To me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug. And now you've done it again with, "distance and time are both irrelevant." In what way? You didn't even define "time" for us, so how are we supposed to follow what you're writing? For instance, I define time as merely events or changes. Using this definition, even quantum mechanics would be susceptible to time (because in quantum mechanics there are events or changes). Although stating that quantum mechanics is susceptible to time is a bit too strong. I don't mean to say that time is some sort of entity.My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
br0kenrabbit
Well, a vacuum isn't really nothing. That's a fact. And it's also not what we're talking about there. You claimed that in quantum mechanics particles can come out of nothing. That's incorrect, unless you're equivocating "nothing" with "quantum field" or "vacuum." When people hear or read, "Particles can come from nothing," they think nonbeing. And I don't know of any scientific literature that espouses such a view.And to answer your next question, one has to define something. And then you get into the whole 'empty space' debacle.
It's interesting to watch atheists posit extra-dimensions or other universes without any supporting empirical evidence, because man of these same atheists believe, "God doesn't exist because there is no supporting empirical evidence for His existence."In String Theory terms, our membrane isn't isolated but the stuff attached to it is. There's a theory that both gravity and the quantum field are generated in extraspacial dimensions.
Outside our membrane spacetime isn't necessary.
Yes, this would be the B-theory of time. However, one would still have to explain why there exists a four-dimensional space-time block.Indeed, it is theorized that if you could view our 3D+1 world from outside the membranes, it would all appear as a singularity (even time). It just appears to stretch endlessly in all directions because we're trapped inside it.
Finally! You're actually talking about the argument now. It's everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything that exists has a cause. God would be an entity that never began to exist, but has always existed. To how illustrate what this means, some mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers believe logic and mathematical concepts are things (and I use this term loosely) that have always existed. They're what is known as necessary beings (beings that cannot fail to exist). The opposing type of being would be a contingent being; a being that doesn't or didn't have to exist.You suggest that everything that exists came from elsewhere, so where did God come from?
Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.If God is eternal, then that means he spent just as much time before creation existing as he will after the end of the world, so this begs the question: what took him so long to create, and what was he doing all that time?
Log in to comment