Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2012, 08:59 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
The universe is an expanding spill of waste energy that has condensed into matter and ultimately into us. It will end when the cleanup crews arrive. It's still pretty hot. Maybe they're waiting for it to cool down a little before they get their mop tendrils into it.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 09:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(05-05-2012 08:59 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The universe is an expanding spill of waste energy that has condensed into matter and ultimately into us. It will end when the cleanup crews arrive. It's still pretty hot. Maybe they're waiting for it to cool down a little before they get their mop tendrils into it.


It will end, when Wendy-god's mom calls her down for supper, and she closes up her universe set she got for her birthday.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 06:44 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 06:46 PM by SixForty.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-05-2012 08:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is why I find it so laughable that Christians love to posit that God exists outside of space and time, and then tell us what He is capable of doing there. They didn't get this revelation from the bible because it not only doesn't use the phrase "outside of space and time", but it doesn't even suggest that this is true of God.

From previous comments, I had thought that you were at one time a Christian. So I guess I find it surprising that you would say something like this about the bible. It clearly speaks of God's existence beyond the time constraints of our world. For example, things like being "the Alpha and Omega" - the start and end of everything (which would include time); existing "from everlasting to everlasting"; God's self-existence reference to Moses, calling himself "I am who I am", the Hebrew of which implies a state of timeless existence; Jesus' present tense reference to times long past in history "before Abraham was, I am". (For references, see things like: Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 93:2; John 8:58; 2 Peter 3:8; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6)

But let's simply get down to the root of the issue. The bible says God created all things in this universe. ALL things. Is time not one of them? If not, why not?

Is timelessness a hard concept to grasp - sure. Like explaining light to a blind person. Darkness is all they've ever known, so how can they grasp sight? Just like existence in time is all we've ever known, so timelessness may be hard to grasp. But to argue against it just because it's hard to understand is simply an argument from ignorance.

(04-05-2012 01:46 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  the universe doesn't appear to have an edge.

Although this may be true from our vantage point of observation, it doesn't follow necessarily from any observed or empirically testable phenomena. In fact, the big bang is scientifically built on this as an assumption, not a fact. The universe was assumed to have neither a centre nor an edge, and the big bang theory was developed from those philosophical assumptions (as well as others)

(04-05-2012 01:46 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's not like there's some big force field or something holding it all in, it's just that the physical properties that allow us to travel from one place to another would fail to work outside of the universe. The best analogy I can think of is living in a 2D world and trying to get to the 3rd dimension. You can't simply get there by going past the edge of the page. Your physical limitations just wouldn't allow you to ever perceive, measure, or enter the 3rd dimension.

For a wonderful illustration of this, and how it actually affects the original question of God existing outside of space and time, let's take a little trip to that fantastically amazing place called Flatland!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 06:49 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(05-05-2012 07:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Praise the Lawd for Satan

Thumbsup Satan can only be a parable for the physical aspect. Like my Gwynnies. If there was no physical aspect to my Gwynnies, why would I ever come out of my head? Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
06-05-2012, 06:52 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-05-2012 10:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Existence is a process, it requires time. {and a bunch of other drivel}

and

(05-05-2012 04:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Name one property of "existence" that does not require time.

Poor Bucky. Still wandering around in darkness I see. It's sad to watch, really. You're like a man who has lived his entire existence in a cave, trying to argue that it's impossible for there to be something like the sky or the sun. If you can't understand it, then it simply must not be true, right?

I know you're likely going to dodge this again (as you have always done with anything I've asked you) but since you've made such a strong claim here, how about you actually back it up. Provide some of that ever so important evidence that you seem to like so much. Prove that existence is a process. Prove that existence requires time.

Let's actually get more specific. Let's consider the number 3. Does it exist? Does it require time? Let's just for a moment grant that the big bang you believe in actually happened. That was the start of the universe, and it came into being out of pure nothingness. No space, no time, no matter, no energy. In that state of nothingness, did the number 3 exist? If so, then existence outside of time is possible, contradicting your diatribe of lunacy. If the number 3 did not exist, please explain how the process of the big bang created the number 3.

