Science's Time God

[Anon_Ghost]

When you were a baby you didn't know of the universe you were in, you did not have any questions. You were a speck of intelligence in a finitely dark galaxy of your own, you "time" had started but you weren't even conscious of this yet. The Mothers body feeds the growth of it's body, and outside influences stimulate it's intelligence. Then, as the mother goes through the greatest pain imaginable, it sees light! What a world of wonders! Had we been born deaf and mute we still could have discovered science and the universe!

This can relate to the birth of the cosmos. Time didn't know it started, it just did! Then it grew just as we do! Then it got light and really came alive! Time is the oldest thing in this universe, time created the universe, therefore if there is a God, it is time.

[Fuzzwood]

We can't explain something, therefore goddidit. Time is not a conscious entity.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Fuzzwood

[iNow]

I don't think this is a "goddidit" argument. He's reasoning that if there is a god, that god is the concept of time. It's more about poetry than science, IMO, but is interesting.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html

THE NATURE OF TIME

NOVA: Let's start with the crux of the matter: What, for you, is time?

 

Carl Sagan: Ever since St. Augustine, people have wrestled with this, and there are all sorts of things it isn't. It isn't a flow of something, because what does it flow past? We use time to measure flow. How could we use time to measure time? We are stuck in it, each of us time travels into the future, one year, every year. None of us to any significant precision does otherwise. If we could travel close to the speed of light, then we could travel further into the future in a given amount of time. It is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I'm not seeing how this is religion. The only connection is the preaching. Perhaps we can get some clarification?

[Anon_Ghost]

You are correct iNow, that was more poetry than god done it lol. I made no claim to a deity! Moderator, God is, and always has been, anything that cannot be explained, and religion is the study of God(s), therefore I have placed this thread here.

I hope that time may become a clearer concept in the future but when it does...what mystery will the world hold for us then? This was a piece of poetry used to make one think about that. If "God" is just the things we don't yet understand, then who will Humanity call thier God next? Nearly the entire universe is at our fingertips and we have yet to bring about peace! How is it that being as smart as we are still believe in ancient misguided writings? As they will surely say of me 1000 years from now!!! The point being we have moved on from that era, we now know that it is a burning molten core that creates warmth under our feet, not a hell burning the souls of the damned. Religion IS theory, although more like philosophers theory than scientific theory(in that most religions don't rely heavily on facts but speculations that may or may not make sense) and how someone can still trust a religion that has been disproven is beyond me. But this is free will am I right?

[iNow]

that was more poetry than god done it <snip> God is, and always has been, anything that cannot be explained

These comments contradict. It now seems that you are, in fact, positing "goddidit" as an acceptable reply.

 

If "God" is just the things we don't yet understand, then...

A quick look around the world demonstrates clearly that billions of people hold a different definition than you.

 

How is it that being as smart as we are still believe in ancient misguided writings?

We are a social species with a strong predilection for accepting things as true merely because those around us (our family, friends, tribal elders, cultural leaders, etc.) accept those things as true, whether or not empiricism justifies such conclusions.

 

While this tendency to accept instructions from pack elders openly and without reluctance clearly helped us survive in a dangerous world (and more so during periods before we had the mental capacity to solve problems on our own, while we were developing from infancy through toddlerhood, through puberty and beyond when we'd finally be ready to solve problems on our own and begin passing on instructions to other kin as we ourselves matured into local elders), this tendency obviously fails us repeatedly in our modern world and has been exploited tremendously into what today we call organized religion.

 

Conflating the concept of time with the concept of god, however, solves or improves none of that, IMO, and does little more than introduce further confusion into two already deeply complex and I'll-defined subject areas.

 

But this is free will am I right?

