Outside of Time and Space Being Uncreated

Printable View

03-18-2014, 04:04 PM
Parture

Outside of Time and Space Being Uncreated

Re: TheMessianicManic
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMessianicManic

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"That which does not exist can't cause anything because it does not exist, so non-existence can bring existence into being."

I think it's also the case that that which does not exist cannot be brought into existence. Something cannot spontaneously come from nothing and something cannot be made to come from nothing.

Right so you are agreeing with what I said, something can't come from nothing. Therefore, nature needs a cause and can't start up from nothing.

Quote:

"infinite regress of cause and effects is impossible, because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that nature always has a cause"

Not true. A universe which exists at the quantum scale (as ours did at the Planck epoch) is a universe for which time has no meaning. To say such a universe "begins" or "has a cause" doesn't even really make sense. Also, the evidence points to time being tenseless, which means nothing ever really "comes into being." All points in time are equally real. Things in the future won't come into being, because they already exist in their own time. Since all things at all points in time are equally real, infinite regress is perfectly possible.

By cutting off the sentence in half, you end up arguing against something completely else. Let's put the sentence back together as was originally intended and deal with it as a whole: "infinite regress of cause and effects is impossible, because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that nature always has a cause, but if there was an infinite regress you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should already have happened."

You've made the mistaken assumption in your pseudo-science that the very minute is not subject to cause and effect, but just because it is small is not grounds for not having to abide in cause and effect. Let's go back to the evidence. The evidence tells us there are trillions of cause and effects in nature which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt nature is always subject to causation. If you want to introduce an element that is without time in nature, i.e. timeless nature, you have entered into the realm of that which is outside of time and space then all you need to do is compare various claims on that which is timeless. Since a mind is needed to create a mind because the lesser can never produce the greater, we know the timeless entity has a mind, one of the characteristics of God. Therefore the uncreated timeless Creator always trumps your timeless mindlessness.

You've taken issue with the term "come into being"; all that is meant by this is causation from one time to the next as we observe causation in nature so nature, our universe, requires a cause and could not always have existed.

Just because all things in nature are equally real does not change the fact that nature could not always have existed, for the fact remains, if nature always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. This is really common knowledge and common grace for all of us to know according to Romans 1.20 so none of us are without excuse in observing nature.

Quote:

"Infinite regress as well is shown to be self-contradictory because you should never have existed because an alleged past eternity would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point."

Under the tenseless view of time, no event needs to "reached" in order for that point in time to exist. All points in time exist. The past still exists and the future already exists. Movement through time is an illusion caused by the fact that the process by which our brains accumulate memories is entropic and at any point in time the number of memories a person has will correlate to the amount of entropy in the universe.

It is pseudo-science to claim the future already exists, for the future by definition is in the future. It hasn't happened yet. That's why it is called future. If your tenseless time states that every point in time is real, that does not overturn the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should never have come into being, because a past eternity would continue to go forever never to reach this point. Whether you have a memory of something or not does not change the fact that causation exists in all things in nature. Even your memory has causation derived from natural events in combination with your own exertion and free will.

Quote:

"Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated."

"Outside of time and space" is a contradiction in terms. "Outside" is a spatial orientation. Without spacetime, no such orientation is possible.

Outside need not be a spatial orientation, but a frame of reference, that is, not within nature. So that which is outside of time and space easily can bring into existence spacetime.

As I see it, ultimately, your biggest problem is you have rejected the uncreated Creator because of misaligned thoughts in not letting the evidence guide you. That evidence is cause and effect is never violated, not even in your erroneous imagination of the quantum level.
03-18-2014, 07:57 PM
Parture

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"if there was an infinite regress you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should already have happened."

I have already happened from the perspective of the future. Even the future has already happened. Everything in the past present and future exist equally. Things in the past are still happening in the past. Things in the future are already happening in the future and things happening now always have been and always will be happening now.

