Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

eoin5

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Defining "outside time" would be a good start to explaining what exactly you're on about.

For me outside of time would be something like the frequency domain using fourier transforms. Its a timeless mathematical domain that can fully represent a piece of music or the readings of a seismic event.

Zillah

defendthefaith wrote: »

Why does it have to be something that I personally wrote? How about this article from the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

Philosphers have recognized that causes do not necessarily have to precede their effects temporally. If you claim that the above argument for God has been refuted "numerous times," you should already be aware that the idea of non-temporal causality is not a valid objection to the argument.

Ok, perhaps my sarcasm, though scathing and witty, did not correctly convey my meaning:

Please support your assertion that everything that begins, including space-time itself, needs a cause. I will accept an astrophysics paper that analyses the spontaneous creation of universes from nothing, for example.

If you can't support this assertion (

you can't

), then what you're saying is utter twaddle.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

For me outside of time would be something like the frequency domain using fourier transforms. Its a timeless mathematical domain that can fully represent a piece of music or the readings of a seismic event.

But doesn't a fourier transformation represent something that exists in time (eg. waves) in a timeless fashion, a single point that allows you to work out what the time line was?

Could that apply to something that never existed in a time line at all?

kelly1

eoin5 wrote: »

For me outside of time would be something like the frequency domain using fourier transforms. Its a timeless mathematical domain that can fully represent a piece of music or the readings of a seismic event.

A bit like this? http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~jjiang/delta3.jpg or http://www.math.harvard.edu/archive/21b_fall_03/fourier/approximation.gif

Sam Vimes

Yep, like those. Both are graphs of frequency versus amplitude and don't care about time

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yep, like those. Both are graphs of frequency versus amplitude and don't care about time

Eh, I do believe those graphs are time domain. I studied electronic engineering.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Eh, I do believe those graphs are time domain. I studied electronic engineering.

So did I. I'm not 100% sure what the first one is (thought it was some kind of filter, it's hard to tell without the axes labelled) but is the second one not a fourier transform, ie the frequency domain representation? It's in a folder called fourier

And why did you ask if you knew what they were?

And why did you give two graphs that are in the time domain and ask if they were examples of the frequency domain

5uspect

The first second one is the Fourier Series for a square wave.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html

These can be used to model time but aren't limited to time. Wavelets for example can be used in image compression.

Sam Vimes

5uspect wrote: »

The first one is the Fourier Series for a square wave.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html

These can be used to model time but aren't limited to time. Wavelets for example can be used in image compression.

Ah right, I didn't look at them very closely it seems. Maybe I should have actually checked where he got them rather than assuming he'd done his research. I just looked at the folder name of the second picture and said "yeah fourier transform, why not "

The question remains, why did you (kelly1) give two unlabelled graphs that you knew to be in the time doman and ask if they were in the frequency domain? Were you trying to catch someone out or something

kelly1

It's been a while....

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So did I. I'm not 100% sure what the first one is (thought it was some kind of filter, it's hard to tell without the axes labelled) but is the second one not a fourier transform, ie the frequency domain representation? It's in a folder called fourier

I'm not sure about the first either but the 2nd is a fourier approximation/synthesis using a number of sinc(t) functions.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangular_function

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And why did you ask if you knew what they were?

And why did you give two graphs that are (apparently) in the time domain and ask if they were examples of the frequency domain

I didn't. I was referring to "Its a timeless mathematical domain that can fully represent a piece of music or the readings of a seismic event." written by Eoin.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't. I was referring to "Its a timeless mathematical domain that can fully represent a piece of music or the readings of a seismic event." written by Eoin.

Which was his description of "the frequency domain using fourier transforms"..........


Anyway, the answer to your question is in fact no, two graphs in the time domain are not examples of the timeless mathematical domain known as the frequency domain. I'm not quite sure why you might have thought they would be...

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which was his description of "the frequency domain using fourier transforms"..........


Anyway, the answer to your question is in fact no, two graphs in the time domain are not examples of the timeless mathematical domain known as the frequency domain. I'm not quite sure why you might have thought they would be...

This is getting silly. When I read timeless, I thought infinite time but I see now that it means frequency instead of time. But in the context of this thread, what has frequency got to do with anything? I assumed Eoin meant infinte time which would make sense in the thread! No more digression from me...

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

This is getting silly. When I read timeless, I thought infinite time but I see now that it means frequency instead of time. But in the context of this thread, what has frequency got to do with anything? I assumed Eoin meant infinte time which would make sense in the thread! No more digression from me...

Ah now I'm on the trolley. Timeless as infinite

On a separate note, as someone who studied engineering, how do you reconcile the fact that it's so incredibly far more likely that the bible was made up by superstitious primitives than that some jewish guy raised from the dead?

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

Why? Nobody is saying that God is made of physical matter. The theorem applies to physical matter.

Gobbledy-gook.

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah now I'm on the trolley. Timeless as infinite

On a separate note, as someone who studied engineering, how do you reconcile the fact that it's so incredibly far more likely that the bible was made up by superstitious primitives than that some jewish guy raised from the dead?

