/sci/ - Science & Math

the latter one is acceptable, but no, not god.
god can always have existed, just because our brains can't work it out doesn't mean it's true. reality can be fucked up, our understanding is limited. if a god were truely to exist, he could do anything and have forever existed

Time doesn't exist.

>>2338503
time does exist, newfag.
remember, we give meaning to words.

>>2338492
>Then God, or the Big Bang don't have to have a cause.

CORRECT. THINGS THAT PRECEDE TIME AS WE KNOW IT CAN FREELY VIOLATE CAUSALITY AS WE KNOW IT, INDEPENDENT OF THEIR OTHER PROPERTIES.

HOWEVER CERTAIN DEFINITIONS OF GOD ALSO GRANT IT PROPERTIES THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO VIOLATE CAUSALITY ANYWAY.

>>2338492
There was an interesting thread on here yesterday that dealt with a similar subject, although it seems to now've been bumped off because of this stupid Magnets n' Vampires raid, but one such post in the thread essentially surmounted that time, and thusly the universe, has always existed, as it passes through infinite periods of destruction and reconstruction (i.e. a "big crunch" followed by a "big bang" ad infinitum), and a model of the dimension of time would be much like a very, very large torus (pictured here).

It was something like that, anyway.

>if time and physical laws don't apply in the "time before our universe", then there is no such thing as causality

WTF? Good thing you don't do "scientifics studies whatsoever" you suck at logic. GTFO

>>2338546
Thanks for your useful contribution.

>>2338532
Herp derp modular shapes shimura lolo
seriously, why that image?

Not a lot of opinions here.

>>2338569
Because it helps to depict the concept? That aside, fuck off Aether.

>>2338610

Causality as we used to understand it was raped by quantum mechanics a long time ago.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf

I think of time like the surface of a ball. Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole.

We perceive time as one dimensional, but this is simply an illusion. All points of time exist simultaneously, and all possible universes that branch off from the initial state of the big bang exist simultaneously as well.

I don't have an explanation for why the universe exists as opposed to not existing. In Steven Hawking's latest book he explains how it might be possible that it really did just spontaneously come into existence as a result of quantum uncertainty, but I don't really understand it.

I always feel a rush when thinking about the question of why we exist at all.

>>2338649
>>2338639
Oh boy, gore, because nobody's seen that on 4chan before.

To ask what is before God is to ask the wrong question. God is above time, and therefore, it would make no sense to apply the standard 'point A and point B' analysis of time.

There is no start or end to speak of.

God applies to logic, or logic does not exist at all.

>>2338492
You are correct in your scientific question, the Big Bang doesn't doesn't need a cause.

As far as "god" goes. It is a mental illness to believe in imaginary friends. If you find yourself beliving im imaginary friends (god), I would suggest you seek a mental health professional.

>>2338677
rape?

>>2338669
Time is only local. All things are God in a different timespace.

>>2338688
God is right in front of you, but you've forgotten who he is.

I'm back from last night and seeing someone butcher the arguement.

I'll post it again just for you guys.

When the big bang occured, time (in fact when the curvature of space time became less than infinite) came into existence. Causality requires a cause to happen before an event, there was no 'before' the big bang because there was no time. So the universe cannot have a cause, 'before' the big bang causality 'did' not exist. So no matter what properties you give god, (no matter how illogical, infinite or incomprehensible) the big bang could not have a cause.

>>2338702
>Causality requires a cause to happen before an event,
What if my god, being omnipotent and all, isn't subject to this restriction?

>>2338640
look at the double slit experiment to make you really question causality.

As I said yesterday, there is no reason why causality should occur it is simply an observed correlation in reality one for which we are yet to find an exception or reason for.

There is no need for a why, the universe came existence, why's are just an observed correlation in reality one for which we are yet to find an exception or reason for. Of course in the scientific community we tend to call why's cause's

>>2338747

God could cause the big bang after it happened.
There you go your god did it. Oh wait....

No matter what property you give god the universe can not have a cause because, due to the nature of the universe and not your god a cuase happens before an event, the big bang is an event which has no before.

Even if God could do anything even make 4 sided triangles and be generally illogical it is the nature of the universe that means he couldn't cause it.

>>2338757
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Are_Fucking_Retarded

>>2338757
I now realise my first two sentences may sound contradictory.

I'll clarify.

Causality is an inferred property of the universe, but photon point-diffusion patterns seem to defy reason, the photons some how know what all preciding and following photons are going to do, the thing to remember is quantum mechanics is perfectly happy with photons going back in time, in fact they can send photons back in time these days, they did it to prove that part of quantum theory and at the same time demonstrated that the universe cannot create paradox's.

>>2338782

http://www.wikihow.com/Teach-Yourself-to-Read

None of this is the right way to think. Scientific thought relies on observation, and uses logic and math as a tool communicate observational conclusions. We don't use logic to make conclusions at all, we use observation. Any purely logical argument is not science. There are multiple logically valid yet contradictory geometries, we don't say that a particular system of geometry is true because it is logically valid, we say it is true because it is observationally valid. Logical validity does not = truth. Because we cannot observe existence before time, or any effect of it, we cannot make any conclusions about it.

>>2340661
>Any purely logical argument is not science

Please provide an example of a pure logical argument that wouldnt be science. I think I undersatnd what you are trying to say now, but I think you are confused on the actual methodology of logic (what logic can prove).