Who *created* God?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who Created God?

[nemafakei]

"is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing."

Herein lies the error. For it to have been a created thing, there must have been a time when it was not created. But since time is a property of the universe itself, there was no 'time before' (or after) the universe, and hence no reason why is should have been created.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing."

Herein lies the error. For it to have been a created thing, there must have been a time when it was not created. But since time is a property of the universe itself, there was no 'time before' (or after) the universe, and hence no reason why is should have been created.

those are two different meanings of teh word time....

one is an adjective and one is referring to actual time as measured by the decay of cesium atoms.

Thus there IS a "time before" and  a "time after"  because they are merely adjectives and are not referring to the actual space-time dimension.

[nemafakei]

"Thus there IS a "time before" and  a "time after"  because they are merely adjectives and are not referring to the actual space-time dimension."

No, they're quite definitely not adjectives.

More importantly, if they're not referring to the dimension time, then what are they referring to?

[GUNWOUNDS]

"before" and "after" are adjectives most definately

they merely describe a state of existence.

if you can take depth out of a cube and it becomes a square or add depth to a square and it becomes a cube.... why cannot you take/add time away ?  Can you not add and take away dimensions?

[nemafakei]

"before" and "after" can be adverbs, prepositions, or conjunctions, but not adjectives. In this case, they function as adjectives of time (I think they may technically be adverbs with some ellipsis). "they merely describe a state of existence" Yes, they describe time. You still have the problem that time is a noun, and you haven't told me how it differs in this use from the normal use.

"if you can take depth out of a cube and it becomes a square or add depth to a square and it becomes a cube.... why cannot you take/add time away ?  Can you not add and take away dimensions?"

You've lost me. Remember that squares don't exist. Why do you need to add and remove time?

All dimentions are part and parcel of the universe itself.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"before" and "after" can be adverbs, prepositions, or conjunctions, but not adjectives. In this case, they function as adjectives of time (I think they may technically be adverbs with some ellipsis). "they merely describe a state of existence" Yes, they describe time. You still have the problem that time is a noun, and you haven't told me how it differs in this use from the normal use.

"if you can take depth out of a cube and it becomes a square or add depth to a square and it becomes a cube.... why cannot you take/add time away ?

[nemafakei]

"What i am trying to say is that if we can theoretically remove dimensions in geometry... why cannot a God remove the universe (time included)  all together?

or add a universe (time included) when there was none?"

Theoretically, yes, but just as we do in geometry, realistically, no. Remember also thatt when adding dimensions to a square, we've still only got an imaginary object, we're not really making it.

Note also that my point is primarily that the universe needs no creator, not that a creator is impossible.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"What i am trying to say is that if we can theoretically remove dimensions in geometry... why cannot a God remove the universe (time included)

[nemafakei]

I agree that the universe had a 'beginning' known as the big bang. But I do not see why it has to have been created. The paragraps you give neatly skip the case of the universe, which exists both for all time, and nevertheless can be saif to have had a 'beginning'. But beware the use of the word beginning - because there was no 'before the universe'.

"This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that cou

ld not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning" all correct (narrative rather than argument, but never mind)... "and therefore is a created thing" until this. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning (certainly none applicable to the universe) suggesting that something with a beginning has to have been created.

Oh, and don't try to suggest 'it's common sense that everything non-eternal is created', because though it works in the big slow world of classical physics with which we interact, on scales of quantum physics and relativity, the combination of which should define how the big bang works, common sense from classical physics doesn't apply (for example, if I leave the earth at 1.5

[GUNWOUNDS]

I agree that the universe had a 'beginning' known as the big bang. But I do not see why it has to have been created. The paragraps you give neatly skip the case of the universe, which exists both for all time, and nevertheless can be saif to have had a 'beginning'. But beware the use of the word beginning - because there was no 'before the universe'.

"This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that cou

ld not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning" all correct (narrative rather than argument, but never mind)... "and therefore is a created thing" until this. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning (certainly none applicable to the universe) suggesting that something with a beginning has to have been created.

