Who Made God?

Wortfish · **#941** by **Wortfish** » Oct 04, 2018 6:12 pm

Newmark wrote:
Still the same error, still the same stupid mistakes. You even contradict yourself in this post. Beginningless =/= endless. You simply (still) use exceedingly naive definitions to construct an incoherent model, which you then (still) attempt to shoot down.

Oh, really? If the universe has no beginning, then it doesn't matter how far you traverse back in time, you will never reach the non-existent beginning. So you wouldr journey back in time would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.

I see that you chose the "provide more examples of how untenable your so-called argument is" route. You have yet to substantiate why you think mathematics isn't applicable to this subject (other than the fact that it proves you wrong). But you go ahead, brave bold sir Robin, run away from answering questions, just like you always do...

Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment. That is why all your models of infinity are not applicable here.

Newmark · **#942** by **Newmark** » Oct 05, 2018 8:24 am

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still the same error, still the same stupid mistakes. You even contradict yourself in this post. Beginningless =/= endless. You simply (still) use exceedingly naive definitions to construct an incoherent model, which you then (still) attempt to shoot down.

Oh, really? If the universe has no beginning, then it doesn't matter how far you traverse back in time, you will never reach the non-existent beginning. So you wouldr journey back in time would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.

Huh. What an interesting argument to make, since you in your very next sentence reiterate your stated assumption that time is a casual chain which only progresses in one direction, which would mean that traversing backwards would be impossible, which would render your argument moot. This just highlights the lack of internally consistency in your arguments. For the record, no model that I have proposed is dependent on begin able to traverse backwards through time (whether such a thing is possible or not). All I've said is that we don't view time from the perspective of an absolute beginning, but rather that we are able to recollect and draw conclusion about past moments given our position in the present*.

I have already made clear what I consider to "endless" and "beginningless" to mean: lack of upper and lower bound, respectively. Please refrain from these strawmen and equivocations, and try to argue against my actual argument for once...

And you still haven't got how circular your argument is. "There must be a beginning, because otherwise you couldn't reach the beginning", paraphrased. Let's rephrase this a bit:
If Narnia doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter how far you walk, you will never reach the non-existent Narnia. So you would journey would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.
Do you think that this is reasonable evidence for the existence of Narnia? Do you think that anyone that tried to go to Narnia (in whatever direction they thought would take them forward) would land somehwere with each step, or do you think that they would enter some sort of limbo of philosophical nothingness if they tried?

I see that you chose the "provide more examples of how untenable your so-called argument is" route. You have yet to substantiate why you think mathematics isn't applicable to this subject (other than the fact that it proves you wrong). But you go ahead, brave bold sir Robin, run away from answering questions, just like you always do...

Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment. That is why all your models of infinity are not applicable here.

Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.

* Given that you think that

Wortfish · **#943** by **Wortfish** » Nov 07, 2018 12:20 pm

Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.

Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred. But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other. One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended. That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand only in logical order and not in any temporal arrangement. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point. You don't need "special relativity" to get this.

Thomas Eshuis · **#944** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Nov 07, 2018 12:26 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.

Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred. But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

Saying someone else asserted the same thing you keep asserting isn't providing evidence or sound argument either Wortfish.
You need to demonstrate, not just assert.

Wortfish wrote:You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other.

How do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended.

Again, how do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand in logical order. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point.

This is simply the 125213th mindless regurgitation of your intial and still unsubstantiated assertion.

Newmark · **#945** by **Newmark** » Nov 07, 2018 1:43 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.

Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred.

Kant, like yourself, didn't include the findings of modern mathematics in his speculations. Kant has the rather decent excuse of having been dead for better part of a century before Cantor published his ideas. What's your excuse?

But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

Neither have I claimed that it would be, which you would have understood, if you were paying attention. Your reasoning would only apply iff there was an infinite sequence between any given points. Quite simply, you still haven't understood what you're arguing against.

You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other. One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended. That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other.
Rather, they stand only in logical order and not in any temporal arrangement.