Here's the most hilarious part about your entire ranting. You actually prove your own beliefs wrong. You are actually refuting yourself. You see, on your viewpoint, "coming into being" would require time. But time, like space, is a property of the universe, and came into existence at the big bang. In the nothingness out of which the big bang came, time didn't exist. Therefore, the "coming into being" of the universe, which would require time, could never have possibly happened. So your hypothesis proves that we're not actually here - nothing exists at all. The big bang was an impossibility. Since I highly doubt any rational person would believe that, there must be something not quite right with your hypothesis. I wonder what that could be? Oh yeah - it's self-deluded lunacy!

Now I know the rants are coming. I highly doubt they will be any more intelligent than the previous logical fallacies, demonstrably incorrect information, and false accusations that you have thrown at me in the past, (which were so carefully tracked and summed up) so it's likely I will ignore them. You may have noticed that I haven't bothered answering your other deluded attacks at me recently. I had given up, since you clearly had no desire (or is it ability?) to engage in rational or logical discourse.

However, you may wonder why I am answering you now. I figured I would give you the courtesy of a thank you, since you actually provided me some wonderfully helpful information recently.

You see, back in your ranting about carbon dating (which was very easy to search and find the source from which you just copied and pasted, by the way - did you understand any of it before the copy/paste?) you included a link to an interesting article. (yes, I do actually look at and read the material that is presented, unlike you who just ignore anything I've linked to so that you can continue whining and ranting) In attempting to use carbon dating to disprove recent creation, you actually posted a link to a site that shows carbon dating proves the truth of biblical prophecy! Seriously - did you intentionally include a link to information that categorically disproves the very point you were trying to make? That's probably the worst way to win an argument, my friend - proving the other person's side for them! Anyway, in case you missed it, here it is: http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-to-D...Method.htm A link to a site that shows carbon dating proving the truth of biblical prophecy in the book of Daniel.

As for why I am thanking you for this, I've actually been able to share this with some atheists at work recently. Two of them have found the historical fact of scientifically proven biblical prophecy very compelling. After looking into it more, they're both on the verge of abandoning their atheism. Strong evidence for the truth will do that, when people are willing to actually look at the evidence.

So thanks Bucky - because of you, and the material you provided, a couple of die hard atheists are in the process of giving up atheism and becoming Christians. I wanted to say I appreciate you being a part of that process, and thought you might like to know that you've been a part of helping people see the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 06:57 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 06:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Is timelessness a hard concept to grasp - sure.

Hafta think, if you can say that, you don't know wtf you're yammering about. Pretty much an impossible concept to grasp. Your sanity depends on it. I don't have any of that stuff. Big Grin

Bible says a lot of stuff, with YHWH far more often portrayed as a short-sighted child throwing a tantrum than some wise and eternal other.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 10:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 06:52 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Prove that existence is a process. Prove that existence requires time. Does it exist? Does it require time? Let's just for a moment grant that the big bang you believe in actually happened. That was the start of the universe, and it came into being out of pure nothingness. No space, no time, no matter, no energy. In that state of nothingness, did the number 3 exist? If so, then existence outside of time is possible, contradicting your diatribe of lunacy.


Buck HAS proved it. You can't, and didn't, state one property that does not require time. Thanks for refuting yourself. Poor dear. Can't tell the difference between a concept in Mathematics, and a "being". Yes, Three really exists. Three created the Earth 2 years ago. Alrighty then. Best get to church, and pray to Holy Three. It's the Feast of the Quadratic Equation. You will get much grace today for praying to Three. Number Three killed herself when she heard about you. Oh wait, there is. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Third. I KNEW there was a reason why they called it the "Trinity", (and why Aquinas said the Son PROCEDES from the Father). Shhh. Better keep that one quiet. It proves my point.

