I'm afraid this sounds like a philosophical shell game to me. It's certainly possible I don't understand it, but it seems like your first sentence is an assertion that assumes its conclusion.

what was stated is an argument.

Removing the identity of God from the argument:

There is self-conditioned existence which conditioned existence such as space-time is conditioned on. Our known space-time seems to have an origin. Where as self-conditioned existence has no origin, nor can have one, it being the self-conditioned existence by which any conditioned existence depends on.

[JimL]

I have no problem with time or space/time in the context of my answer. I am not willing to try and define God to the inclusion nor exclusion of any attributes. The greater cosmos as well as time could be an eternal reflection of God's attributes and nature. As long as God exists,the infinite eternal space/time would exist.

If the latter is a reflection of the former, then what need is there of the latter, what need is there of a mirror image. Or do you mean something else by Gods reflection?

[JimL]

Well, that's an overstatement. Some of the scientists who find a multiverse explanation scientifically plausible are, in fact, theists. There's nothing to suggest that a multiverse would invalidate the concept of God. It would make the same problems "bigger," is all.

--Sam

I think that is true Ansgar, it would make the same problem bigger. I have recently been thinking of the concept of nothingness, seriously, and because I have been unable to even concieve of such a thing, or rather no-thing, I have come to the believe that there is no such thing as nothingness. The best I can do is to concieve of an infinite dark and empty space, and perhaps that is as close to nothing as we can get. Perhaps that is what is thought of as the greater eternal cosmos. If that were true, how do you think that a God could fit into that picture.

[Tassman]

what was stated is an argument.

Removing the identity of God from the argument:

There is self-conditioned existence which conditioned existence such as space-time is conditioned on. Our known space-time seems to have an origin. Where as self-conditioned existence has no origin, nor can have one, it being the self-conditioned existence by which any conditioned existence depends on.

Please define what you mean by your phrase: “self-conditioned existence” - or are you arguing a form of Thomism using different terminology?

Also, physicists have yet to conclude whether ‘space/time’ has an origin or whether it is eternal.

[Doug Shaver]

Ok, MOST of the time a multiverse is posited, it is due to someone wanting to find a way to rule out God a priori.

How do you know? Do they say so? Or are you just reading their minds?

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I'm afraid that nobody realizes that Cerebrum, they believe it. There is no rule that the laws of nature must needs have been created, they could just as well be the eternal nature of existence. The fine tuning argument doesn't necessarily follow as the totality of our own universe shows. Our solar system, out of the billions of them that are out there may well be the only one fined tuned just right to allow for the emergence of life, and even if there are many more universes out there, that could still be the case.

What is your evidence for this belief or does this support your atheism, so it doesn't need any evidence?

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, MOST of the time a multiverse is posited, it is due to someone wanting to find a way to rule out God a priori. Is that better?

I do agree that some of the more ignorant atheist do try to use the multiverse to support their atheism with, but I don't see real scientist doing the same (as Sam pointed out, some of them are theist).

[Ansgar Seraph]

I think that is true Ansgar, it would make the same problem bigger. I have recently been thinking of the concept of nothingness, seriously, and because I have been unable to even concieve of such a thing, or rather no-thing, I have come to the believe that there is no such thing as nothingness. The best I can do is to concieve of an infinite dark and empty space, and perhaps that is as close to nothing as we can get. Perhaps that is what is thought of as the greater eternal cosmos. If that were true, how do you think that a God could fit into that picture.

Beyond my pay grade, I'd say. I can't conceive of a singularity, either. I'm not adverse to the quasi-heretical idea that the universe exists as a partial manifestation of God . . . but, created or eternal, co-existing or singular, what lies beyond the Planck Epoch or in other universes is beyond physical comprehension. In such cases, God fits as neatly in the picture as anything else, I think. Some unseen force created the observable universe; the only real question is whether that force is a causal agent.

—Sam

[Jedidiah]

And because Jim can not conceive of nothing, it is not possible. Good logic.

