Athiests.. How do you explain the beginning of time?

[HAL9000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Again though this is just the human concept that represents the notion of time, the Einstein argument you made earlier is completely based on this concept of time, and concepts are not always tangible they are fallible, and they are difficult if not impossible to prove.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Consciousness is not tangible whereas the universe and the parts of it we live on are.

God is not tangible either. Who's to say consciousness doesn't really exist?

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm a spiritual person. I personally believe in 'God' or at minimum, a higher power.

If you don't believe in creationism, or some degree of it, how do you rationalize how time started? Has it always been?

I don't know that I have to explain the beginning of time. Fact of the matter is nobody really knows what the beginning of time is...or was...or may be.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Two synchronized watches. One goes on a plane around the world, one says put. After the two watches are brought together again they will be out of sync, with the one that traveled on the plane being slightly behind the one that stayed put.

That's because of gravity, not because of speed, same deal as with sattelites. You are right about speed affecting time though, i'm not arguing against that.

 

[HAL9000]

Then i don't get your point at all... You were arguing that time might not exist since it's a human construct and that it's tricky...

In reality how you measure it is completely irrelevant, you don't have to measure it at all, it's still a reality.

Your right. I retract my point that time may not exist, it does it is a constant, but our ability to perceive or understand it is fluid, fallible and subjective.

The concept that humans refer to as "time" is just that a concept, the best explanation availible at the moment, subject to change and difficult to argue for. But what time actually is exists.

This argument you can extend to God, for example God may exist, but the human concept of God is probably way off if it does and as we can only argue for or against the human concept (as that is all we know) then "God" (in this context) probably dosen't exist.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

When you say conscious do you mean I am able to perceive my surroundings? If so, then yes I am but I can't prove it to you, and the people in the matrix are conscious, if you mean I am able to question my thoughts, i.e. Cogito Ergo Sum, then yes again I can say I am, but I can't prove it to you, both of these definitions make consciousness difficult to have a tangible definition or explanation.

The definition of time is the definition of the human concept of time and might not represent the actual "thing".

It doesn't matter at all, time isn't a human concept, you can be completely braindead for the duration of a lifetime and you'll be affected by time in the exact same way, it's not like time stops for you if you are unconscious.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Again though this is just the human concept that represents the notion of time, the Einstein argument you made earlier is completely based on this concept of time, and concepts are not always tangible they are fallible, and they are difficult if not impossible to prove.

You're being obtuse. I showed you how it works, I showed the effects it has on reality. Because I can not hit you with time, like I could with a rock, does not make it any less real.

 

[Tweak155]

Well he either does or doesnt. He doesnt 85% exist

Im on the 'doesnt' camp. I figured you were on the 'does' camp.

I am on the 'does' camp. But I'm not going to claim it 100% true here is all the proof you'll ever need to someone else when I can't prove it to a 100% degree. It is a waste of time. It is called a belief for a reason. Time may eventually make it a fact but I can't prove that 100% either.

If someone can prove to me for a fact a god doesn't exist, and claims it as such, I'm all ears. Why waste my time believing something when it can be proven false? Someone claiming it doesn't make it false.

EDIT:

Most logical persons will tell you God cannot be proven false because the design of God is such a way to where it avoids such proof. I think this is true to a large degree but at the same time I'm not one to ignore good solid reasoning. This is why I stated earlier most creationists that are strong in their way of thinking will stay that way, same with those that follow big bang / evolution combination. I don't see why one needs to be so much more right than the other until one is proven without a doubt.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yeah it is.

No, it isn't, unless you're using a very uncommon definition of "tangible."

I can measure time...

You do not measure time. Time is the measurement.

...and my observations of time's properties can be reproduced by a third party using the same methods.

Coordinates do not have properties, they have values.

 

[HAL9000]

God is not tangible either. Who's to say consciousness doesn't really exist?

This is exactly my point but I went into it in way too much detail.

 

[soulcougher73]

I am on the 'does' camp. But I'm not going to claim it 100% true here is all the proof you'll ever need to someone else when I can't prove it to a 100% degree. It is a waste of time.

If someone can prove to me for a fact a god doesn't exist, and claims it as such, I'm all ears. Why waste my time believing something when it can be proven false? Someone claiming it doesn't make it false.

