The metaphysics of there being no God.

[shunyadragon]

It's not a constraint, it's a description.

descriptive commodities of time are a human constraint for convenient reference not a natural representative of time.

this clock is human convenience, and not the reality of natural time in the space/time relationship..

[Darth Executor]

descriptive commodities of time are a human constraint for convenient reference not a natural representative of time.

this clock is human convenience, and not the reality of natural time.

It's not a constraint, it's a description. It's convenient because it describes something that's real. If clocks didn't, they wouldn't be of any use.

[shunyadragon]

It's not a constraint, it's a description. It's convenient because it describes something that's real. If clocks didn't, they wouldn't be of any use.

They are only useful to humans as an anthropomorphic reference to the passage of time. We put numbers on time for our convenience. In reality time has no numbers. It is the relationship between space and time in our universe.

[Darth Executor]

They are only useful to humans as an anthropomorphic reference to the passage of time. We put numbers on time for our convenience. In reality time has no numbers. It is the relationship between space and time in our universe.

This exact same inanity can be applied to anything we measure. It doesn't change the fact that time has limits and is thus quantifiable.

[shunyadragon]

This exact same inanity can be applied to anything we measure. It doesn't change the fact that time has limits and is thus quantifiable.

Again, just because we measure time does not mean time has limits, nor any incremental divisions as we describe them. Again please come up with a definition in Physics and Cosmology that places quantification limits on time. As far as I can describe from a layman's perspective is that time exists in a relative time/space relationship. As long as time exists, space exists and visa versa. In physics and cosmology I do not find any references that put limits on time nor space. Still waiting for scientific references that you may describe that describes theses limitations.. Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

This exact same inanity can be applied to anything we measure. It doesn't change the fact that time has limits and is thus quantifiable.

Try this on for size to understand time from the physics perspective.. http://www.timephysics.com/]

[Darth Executor]

Try this on for size to understand time from the physics perspective.. http://www.timephysics.com/]

This reads like a 12 year old's geocities page and doesn't really explain how time doesn't exist (or even that it doesn't).

[shunyadragon]

This reads like a 12 year old's geocities page and doesn't really explain how time doesn't exist (or even that it doesn't).

Airball! This is not a matter of time existing or not. Another question for another thread. Your dodging the subject. Name calling does not help your case either. Still waiting . . .

[Darth Executor]

Airball! This is not a matter of time existing or not. Another question for another thread. Your dodging the subject.

Well, now that I read back you're not even saying anything coherent:

In reality time has no numbers. It is the relationship between space and time in our universe.

"Time is the relationship between space and time in our universe'"

What does that mean? Nothing.

As far as I can describe from a layman's perspective is that time exists in a relative time/space relationship. As long as time exists, space exists and visa versa. In physics and cosmology I do not find any references that put limits on time nor space.

This has nothing to do with whether it's quantifiable. Incidentally, space is quantifiable so if the two are related time should be quantifiable too. Which it is. We have clocks and meter sticks.

It doesn't matter whether you can find references that put limits on time or space, nor does something being infinite mean it has no quantifiable parts.

Name calling does not help your case either. Still waiting . . .

Where's the name calling? Unless it's your web site?

[37818]

The metaphysics of there being no God. The premise there is no God.

Nothingness never existed. There has therefore always been an uncaused existence. Uncaused existence needs no God.

The universe is everything which exists.

The challenge for theists and deists, show the premise there is no God is a fallacy. Show that there being no God is absurd.

There is no God, how can that be absurd?

This thread could have been entitled: What if there is no God?

One of the implications of this, of there not being any God is, all arguments, no matter how compelling or logical, cannot make a non-existent God to exist.

Secondly, theists like or unlike myself would be inherently delusional.

So unless it can be shown that the notion of there not being a God, in and of itself, is absurd, the premise stands.

From an atheistic perspective, unless a theist or deist can actually show the premise is inherently a self defeating argument, it can be deemed to be true.

[37818]

Infinite regression would be a human math construct, and exist within time. The concept of Infinite Regression cannot be used to conclude that infinities do not exist.

Agreed.

Yes, the present cosmological view incudes models of universes where relative space time begins at the beginning of each possible universe. This does not detract from the possibility of a great cosmic existence from which universes originate. There are also possible models of universes that are infinite without beginning nor end.

The definition being used,

The universe is everything which exists.

In which there are no universes [plural]. So "universes," multiverses would inherently be parts of the bigger whole universe.

[37818]

You said English isn't your first language.

No, I said it is my sole [only] language.

English is my sole language.

Do you have some sort of development problem then?

No. Not that I'm aware of.

Your posts are virtually unreadable. It's not even bad english in the traditional sense, you sometimes string words together that have no coherent meaning.

That is your opinion. Your airing it in this manner can be construed resorting to name calling.

