In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Specific measures tracing backwards photons is looking at what you
think is an event's beginning, that event does not have to be the
total period of all time equal to "t=0" once you hit the end of that
road. It could just be the total time needed for that event which is
being studied, and even than that does not mean that what we are
looking at actually started at that point either now does it?
Kelly

"Or are you aware of any dimensions external to our kosmos? "

Do you believe in the spritual world? Do you think if such a world was
real, it too is bound to the same rules we about us now in the rest of
the universe, or would it have its own set?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
The universe is currently expanding. However it is not expanding outward into new areas of 'space', but rather the space itself that makes up the universe is expanding.

Now can you answer you own questions as they are universal questions and apply to your own beliefs just as much as they apply to scientific theories:
1. Does the universe sit in a 'gr ...[text shortened]... this would have far reaching implications with respect to relativity.
3. Is time infinite?

I'm all for looking at each of these starting with this one.

1. I don't see anything getting larger that doesn't move into areas it
wasn't before.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you have a starting point, you have
a point before the start, you may not want to acknowledge it, but if
there was a starting point there was a point where it wasn't started,
it isn't that hard to wrap your brain around.

Actually it is you that is refusing to acknowledge that you have not in any way provided anything to back up that claim - and it is a claim and not a logical deduction.
What seems to be hard for you to wrap your brain around is that there is nothing further south than the south pole and there is nothing before (further back than) the beginning of time. These are simple facts by definition and simply cannot be disputed. At best you can dispute the existence of a beginning of time but you need to provide an argument for that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for looking at each of these starting with this one.

1. I don't see anything getting larger that doesn't move into areas it
wasn't before.
Kelly

A lack of an example does not constitute an argument. I can infact give you plenty of examples eg the surface of a baloon as it is being blown up.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Specific measures tracing backwards photons is looking at what you
think is an event's beginning, that event does not have to be the
total period of all time equal to "t=0" once you hit the end of that
road. It could just be the total time needed for that event which is
being studied, and even than that does not mean that what we are
looking at actually started at that point either now does it?
Kelly

It is supposed to be "the end of that road" because it is the last trace of information available to us for the time being regarding the beginning of spacetime; therefore, since today they are the sole available to us elements of reality (which they are stricktly the ones upon which our science is based), we suppose that they are the sole constituve elements of reality because there is nothing else which we may notice and monitor😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Or are you aware of any dimensions external to our kosmos? "

Do you believe in the spritual world? Do you think if such a world was
real, it too is bound to the same rules we about us now in the rest of
the universe, or would it have its own set?
Kelly

I beleive that no thing, no idea and no being can exist apart from the procedure of exchanging information within a dynamic context. This process as a whole (the process of "collapsing of the wavefunction" or "becoming" ) is the sole agent that produces reality. The only things that matter are the elements of reality, and all the elements of reality are "empty" (emptiness/ void/ sunyata) in their nature. But this belief of mine can change anytime in case I have new data, because these new data will lead to me towards to new ideas.

Therefore my answer to your question is this: the so called "spiritual world", if it exists, it must be also a sum of miscellaneous elements of reality. My personal spiritual world contains my philosophic theories and my personal products of my conceptual and of my non-conceptual awareness, and it is a product of mine whilst at the same time a product of my products I remain😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It is supposed to be "the end of that road" because it is the last trace of information available to us for the time being regarding the beginning of spacetime; therefore, since today they are the sole available to us elements of reality (which they are stricktly the ones upon which our science is based), we suppose that they are the sole constituve elements of reality because there is nothing else which we may notice and monitor😵

So the limitation resides with us than in your opinion, if we cannot know
it, it must not be?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
A lack of an example does not constitute an argument. I can infact give you plenty of examples eg the surface of a baloon as it is being blown up.

Your baloon example doesn't fit.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your baloon example doesn't fit.
Kelly

It fits the criteria exactly. You claimed not to have seen anything getting larger that doesn't move into areas that it hasn't been before. The surface of a balloon gets larger without moving into areas of surface that it hasn't been in before.
Maybe you would understand it better this way: a drawing on a balloon will get larger as the balloon is blown up without the drawing ever moving on the surface of the balloon or covering new parts of the surface of the balloon.
I cannot give an exact example of a three dimensional (space dimensions) object doing the same because there is only one example - the universe - and you are disputing that.

So, do you believe that space is infinite in extent?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So the limitation resides with us than in your opinion, if we cannot know
it, it must not be?
Kelly

If we cannot know it, it is undefined. Since we attempt to define whatever, we have to know what we know and what we ignore according to philosophic and scientific means. And when we provide theories, these theories must be backed up with scientific facts and evidence.

I understand that the process of our philosophic and scientific abilities it has to do with an ever changing state of self-determining knowledge that it evolves constantly and it is related to the physical laws which are the most likely to propagate the available information;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If we cannot know it, it is undefined. Since we attempt to define whatever, we have to know what we know and what we ignore according to philosophic and scientific means. And when we provide theories, these theories must be backed up with scientific facts and evidence.

I understand that the process of our philosophic and scientific abilities it has t ...[text shortened]... ated to the physical laws which are the most likely to propagate the available information;
😵

If a tree falls in the forest and know one knows about it did it really fall? Do you Believe in evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm fine with you saying it isn't eternal, which means it started at
some point for some reason. If you have a starting point, you have
a point before the start, you may not want to acknowledge it, but if
there was a starting point there was a point where it wasn't started,
it isn't that hard to wrap your brain around. The starting point was
caused ...[text shortened]... y...what something other than the singuarlity itself, or some
other force or factor?
Kelly[/b]

…I'm fine with you saying it isn't eternal, which means it started at
some point for some REASON.
….(my emphasis)

Why do you assume there must be a “REASON” for there to be a t=0 ?
Why can’t there being a t=0 be just a brute fact?

…If you have a starting point, you have
a point before the start
...

-unless, logically, it is the start of time itself.

…you may not want to acknowledge it, but if
there was a starting point there was a point where it wasn't started,
….

-unless we are talking about the starting point of time i.e. t=0.
To say there was a point in time “before” time is a logical self-contradiction -why do you not want to acknowledge this self-evident fact?

…The starting point was
caused by...
…..

For something to be “caused” there has to be a “before”.
Given the fact that a “before time began” is obviously a self-contradiction, how can the beginning of time be “caused”? -that would be a self-contradiction!

…what something other than the singularity itself, or some
other force or factor?
...

No!
IF there is a beginning of time, then the beginning of time, logically, must simply be uncaused.

IF there is a beginning of time, then the beginning of time, logically, must simply be uncaused.[/b]

Right God, He is uncaused, existed before the beginning of time, caused the starting of time, etc. etc.

Originally posted by daniel58
... existed before the beginning of time,....

How many times must one say it: that phrase does not make any sense. Or are we getting our domains mixed up as discussed earlier by vistesd? Are you speaking poetically and mean something other than the face value of the words?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must one say it: that phrase does not make any sense. Or are we getting our domains mixed up as discussed earlier by vistesd? Are you speaking poetically and mean something other than the face value of the words?

God's existence doesn't need time Ge can exist outside the realm of time, what did He need time for? He won't ever die, or eat, or go to bed.