God (Part 1): Anti-God Reasoning Blunders

Just think about that statement for a second, it violates a major logic rule. Something cannot both exist and not exist; either it is or it isn't. Further, no science I've read claims in any "sense" that the universe did not have a beginning.




You have to define time before you can start asking what's possible or not in its absence. I've debated this quite a bit here, you can check my posts to see how I define time. But to answer your question, I didn't say oscillation existed outside of time, I said oscillatory behavior in time stems from a more basic "ground state" inherent feature (vibrancy).




I can't answer that here. It takes diagrams and a lot of supporting argument to model quarks. If you are really interested in this model, just stick with the idea that everything is based on a ground state substance in a condition of polarity.

The basic problem is this. Normally, when we say something had a beginning, we mean 'at first it did not exist, then it did'. That is to say, 'before the time (period) during which it existed, there was a time (period) during which it did not'. Now, if one says that about the universe, it contradicts the idea that time began when the universe did (i.e. in the Big Bang), does it not? Isn't the idea of a 'period before time' incoherent?

I am certainly not claiming that something can both exist and not exist. In fact, that is the very thing I am arguing against.

As to my statement that the universe has always existed in some sense, perhaps that needs clarification. I am trying to make a logical inference from the acknowledged fact that time had a beginning. If it did, it cannot be a 'beginning' in the normal sense, for the reasons I have given above. We are into very subtle concepts here, but I can best express my hypothesis by saying that whereas 'scientific' or 'measurable' or 'calendar' time originated at some specific date in the past (X thousand million years ago), 'apparent' or 'experiencible' time extends infinitely back into the past, i.e. there is an asymptotic relationship between the two kinds of time. But this is just philosophical speculation on my part - I am not a physicist, so I may be wrong!


I find your concept of vibrancy rather difficult to grasp, but I will not pursue that point further.


You said your model can account for all of physics. But can it help scientists to close the gaps in current knowledge and produce the long-sought physical 'theory of everything'?

[SIZE="3"]

This is tough to explain because most people don't agree what "time" is. If you followed my little modeling exercise a couple of posts ago, you see I talk about a most basic uncreated substance. This "ground state substance" is not only most basic, it is indestructible; I also modeled it as existing in/as an infinite ocean.

I suggested that a fundamental dynamic of the ground state substance ocean was compression and decompression, and then went on to model the Big Bang as an extreme compression and release at the ground state.

The next idea was that as the post Big Bang de-compression proceeded (as the expansion of the universe), minute compressions (as atoms) were part of that expansion process.

As you know the expansion of the universe continues ever faster, the amount of radiation each instant is enormous, protons are predicted to decay, etc. All that "entropic" change is consistent with the ground state model which predicts the matter of universe is decompressing and returning to the ground state.

While the whole universe is incessantly changing, and changing toward disorder, we also notice that what seems to prevent our universe from instantly decompressing is all the matter tied up in cycles, from Earth orbiting the Sun to mass ties up in atomic cycles.

So what we do is track change by using regular cycles to count, and we call that type of counting "time." But all we really are counting is the cycles of matter, matter that is gradually returning to the ground state. No matter what sort of cycling we use to count, eventually (according to model I'm proposing), there will be nothing left to count because it will have returned to the ground state.

SO, saying time began with the Big Bang is saying physicalness began, a type of compressed ground state substance,. "Time" will run out when physicalness is all decompressed, but time only runs out for matter; the ground state is eternal. It always has existed, it always will.

It's like if you only could see, say, a huge iceberg, and you think that's all there is. You think time began with the appearance of that iceberg, and start counting how fast it melts. When it is gone you'll think time is over . . . except there is an ocean you can't see that it's melting into which continues to endure. Time only applied to the life of that iceberg, not everything.[/SIZE]

Sorry, LW, I don't seem to understand most of what you're saying, nor how this talk of GS substance solves the mystery of thought-physical interaction. Perhaps it is not fruitful to continue this discussion.

Futile in what sense? If a theory says X, you can apply scientific standards and discover whether it meets or don't meet the standards. What's futile about that? Oh, if you mean that they've already conceded from the beginning that it's not scientific and therefore there was no need for it, then of course! (You just like stating obvious things?)

Yes, if you didn't really mean that God was benevolent when you say God is benevolent, then the objection that he's not would disappear since you're not really, i.e. literally, claiming that God is good. Duh. I guess you do like stating obvious things.

You can apply scientific standards to whatever you like: that doesn't mean that the scientific standards are appropriate for evaluating what you apply them to. If X concept is not presented as a scientific concept, then applying scientific standards to X concept is silly. Is that so obvious? Perhaps, but it was something you overlooked in the first place.



Well, if it's so obvious then there is no reason for these matters to confuse you. I'm glad you can pick up on this.

Well said Didymos. Most unsarcastic sarcasm i ever saw. lol.