Kent Stevens

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on God as the first cause of the cosmos. The cosmos can be defined according to Carl Sagan as: all that was, all that is, and all there is to come. Or in short form the cosmos is all that exists. Even if we have a perfect explanation for the creation of the universe we do not have an explanation for the cosmos. What caused the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum? What caused the quantum laws that created the quantum fluctuations. What caused the cause that created the laws that gave ride to quantum fluctuations? And so on ad infinitum.

I believe that we are currently ignorant about how the cosmos came into existence.We are ignorant about there even being a first cause or that causality always works.

But because of our ignorance it does not necessarily mean that God exists. It is weak argument to seek out areas of ignorance and then use areas of ignorance to say that God exists. Theists tend to say that they are ignorant about how God came into existence or that he was uncaused. So why do theists pretend to know how the cosmos came into existence when they are ignorant about where the God that created the cosmos came from?

eh

And why A God who's nature is so fined tuned to allow for human life? If God's nature were tuned slightly different, we might have a Deistic God and possibly a universe without life. How about using their own arguments against their God existing without a creator?

Skepticwithachainsaw

I suppose it could be argued that Reason is only derived and extracted from our experiences and mind frame and maybe assuming that assuming that the principles of Logic and Reason are "universal Truths" is maybe a (ironically) logical false move.

'Course I'm not satisfied with this conclusion and it seems a bit of a cop out but we perhaps have to face the possibility that logic and reason isn't all its cracked up to be, maybe it’s a human interpretation of what we perceive as patterns in the true, unknowable nature of reality not the Truth behind reality itself.

But then we don't have anything else aside Logic and Reason other than Faith, and we all know what happens when we follow that road…

Synaesthesia

I see very often in discussions of putative explanations for existence that "nothingness" is assumed somehow to be the default state of "things".

Perhaps everyone has access to some secret trove of metaphysical information, but I for one have no way of discerning where this assumption comes from. Why is the void more natural than existence?

DNAunion

DNAunion: I don't know for sure, but I thought the word originally used was "queerer", not "stranger". Dang, now my interest is piqued and I am going to have to try to find out.

PS: I found this using a Google search with "queerer" and "universe"

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

John Page

According to my understanding, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to systems of formal mathematics, not to the universe in general. "Minus three something or others" is a mathematical concept that does not exist outside the mind. Infinity is another mathematical concept but has not been proven to exist phenomenally, it could be a mental abberation (although not necessarily illogical!).

If the transition of a phenomenon from being defined as supernatural to natural is triggered by our understanding of its cause then metaphysical naturalism wouldn't be able to explain everything until we know everything. However, we may not need to know everything to understand "Where Everything Came From".

Cheers!

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Bob K

The Three Realities

The universe consists of at least three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.

1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.

2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariant time-intervals is the same for all observers in all reference frames without exception—time measured by means of invariant time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting always show an identical increase in clock face readings/time measurements in all reference frames without exception; time moves forwards into the future and never backwards into the past, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time; nor was there ever nor can there ever be time travel into the past, into the previous temporal sequence of events, for once the sequence of time has past it is gone forever.

3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality and there can never be an infinite regression of causality to a first cause; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.

The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.

The physical reality is independent of the spatial and temporal realities. Matter/energy exists in space but since space is unbounded emptiness/pure vacuum then matter/energy cannot interact with it although matter/energy can exist within it.

Matter/energy is independent of the temporal reality because it is infinite in duration—it was never created and can never be destroyed.

Time as measured by invariant time-intervals in the temporal reality is asymmetrical—it can be observed and measured only in the forward direction into the future, never in the backward direction into the past. Thus, because of the asymmetry defined by the use of invariant time-intervals for the measurement of time/the measurement of the temporal intervals between/among events in sequences, there can never be time travel into the past but only into the future. The appearance of symmetry in physics is an illusion due to the temporal reality as defined and measured by invariant time-intervals, time which is asymmetrical, and which is measuring into the future all events in the temporal sequence which is history.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Bill

Need I point out that you are clearly asserting that Einstein's Theories of Relativity, and all that flows from them, are based upon "a false concept?" I think you need a bit more meat to get away with making that sort of a bold assertion!

== Bill

SmashingIdols

Well then, this may be judged as an even worse assertation. Nevertheless, I will shamelessly put forth:

We keep going through major hoops and contortions, very similar to Christians explaining Biblical errancy and contradiction, to explain this concept of a Big Bang.

I would be really interested in seeing exactly how hard it is to explain a Universe that is itself infinite in time and space. Perhaps it would have areas of local contraction, other areas of expansion, some type of unifying physics that explain the continual birth and death of [extremely large] areas within it. To me it is the only thing that seems logical.

Just as a side note, such a universe would have no need or place for a creator, having always existed.

Has anybody worked on that one?

Bob K

Bill:

On p. 99 of his book, Relativity, Einstein said “Mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time.”

Due to inertial mass, the rate of functioning--the measurement of events in sequences by time-intervals--of mechanical clocks is affected by changes of velocity/gravity.

