by Simon 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Simon, if you can wrap your mind around your reasoning in the OP, then why not just replace universe with God, and use the same reasoning as you did for no time before the universe?
That works. Either way god as a concept is destroyed and any god you can destroy isn't much of a god.
As Hulk would say "puny god".
-
“It is reasonable or possible to understand that there was TIME,( a road) so to speak
“BEFORE
“that car, (the universe) was made or appeared and
“STARTED MOVING.”
That presumes time existed prior to our universe.
We can presume whatever we want to. Whether a particular presumption is reasonable in logical terms depends on evidence implicating the presumption. What is your evidence implicating time existed prior to our universe?
Marvin Shilmer
That works. Either way god as a concept is destroyed and any god you can destroy isn't much of a god.
How so?
If there was no 'before' God, how does that destroy the concept of God?
Peace,
tammy
What I am getting at and perhaps was not clear... is that your reasoning to get around the day before paradox of the universe, also gets around the 'why wait to create the universe' question.
Peace,
tammy
I have just read a very interesting book by the noted professor of mathematics and physics - Sir Roger Penrose / Oxford University.
He suggests that the Big Bang itself was not the total origin of all that exists (and of time). He suggests that the present universe is the result of the collapse of a former universe and that this universe will eventually do the same. Therefore "time" would transcend the present and future universes of physical matter.
This theory is somewhat contrarian to present scientific thought - but I cannot fault his logic. For one thing, he cites the principles of Entropy and the constancy of the Cosmic Background Radiation. He states that the greatest Entropy creator in the universe is the presence of super-massive black holes. He makes the point that gravitational Entropy increases as gravity collects things together - while molecular motional Entropy tends to separate things. I had never thought about that before. I think he deserves further scrutiny and discussion.
His book is "Cycles of Time" - copyright 2010.
-
Simon,
I think what religionists have to prove is whatever they assert, which varies from one religionist to the next.
For those asserting “God” created our universe there is a burden to prove this is true in logical terms if they assert this as a logical conclusion. If they assert this on scientific grounds then they have a burden to prove it using science. In my experience religionist end up saying “This is what I believe” as the basis for their claim. That’s fine, and it’s easy enough to evidence a person’s profession of belief. But, of course, holding a belief does not make that belief true.
What I see in all this between religionists and what I’ll call anti-religionists is that most often both end up making claims that neither can prove in logical or scientific terms. It’s just as unsound and unscientific to say “God created the universe” as it is to say “God did not create the universe.” Both are unsound and unscientific because from neither a logical nor scientific perspective do we know either.
As for the idea being ludicrous of an infinite (from the human perspective) creator deciding to create something, I don’t see why the idea of such an entity deciding to do this or that is any more or less ludicrous than you or I deciding we want to do this or that. What makes it ludicrous in your mind that a would-be creator would decide to do something? What is inherently ludicrous about such an entity making a choice? I don’t follow you.
Marvin Shilmer
Simon your basic premise is flawed.
You assume there was something called a "Day"
and you assume there was a "waiting period"
Physics and quantum theory show that past and present
are the same and everything exists in multiple dimensions
the location and fixed time of anything is unknowable.
I love it when JW's expound their vast storehouse of knowledge
based on their long years spent at Princeton and MIT.
And when atheists assume science disproves religion or that God
is something that can be sorted out.
I used 'day' as it's used in the bible to signify a period of time. I know that before the universe there was not the concept of 'day' as we understand it based on our solar system. Duh.
The point is, does the idea of god existing for infinity and suddenly deciding to create the universe mke any sense. I don't think it does when you think about it and religion is keen to mke you focus on much later stuff. Science has a resonable answer that fits the known facts.
I think Simon's use of the word day is used figuratively to mean time period. Perhaps it would please you more villagegirl if he had said 9,192,631,770 x 60x60x24 cycles of cesium
Simon,
The point is, does the idea of god existing for infinity and suddenly deciding to create the universe mke any sense.
Maybe god was experimenting, maybe he made an infinite amount of universes, and they have all evaporated and this is just another one with an infinite progression of new ones in the future. Maybe all his experimental universes were duds and finally this one made life. Just playing Devil advocate here.