Your "nothingness" has been proven, by Physics, to NOT be "nothing. "nothingness" is a nice idea. It does not exist, (in this universe anyway). There is a reason they now say "nothing is not nothing", but you need to get to 3rd Grade, to learn about big boy stuff.


And all this from he who actually thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Weeping

(False analogy BTW). So sad. Too bad. Try again. The "number 3" is THE lamest thing I have EVER heard. The origins of Mathemtics, .. one should study, Grasshopper. I don't have to prove anything. It's you that make the claim, (that a god "exists"), and (despite the attempted repeat evation by deflection), are TOTALLY unable, once again, to name ONE property of existence that does NOT require time, or even define the word, (in non-temporal terms).
Extraordinary claims bla bla.. I asked the question first, and obviously you AGAIN have failed. So so obvious. But we do see it gets you VERY riled up .. this threat to your god.

Au contraire, dear, it's YOU that refute yourself. You said (time), "is a property of the universe, and came into existence at the big bang". THAT'S the POINT. If time began at the Big Bang, god can't have performed a creative act BEFORE the universe, began. And BTW, we're here alright. The proof is we have to listen to your crap, again. But thanks for agreeing it's all meaningless, and the MOST a Theist can do, faced with the time conundrum, is to remain silent, and say nothing. It's very obvious you know nothing about what a Singularity is, or Physics, for that matter. So please, stop making a fool of yourself, yet again. And dear, the Carbon dating was not the point. The point was there there are many other dating methods, which are known and verified. So, maybe go study the post again. It was not "copied" It was "assembled", and you could not refute and of it, which is why you didn't. More evasion by deflection. The origin is not the point. The POINT, you have not addressed. There is no "scientific" Biblical Prophecy, because the word "scientific" never crossed their minds, (and the word "historical" did not exist in Hebrew) and if you had ever taken even one course on the Bible you would know the function of a prophet is not "fortune telling". But since you went to the Hollywood School of Bibical Theology, it's not surprising. "Finding something compelling" is irrelevant. If the "die hard" whatevers are so stupid as to buy the "prophecy shit", too bad for them. First of all, I don't believe it for a moment, and maybe they too will also take Bible 101, and learn what a "prophet" is, how they arose, what their function really was. Makes no difference to me one way or the other. If people choose to live deluded lives, there's nothing I can do about it.

It is interesting you think Three exists. That makes you an Idealist, in the strict sense. Since Paul, (who cooked up Christianity), was influenced more by Gnosticism, I'm surprised you would admit that. Oh well, you can add Philosophy to the list, but please start with Bible 101.


Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-05-2012, 10:55 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 06:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 08:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is why I find it so laughable that Christians love to posit that God exists outside of space and time, and then tell us what He is capable of doing there. They didn't get this revelation from the bible because it not only doesn't use the phrase "outside of space and time", but it doesn't even suggest that this is true of God.

From previous comments, I had thought that you were at one time a Christian. So I guess I find it surprising that you would say something like this about the bible. It clearly speaks of God's existence beyond the time constraints of our world. For example, things like being "the Alpha and Omega" - the start and end of everything (which would include time); existing "from everlasting to everlasting"; God's self-existence reference to Moses, calling himself "I am who I am", the Hebrew of which implies a state of timeless existence; Jesus' present tense reference to times long past in history "before Abraham was, I am". (For references, see things like: Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 93:2; John 8:58; 2 Peter 3:8; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6)

But let's simply get down to the root of the issue. The bible says God created all things in this universe. ALL things. Is time not one of them? If not, why not?

Is timelessness a hard concept to grasp - sure. Like explaining light to a blind person. Darkness is all they've ever known, so how can they grasp sight? Just like existence in time is all we've ever known, so timelessness may be hard to grasp. But to argue against it just because it's hard to understand is simply an argument from ignorance.

(04-05-2012 01:46 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  the universe doesn't appear to have an edge.

