Was there a point that only God existed?


#121

Going off the classical religious definition of a deity, mind outside of space and time. Which is, in itself, logically not possible. It’s like saying it’s a married bachelor. If something can think, thought is necessarily linear, and therefore subject to time.


#122

You’re confusing our claims, because you are right, in a sense. That is why we admit no ratiocinative processes or “thinking” in God, for he would not be immutable if he did think in such a way.


#123

God is eternally outside of the physical universe. Show me where that’s misleading. Go ahead… I’m waiting. :roll_eyes: :popcorn:

Fair enough. Once you have energy, or any activity, you have a framework.

You’re crossing the streams, my friend. The Big Bang doesn’t assert ‘ex nihilo’. It cannot. It can only talk about what happens once energy or ‘bang’ is present. Within that constraint, anything that it talks about is already in the context of a framework. :wink:

LOL! I’m trying to decide whether to help you out with philosophy, physics, or math. Let’s start with math… :rofl: :wink:

OK… so, ∀ ε | 0 < ε < 10^(-43), it follows that 10^(-43) - ε > 0.

Therefore, let’s look at your assertion. For any such ε, the point in time that can be described as:

t = (10^(-43))-e

is a time t > 0.

Now, whether I can measure it is immaterial. What’s important is that it’s real, non-zero, and positive. Therefore, it is a time that exists. If time exists… then the framework of time exists. Therefore, your assertion that "no framework exists prior to t=10^(-43) is, on its face, wrong. :man_shrugging:

(p.s., I believe that the Big Bang is reasonable. I just don’t think that what you’re saying about it is reasonable. :wink: )


#124

Wow. So confused about what Christians assert. Let’s see if we can’t clear up your misunderstandings…

It’s logically impossible within the context of space of time. Yes. That’s correct.

However, we do not posit a God who is constrained by space or time. So, there is no logical contradiction.

Your assertion presumes that God exists in a category within which we do not define him.

Umm… ok? Wanna substantiate that, in the context of God? I mean, we aren’t claiming that God is a nice white-bearded guy who floats in the clouds above the earth. Are you?

Yes!

We don’t posit that God ratiocinates. Sorry to have to inform you of that. Hope it helps your thought process to work your way through that revelation. :wink:


#125

Not the complete picture, because God is also inside the physical universe.


#126

Your mistake here is assuming time is continuous and not quantum. Planck time (about 5.4 x 10-44 seconds) is the shortest possible length of time, according to quantum theory.


#127

You cannot make a moral decision without having a certain amount of time for reflection and thinking what you are deciding about.


#128

Only as the Incarnated Lord. Doesn’t change the fact that God is eternally immutable and outside of the universe.

My assertion doesn’t depend on ‘continuity’, nor does it depend on quantum mechanics. Time t>0 is time t>0. :wink:


#129

I believe you are in error as far as QM time is concerned. To say that t>0 when you are below the Planck time does not make sense in QM time. There is a fuzziness or indeterminancy between t = 0 and t< Planck time.


#130

You are not giving the complete picture because God is present in physical time also.

Before the Incarnation, God was observed on earth walking in a garden. And God spoke to the prophets.


#131

It seems to me that you’re talking about the quantum substratum. It’s the same notion that seems to have gotten Lawrence Krauss so verklempt when he thought he’d disproven the Christian theological assertion of ‘ex nihilo’ creation. When it was pointed out to him that the quantum particles didn’t appear ‘ex nihilo’, but rather, from the (pre-existing) substratum, he was very bummed that it didn’t disprove ‘ex nihilo’ creation. :wink:


#132

If you interpret that as a historical, literal narrative. Good luck with that. :wink:

Does ‘speech’ imply ‘location’? If so, I want to facetime with you and watch you claim that I’m physically there with you. :rofl:


#133

This does not have to do with quantum particles. It has to do with the measurement of time in quantum mechanics.


#134

Just throw out things in Holy Scripture that do not agree with your notions.
In addition to being transcendent, God is also present in the physical world, one way or another. It is misleading to imply that He is not.


#135

Wih math, the Big Bang is the moment of infinite density, and spacetime has volume zero. There are no intervals of space or time that describe anything real.

With physics, this is defined by the Planck Epoch. Since 10^-43 sec defines the smallest possible unit of time, Quantum effects apply, and ε a member of a null set.