The future has not already happened that's why it's called the future. Let's have a non-delusional conversation. Existing equally does not suggest something has already happened when it is yet future. What has happened in the past is not still happening for that time has come and gone. Things in the future are not already happening since that future point has not been reached yet. We all know this to be true by observing cause and effect. An effect can't cause the cause -- that would be goofy! You're undergoing a state of delusion in your attempt to reject God. For this Hell has been created.

Quote:

"If you want to introduce an element that is without time in nature, i.e. timeless nature"

You misunderstand what time is. Time is not movement through entropy states. Time is simply the fact that there are different entropy states. A tenseless universe is not a timeless universe.

You are deluding yourself in trying to change the nature of time. Time is a move through states and observe causation of one event to the next. This is the connection we observe in nature of cause and effect. There is no denying it, no overcoming it, it is an ever pervasive reality.

Quote:

"all that is meant by this is causation from one time to the next as we observe causation in nature so nature, our universe, requires a cause and could not always have existed."

Yes, we see causation from one time to the next, but we never see causation from "outside time" into time. Such a thing doesn't even make sense. That which is outside of time is outside of causation.

You are suffering from doublespeak because you claim something on a quantum level is without time yet deny the causation to be able to bring timespace into existence. In fact, since nature can't always have existed, the cause outside of nature transcendently brings the functionality of causation into being to create. No other feasible answer avails itself. Call Him the Bringer.

Quote:

"It is pseudo-science to claim the future already exists"

No, it is relativity. See my video on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crk0KAnp5FQ

The tenseless view of time is the view that is born out by physics. It is a well established fact.

Relativity says no such thing. Your tenseless view is false because we observe causation. For example, if I were to shake a tree an apple drops. So you can see the tree you are barking up is delusional.

Quote:

"Outside need not be a spatial orientation, but a frame of reference, that is, not within nature."

It is incoherent to speak of something which exists independent of spacetime. I cannot conceive of a thing as existing without existing in spacetime.

The proof remains unchallenged that if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, logically, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This is whom and what we call God. Since you are incoherent in addressing this problem let it be the proof of the uncreated Creator the same proof given in Romans 1.20 known long ago even by simple sheep herders. "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34). In other words, you have no special privilege over them and neither they over you when it comes to the simplicity of proof for God.

Quote:

"That evidence is cause and effect is never violated, not even in your erroneous imagination of the quantum level."

Show me how causation has any reality at the quantum level.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence to the contrary, so picking on the quantum level in areas far beyond your understanding seems quite disingenuous.

Since you are going to Hell, I believe God allows you to remain in some warped psychotic state of delusion about cause and effect, and time and space, not much unlike Satan who continues to think he can win the day against his Creator. What a horrific way to live out eternity forever separated from the reasonableness of God.
03-18-2014, 09:54 PM
Parture

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"The future has not already happened that's why it's called the future."

The future is simply the universe in a higher entropy state. It doesn't need to be reached in order to exist. If you were moving toward an object that is infinitely far away, that object could still exist. Things in different places in space don't need to be reached to come into being, and things in different places in time don't need to be reached to come into being. Everything which exists at every time is already in being.

Yes, the future must be reached for that time to exist. That object cannot exist that you claim is infinitely in the past, because if there was this infinite past of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It's not that different places in space need to be reached to come into being, but as one event causes another the latter come into being such as an apple falling to the ground and flattening blades of grass. The flattened blades are caused not reached. You need some real life examples. The you that you will be when you are 100 years old has not happened yet as all the causes that would lead up to that point in the future have not transpired yet. This is what we observe evidentially. Do not violate it otherwise you enter a state of delusion. There is no basis for your beliefs which are contrary to what we observe.

Quote:

"You are deluding yourself in trying to change the nature of time."

You are apparently not willing to what physics says about the nature of time. If you don't agree with science, fine, but don't pretend that science backs you up, because it doesn't. Physics since the discovery of relativity has understood time to be different entropy states.

Science backs up what we observe, it doesn't support your view the future already happened. Relativity has never taught non-causal relationships. You're being foolish.