This does not explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships", this merely re-asserts your statement. I've asked this before (so I hardly expect an intelligent answer), but what model do you think best describes a "casual relationship", and how does this model differ from a "logical order"?

Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point. You don't need "special relativity" to get this.

Given what has already been explained in this thread, this jumble of blind assertions and logical fallacies is simply astounding. But if you keep screaming it, maybe a pixie will come by and sprinkle some dust on it, and it will magically become true!

Wortfish · **#946** by **Wortfish** » Dec 16, 2019 12:37 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Wortfish wrote:You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other.

How do you know this?

Because that is how we observe and experience time. We don't experience it as an infinite set but as a succession of moments - flowing inexorably into the future - that only begin when the previous one has ended.

Wortfish wrote: One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended.

Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

Wortfish wrote: That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand in logical order. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point.

This is simply the 125213th mindless regurgitation of your intial and still unsubstantiated assertion.

No. Time is uni-directional and all moments in time are successive. If there were no beginning, there could be no passage of time because time would not be flowing from anything. An infinite number of moments would be required to reach any one point in time. An eternal past would mean that eternity - in the sense of endless time - has already elapsed/ended. That is just logically incoherent and absurd.

SafeAsMilk · **#947** by **SafeAsMilk** » Dec 16, 2019 1:30 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

Thomas Eshuis · **#948** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Dec 16, 2019 5:38 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Wortfish wrote:You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other.

How do you know this?

Because that is how we observe and experience time.

You also perceive the sky being blue and the sun yellow when neither are.

Wortfish wrote: We don't experience it as an infinite set but as a succession of moments - flowing inexorably into the future - that only begin when the previous one has ended.

Except what Wortfish experiences =/= what actually happens.

Wortfish wrote:
Wortfish wrote: One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended.

Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

Again, we don't experience everything as it actually is.
Dolphins experience everything as shades of white, black and gray. Doesn't mean there's no colour in the world.

Wortfish wrote:
Wortfish wrote: That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand in logical order. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point.

This is simply the 125213th mindless regurgitation of your intial and still unsubstantiated assertion.

No.

Yes.
Snipped irrelevant stream of mindlessly regurgitated word-vomit.

Wortfish · **#949** by **Wortfish** » Dec 26, 2019 12:58 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

Except that we can actually measure time and how it progresses. Time never flows backwards, only forwards. Our experience of time can speed up and slow down but the successive chain of moments remains a constant.

Spearthrower · **#950** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 26, 2019 8:36 am

Wortfish wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

Except that we can actually measure time and how it progresses. Time never flows backwards, only forwards. Our experience of time can speed up and slow down but the successive chain of moments remains a constant.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

campermon · **#951** by **campermon** » Dec 26, 2019 12:58 pm

Wortfish wrote:

Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment.

You're counting 'moments'. That's maths innit? :ask:

Also, can you define what a 'moment' is?

:thumbup:

aban57 · **#952** by **aban57** » Dec 26, 2019 2:10 pm

campermon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment.

You're counting 'moments'. That's maths innit?

Also, can you define what a 'moment' is?

One moment + one moment = time.

Obviously.

campermon · **#953** by **campermon** » Dec 26, 2019 2:11 pm

BlackBart · **#954** by **BlackBart** » Dec 26, 2019 4:27 pm

Wortfish wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

Except that we can actually measure time and how it progresses. Time never flows backwards, only forwards. Our experience of time can speed up and slow down but the successive chain of moments remains a constant.

Authentic Internet gibberish.

Thomas Eshuis · **#955** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Dec 26, 2019 10:44 pm

Wortfish wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, how do you know this?

Because that is how we all experience time.

You also experience objects as solid, when in fact they're almost entirely empty. Let's face it, your woefully incomplete apprehension of reality doesn't do you or anyone else any favors.

Except that we can actually measure time and how it progresses. Time never flows backwards, only forwards. Our experience of time can speed up and slow down but the successive chain of moments remains a constant.