Increase velocity/gravity and the rate of functioning of a mechanical clock slows down; decrease the velocity/gravity and the rate of functioning increases. Accelerate a spaceclock via a ride on a spaceship and its inertial mass increases and its time-interval increases and it reads fewer time-interval measurements and time appears to slow down when compared to a similar earth clock which is not accelerated.

Thus, mechanical stuffs undergo changes of rates of functioning due to changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity.

Biological stuffs also undergo changes of rates of functioning due to changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity. If the subjective experience of changes of rates of functioning is none, then the individual will not necessarily realize that his rate of functioning is changing, and he will continue to observe the speed of light as 186K mps in his reference frame.

The rate of functioning of mechanical and biological stuffs is similar to the frames per unit of time of a camera wherein slower rates of frames per unit of time produces time lapse photography and an apparent/perceived increase in velocity when a film is played at whatever is considered to be ‘normal’ rates of frames per unit of time and faster rates of frames per unit of time produces slow motion photography and an apparent/perceived decrease in velocity when a slow motion film is played at the ‘normal’ rate of frames per unit of time. Most of us have seen this phenomenon via movies/tv/videos/etc.

Changes of velocity/gravity thus produce changes of inertial mass which produce changes of rates of functioning which produce changes of time-intervals used to measure time as the observation of events in sequences of events a.k.a. history.

This is the setup info for defining time-intervals subject to changes of velocity/gravity as variable time-intervals.

Time using variable time-intervals is clearly what Einstein specified time to be in developing his theory of relativity [originally titled the theory of invariants, as I recall].

Time and space thus appear to be intertwined/interrelated when variable time-intervals are used for the measurement of time.

Question: What happens if invariable time-intervals are used in (A) clocks which are velocity/gravity sensing [they sense changes of velocity/gravity] and self-adjusting to compensate for detected velocity/gravity changes or (B) clocks which are synchronized via radio signals to an earth clock?

Answer: Clocks using invariable time-intervals to measure time all show the same face readings/measurement of time regardless of changes of velocity/gravity.

Thus, a spaceclock with a variable time-interval will show a different face reading/time measurement than the face reading/time measurement of a spaceclock with an invariable time-interval.

Because of its invariable time-interval used for the measurement of time, the invariable time-interval clock measures Absolute Time, and Absolute Time thus becomes independent of space, space becomes Absolute Space, and thus the concept of spacetime becomes irrelevant. By the use of invariable time-intervals [self-adjusting velocity/gravity-sensing clocks or synchronized clocks] time is no longer necessarily relative to the geometry of space. Thus, certain aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity change according to the use of variable vs. invariable time-intervals for time measurement.

By the theory of invariable time-intervals we see that Einstein’s statement “Time is the same for all observers” [paraphrase] is true when variable time-intervals are used and observers are not aware of changes of rates of functioning due to changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity [the subjective experience of changes of rates of functioning is assumed to be nonexistent/zero].

By the theory of invariable time-intervals, time is given a forward direction only and thus the asymmetry scientists have been looking for the understanding of the essence of time and the measurement of natural processes, and history has its temporal foundation.

The sequence of events measured by invariable-interval time/Absolute Time cannot be reversed in the sense of symmetry because the measurement of invariable-interval time/Absolute Time would continue in a forward direction/asymmetrical direction regardless of whatever else is going on.

There thus can be no time travel either forward into the future or backwards into the past. This is so regardless of the use of variable time-intervals.

Thus, the temporal reality, by the use of invariable time-intervals, is established and is completely independent of space/the spatial reality.

The spatial reality is the unbounded/dimensionless place within which exist the things/events comprised of matter/energy which comprise the physical reality. The spatial reality would be a pure vacuum if not for the presence of the physical reality.

The spatial reality, if it were a perceptual being, would be as if it did not give a damn about the presence of the physical reality or the temporal reality: it is what it is regardless of the physical reality--the unbounded place within which exists the physical reality and the temporal reality.

The concept of the universe is defined operationally as the combination of the three realities, or as when you account for the combination of the one-and-only spatial reality, the one-and-only temporal reality, and the one-and-only physical reality, or as when you contemplate all-there-is and find nothing beyond.

This operational definition of ‘universe’ as ‘all there is’ is what ‘normal people’ defined as nonscientists have defined/define the term ‘universe’ to be and should be acceptable to scientists as well.

There is only one universe, not multiple or parallel universes.

If scientists want to insist that there are multiple or/and parallel ‘universes’ then we have to find a term which can be defined as ‘all there is/all that exists which includes multiple/parallel universes’ such as, ... megauniverse? Superuniverse?

The theory of invariable time-intervals is not found anywhere in the scientific literature of which I am aware. It is found in previous SecWeb topics either I have authored or to which I have replied. It is also found on my website at <a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com" target="_blank">www.bobkwebsite.com</a>

[Someone in previous topics/replies had asked for this information, so I bring it up herein in case someone else has the same question.]

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>