Quote:

"There is no denying it, no overcoming it, it is an ever pervasive reality."

Then how can it be that an event can be in the present from one frame of reference, but in the future from a simultaneous frame of reference?

There is no simultaneous frame of the reference from the past and from the future. You are suffering a Satanic delusion.

Quote:

"You are suffering from doublespeak because you claim something on a quantum level is without time yet deny the causation to be able to bring timespace into existence."

I don't see how that's doublespeak. It is precisely because the quantum level has no time, that causation cannot occur. Causation makes no sense without time.

Thinking quantum level has no time, nature could not come into existence, yet we exist, so your assumption is false causation requires time. What transcends all can, thus, bring time into existence.

Quote:

"In fact, since nature can't always have existed, the cause outside of nature transcendently brings the functionality of causation into being to create."

If causation didn't exist, you can't use causation to cause causation to exist.

There is just the transcendent God who brings whatever He needs to bear to cause time to exist. You can't limit the transcendent. Since nature can't always have existed then the transcendent can.

Quote:

"Relativity says no such thing. Your tenseless view is false because we observe causation. For example, if I were to shake a tree an apple drops."

Relativity says that if you were moving fast enough with respect to the tree, then, from your frame of reference, the shaking would be simultaneous with the apple dropping and when two events happen at the same time, it is impossible to tell which causes which.

However fast you go causation is not violated. Two things happening simultaneously have different specific causation stream. You're being silly.

Quote:

"The proof remains unchallenged that if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened."

You're still not getting that I have already happened from the perspective of higher entropy states of the universe. That makes me no less real at this entropy state.

You're not getting it! The you that you are now can only happen in that moment for 10 seconds later you have a different number of cells in your body. The you 10 seconds from now is not less real, it's just you that has gone through various cause and effects.

Quote:

"Therefore, logically, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated."

Causation cannot occur outside of time.

Since there cannot be an infinite regress of time and space, causation can occur outside of time and space. The transcendent transcends time to bring it into existence.

Quote:

"We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence to the contrary, so picking on the quantum level in areas far beyond your understanding seems quite disingenuous."

The reason causation makes no sense at the quantum level is not because we just don't see it. It's because at the Planck scale time makes no sense, and when time makes no sense, causation makes no sense.

Not at all. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is false; that's the height of arrogance. Effectively you are claiming you need to be God to know, but that is false. All you need is a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt such as trillions of cause and effects, and no hard evidence to the contrary. Stick with what you do understand to render conclusions. Since all the evidence we have is for cause and effect in nature and nature can't always have existed, it requires a cause outside of itself, outside of timespace.

Quote:

"Since you are going to Hell, I believe God allows you to remain in some warped psychotic state of delusion about cause and effect, and time and space, not much unlike Satan who continues to think he can win the day against his Creator. What a horrific way to live out eternity forever separated from the reasonableness of God."

That makes it sound as though it's god's fault I'm an atheist.

Free will would not truly be free if you didn't have the free choice to eternally separate yourself from God.
03-18-2014, 10:23 PM
Parture

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"You are suffering a Satanic delusion."

If it's a delusion, why do our GPS satellites have to adjust their clocks to offset its effects? If that's a delusion, then the whole theory of relativity is a delusion, because this phenomenon is the core the theory.

Minute adjustments in spacetime are complicated. Why take the position since something is complicated that you don't understand would then violate the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of cause and effect beyond a reasonable doubt? There is no humility in that and flies in the face of this evidence. Since you can't make a connection to your view with Relativity why assume it?

Quote:

"The you 10 seconds from now is not less real, it's just you that has gone through various cause and effects."

But neither "comes into being." They both already exist in their own times.

The you that you will be in 10 seconds from now comes into being from whence it did not exist before. A time in the future hasn't already existed. God can foresee those events play out, being outside of time and space and touch them instantly, but that is not the same thing as saying it already exists.

Quote:

"Since there cannot be an infinite regress of time and space, causation can occur outside of time and space."

