'God exists 'outside' of space and time'

[timmy47]

Why are you restricting things that exist to tangible, material objects within space time?

lol because thats what existance IS. something that exists must consist of matter or energy. if it has niether, then by definiton it doesnt exist. existing things impact our senses and the world around us.

i can think of a few myself that you couldnt be familiar with, yet are completely inexplicable, not tangible and may not depend on space or time

like what? you gave the example of the concept 11 so far.

EDIT: i would like to add that it may be possible for something to exist without energy or matter (i doubt it though), but our senses have evolved to sense these things. in other words, they sense existing things. so if something exists outside of our ability to sense existing things, once again we have no reason to believe it exists. its totally useless for us to argue the existance of said item/being because we have no way to sense its existance. again, we might as well just say it doesnt exist or that we have no reason to think it does.

[lucious]

meant to say 'couldnt be more familiar with'


an example is your experience of blue. your experience of blue is something impossible to explain, but its something you understand and know beyond a shadow of a doubt. But If i ask you-describe the 'bluishness' of blue, youd be at a loss for words. You cannot explain it at all yet it is something you would arguably udnerstand better than anything else bar other colours.

Where abouts is your experience of blue in the unvierse? In your head somewhere? Can I go looking for it and find it in a neuron somewhere? What are blues physical properties....or does it even have any outside of its own bluishness?

[endofdays89]

meant to say 'couldnt be more familiar with'


an example is your experience of blue. your experience of blue is something impossible to explain, but its something you understand and know beyond a shadow of a doubt. But If i ask you-describe the 'bluishness' of blue, youd be at a loss for words. You cannot explain it at all yet it is something you would arguably udnerstand better than anything else bar other colours.

Where abouts is your experience of blue in the unvierse? In your head somewhere? Can I go looking for it and find it in a neuron somewhere? What are blues physical properties....or does it even have any outside of its own bluishness?

Space and Time can't be explained the same way anything else in the universe is, because they don't contain matter/energy.

[lucious]

Space and Time can't be explained the same way anything else in the universe is, because they don't contain matter/energy.

spacetime is still 'something' as we understand.


spacetime can bend, torsion, stress etc and it does actually output quite alot of energy.

Its still very much something as we understand it.

[neonhypoxia]

It's an idea with mathematical support behind it, and I don't 'believe' in the veracity of the multi-verse, anyways, but that doesn't preclude me or anyone else from discussing it....

Out of curiosity what's your issue with the concept? For the sake of discussion lets assume there is a god who made the universe. In that case why couldn't he make more than one? Or make an initial universe which is capable of making others? Seems like an odd limiting factor there to me.

I suppose you could go with why would he want to make more than one, but then again why did he even make this one? Just given the sheer scale and properties of our universe it is somewhat rediculous to claim it was made just for us. So if it wasn't made just for us, with some other person in mind, then why not make more?

I'm just not getting why it would be an issue from a theistic perspective is all.

ummm no. the multi-verse isnt factual. its an idea. even if it was real, the universe by definition is everything that exists. even with multiple realities, they all exist in the universe.

If you are going to call all existing physical realities the universe, then sure. But usually it is not defined that way so... Yeah? If you are going to change definitions to whatever suits you though instead of what they are generally taken to mean then I'm not even sure really where to start with that.

And isn't factualy just doesn't make sense given how science works so again... Yeah? Nothing is ever proven, so the glimer of a doubt as a basis for arguement is just silly to begin with in a field like that. But anyways it does have a very strong under-pinning. For it to not be correct space would have to operate in an extremely different way from everything we know about how it works, and everything experiementation has produced so far. So... Yeah?

[neonhypoxia]

Maybe you can describe some of these properties to me?

Okay, back to this. My bad about taking a while to get to it but we have had this conversation before an meh.

Alright, so 11. Lets say you have a pile with 6 rocks in it, and another with 5 rocks in it. If I put the two piles together I have 11 rocks. It doesn't matter if I give 11 a different name, it doesn't matter if I call addition by any other name, I still have 11 rocks. Its an inherent property of the system. Its not something that can be seperated out. Its not just some human invention that we can change however we like. Its still 11 rocks. Now we could go with the whole Set Theory issue of how we even definie addition in the first place and why its inherent, but I'm guessing you're either familiar with that yourself or could easily look it up. And for the other posters who aren't, eh, its pretty close to the rocks thing. I'm sure all of you can extrapolate the same scenario to multiplication, subtractiong, whatever. Point being no matter what name we use for it, no matter how we try to change the definition, its still the same thing. So how the hell does one claim its simply a human invention then, I'll never know. Seems alot like trying to Deepak the issue to me.