Free will almost certainly does not exist in its commonly understood sense, but that's another topic entirely and I feel we've meandered quite enough already here (in your only two brief posts) so am not inclined to elucidate or opine further on this particular tangent. Edited August 30, 2015 by iNow

[Ant Sinclair]

When you were a baby you didn't know of the universe you were in, you did not have any questions. You were a speck of intelligence in a finitely dark galaxy of your own, you "time" had started but you weren't even conscious of this yet. The Mothers body feeds the growth of it's body, and outside influences stimulate it's intelligence. Then, as the mother goes through the greatest pain imaginable, it sees light! What a world of wonders! Had we been born deaf and mute we still could have discovered science and the universe!

This can relate to the birth of the cosmos. Time didn't know it started, it just did! Then it grew just as we do! Then it got light and really came alive! Time is the oldest thing in this universe, time created the universe, therefore if there is a God, it is time.

Is time nothing more than a collection of events, many things happening at the same instant?, then another time(another instant, another collection of events), then another, that are all contributing to a historical sequence of events?

Wouldn't an event have had to come first, an event/collection of events was needed for time to realised/started to be measured?

What caused the 1st event must have come first surely?

[iNow]

What caused the 1st event must have come first surely?

Then what caused that? It's turtles all the way down...

[Ant Sinclair]

Then what caused that? It's turtles all the way down...

I'm not going down that road, You may if You wish Now, Iam just saying that I can't see that time came first!

[Anon_Ghost]

Yes Sinclair, much like that! And I'm so glad you asked your second question as I've already written the answer!

Intelligence.
Where does intelligence come from? As with everything else it must have had a beginning. When was the first intelligence created? Before, During, or After Time? If the first intelligent being was formed, and in turn started Time, it would be much as we call a God. It would not have any fear of death never having seen it, and would have wanted to create art. What art is more beautiful than the cosmos? Eventually it would have become bored and wished to reproduce it's intelligence, it is instinctual in all intelligence to reproduce. Man was eventual and whether we are the first intelligent beings, or just another wave of life, we must be grateful for this gift of Time. -James Weninger 8/20/15

[Ant Sinclair]

Yes Sinclair, much like that! And I'm so glad you asked your second question as I've already written the answer!

 

Intelligence.

Where does intelligence come from? As with everything else it must have had a beginning. When was the first intelligence created? Before, During, or After Time? If the first intelligent being was formed, and in turn started Time, it would be much as we call a God. It would not have any fear of death never having seen it, and would have wanted to create art. What art is more beautiful than the cosmos? Eventually it would have become bored and wished to reproduce it's intelligence, it is instinctual in all intelligence to reproduce. Man was eventual and whether we are the first intelligent beings, or just another wave of life, we must be grateful for this gift of Time. -James Weninger 8/20/15

How do You believe a conciousness/energy could come from nothing - if You're going down the road of thinking that nothing is a 'thing' or has a value just as something is a thing and has a value, please explain how You get between the two.

[Anon_Ghost]

Sinclair: A consciousness does come from nothing. How do you think a ? turns into a sperm, turns into a baby, turns into a man? At some point in this equation consciousness comes seemingly from nowhere just as particles do! Speaking of particles could this explain why there is a certain uncertainty among particles. If particles had some form of intelligence, not only does that explain how the universe decided to start itself, but also why we cannot pinpoint their movements as a certain free will would apply.

 

iNow: I must first say that the I did not contradict myself, rather i meant that throughout human history we have explained anything we cannot understand as God, or as being caused by God. However in my third post I presented the possibility of a "God" in the form of a universal intelligence. Please do not confuse the two as being related, although they still fit together but as you said that would be a turtle down theory! It is a turtle down theory, and the leading theory explaining space-time come to find out!

"God" is displayed here as an intelligent "being" whose creation, in respect to us, is the beginning of "Time", even if it doesn't know when it was created! Supposedly this intelligent being somehow "poped off" the universe with the "Big Bang". So what then explains Black Holes?

Current theory speculates, just as the lady with the turtles, that these black holes lead to a white hole on the other side, in a parallel universe. Enter the end of this universe's time, come out at the beginning of the next universe's time, effectively recycling matter.

If we take away white holes from the equation we are now left with black holes serving as the universal clocks, endlessly consuming all of creation, that are ticking down to the end of the universe, and the death of God.