I provided both of these in my last note because you were quibbling about it being not a point but an interval. In math, it is a point; in physics it is sort of an interval. If you make up your mind what you want to discuss, we can choose between math and physics. In neither does your position make any sense.

Or you could just define the Big Bang in some way that allows for your “framework” and show that the definition is reasonable.


#136

Infinite density of what? If nothing, then there’s no framework required to support it. If, however, an infinite density of something, then there’s a framework there, supporting it. You can’t have it both ways, no matter how much you wish it to be so. :wink:

“smallest possible unit of time” isn’t a complete statement, however. “Smallest possible unit of time detectable”? Ok. I’m cool with that. “Smallest possible unit of time discretely measureable”? Ok. That’s cool, too.

But, from a philosophical perspective (and, by the way… which sub-forum are we in, again, exactly? :wink: ), 10^(-43) is a time greater than zero. And therefore, it’s a time within the temporal framework. And therefore, we’re already inside what you wish to claim we’re not.

I mean… keep trying, But… you’re nowhere near a reasonable rebuttal of the concepts I’ve been asking you to address. :wink:

Nice try. Did I call it an ‘interval’? No. So, don’t try to characterize it as such. :wink:

If you want to waffle and call it a “sort of an interval”, then that’s your business. Don’t attempt to slip that by me and get me to allow you to get away with that kind of slight of hand, though. :rofl:


#137

The universe. Newly created it is infinitely dense. When it begins expanding, it creates the framework.

Ok. Smallest possible unit of time conceivable within the accepted laws of physics. Anything less than 10^-44s is indistinguishable from a point singularity because the conventional laws of physics no longer apply. With math, we can make smaller and smaller numbers, but those have no meaning in the ‘real’ world described by physics.

If you want to create a Big Bang theory that is not rooted in quantum physics, go ahead. The whole idea of the theory is the Big Bang is a singularity where conventional laws of physics cease to operate. You seem to be arguing that never happens. I do not know why you say that, or even what you are trying to say.


#138

No. “Newly created”, it already was in existence. Regardless of its size, it was already subject to space and time. It expanded that space, certainly. But, your claim that an existing physical entity doesn’t exist in a framework is philosophically null.

Ahh… now we’re getting somewhere!

OK – stop thinking in terms of physics; think in terms of philosophy. It doesn’t matter whether you can measure it – just that it exists. And so, since we’re in non-zero time, we’re already in a temporal framework!

It’s not that these small intervals “have no meaning in the ‘real’ world” – it’s that there’s no practical scientific assertions we can make about them. That’s perfectly fine. However, to use that limitation of physics in an attempt to impose it on a philosophical argument… that’s where you’re in error. :wink:

What I’m trying to say is this: look at the top of your screen. Are you in a forum on physics or philosophy? Don’t use the limitations of the former as if they applied to the latter. :+1:


#139

What exactly does this mean? Is it newly created, or already in existence? How are those not semantically null, if not “philosophically null”? Since that is the basis for your first paragraph, it is hard to follow your logic.

You are proposing a “philosophical” universe that philosophers would largely reject. It has a “framework” that is independent of the universe. Absolute time, not relative time. Travel faster than the speed of light. Etc.

Theoretical physicists (ie philosophers) do not consider that an adequate way to understand our universe. There are consequential philosophical implications to this inadequacy. They show up mostly at extremes, like speeds near the speed of light, high temperature situations, the beginning of the universe, etc. i can imagine there are “philosophers” who do not consider these things, but if you are discussing if there is a point when only God existed, you are discussing an extreme situation.

We can impose a temporal framework on anything, but it is not within the universe. I can say a spaceship takes 24 years to get to alpha Cenauri and back, but that doesn’t mean anything to the person on the ship. If we impose a time of 10^-50s on a universe, it will be a universe unlike our own. Light may be slower. The curvature of space may be steeper, gravity stronger, etc.

And who knows what crazy ideas their philosophers will be thinking.


#140

Sigh. “Having been newly created, it was already in existence.”

Not at all. The framework comes into existence at t=0, when the “infinitely dense universe” is posited. (In fact, it might be in existence prior to that point, but science can’t tell us anything about what it looks like then.)

So, in fact, I’m positing a philosophical approach fully in line with the science of origins. It’s just out of line with what you’re proposing. :wink:

I’m not arguing for any particular frame of reference, but rather, simply that a frame of reference exists. Not sure why that’s so difficult for you to understand. :man_shrugging:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.