I get where you are coming from and of course i nor anyone else at this time can 100% disprove God. But do you also believe in the Tooth fairy? I mean i cannot prove or disprove with 100% scientific proof one way or another the existance of the Tooth Fairy. You'd seem kind of silly if you believed in the Tooth Fairy, no?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Time exists in reality and there are established methods to demonstrate this.

Let's see it, then. Show me time in reality.

 

[HAL9000]

You're being obtuse. I showed you how it works, I showed the effects it has on reality. Because I can not hit you with time, like I could with a rock, does not make it any less real.

That would depend again on your definition of real, my argument is that while time exists our ability to define it or explain it is limited at best. And it is completely subjective, for example the definition of time was diferent before Einstein even though people who have never heard of Einstein believe they understand what time is, when in reality they only understand the basic human concept that represents time, to actually understand time you'd have to be the Doctor from Doctor who, able to view it as an entirety at any one moment.

 

[Jeff7]

That's because of gravity, not because of speed, same deal as with sattelites. You are right about speed affecting time though, i'm not arguing against that.

This says that it's because of both speed and gravity.
(I was thinking it was just speed, because Earth's gravity well is quite tiny, at least on a spectrum which includes something capable of just about stopping time, perhaps like the event horizon around a black hole.)

Huh, crazy though. The speed serves to slow them down, but the difference in gravity speeds them back up, and even wins out - the clocks on the satellites advance faster. Crazy.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

According to that, they lose 7 microseconds a day from speed, but gain 45 microseconds a day from the gravitational effects.

If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day

 

[Insomniator]

Prove that God and religion are 100% made up by man.

? Just because an idea is old doesn't mean that it wasn't made up.

Prove desks don't have emotions. Prove that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real.

What is the difference between those theories and god?

And also, how is religion NOT made up by man? That is like, fact unless you think monkeys practiced religion or know of some aliens that do so.

 

[HAL9000]

This says that it's because of both speed and gravity.
(I was thinking it was just speed, because Earth's gravity well is quite tiny, compared to something capable of just about stopping time, perhaps like the event horizon around a black hole.)

Huh, crazy though. The speed serves to slow them down, but the difference in gravity speeds them back up, and even wins out - the clocks on the satellites advance faster. Crazy.


According to that, they lose 7 microseconds a day from speed, but gain 45 microseconds a day from the gravitational effects.

This is pretty cool.

 

[Tweak155]

I get where you are coming from and of course i nor anyone else at this time can 100% disprove God. But do you also believe in the Tooth fairy? I mean i cannot prove or disprove with 100% scientific proof one way or another the existance of the Tooth Fairy. You'd seem kind of silly if you believed in the Tooth Fairy, no?

Yes it would seem silly. But there aren't things I consider as proof of a tooth fairy as I do a god. Most evolutionists / big bangists (lol?) will try to ridicule the idea and make it sound ridiculous as a method of reasoning. I don't fall into any of that. You'll see this method with probably 95%* of people that adhere to big bang theory.

*
This percentage is from my own experience and is an estimate.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Your right. I retract my point that time may not exist, it does it is a constant, but our ability to perceive or understand it is fluid, fallible and subjective.

The concept that humans refer to as "time" is just that a concept, the best explanation availible at the moment, subject to change and difficult to argue for. But what time actually is exists.

This argument you can extend to God, for example God may exist, but the human concept of God is probably way off if it does and as we can only argue for or against the human concept (as that is all we know) then "God" (in this context) probably dosen't exist.

Wow, you're a daft one... No, time as we refer to it is an observation of a law that can be tested, observed and measured, the explanation changes as we learn more from observations.


God may exist, you might be a horse, i might BE god, you might have a unicorn living up your arse, it's just that our understanding of this doesn't mean what we think it means because our concept of unicorns living up arses is way off....

Anything is possible but until you can observe it, test it or falsify it, it's not real.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Your right. I retract my point that time may not exist, it does it is a constant, but our ability to perceive or understand it is fluid, fallible and subjective.

The concept that humans refer to as "time" is just that a concept, the best explanation availible at the moment, subject to change and difficult to argue for. But what time actually is exists.