Oh, and don't try to suggest 'it's common sense that everything non-eternal is created', because though it works in the big slow world of classical physics with which we interact, on scales of quantum physics and relativity, the combination of which should define how the big bang works, common sense from classical physics doesn't apply (for example, if I leave the earth at 1.5

[nemafakei]

That's the point. There was no state of existence before the big bang, there was no before the big bang, because there is no time outside the universe. The entire question "what comes before the big bang" is as nonsensical as "what was I doing in 400BC" - there was no me in 400BC.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's the point. There was no state of existence before the big bang, there was no before the big bang, because there is no time outside the universe. The entire question "what comes before the big bang" is as nonsensical as "what was I doing in 400BC" - there was no me in 400BC.

nobody is asking "what comes before the big bang"

[nemafakei]

"there not to have been a nonexistence of the Big bang.... the big bang would have to be in a frozen state of perpetual "banging""

Uh... Why?

[Wolf]

I think that, with the development of Quantum string theory, and the realization that the Big Bang might not have been the moment of universal creation, and that the universe might have always existed, God, too, might have always existed, or, He, at some earlier point, set the universe in motion, but still always existed. See the "first-movement" or "God as the unmoved mover" arguments. I think this better fits into the idea that God existed everywhen. Time doesn't matter, so, why should the when of the universe's creation matter?

[DukeLeto]

Okey dokey, Gunwounds, let's see here.

If I understand, you are having a hard time believbing that the universe/time is all there is, and that there was no "before" and can be no "after" the universe/time.

Let's use a Sci-Fi example:

You are captain Gunwounds of the Federation Starship Starchaser, the first ship ever built with true Transwarp capability.  Your ship can reach 10 billion times the speed of light.  In a scientific endevour, you launch from Utopia Planitia shipyards and head at bearing 001 mark 0 (roughly towards the center of the galaxy, but "up" a bit so you're not swalled by the black hole).  You continue at this speed, on the same heding, for the rest of your natural lives (or until your warp core implodes, whichever comes first).  Guess what:  You'll never "leave the universe".

Why?  It just can't happen.  There is no "outside the universe."  Similarly, there is no "before time."  Time, like the universe, is infinite.  The aptly named "space-time continuum" is all there is is.  There is no "outside the space-time continuum."  There is no "non-existence" in the complete sense.

The "big-bang" I prefer to think of not as "creating" the space-time continuum, but rather as an infinitessemly (sp?) short state that coincided with the beginning of the space-time coninuum.  IE, at the same instant, not before.  There is/was no "before."

Confusing?  I'm not sure if this is what Nema is trying to convey, but that's my view.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think that, with the development of Quantum string theory, and the realization that the Big Bang might not have been the moment of universal creation, and that the universe might have always existed, God, too, might have always existed, or, He, at some earlier point, set the universe in motion, but still always existed. See the "first-movement" or "God as the unmoved mover" arguments. I think this better fits into the idea that God existed everywhen. Time doesn't matter, so, why should the when of the universe's creation matter?

Well the problem with that wolfwiz... is that Eposito pointed out that as everyone knows.... time is simply a dimension just like length ,width, and height

[GUNWOUNDS]

Okey dokey, Gunwounds, let's see here.

If I understand, you are having a hard time believbing that the universe/time is all there is, and that there was no "before" and can be no "after" the universe/time.

Let's use a Sci-Fi example:

You are captain Gunwounds of the Federation Starship Starchaser, the first ship ever built with true Transwarp capability.

[nemafakei]

"hyperspace (outside time continuum right?)"

Gunwounds, I have never seen the word hyperspace used by physicists to name an actual phenomenon or medium (though I may have seen the word in simile, and heard its use in its (I think) origin, science fiction). Are you talking about a serious concept, or the same hyperspace you think God resides on?

[Tio_Holtzmann]

again, going back to the start of the argument.

the problem for people who see the universe as having no beginning is: do you really believe in objective science?  because i believe we can use science to measure things, but i also believe that we do not see things as they are.  we see things as we are.

if we have been created then we have also been bound by the laws of time, which i see as god's clockwork on the situation.  the bible describes god as being outside of time, so he is free to impose it upon his creations.  remember that according to the bible, god is infinite and we are not, making him slightly cooler than us and able to perceive things that we can't, such as eternity.