I don't think the old or new testaments were written by "superstitious primitives". I believe the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit but I've no doubt some of their views about God were coloured by their own opinions.

As a person who believes that God is omnipotent, I think raising a person from the dead is child's play for Him.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think the old or new testaments were written by "superstitious primitives". I believe the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit but I've no doubt some of their views about God were coloured by their own opinions.

As a person who believes that God is omnipotent, I think raising a person from the dead is child's play for Him.

Right but as a person who has a brain that's geared towards electronic engineering, do you not try to look for the rational answer to every question? And do you not think there are dozens of possible rational explanations for the miracles in the bible?

And why do you only accept the claims of this particular group? What is your basis for saying that these ones were guided by the holy spirit but that all of the other thousands of similar claims came from superstitious primitives?

And what do you think you would get on your exams if you answered every question with "god did it"?

eoin5

kelly1 wrote: »

This is getting silly. When I read timeless, I thought infinite time but I see now that it means frequency instead of time. But in the context of this thread, what has frequency got to do with anything? I assumed Eoin meant infinte time which would make sense in the thread! No more digression from me...

I was really just trying to give an example of a domain thats outside of time so we can use the same mental picture to apply to whatever a god might be doing in his timeless habitat. I saw words like eternal, cause and beginning being used, in the fourier frequency domain they are meaningless so they would also be meaningless in gods timeless abode.

toiletduck

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah now I'm on the trolley. Timeless as infinite

On a separate note, as someone who studied engineering, how do you reconcile the fact that it's so incredibly far more likely that the bible was made up by superstitious primitives than that some jewish guy raised from the dead?

Engineers systematise the world



I did elec eng by the way :pac:

5uspect

Aero Eng here. Should I be worried?

toiletduck

5uspect wrote: »

Aero Eng here. Should I be worried?

.......Yes, yes you should.....

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right but as a person who has a brain that's geared towards electronic engineering, do you not try to look for the rational answer to every question?

Yes I do before considering supernatural possibilities. But I don't accept every miracle as a coincidence.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And why do you only accept the claims of this particular group? What is your basis for saying that these ones were guided by the holy spirit but that all of the other thousands of similar claims came from superstitious primitives?

First it stands to reason that all religions can't be true and that at most one can be true. I also believe that God can't be known unless He reveals His nature to us and I believe He had done so through the most ancient monotheistic prophet i.e. Abraham and this revelation became complete with through the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus Christ. To me this is a continuous, unbroken line down through history and common sense would tell us that this is the best place to look. I accept Jesus Christ because of the authority with which He speaks in Scripture and the incredible love which He showed by dying on the cross for our sake.

I don't accept Islam because its teachings contradict the earlier revelations of Christ whom I believe to be the Messiah because of the numberous prophesies He fulfilled. So I believe Islam is man-made.

I reject Hinduism because it's man-made and teaches polytheism which brings up all sorts of awkward philosophical questions about clashing omnipotent deities.

And I reject Buddhism again because it is man-made and agnostic. In short, the truth about God can only be revealed by God.

5uspect

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions on the planet. How did you conclude that their history is broken or man made?

Also how are the "awkward philosophical questions about clashing omnipotent deities" any different from three one god or 10 million gods?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I do before considering supernatural possibilities. But I don't accept every miracle as a coincidence.

But why consider supernatural possibilities at all? Supernatural events are by their very nature not possibilities because they're impossible. If something is merely unlikely, it's not a miracle, it's just unlikely. Why invoke an infinitely complex, timeless, omnipotent being to explain something that can be explained perfectly adequately through the laws of nature?

kelly1 wrote: »

First it stands to reason that all religions can't be true and that at most one can be true. I also believe that God can't be known unless He reveals His nature to us and I believe He had done so through the most ancient monotheistic prophet i.e. Abraham and this revelation became complete with through the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus Christ. To me this is a continuous, unbroken line down through history and common sense would tell us that this is the best place to look

Well that's just a big list of what you believe without actually explaining what your rational basis for the belief is. My major question there would be "how do you know?" and another that I deal with below (why is monotheism so great?)

kelly1 wrote: »

I accept Jesus Christ because of the authority with which He speaks in Scripture and the incredible love which He showed by dying on the cross for our sake.

1. How does speaking with authority indicate that he was supernatural?
2. How does being executed indicate that he was supernatural? How do you know he wasn't a human being who believed very strongly that Jewish society needed an overhaul and who was willing to die for that belief?
3. How do you even know it happened? All we have to suggest that this supernatural event took place is a 2000 year old book and in the story of the resurrection the four gospels cannot agree on: time of day, how many women were there, whether the stone was rolled away from the tomb, whether an angel moved it for them or not, who was in the tomb, whether the women told anyone and who they told, whether people were allowed touch Jesus, who was first to see Jesus, where he first appeared to his disciples, whether they recognised him when they saw him, how long he stayed with them, whether he ascended bodily into heaven, his last words and whether the saints rose from their graves and wandered around the town to name but a few

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't accept Islam because its teachings contradict the earlier revelations of Christ

And Christ's teachings contradict the earlier revelations of the writers of the old testament. If mohammad had been executed would you have accepted what he said?

kelly1 wrote: »

whom I believe to be the Messiah because of the numberous prophesies He fulfilled. So I believe Islam is man-made.