This argument you can extend to God, for example God may exist, but the human concept of God is probably way off if it does and as we can only argue for or against the human concept (as that is all we know) then "God" (in this context) probably dosen't exist.

Couldn't one argue that all religions represent man's attempt to describe God with the variations among religions having to do with cultural and language differences? That over time, and with scientific advancement, a more agreeable and logical explanation of God may come to be? Perhaps our understanding at this point is what causes all of the indifference among believers and non believers, and this is simply because our language and understanding of reality has yet to progress to a point of accurately being able to understand the 'god' concept?

 

[Tweak155]

? Just because an idea is old doesn't mean that it wasn't made up.

Prove desks don't have emotions. Prove that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real.

What is the difference between those theories and god?

And also, how is religion NOT made up by man? That is like, fact unless you think monkeys practiced religion or know of some aliens that do so.

If your statement was strictly religion then you'd have a leg to stand on. But you said God AND religion, thus your shortfall.

I don't need to prove desks don't have emotions because I never made that claim. Nor do I need to prove that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, as I didn't make that claim either.

Also, just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it was made up.

 

[Tweak155]

Couldn't one argue that all religions represent man's attempt to describe God with the variations among religions having to do with cultural and language differences? That over time, and with scientific advancement, a more agreeable and logical explanation of God may come to be? Perhaps our understanding at this point is what causes all of the indifference among believers and non believers, and this is simply because our language and understanding of reality has yet to progress to a point of accurately being able to understand the 'god' concept?

Given that after translations a majority of the religions come up with very different conclusions (between major religions, not divisions), I don't think this makes sense.

It doesn't seem plausible that all religions came from one religion. It does give merit to the idea people have a need for a creator, though.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This says that it's because of both speed and gravity.
(I was thinking it was just speed, because Earth's gravity well is quite tiny, at least on a spectrum which includes something capable of just about stopping time, perhaps like the event horizon around a black hole.)

Huh, crazy though. The speed serves to slow them down, but the difference in gravity speeds them back up, and even wins out - the clocks on the satellites advance faster. Crazy.

According to that, they lose 7 microseconds a day from speed, but gain 45 microseconds a day from the gravitational effects.

All i knew on the matter of satellites was that the difference in time was because of gravity but it should be obvious that speed affects it too but to a lesser degree (even near the speed of light time doesn't slow down more than 1/100 and satellites aren't all that fast compared to speed of light), they have auto adjusting clocks for this reason.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Given that after translations a majority of the religions come up with very different conclusions (between major religions, not divisions), I don't think this makes sense.

It doesn't seem plausible that all religions came from one religion. It does give merit to the idea people have a need for a creator, though.

Well for instance.. Islam and Christianity both adhere to the idea of one single God and they are very similar in nature.

 

[HAL9000]

Wow, you're a daft one... No, time as we refer to it is an observation of a law that can be tested, observed and measured, the explanation changes as we learn more from observations.


God may exist, you might be a horse, i might BE god, you might have a unicorn living up your arse, it's just that our understanding of this doesn't mean what we think it means because our concept of unicorns living up arses is way off....

Anything is possible but until you can observe it, test it or falsify it, it's not real.

This is exactly what I think, "Anything is possible until you can observe it, test, it or falsify it [Or give a perfectly logical argument that can't be disproven.] [Until such a time one of these criteria is met] it's not real.

Couldn't one argue that all religions represent man's attempt to describe God with the variations among religions having to do with cultural and language differences? That over time, and with scientific advancement, a more agreeable and logical explanation of God may come to be? Perhaps our understanding at this point is what causes all of the indifference among believers and non believers, and this is simply because our language and understanding of reality has yet to progress to a point of accurately being able to understand the 'god' concept?

That my dear sir, is exactly my feeling on the subject as well, Until such a time as the common concept of God changes we can't argue that God exists, as the current concept of a God is a relatively illogical one (relative to other explanations for similar premises)

 

[marlindo]

I am comfortable not knowing whether god exists. To choose one way or the other without proof is foolish, imo.

However, i think the fact that a god cannot be proven, goes to show how small(or unchanging) the impact of god(should he exist) actually is, at this point in time.

There is certainty in knowing what will remain uncertain.