What is God?

Why do you all want to make a transition from a Noum to a Phenomena ?
From a "Thing" to a manifestation, an Effect ?

To my view all things still inside "ITSELF" as you said before the "beginning"...
Time\Space\Matter\Energy their are all functions and parameters inside "IT"...(the entire History of the Universe is In not out of It)

...there was no "true" Start...of course, as a Noum out of Time and Space that seems to us close to nothingness, aldo obviously, it must be something...

Samm , I will try again. If you had a mass so great that light could not escape from it. No sign of its existence, nothing existed outside of its frame work, now remembering nothing can not exist. From this I am proposing that even though nothing apparently existed this mass or pure energy did exist within the itself. This is how I see nothing and everything as the same concept. So as there was nothing , there is no space no time for us to conceive of. You cant measure time, if time does not exist , you cant judge age without comparisons. With this in mind the BB came from nothing, you cant in my mind conclude anything else other than what I propose. The only question in my mind is why it decided to become everything instead of nothing. This trigger could be an insignificant event and you could speculate forever on that cause.

Nice try, Krumple, but nope, I'm not talking about "sitting doing nothing," but about the entire universe being frozen in a moment, and even God himself frozen in that moment; my words were "What if the entire universe did nothing, not a single event or activity or motion either physical or non-physical for 27 hours and 33 minutes (and two seconds)?" That's not just "sitting doing nothing!"

Nor are you correct that the frozen time would "separate between activity of doing something." In fact, the moment immediately after the freeze would follow from the single frozen moment before it, however long it had remained frozen, and there would be no trace or record anywhere in the universe, at any level of being, of the period of frozen time. There is no time if there is no event.

There never was nothing. There was and is everything in a nonphysical potential condition outside space-time. That is not "nothing" even if you can't see it. It's there and therefore there is something rather than nothing. You can't have a condition in which nothing exists and at the same time something or everything exists. It must be one or the other. Why can't you see that?

You always say nothing can not exist and then say that nothing does exist as this or that. In this case you say nothing cannot exist and then say the BB came from nothing. It's confusing as hell. Can you clarify your terms and stop talking in paradoxes. You're sounding like some stupid Abbott & Costello routine (Who's on first?) with all this double talk.

Karlos

So whats the difference between the appearance of nothing and nothing ?

My problem was with you using the word sitting. It is a verb so you shouldn't have used it. Sitting is an event, but you really didn't mean sitting. Instead you are talking specifically about the moment. I understand a frame of time.

That's the thing, you can't freeze time. You are stating a hypothetical situation in which I believe can not be done. Sure it sounds logical when you state it but no where has this EVER happened. Time would have to occur if you were freezing time. Let's say you have a time freezer and it is set to freeze time for one minute. If time is frozen the freezer would never be able to reach a minute because time is frozen. Therefore time would be frozen indefinitely. There would be absolutely no way to unfreeze time because that thing would have to act on time to accomplish it. You can't just have an automatic unpause button.

You propose that time just started happening. It can't or that would be an action out of time. You can't have an action in no time. You even stated it yet you contradict yourself when you imply that the universe time just started from being frozen or paused. It can't do that without time already being present.

Samm what do you think lurks in a black hole that for us is invisible?

If I said to you there was nothing before the BB ? you could say nothing comes from nothing, is that correct?

If nothing is visible before the BB what could you conclude from that statement ? That nothing as we know it existed, is that correct?

I tried to be clever with my train but you discounted it as a joke, why? thats exactly what we see with the BB . We can see when the BB initiated, 40 billion years ago, I believe. If there is nothing before the BB how can we say how old it is? It infers a begining and as we know nothing is possible then how can we have begining? So we have eternity measured, but you cant measure eternity, can you.

Whats you theory of the BB ? did it come from nothing, something or was it hidden?

I honestly dont know I suppose I could google it. It does not matter for the sake of my argument, how old it is. I am going to look..:bigsmile:Your right 13. something and it started at a point, it did not say what point.

Samm what do you think lurks in a black hole that for us is invisible?

If I said to you there was nothing before the BB ? you could say nothing comes from nothing, is that correct?

If nothing is visible before the BB what could you conclude from that statement ? That nothing as we know it existed, is that correct?

I tried to be clever with my train but you discounted it as a joke, why? thats exactly what we see with the BB . We can see when the BB initiated, 40 billion years ago, I believe. If there is nothing before the BB how can we say how old it is? It infers a begining and as we know nothing is possible then how can we have begining? So we have eternity measured, but you cant measure eternity, can you.

Whats you theory of the BB ? did it come from nothing, something or was it hidden?

I am quite certain that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore something must always have existed; the universe must have come from something that existed, not from nothing. Of that I am certain. If you are not, tell me how nothing could possibly cause or explain the existence of something.
Samm

I don't think this was addressed to me, but it's a good point, and worth an attempt at an answer.

Assuming our brains/minds were evolved for survival on planet Earth, it's possible that our notions of causality are only applicable to our human interactions with our human environment. We are also subject to the limits of this human language which is not necessarily capable of mirroring non-human reality. Although I don't think much about it, I think that God is logically feasible. If we are sporting the patch-work of evolution, our mental abilities might be showing us only the barest fragment of "reality prime." Is the human brain just a peephole, evolved for apelike struggled, turned with difficulty toward ultimate causes? At the same time, these statements don't support a case for God, but only the imaginative/logical possibility.

Prior to that, atoms didn't exist, and Christian Theologians, such as Aquinas, recognized God as more of a Verb, that was still in the process of becoming. For them, God literally was Synonymous with the words Good and Love and Being and Omnipresent. These weren't merely qualities that were attributed to God, these concepts were God.

I am quite certain that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore something must always have existed; the universe must have come from something that existed, not from nothing. Of that I am certain. If you are not, tell me how nothing could possibly cause or explain the existence of something.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 12:25 AM ----------

The age of the universe is given as 13.7 billion years since the whole shebang would have occupied a single dot. It did not start from nothing. All you can ever get from nothing is nothing. The universe started from something; space and time and matter and energy were born from something that existed before them, from an initial condition beyond space and time but not beyond existence.

I find this "newest" interpretation of god to be quite funny and I can't figure out why no one has reasoned out one of these arguments yet. You say:



Well what is to say that your current held notion of what god is wouldn't be changed or altered again, if some new information is revealed about time/space or matter, ect? It seems you have missed the obvious conclusion here. What is that?

That god is just what ever one wants to invent for it's definition. If it sounds good, use it, until something contradicts it, then revamp it and you are good to go.

It just seems so absurd that you use an argument to say, well in the past they didn't know the things we know now so, they didn't quite get god correctly, but that is okay because now we got it right.

From my perspective, and I know this will sound condescending, it just sounds like people trying to determine what their invisible friend is made out of. I have an answer for you, it's imagination.