Looking at the history of science the same thing is true as well. Its not that its a tool that we use to approximate reality or anything like that. For example the errors in Newton's Laws. Did we just change math to fit what was going on? Because that would make sense given the approach that is only a human invention to approximate reality. There's reality, no go approximate it. No, instead those laws were scrapped and we ended up with SR and GR instead. The exact opposite of what would have happened given the human invention concept. So again, doesn't make sense. Same thing with theoretical physics. If the mathematics of the model doesn't work then the model doesn't work. We don't change the math to make it fit.

However I would like to know something. Why do you even think that to begin with? I mean what's your arguement that its only a human invention? Especially given how inherent it is, and the history of it.

[lucious]

I wouldnt call it an invention either.


did we 'cause' 11? Is it right to say 11 is the effect of a human being?

[trailwarrior]

God being eternal exists outside of time and in the moment. Since God is Love, then Love is also eternal and therefore found in the moment.

1 John 4:16 KJV

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

We do not find Love in the past or in the future, but only right here and now in this very moment. In Love is found no desire of the yesterdays or the tomorrows that feeds our prejudices, only the desire to forgive one another and do that which is for the good of all mankind in each and every moment.

Genesis 3:5-7 KJV

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The origin of sin was in the accumulation of knowledge for man was not content with living in the moment and while sin has its roots in the accumulation of knowledge, salvation comes through forgiveness. Forgiveness is forgetting or leaving behind the knowledge we have accumulated with all of its prejudices.

The question is not: 'Who among us has the knowledge of good and evil to bring judgement to mankind?'. The question is: 'Who among us has the faith in forgiveness to bring salvation to mankind?'

Luke 6:37 KJV

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Through forgiveness we are free from the bondage of time and the accumulation of knowledge to discover that Love Is The Eternal Truth.

1 John 4:10 KJV

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Through Jesus Christ, God has forgiven us and if we can accept that, then our faith in forgiveness will bring salvation from the bondage of time and the accumulation of knowledge. Forgetting the desires of the yesterdays or the tomorrows we come to an understanding of Truth, an understanding that Forgiveness Is The Key To Eternal Truth.

.

[timmy47]

meant to say 'couldnt be more familiar with'


an example is your experience of blue. your experience of blue is something impossible to explain, but its something you understand and know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

no offence, but who the heck told you its impossible to explain colours? light hits objects. the object absorbs and reflects different parts of the light creating colour. of course, its my brain which actually "creates" the colour by interpreting the light coming into my eyes. i really fail to see how this has to do with things existing without energy or matter. light exists within that context so it doesnt apply. if you are talking about the concept of blue, again doesnt apply becuse concepts dont exist anywhere. if you are talking about the actual colour blue that my brain is interpreting the light to see, then im not sure what you are getting at. its a creation of my functioning brain. it doesnt exist without it. by this argument, god is a creation of our mind and again doesnt exist.

But If i ask you-describe the 'bluishness' of blue, youd be at a loss for words. You cannot explain it at all yet it is something you would arguably udnerstand better than anything else bar other colours.

so because i cant describe something, things are able to exist outside of timespace and exists without matter or energy? im not seeing the connection here.

and actually i wouldnt say i understand colours very well at all.

Where abouts is your experience of blue in the unvierse?

nowhere.

In your head somewhere?

yes in the sense that its an interpretation created by the brain.

Can I go looking for it and find it in a neuron somewhere? What are blues physical properties....or does it even have any outside of its own bluishness?

well, i doubt you could find a single neuron that makes me see things as "blue". you might be able to find pathways or brain functions that do this however. honestly, i dont know enough about the brain to answer that.

but anyways, considering that "colour" is reflected light, there is an element of the physical there. if the light wasnt there, there would be no blue.

If you are going to call all existing physical realities the universe, then sure. But usually it is not defined that way so... Yeah?

ive heard people including scientists refer to it this way so...yeah.

If you are going to change definitions to whatever suits you though instead of what they are generally taken to mean then I'm not even sure really where to start with that.

except im not. the universe is considered everything that exists.

And isn't factualy just doesn't make sense given how science works so again... Yeah? Nothing is ever proven, so the glimer of a doubt as a basis for arguement is just silly to begin with in a field like that. But anyways it does have a very strong under-pinning. For it to not be correct space would have to operate in an extremely different way from everything we know about how it works, and everything experiementation has produced so far. So... Yeah?

multi-verse is theorectical. its not been demonstated to be real however. same with string theory. i dont really give a crap if it explains things. the original equation for gravity explained gravity but it was wrong. newton was off by an exponent. it still explained the speed of gravity but it couldnt be demonstrated. the new equation could however. so....yeah.

so saying things exist in an alternate universe or whatever really means nothing until you can give some sort of evidence for that claim.