Causes have to precede their effects.

Causes have to precede effects so future events can't precede their effects.

Quote:

"Not at all. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is false; that's the height of arrogance."

I'm not presuming it's false, I'm saying it's meaningless. That which makes no sense can neither be true nor false.

Nothing is meaningless. Just because you don't understand all things doesn't violate the evidence of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that nature always has a cause; so no matter how difficult it is for you to accept, humility accepts infinite regress impossible because you would have happened already having had an alleged eternity to do so.

I think that's funny to claim something couldn't exist because there is no time so quantum mechanics should not exist since you mistakenly think it has no time. That's funny to me. What's even more funny to me is to think two things in two different times occur at the same time and without causation. That's really funny! It's really funny to think two different times are the same time. I am having a giggle fest!

Have you thought about taking this comedic act on the road?
03-18-2014, 10:46 PM
Parture

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"Minute adjustments in spacetime are complicated."

No, minute adjustments are no more complicated than any other kind of adjustment. It's not that we don't understand it. We know that events are in the future from some frames of reference and in the present from others. This is one of the best confirmed phenomena in physics. It is not controversial.

Minute cause and effects are definitely more complicated than general cause and effects. For example, when you release an apple from your hand it drops. That was very easy to explain. Trying to find the cause of the radioactive leakage in Fukushima is not so easy even after 3 years.

Quote:

"Since you can't make a connection to your view with Relativity why assume it?"

I'm not assuming it. This phenomenon isn't just "connected" to relativity. It IS relativity. The whole reason relativity is called relativity is because whether an event is in the present or future is *relative* to the frame of reference. This is what relativity is all about. What do you think relativity is?

It is not Relativity to claim the future is the past from the perspective of the present. Nor is it Relativity to claim there is no causation. Nor does Relativity say there is a timeless nature. You are confused.

Quote:

"Causes have to precede effects so future events can't precede their effects."

The first clause of that sentence contradicts the second clause.

The first clause of this sentence does not contradict the second clause: "Causes have to precede effects so future events can't precede their effects." How do you know this? Because you can't show otherwise. We only have evidence for cause producing effect through time, not the other way around.

Quote:

"humility accepts infinite regress impossible because you would have happened already having had an alleged eternity to do so."

Humility might accept it, but physics doesn't.

Physics is the basis for saying if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects, then by that very definition having to abide in its consequences you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. Physics abides in cause and effects and consequences of an alleged past eternity.

Your mind is really warped. There is no telling how perverted and depraved one's flesh can be. Think about it! According to the word of God, the 66 books of the Bible, you are going to Hell forever. And you having nothing to disprove the proof each and every time there is an exchange between us. You would think after being wrong so many times, you would change. There is a concept in Molinism which states God is not going to prevent the creation of the many who would be saved on account of the many that would reject Him.
03-19-2014, 01:28 PM
Parture

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic

"Trying to find the cause of the radioactive leakage in Fukushima is not so easy even after 3 years."

I don't see how a nuclear meltdown is "minute."

While an apple in hand is right there visible a small leak perhaps only a millimeter wide has not been found yet after 3 years, creating havoc spilling out tones of radiation. You are not understanding.

Quote:

"It is not Relativity to claim the future is the past from the perspective of the present. Nor is it Relativity to claim there is no causation. Nor does Relativity say there is a timeless nature. You are confused."

So explain it to me. What is relativity?

Go to the Wikipedia page on Relativity. You are overassuming.

Quote:

"Causes have to precede effects so future events can't precede their effects."

So, in the future, causes will come after their effects? How would that work?

Where did I say causes come after their effects in the future? You're misreading.

You're not understanding, you are assuming, and you are misreading.

So the fact remains unchallenged: something can't come from nothing, nor can there be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

When you compare claims of the uncreated Creator, Jesus wins out and thus, proves you are going to Hell, and that is by your own free will. I myself don't know how overturn the proof you are going to Hell.