Although this may be true from our vantage point of observation, it doesn't follow necessarily from any observed or empirically testable phenomena. In fact, the big bang is scientifically built on this as an assumption, not a fact. The universe was assumed to have neither a centre nor an edge, and the big bang theory was developed from those philosophical assumptions (as well as others)

(04-05-2012 01:46 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's not like there's some big force field or something holding it all in, it's just that the physical properties that allow us to travel from one place to another would fail to work outside of the universe. The best analogy I can think of is living in a 2D world and trying to get to the 3rd dimension. You can't simply get there by going past the edge of the page. Your physical limitations just wouldn't allow you to ever perceive, measure, or enter the 3rd dimension.

For a wonderful illustration of this, and how it actually affects the original question of God existing outside of space and time, let's take a little trip to that fantastically amazing place called Flatland!
I was a Christian at one time. You'll find that most of us who argue passionately for atheism were once believers. Maybe it's because religion was once a major part of our identity that we still feel the need to continue this trend, or maybe we're angry about all that time spent in our lives in wasted effort. Whatever the reason, the trend exists.

The bible does not state that God exists outside of time. You gave a bunch of references that put God "at the start of everything", but as Genesis chapter 1 makes perfectly clear, the bible's narrative starts with time pre-existing. "In the beginning" is a statement in reference to time. Despite your long list of references, they still make logical sense within a framework that posits that God existed before the universe. Yes, we know now that that means He'd even have to exist before time, but nothing among those writings makes it clear that the writers understood that. Like many pre-science references in the bible, if the bible had let us know about these things, we would have known them from the bible. It wouldn't have taken scientific discoveries.

Furthermore, the bible doesn't actually state that God created "all things in the universe". Did God create Hell? How about the the angels? These things are conspicuously lacking in the creation narrative... as is time.

You say that arguing against timelessness is an argument from ignorance, and I think you're just quick to try to paint me with fallacies. I'm not arguing that there is timelessness or there isn't... I'm saying that "nobody knows". In fact I'm pretty sure I used that exact phrase in more than one post here. You, on the other hand, are asserting to have this knowledge, which is in fact an argument from ignorance. Take the plank out of your own eye before removing the splinter from mine, eh?

Then you argue about the Big Bang Theory being an assumption, rather than a fact. You don't seem to know what background microwave radiation is or what it implies, and I'm not going to argue with you about "theory vs. fact". It wouldn't matter if I could even prove whether the universe had an edge or not because it still wouldn't have any implications about theology, and I know that's what your focus is here.

I already know about "Flatland", because I've read this exact link before. It is in fact what I had in mind when I wrote that analogy. I typically know the Christian response to my arguments before I post them. This is all fine and good for provoking deep thoughts, but as far as proving Christianity it does zilch. It's just another argument about how unfalsifiable/unverifiable/unknowable God is, which again leads one logically to a stance of skepticism.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 11:03 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 06:52 PM)SixForty Wrote:  If the number 3 did not exist, please explain how the process of the big bang created the number 3.

Singularity
Quark-gluon plasma
There you go, one becomes three. Big Grin

3 doesn't exist without differentiation. 3 doesn't exist outside of concept.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 11:32 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
Wow. Just…. Wow! You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you!

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Doesn't know the difference between a concept in Mathematics, and a "being".

As predicted, well dodged. When you are shown something that meets your criteria of existence without requiring time, you just jump to special pleading "Beings are different - it doesn't apply to beings". There's no point in following you down that rabbit hole anymore. You'll just keep moving the standard to arbitrarily match up with whatever you want.

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't have to prove anything.

And again, another predicted dodge comes true. So you just make claims and they are true because you said them? You made some strong positive statements. If you want anyone to even attempt to take you seriously, you should back them up. In case you forgot what you said:

(03-05-2012 10:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Perception is a process. It requires time. Existence is a process, it requires time. Intervention is a process .. requires time. Creation is an act .. requires time, (which had to "begin" before the creation of time, (meaningless statement)). Loving is a process, consciousness is a process,

So, how about it? Since you are the one making claims there, back them up! Stop being a whiney little tantrum thrower and actually back up what you say!