EDIT: trailwarrior, did you even read this thread? you cant just quote scripture and expect that to prove anything. you cant prove the claim with the claim.

[ONtop888]

Out of curiosity what's your issue with the concept? For the sake of discussion lets assume there is a god who made the universe. In that case why couldn't he make more than one? Or make an initial universe which is capable of making others? Seems like an odd limiting factor there to me.

I suppose you could go with why would he want to make more than one, but then again why did he even make this one? Just given the sheer scale and properties of our universe it is somewhat rediculous to claim it was made just for us. So if it wasn't made just for us, with some other person in mind, then why not make more?

I'm just not getting why it would be an issue from a theistic perspective is all.

It's not an issue from a theistic perspective, unless one has joined themselves too closely to a particular view of 20th century science interwoven with religion. My issue has nothing to do with religion, I'm just not convinced -- from my limited knowledge but dilligent research of the universe -- that it is likely....it sounds as grandiose as some of my most abstract religious beliefs. Other than that, I have no religious objection to it what-so-ever.

[Enso]

It's not an issue from a theistic perspective, unless one has joined themselves too closely to a particular view of 20th century science interwoven with religion. My issue has nothing to do with religion, I'm just not convinced -- from my limited knowledge but dilligent research of the universe -- that it is likely....it sounds as grandiose as some of my most abstract religious beliefs. Other than that, I have no religious objection to it what-so-ever.

Personally I have a problem with the concept of multiple universes, mainly I suppose because I view the universe as all encompassing, comprising of both the seen and the unseen. Thus, how I see it, just as in describing God on the Monotheistic sense, there is only 'one' universe, not many. Just one universe composed of multiple smaller manifestations of itself (if it is as how described).

That it why it is called the uni-verse anyway though right? As in uni-fied, or one-verse?

In the end, I really don't care what it is called though. It simply is what it is. That is all it is, was, and ever will be. I do think it is important to not get caught up in the naming of things though and think the names we call things represent a thing that has a reality that is separate from the other named 'things' we perceive via the consciousness of that which is in the state of being so.

[ONtop888]

Personally I have a problem with the concept of multiple universes, mainly I suppose because I view the universe as all encompassing, comprising of both the seen and the unseen. Thus, how I see it, just as in describing God on the Monotheistic sense, there is only 'one' universe, not many. Just one universe composed of multiple smaller manifestations of itself (if it is as how described).

That it why it is called the uni-verse anyway though right? As in uni-fied, or one-verse?

In the end, I really don't care what it is called though. It simply is what it is. That is all it is, was, and ever will be. I do think it is important to not get caught up in the naming of things though and think the names we call things represent a thing that has a reality that is separate from the other named 'things' we perceive via the consciousness of that which is in the state of being so.

Yes, that's why it's helpful to distinguish between what proponents of multi-verses often call the meta-universe and the plain ole' universe. And I lol'd at the bold, my thoughts exactly.

[neonhypoxia]

EDIT: trailwarrior, did you even read this thread? you cant just quote scripture and expect that to prove anything. you cant prove the claim with the claim.

Rurz. That happens all the time here. After a while you just get use to it and learn to ignore it when it happens.

ive heard people including scientists refer to it this way so...yeah.

except im not. the universe is considered everything that exists.



multi-verse is theorectical. its not been demonstated to be real however. same with string theory. i dont really give a crap if it explains things. the original equation for gravity explained gravity but it was wrong. newton was off by an exponent. it still explained the speed of gravity but it couldnt be demonstrated. the new equation could however. so....yeah.

so saying things exist in an alternate universe or whatever really means nothing until you can give some sort of evidence for that claim.

1. I would love to see where a scientist used the term universe to describe other, seperate physical realities as well. (Not trying to be a dick there, I'm actually serious. I don't think I've ever seen it before.)

2. I have a strong disdain for String Theory, so I'm not even going to go there.

3. The formation of daughter universes is actually a direct result of General Relativity. So its no-where near the realm of String, QLG, anything like that. The simplest explination I can give is that the folding of space allows it in certain situations to fold up on itself and form an inclosed region. This region would have a vacuum energy difference, and under go expansion Big Bang style. Nothing really all that fancy to it on the simple level. I don't really feel like going into a detailed discussion of it now though, especially as this isn't the thread for it.