The numerous prophecies that it is claimed he fulfilled. Jews disagree that he did and there is evidence in the bible that the writers were attempting to make it look like he fit the prophecies, for example: one of the prophecies required the messiah be born in Bethlehem so all the gospels that mention it have him being born there but differ in how he got there.

and this too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9vYDAHkb8c&feature=related

kelly1 wrote: »

I reject Hinduism because it's man-made and teaches polytheism which brings up all sorts of awkward philosophical questions about clashing omnipotent deities.

1. How do you know it's man made?
2. Whether it brings up awkward questions or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not. If there can be one timeless omnipotent being I see no reason why there couldn't have been more than one. The creation of the universe doesn't even require an omnipotent being in the first place. The idea of many timeless beings raises no more questions than one timeless being

kelly1 wrote: »

And I reject Buddhism again because it is man-made and agnostic. In short, the truth about God can only be revealed by God.

That argument only works if you assume there is a god. In fact your entire point only works if you begin with the assumption that a single god exists. My question was what is your rational basis for christianity and you've answered it by assuming it's true and rejecting all other religions based on that assumption.

The only thing you didn't assume and that goes anywhere near suggesting independently that christianity might be correct rather than just assuming it is, is the claim that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies and even that reliesd on the assumption that the old testament is true. As a rational engineer is it not far more likely that the writers of the bible took these prophecies, which were freely available to read in the old testament, and made it look like their guy fit them than that some Jewish guy raised from the dead?

Sam Vimes

5uspect wrote: »

Also how are the "awkward philosophical questions about clashing omnipotent deities" any different from three one god or 10 million gods?

Don't forget all the saints we pray to. Monotheism my arse

5uspect

And the almighty tree stump.

Flamed Diving

defendthefaith wrote: »

Time itself came into existence at the beginning of the universe, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Since the Cause of the universe would be separate from the universe (by definition), he/she/it must have been responsible for creating time itself. Since the Cause of the universe created time, he/she/it cannot be subject to time.




The same reason you would say that there's a cause to this post appearing on the message board, i.e., a person who wrote it.

Hello, Christianity forum alias!

*waves*

defendthefaith

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Defining "outside time" would be a good start to explaining what exactly you're on about.

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, not only did space and matter come into existence at the beginning of the universe, but also time itself. As Stephen Hawking stated, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, 1996). Since the Cause of the universe would be separate from the universe (by definition), the Cause must be separate from time, because he/she/it created time.

I don't agree that it implies that there must have been a cause. Why do you say this?

I find it ironic that you're looking for a cause for my belief ("Why do you say this?") in the same paragraph that you deny causes are necessary to explain the origin of something!

Let's suppose your house caught on fire when you were away from home (I hope this never does happen!) and you ask the neighbors, "How did this fire start?" If someone says, "Well I don't think there necessarily had to be a cause of the fire starting," would you accept that? I don't think you would. So why would you assert that the origin of space, time, and matter does not necessarily require a cause?

marco_polo

You understand that without time the word cause is meaningless? Unless you have a good non temporal definition you would like to share with the class.

defendthefaith

Zillah wrote: »

Ok, perhaps my sarcasm, though scathing and witty, did not correctly convey my meaning:

Please support your assertion that everything that begins, including space-time itself, needs a cause.

Well, space-time itself is a part of reality, and everything that begins to exist in the domain of reality requires a cause. Therefore, the origin of space-time requires a cause!

Another way to look at it is that no thing can emerge from a state of true nothingness.

I will accept an astrophysics paper that analyses the spontaneous creation of universes from nothing, for example.

I am not aware of any off-hand. As I understand it, all of the major models of the universe's origin have attempted to explain what the cause of the universe's origin is, because they realize that there must be a cause of some sort. In other words, it is typically assumed by astrophysicists that if the universe began to exist, then there was a cause. As Stephen Hawking put it:

So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency (Hawking, "The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe," 2007).

Now, read what Hawking says next:

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Notice that Hawking does not resort to the option that maybe the universe had a beginning, but it was nevertheless uncaused. This idea isn't even on the radar for him. He believes (and I agree) that there are only two options: either the universe had a beginning (and thus a cause), or the universe had no beginning (and thus does not require a cause).

defendthefaith

marco_polo wrote: »

You understand that without time the word cause is meaningless? Unless you have a good non temporal definition you would like to share with the class.

I actually already addressed this (Post #208), but I'll re-iterate:

Philosophers recognize that causes do not necessarily need to precede their effects in time. A cause can occur prior to its effect or simultaneously with its effect. One article from the the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy even discusses the possibility of a cause occurring after its effect! Click on the link below:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

A Christian philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig, also talks in depth about the concept of simultaneous causation (a cause that occurs at the same time as its effect) in the following article:

http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html