The funniest part is, some of those claims are true, and I'd agree with you. Others are clearly false. Can you even figure out which ones? I bet you can't! Smile

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  are TOTALLY unable, once again, to name ONE property of existence that does NOT require time

Done, verifiably, in the previous threads. I gave you multiple examples of properties which do not require time. You just refuse to accept them. You take them, transform them in to the expression of those properties, and then claim that such expression requires time. I was never talking about the expression of those properties, just the properties themselves. But again, you simply couldn't understand that, and continue to stumble around in the dark, yelling loudly. I can't be blamed for your own inability to understand things that are over your head.

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  But we do see it gets you VERY riled up .. this threat to your god.

Yes - so riled up that I calmly ignored you after your tantrums. That's an unbelievable level of riled up I experienced there. I'm surprised I came through it without hurting myself.

And trust me when I say this Bucky - any thought you have is no threat to God. (Any thought you have is likely no threat to a flea, but that's beside the point here) You could throw the worst rants in history, and it wouldn't come close to threatening God. No matter how much you deny Him, He's still there. No matter how mad you get at Him, He's still there. No matter how much you ignore Him, He'll never go away. Bucky, you can't stop God from being God.

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If time began at the Big Bang, god can't have performed a creative act BEFORE the universe, began. And we're here alright.

But see, this is exactly where you prove yourself wrong. You're argument fails on the very criteria it uses for the test. "If time began at the Big Bang, the nothingness could not have changed from a state of nothingness to a state of the universe beginning. Such a change would have been a process, and would have required time, which didn't exist in the nothingness" And yet here we are today, alright. Categorical proof that you are wrong. See - that's the very definition of self-refuting. It really doesn't get any clearer.

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  But thanks for agreeing it's all meaningless, and the MOST a Theist can do, faced with the time conumdrum, is to remain silent, and say nothing.

Close, but you got a couple of words wrong there. Let me correct them for you: "the most a theist can do, faced with a fool, is to remain silent, and say nothing" (Proverbs 26:4)


(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It was not "copied" It was "assembled", and you could not refute and of it, which is why you didn't.

Why would I bother trying to refute it? It was effectively irrelevant to the discussion, I would have agreed with a large portion of it anyway, despite it's irrelevance, and it was self-refuting by the inclusion of the link that I already mentioned! Why waste time trying to refute someone who continually refutes himself!

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "scientific" Biblical Prophecy,

Once again, you are categorically lying. Just another false accusation from you. At no time in that post did I claim that there was a scientific biblical prophecy. I claimed there was a scientifically proven biblical prophecy. There's a difference, but I guess you just couldn't see it through your rage in this rant here. These are the reasons why I don't typically bother responding to you - I compiled a long list of things proving where you have lied, falsely accused me, claimed I said things that I didn't say. All with verifiable references that anyone can see. And you've never even addressed a single one of them. You can't take responsibility for your own actions (which may be at the root of the reason you want so badly for God to not exist) Instead, all you want to do is rant. Try and prove the creationist wrong by shooting yourself in the foot.


(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  if you had ever taken even one course on the Bible you would know the function of a prophet is not "fortune telling" {snipped tantrumming} and learn what a "prophet" is, how they arose, what their function really was.

Since you claim to be the knowledgeable one on this topic, then please enlighten me. What is a prophet, in the biblical sense, and what was their function? I'm curious to see if you can actually get this right. (Even though it's really not that hard for you to simply do another hackneyed cut and paste job again)

(06-05-2012 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If people choose to live deluded lives, there's nothing I can do about it.

I find it ironically hilarious, then, that you seem to come on here and want so badly to try to do something about it. But you are right - since there is clearly nothing you can do about your own self-delusions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: