29 Jun 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkQuite the contrary. I was pointing out that since it was my question to start with (Why does god exist) I didn't want to act like Moses having gathered you all here just to listen to my diatribe. If anything, I'm the anti-moses.
So you are basically admitting that despite having nothing new yourself, you nonetheless implied that I was in some way deficient for not offering something new?
Just because I haven't answered my own question, it doesn't mean I don't have an answer.
I would like to see if anyone else has an answer beyond what the historical figures of our past have come up with.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessYou might have an answer, but I doubt that it is new. If it is new, I doubt it is any good. But to help you settle the question I hereby make a direct request for your answer. Nobody could accuse you of acting like Moses if you reply, since you would be responding to a request.
Quite the contrary. I was pointing out that since it was my question to start with (Why does god exist) I didn't want to act like Moses having gathered you all here just to listen to my diatribe. If anything, I'm the anti-moses.
Just because I haven't answered my own question, it doesn't mean I don't have an answer.
I would like to see if anyone else has an answer beyond what the historical figures of our past have come up with.
I look forward to being pleasantly surprised by being proved wrong by your answer.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessIf god is not necessary, then god is contingent. This kind of god might be favoured by some, but obviously it wouldn't work in the classical cosmological arguments. It is an interesting idea though, it poses such questions like: could god be eternal yet contingent? I think it starts to unravel if god is the only thing that can act as a creator of the universe, since what possible worlds could exist without god in that case? None, which leads to the conclusion that either god is necessary which is a contradiction, or god is not required to create a world, in which case god is redundant.
What if God is NOT necessary?
29 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord SharkLet's explore this thought a little further shall we?
None, which leads to the conclusion that either god is necessary which is a contradiction, or god is not required to create a world, in which case god is redundant.
Let's see if Josephw can help our cause with an explanation of his one line input.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by jaywillAnd "Imaginary Time" what is that ?
[b]==============================
No, sentences like this that are asserting a logical contradiction and which people accept as valid despite this show the limitation of human RATIONALITY. This isn’t therefore just about mere syntax.
=============================== [/b]
You know, cosmologist Stephen Hawking came up with an expression "Imag ...[text shortened]... the capabilities of human language though, per case of Dr. Hawking's "Imaginary Time".
Its quite straight forward!
Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation by in the complex plane: . It can be shown that at finite temperature T, the Green's functions are periodic in imaginary time with a period of . Therefore their Fourier transforms contain only a discrete set of frequencies called Matsubara frequencies. Another way to see the connection between statistical mechanics and quantum field is to consider the transition amplitude between an initial state I and a final state F. H is the Hamiltonian of the system. If we compare this with the partition function we see that to get the partition function from the transition amplitudes we can replace , set F = I = n and sum over n. This way we don't have to do twice the work by evaluating both the statistical properties and the transition amplitudes. Finally by using a Wick rotation one can show that the Euclidean quantum field theory in (D + 1)-dimensional spacetime is nothing but quantum statistical mechanics in D-dimensional space.
courtesy of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
No I dont understand it, but I do acknowledge people brighter than me do.