The only other theory that makes sense with our observations is the White Hole/ Black Hole Cycle theory that says black holes have nothing to do with time, instead they are the tool god used to create the universe, galactic pistons ever expanding the universe. In this theory "God" is reduced to a possibility of intelligence that started off the "Big Bang" in the form of particle intelligence, and "Time" is a defined measurement of elapsed "time frames" from any given start point(big bang, Jesus' deat).

You can find more on my White Hole/ Black Hole Cycle Theory in the speculation forum. But please keep this discussion to the Religious aspects and implications of these theories as this is a religious forum. Any technical comments for my theory please post in it's corresponding thread.

[iNow]

Wow. This went off the rails in a hurry.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We allow scientific speculation following moderate guidelines for rigor and evidence. Religious speculation is just you claiming whatever you want, with nothing to support it. It's not as interesting as you seem to think.

 

You're asking us to believe rather than trust. That's not science.

 

This is a science discussion site, with some sections for religious topics discussed in a rational, methodical way. It's not a place for preaching YOUR way that you made up. If you think your beliefs have some rational ramifications, please discuss those and the science behind them.

 

You're trying to blend your misunderstanding of black/white holes with some personal religious epiphany you can't explain using science, and you're failing because it isn't science. It's unsupported guesswork.

 

Please, this isn't personal. This is about the difference between what you believe, and what you can persuade us to trust because you've given us reasons to accept your explanations. This is NOT the place to preach your gut feelings about how the universe works. We want evidence for bold assertions, the bolder your claims the more evidence should support them.

 

Thanks for listening, no need to respond in this thread to this modnote. If you have a problem with it, PM another moderator and they'll help you.

[Anon_Ghost]

You obviously either don't understand what I'm saying or you don't like it and are getting personal. What I am discussing IS religion approached from a scientific view...sheesh...
In order for Religion(in the sense of believing in a creator) and Science to both be correct, there can only be 3 possibilities. You may forget that Black Holes are a RECENT discovery and were only speculated to exist by Einstein, who also believed in the possibility of White Holes and said they are Mathematically Possible as the opposite of a black hole. So I wished to touch on the religious implications my white hole theory presents. these implications being that God as a deity in the traditional sense is absurd and "God" is reduced to an intelligent decision by particles to create the universe.

If you have further questions regarding the legitimacy of my right to speak my beliefs on this forum, I suggest you tell me what rules I am breaking and stop discriminating against my freedom of speech because you do not agree. I will report this to the site owner and the cloud owner that provides this sites existence if you proceed to throw my discussions off topic! So rude...

What you are doing is very much against the process of discovery and science itself and such behavior should hardly be tolerated by the site users never the less those on administrative level.

How can I discover the evidence for you if I don't have the ability to throw around idea's with other scientific minded individuals? If only things with hard evidence are allowed here why are there postings about aliens?

[iNow]

I don't think you're making as much sense as you think you are. While you're tossing in scientific terms and concepts, you're doing so in a willy nilly pseudoscientific and hand-wavey way.

 

If your thread were truly about the science of religion, we'd be focused on human psychology, sociology, and/or specific claims of specific sacred texts. That's not, however, what is happening.

 

What's happening is you're misusing words to try to give unearned deference to your personal spiritual feelings and worldview, and I suspect it won't be long before the word quantum gets introduced, as well (in short, we've all seen this already a thousand times before).

 

Nobody is taking this personally except you. Your ideas simply lack the rigor and internal consistency and logical coherence they require to survive here in this particular community.

If you have further questions regarding the legitimacy of my right to speak my beliefs on this forum, I suggest you tell me what rules I am breaking and stop discriminating against my freedom of speech because you do not agree. I will report this to the site owner and the cloud owner that provides this sites existence if you proceed to throw my discussions off topic! So rude...

You don't have freedom of speech here this is a private forum and you're here now directing your feedback to a member of the staff put in place to enforce the rules.

 

Report away, but you're merely digging the hole deeper with replies along these lines.

