Metsfanmax wrote:The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.
So you want me to prove that time didn't exist? The claim I was presented with (more on that point later) is that there is nothing and then God created everything. I merely took it at face value.
I actually personally believe time applies to the multiverse as well, and no further out than that because I've never seen any evidence, real or theoretical, that anything could exist outside of the multiverse. But my beliefs are not relevant as I was responding to something quite clear.
The problem with this line of attack is that you seem to be interpreting creationist claims how you want so that you can then shoot them down. Where is it in the Bible that God created "everything from nothing?" The first line of Genesis is
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
How could you possibly insist that there was "nothing" before this creation event? What if the creation is really just God seeding our universe in some sort of multiverse structure? The creatio ex nihilio
argument may be upheld by some Christians who are particularly out of date on their science, but it's not in the Bible and so therefore not really part of the Christian canon. Attacking it and then claiming that you have defeated the Christian argument for God is not correct.
Look at this:
Viceroy63 wrote:If we put things into context? Then lets leave Alexander out of this. Why go off into another tangent.
The point is that creation was made out of Nothing because there was nothing before creation. That Adam was made from the dust and then Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs is besides the point.
How did they know that the creation was basically made from nothing? That is the point!
It seems to me that this had to have been revealed knowledge.
This is what I was responding to. If you actually read it you would have known that. You took my assertions out of context and then attacked me for claiming to destroy all christian metaphysics when in reality I was only responding to one poster and taking their assumptions and just running with them. The fact that their assumption was flawed to begin with is not a fault of my argument going forward, because I specifically said that I was going to suspend disbelief and run with their assertion and see where it went. Like I said it's easier to make someone come round to a differing point of view if you lead them along a path instead of just shouting at them from very far away.
Metsfanmax wrote:I never made any of those assumptions. I simply argued that causality is qualitatively different from physical laws of nature, and so therefore to group it with those physical laws and say that they're all the same and so none of them could have existed is a fallacy. Regarding time, I also said that it could exist outside of our own universe, and there's nothing that can dispute that. Regarding natural laws, I didn't even say anything like that.
Firstly, you have never said HOW causality is qualitatively different. Why is something that is a temporal feature above and external to the laws of space and time?
Secondly, look at these:
Like I said, I consider causality to be a much different construction than matter and energy. When people generally say "before the universe, there was nothing" I think they're generally talking about matter that we're used to interact with. They can't mean nothing because there's still God, and that doesn't mean the rules (e.g. the laws of physics) didn't apply before the universe; it just meant that there was nothing existing to obey the rules.
I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.
But you didn't argue that natural laws could exist without a nature to regulate no?
What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.
That looks suspiciously like you're saying that there is a time beyond our universe/multiverse. Any evidence for that?
Oh but then.....
Humans should rightfully be humbled by both the scale of the universe relative to us, and what we have learned in spite of that. It should not fill us with the arrogance to suggest that we can know more than that about which we observe.
We shouldn't say anything about stuff we can't observe.
Those are all direct quotes from your posts. I haven't claimed that anything exists beyond the point I can show. Causality doesn't exist beyond the multiverse, time, space, natural law, etc etc etc don't exist beyond our multiverse. You have consistently put forward the fanciful "what if" statements to try and shoot down simple logic.
Metsfanmax wrote:The entire basis of your argument has been this consistent claim that nothing existed prior to the universe, but there is absolutely no basis for this claim, either on the religious side or the atheist side. You're the only one actually defending an unprovable claim. I'm just throwing some speculations your way to show you why the claim is indefensible.
The entire basis for the thought experiment
has been a claim, made by a christian, that there was nothing before God made everything. I do not subscribe to that claim, I do not validate that claim, and I do not try to defend that claim. I advance the experiment
in order to try and lead someone (probably not the claimant themseles but maybe someone reading) to realise why that premise is flawed. You then wander in and piss all over the experiment by ignoring the process and jumping straight to the answer we both agree on. Like walking into a cinema while the coming attractions trailers are still on and shouting out what happens at the end of the film. Thanks for that.....
In the meantime you accuse me of logical inconsistency while your arguments make you the one saying we shouldn't argue about hypothetical unknowables but if we did your unknowables beat my unknowables because.... well just because.
And then you wonder why I'm pissed?
(Edits to sort out confused quote brackets)