It's not an issue from a theistic perspective, unless one has joined themselves too closely to a particular view of 20th century science interwoven with religion. My issue has nothing to do with religion, I'm just not convinced -- from my limited knowledge but dilligent research of the universe -- that it is likely....it sounds as grandiose as some of my most abstract religious beliefs. Other than that, I have no religious objection to it what-so-ever.

Meh, I guess you could call it grandiose, but I don't really see it that way. For me its just sort of a SSDD type of thing, but with a universe instead. Maybe I'm just jaded to the idea.

Personally I have a problem with the concept of multiple universes, mainly I suppose because I view the universe as all encompassing, comprising of both the seen and the unseen. Thus, how I see it, just as in describing God on the Monotheistic sense, there is only 'one' universe, not many. Just one universe composed of multiple smaller manifestations of itself (if it is as how described).

That it why it is called the uni-verse anyway though right? As in uni-fied, or one-verse?

In the end, I really don't care what it is called though. It simply is what it is. That is all it is, was, and ever will be. I do think it is important to not get caught up in the naming of things though and think the names we call things represent a thing that has a reality that is separate from the other named 'things' we perceive via the consciousness of that which is in the state of being so.

Originally the term universe was used to describe the single physical structure we live in. At the time it was considered pretty much a given that that's all there was to physical reality. So when you start adding more in, you either have to change the name, or just use a different name for the larger concept. They went with the different name aspect. It happens sometimes in the sciences, and really most scientists just don't care. Or atleast I just don't care. But I sucked at English so maybe that's part of it.

I don't think I'de describe it as other manifestations of itself though. I'm not meaning the multiple reality QM style model where each possible quantum state gets its own little seperate universe that splits off. I'm meaning the Big Bang style model of it. (I know, confusing again. Sorry about that. I should have been more precise and clarified it the first time.) In that set up the laws of physics can be to atleast some extent different for the different universes. So I'm not sure different manifestation would be the right way to describe it.

[timmy47]

1. I would love to see where a scientist used the term universe to describe other, seperate physical realities as well. (Not trying to be a dick there, I'm actually serious. I don't think I've ever seen it before.)

well ill have to look again. but its just another way to think of it. i think when people say "another universe" or "multiple universes" they are really talking about another reality. i dont think they ever say its comletely detached from our own universe.

2. I have a strong disdain for String Theory, so I'm not even going to go there.

why is that?

3. The formation of daughter universes is actually a direct result of General Relativity. So its no-where near the realm of String, QLG, anything like that. The simplest explination I can give is that the folding of space allows it in certain situations to fold up on itself and form an inclosed region. This region would have a vacuum energy difference, and under go expansion Big Bang style. Nothing really all that fancy to it on the simple level. I don't really feel like going into a detailed discussion of it now though, especially as this isn't the thread for it.

sure but that wouldnt be "outside" of the universe. the universe means everything. that would include alternate realities and inclosed regions that may also expand. i think people use the term "multi-verse" or say other universe because its easier to grasp for most people.

plus, again, it may very well be a result of general relativity, but has it ever been demonstrated? thats all im interested in right now. if ay claims about god, or muti-verses, or whatever cannot be demonstrated, then i stand by my statement that nothing exists outside of the universe. the universe IS existance as we know it.

[lucious]

Ok I havent heard your counterargument to the causality paradox.


The arguments main point is to show that as long as there is spacetime, its impossible to escape the pre-existence of something. As long as spacetime is there, entities require causes.


This paradox needs a solution. The argument shows that spacetime, if contingent on God, demonstrates that God musnt rely on spacetime himself or else he couldnt be responsible for it. Logically, unable to be the effect of something else, and also applying the unidirectionality of time is meaningless. Unidreictionality is a consequence of thermodynamics.


btw universe as we understand linguistically refers to spacetime.

[Enso]

This paradox needs a solution. The argument shows that spacetime, if contingent on God, demonstrates that God musnt rely on spacetime himself or else he couldnt be responsible for it. Logically, unable to be the effect of something else, and also applying the unidirectionality of time is meaningless. Unidreictionality is a consequence of thermodynamics.

If God exists outside space and time, then God does not rely on it. Only that which is physically manifested and quasi-conscious relies on space and time.

In the realm of the Absolute, in terms of God, there is neither space or time. In terms of the Relative, in terms of the manifested things of which God interpenetrates, there is space and time.

Space and time are contingent upon God because space and time are functions of God as creation, but it is a one way street. God is creation, but creation is not God. Get rid of creation and you still have God. Get rid of God and the whole thing disappears.