[Phi for All]

If you have further questions regarding the legitimacy of my right to speak my beliefs on this forum, I suggest you tell me what rules I am breaking and stop discriminating against my freedom of speech because you do not agree. I will report this to the site owner and the cloud owner that provides this sites existence if you proceed to throw my discussions off topic! So rude...

 

!

Moderator Note

This is why we ask you not to respond to Moderator notes,. You take the whole thread off-topic because you can't be bothered to read the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

You have no rights here. You have no freedom of speech. The site owner will tell you that himself. Members are guests, and civility is one of our foremost rules. You joined, and are now proceeding to ignore everything you've been told, everything you were supposed to have read, and you're flaunting your ignorance of science by trying to lecture some very accomplished professional and amateur scientists about the uneducated ideas you've dreamed up to explain what you failed to study.

 

Please get off your high horse, unplug your ears and start listening to what people are actually talking to you about.

[Anon_Ghost]

Okay so anyways here is what I am saying that follows your guidelines: Hell, in the form it took when the term was coined has been disproven. It is not hell beneath our feet as the roman catholic church claimed, it is the molten core of the earth. This is what heats the ground not the burning souls of the damned.
Heaven in the form it took when the term was coined is also disproven, as we found that it was actually called "space" and we can go there.

So what or who is god? That was the intended discussion.

 

 

Various sciences proved the ancient religions incorrect and so too must it prove current religions incorrect if we are to evolve to a society based in logic and reason.

[iNow]

So what or who is god?

An ill-defined three letter word that exemplifies the human need for simple explanations to complex issues. It's a concept evolved from our attempt to make sense of our surroundings, our tendency to accept as our own the beliefs of the people around us, and our logical imperative for every effect to have a cause and every progeny a parent. It is also the core underlying much of history's needless suffering and war as well as the basis through which countless millions realize optimistic hope and meaning in this world, no matter how baseless, unsupported, or wish/faith-based that may ultimately be.

Edited August 30, 2015 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Okay so anyways here is what I am saying that follows your guidelines: Hell, in the form it took when the term was coined has been disproven. It is not hell beneath our feet as the roman catholic church claimed, it is the molten core of the earth. This is what heats the ground not the burning souls of the damned.

Heaven in the form it took when the term was coined is also disproven, as we found that it was actually called "space" and we can go there.

So what or who is god? That was the intended discussion.

 

 

Various sciences proved the ancient religions incorrect and so too must it prove current religions incorrect if we are to evolve to a society based in logic and reason.

 

 

There is currently no evidence for a god, to answer your question predisposes the existence of something called a god, i do not predispose there is a god...

[pzkpfw]

My emphasis:

 

... therefore if there is a God, it is time.

Quite simple: there is no God. So it/he/she/they don't need to be time - or anything else.

 

 

... How is it that being as smart as we are still believe in ancient misguided writings? As they will surely say of me 1000 years from now!!! ...

Speaking of time, I'll save some by not waiting 1000 years

[iNow]

There is currently no evidence for a god, to answer your question predisposes the existence of something called a god, i do not predispose there is a god...

I'm predisposed to assume you meant presupposed.

 

That said, we can at least say that God exists as a concept, even though we agree that it almost certainly doesn't exist as an entity.

[Strange]

You may forget that Black Holes are a RECENT discovery and were only speculated to exist by Einstein,

 

I don't know why you think this is relevant to the question of God, but it is wrong:

 

The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 of the Royal Society:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History

[dimreepr]

That said, we can at least say that God exists as a concept, even though we agree that it almost certainly doesn't exist as an entity.

 

 

The concept of god is as unnecessary as the concept that it is real; I don’t think of myself as an atheist but an indifferentist.

[Phi for All]

 

 

The concept of god is as unnecessary as the concept that it is real;

 

That's too big a blanket for me. You're making a value judgement now, claiming somebody who feels a benefit from their concept of god would be better off without it, that they don't feel what they think they feel. Is that what you're claiming?

 

I'm also a weak atheist. I'm not a philatelist either, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-stamp collecting.