[shunyadragon]

If the latter is a reflection of the former, then what need is there of the latter, what need is there of a mirror image.

Your question of 'need' here is more a philosophical question concerning the justification of your lack of belief, because you believe there is a lack of a 'need' for God(s), which is not the subject of the thread.

In short, i believe God exists, but not on the basis of whether there is a perceived need form the human perspective.

Or do you mean something else by Gods reflection?

As described it is used as an analogy for the relationship of the nature of our physical existence and God, and not literally a reflection.

[JimL]

Beyond my pay grade, I'd say. I can't conceive of a singularity, either. I'm not adverse to the quasi-heretical idea that the universe exists as a partial manifestation of God . . . but, created or eternal, co-existing or singular, what lies beyond the Planck Epoch or in other universes is beyond physical comprehension. In such cases, God fits as neatly in the picture as anything else, I think. Some unseen force created the observable universe; the only real question is whether that force is a causal agent.

—Sam

Well, that is a good point, although if the idea of eternal and infinite empty space is correct, then a singularity would still come to be, would originate, from within that empty space. It would not be a thing that emerges and expands from out of and into an inconceivable nothing. It is true of course that some unseen force caused the singularity to form and expand to become the observable universe of our experience, but that singularity, that universe, would be in its cause, not a thing separate and distinct from its cause. If what we call nothing is actually eternal and infinite empty space, then it wasn't created, because nothing can be outside of that which is eternal and infinite, and anything inside of it is supported by it, and so can't be the creator of it.

[JimL]

Your question of 'need' here is more a philosophical question concerning the justification of your lack of belief, because you believe there is a lack of a 'need' for God(s), which is not the subject of the thread.

In short, i believe God exists, but not on the basis of whether there is a perceived need form the human perspective.



As described it is used as an analogy for the relationship of the nature of our physical existence and God, and not literally a reflection.

I don't know shunya, you still seem to be suggesting the same thing. What do you mean to say by the analogy? How is the nature of our physical existence related to God. Reflection or an analogy of a related nature, still sounds pantheistic to me.

[Tassman]

I think that is true Ansgar, it would make the same problem bigger. I have recently been thinking of the concept of nothingness, seriously, and because I have been unable to even concieve of such a thing, or rather no-thing, I have come to the believe that there is no such thing as nothingness. The best I can do is to concieve of an infinite dark and empty space, and perhaps that is as close to nothing as we can get. Perhaps that is what is thought of as the greater eternal cosmos. If that were true, how do you think that a God could fit into that picture.

I think what physicists refer to as nothingness is not a literal “nothing” but what in Quantum Field Theory is referred to as Zero-Point energy - i.e. even if ALL the particles in the universe could be removed one is left with the Zero-Point Field, or Quantum Vacuum.

Thus it’s wrong to think of empty space as truly "empty", rather space consists of fluctuating energy which, due to the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, particles known as virtual particles continually and spontaneously briefly appear before having to go back into it – thanks to the principle of Energy Conservation. These are what are referred to as fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. A quantum fluctuation is thought to have been the origin of the Big Bang.

[Jedidiah]

I think what physicists refer to as nothingness is not a literal “nothing” but what in Quantum Field Theory is referred to as Zero-Point energy - i.e. even if ALL the particles in the universe could be removed one is left with the Zero-Point Field, or Quantum Vacuum.

Thus it’s wrong to think of empty space as truly "empty", rather space consists of fluctuating energy which, due to the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, particles known as virtual particles continually and spontaneously briefly appear before having to go back into it – thanks to the principle of Energy Conservation. These are what are referred to as fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. A quantum fluctuation is thought to have been the origin of the Big Bang.

We are all (or most of us are) aware of the "zero-point-field. You have not given us anything new. I don't think anyone posits that empty space is nothing. Jim has, and you seem to be following him, basically said that since he can not conceive of true nothing it can not exist. I think there is logical fallacy involved here.