Historically there have been plenty of gods that were considerably weaker than existence (see: any polytheist society). God is a fairly broad concept largely defined as "extremely powerful being"

And no concept of a god will make any non-existent deities to be. The working premise of this tread, "there is no God."

The metaphysics of there being no God. The premise there is no God.

This thread could have been entitled: What if there is no God?

I didn't write the OP though. It's obvious from my post and its context what I was referring to. Hence you harping on about semantics, which I am tired of. Don't bother bringing this pointless drivel up again, I'l ljust ignore it.

See: Importance of semantics in communication.

I substantiated it in the post you are replying to.

We know time is unnecessary for existence because infinite temporal regression is impossible. We can thus postulate . . .

Your premise ". . . infinite temporal regression is impossible." Was not proved.

No, it's accurate because an existence without time never ends. Plus, infinite temporal progression is not irrational. Time can keep continuing, never stopping. That's infinity.

So stated, I agree. Your premise ". . . infinite temporal regression is impossible," then makes no sense.

Like God.

Yes. And for the purpose of this thread, there is no such thing as a God.

I repeat my question on whether you have some sort of impaired development.

You are definitely resorting to a personal attack argument.

It's not special pleading anymore than your original argument was. I am showing that using the exact same logic can arrive at the opposite conclusion by swapping one unverifiable premise for another. You are the one pleading that your unverifiable premise be accepted.

It is in fact a special pleading, there being in fact no God [if in fact there is no God].

It also doesn't need the non-existence of God.

Explain then, how does the law of identity need a God? Or how the law of non-contradiction need a God? Or how the law of the excluded middle need a God. Or how 2 + 2 = 4 need a God?

I don't need to show that there not being a God is in fact absurd to show that your original logic is flawed. I've done it twice using two wildly different methods. It's a bunk circular argument based on unverifiable premises that proves nothing.

You are mistaken.

[shunyadragon]

Well, now that I read back you're not even saying anything coherent:



"Time is the relationship between space and time in our universe'"

What does that mean? Nothing.



This has nothing to do with whether it's quantifiable. Incidentally, space is quantifiable so if the two are related time should be quantifiable too. Which it is. We have clocks and meter sticks.

It doesn't matter whether you can find references that put limits on time or space, nor does something being infinite mean it has no quantifiable parts.

None answer. Still waiting . . .

Where's the name calling? Unless it's your web site?

This reads like a 12 year old's geocities page

[NotSoHumblePie]

It's pretty presumptuous for anyone, theist or non, to claim to know what time is...and to express, with certainty, that it exists as an actuality. A measurement is only relative. It's not an expression of reality, it's an expression of a relationship between an observer and reality. That means that the measurement could be an inaccurate representation of reality, if the observer were removed. For example, the human eye perceives solid edges where a solid edge does not exist. This has been very helpful to us in the physical world we find ourselves in, but it's not very useful for making actual observations about real, true, reality. This very fact is why we've had to develop various technological advances to allow us to make observations that are not hindered by that perception-based filter. Now, I understand some might say that the logical extreme of this position is some form of solipsism, but I disagree. I don't agree that we can't know things about reality, I just don't think it's possible for us to say something about the reality of "time" that would be absolute, as opposed to relative...at least not at this point...in...time.

An interesting take on "time":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

[David Hayward]

An interesting take on "time": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

This is a fifty-minute lecture on time by the eminent physicist, Julian Barbour. Lee Smolin comments (in "The Trouble with Physics", P.321) that Barbour "...has been highly influential among the small group of people who think seriously about quantum gravity, for it was he who taught us what it means to make a background-independent theory." And, "He was finally able to invent a new kind of theory, in which space and time are nothing but a system of relationships... His reinterpretation of Einstein's general theory of relativity as a relational theory is now the way we in the field understand it."

Perhaps (or perhaps not) it is to this "...space and time are nothing but a system of relationships..." that shunyadragon refers in earlier posts -- sorry, the timephysics.com link just gives me Error 404, so I cannot check.

Those who prefer papers to NotSoHumblePie's linked lecture might like to read Barbour's paper, "THE NATURE OF TIME", where at the bottom of Page 8 he concludes: "I will not claim that time can definitely be banished from physics; the universe may be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the timeless picture. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely possible – indeed likely – that time as such plays no role in the universe."

But this post of mine does but comment on a technical point: I strongly suspect that a rebuttal of 37818's OP's claim can be given by one of the handful of TWebbers who are familiar with the philosophy of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas. Or Edward Feser has a "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" blog article in which he rebuts a few of the more common misconceptions of that philosophy, and I suspect the OP's argument will be refuted by his rebuttal #3. -- ie the objection, “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the cosmological argument. I'm not a philosopher myself, so read it in the link.