Still an appeal to personal anecdote, ignorance and incredulity.

jamest · **#956** by **jamest** » Jan 02, 2020 2:40 am

Why does this idiotic thread still persist?

Via any logical/rational consideration of the meaningful concept of God, to ask the question posed by the OP is a nonsense.

God cannot have been born/created on any date in the past because if this were the case it would undermine the very meaningfulness of said concept. By any and all logical consideration, if God exists 'it' must necessarily not have happened after time/events had already begun, meaning that God must exist prior to any time or events happening in time.

Even if we shaft time and go down causality road, to a realm where events might happen beyond time, no meaningful conception of God can be accepted by reason/logic which places other causal agents existing prior to God.

However you cut it, the question posed by the OP is a retarded one for any philosopher. If God exists, 'it' exists in spite of any and all things, including nothing.

This is like a thread I might have discussed with my mates when I was 12. Shut this fucker down before you lose all collective credibility.

Fenrir · **#957** by **Fenrir** » Jan 02, 2020 3:08 am

jamest wrote:Why does this idiotic thread still persist?

Via any logical/rational consideration of the meaningful concept of God, to ask the question posed by the OP is a nonsense.

God cannot have been born/created on any date in the past because if this were the case it would undermine the very meaningfulness of said concept. By any and all logical consideration, if God exists 'it' must necessarily not have happened after time/events had already begun, meaning that God must exist prior to any time or events happening in time.

Even if we shaft time and go down causality road, to a realm where events might happen beyond time, no meaningful conception of God can be accepted by reason/logic which places other causal agents existing prior to God.

However you cut it, the question posed by the OP is a retarded one for any philosopher. If God exists, 'it' exists in spite of any and all things, including nothing.

This is like a thread I might have discussed with my mates when I was 12. Shut this fucker down before you lose all collective credibility.

Define "God".

Wouldn't know philosophy if it fell on him.

jamest · **#958** by **jamest** » Jan 02, 2020 3:16 am

Fenrir wrote:
jamest wrote:Why does this idiotic thread still persist?

Via any logical/rational consideration of the meaningful concept of God, to ask the question posed by the OP is a nonsense.

God cannot have been born/created on any date in the past because if this were the case it would undermine the very meaningfulness of said concept. By any and all logical consideration, if God exists 'it' must necessarily not have happened after time/events had already begun, meaning that God must exist prior to any time or events happening in time.

Even if we shaft time and go down causality road, to a realm where events might happen beyond time, no meaningful conception of God can be accepted by reason/logic which places other causal agents existing prior to God.

However you cut it, the question posed by the OP is a retarded one for any philosopher. If God exists, 'it' exists in spite of any and all things, including nothing.

This is like a thread I might have discussed with my mates when I was 12. Shut this fucker down before you lose all collective credibility.

Define "God".

Wouldn't know philosophy if it fell on him.

It's very easy for reason/logic to uphold the conceptual existence of God. A being without either a beginning or end is a rational must, for instance, hence the desire to badger this retarded thread.

Spearthrower · **#959** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 02, 2020 6:02 am

jamest wrote:Why does this idiotic thread still persist?

Because idiots still believe in gods, and those idiots think they're being clever when they claim simultaneously that everything makes god apparent, yet also make endless special exceptions for that same god.

Your post, for example, is a fucking ignorant wankstain of a post that should by rights only have been vomited up from the mind of an inbred child, but the virus of belief makes intellectual peasants think they're kings. Regurgitated coprophagy perceived as fine-dining.

That's why threads like this exist, and will continue to exist while numpties try to bully their stupid ideas into credibility.

Spearthrower · **#960** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 02, 2020 6:03 am

jamest wrote:
It's very easy for reason/logic to uphold the conceptual existence of God. A being without either a beginning or end is a rational must, for instance, hence the desire to badger this retarded thread.

It has an assertion.

Cute.

Unfortunately, you're superfluous to requirement when we can get such deepity assertions on demand:

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

"God is the continuity of the progressive expansion of possibilities" _

Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Re: Who Made God?

Who is online