Atheists, how do you explain time without God?

Time existing forever is an infinite regress in logic. That means that processes happening before the universe is impossible. (i. e. There would be no time in which they would happen).

Really the only possibility is that a free agent began creating time. You don't need any other solid evidence other than time itself. Logically, it's the only possibility.

Sometimes we need to explore things in order to come to a solid conclusion and sometimes we can map out the situation logically with certain variables. This is how we make scientific predictions no?

But I'm interested, working within the parameters (no time and no processes) how could you or any atheistic scientist account for the universe?

Updates:
"Atheists are hoping that quantum physics can explain the creation of the universe, and disprove god."

This is a clear exercise of blind faith. Quantum physics has been scientifically indiscribable since its discovery.
As usual the response is ad hominem attacks, denial and appeal to ignorance. The only thing that pisses me off is that these atheists actually think this makes them smart.

0|1
10|21

Most Helpful Girl

  • The laws of physics did not exist prior to the event known as the Big Bang. So that means time didn't exist. Now anyone trying to explain what the laws of physics were prior to the Big Bang has a very difficult time – no pun intended. Indeed trying to explain why the Big Bang occurred and what existed prior to the Big Bang is also impossible. So the belief that God created all of this has as much validity as saying that out of nothingness the expansion of energy known as the Big Bang came out of nothingness is also based on faith. Either way neither his right knee there is wrong. All physicists can tell you is that God was not needed for the creation of the universe. That does not mean he was not involved. So both ways are actually valid and there are many physicists who are not atheists. The arguments presented either way are never presented with the anger that I have read on this website. Let us just say that the current laws of physics are enough to have created the Big Bang and the resultant is the universe as we know it. Who created the laws of physics? It is interesting that one can create the laws of physics beginning with and only needing laws of trigonometry geometry and assigning an unknown value known as pi. From there everything else can be derived. I personally am an atheist but I have no defense against the questions and objections to those who believe in God other than saying that the universe can be explained without the existence of God. I certainly do not believe in religion such as you are Christian or you're dead or you are a Hindu or you're wrong. There are too many religions that try to explain the existence of God. I see the various religions as merely man's attempt to come to grips with the existence of God. By the way I am a physicist and I will be obtaining my PhD from Stanford University in two years. Quantum physics is not an attempt to explain why God does not exist. If anything it is an attempt to understand or better understand God's laws of physics. Just looking at "entanglement" and using it as a way of interpreting quantum physics and quantum computing using qubits. Einstein called this spooky action at a distance whereby information was transferred faster than the speed of light.. Does that violate the laws of physics and hence violate the laws of God or is this a breakthrough in understanding what quantum physics really represents..

    1|1
    0|0
    • In summary you cannot throw God out the window using advanced physics as your foot but on the other hand as science advances if you so choose you can push God out the window with a perfectly valid scientific explanation. It is one faith becoming taller than another faith. However in essence it is still all faith one way or the other. So stop fighting

    • Show All
    • accepted if you presented them more scientifically but simplistically. The fact that you cannot seem to back your own philosophy with science creates a barrier to understanding the deeper meaning of your philosophy. Indeed although I could go either way regarding the existence or nonexistence of God I believe I could explain that to the layman with more authenticity then you could possibly bear witness.. The large hadron collider (LHC) at CERN will in no way gobble up Earth but if pressed for an answer my explanation would be better accepted by the general public then any explanation you could fathom.. The best example I could use is how an astrophysicist could better explain why Apollo 11 (I believe it was Apollo 11) could use the swing around the moon to slingshot them back to work without using the limited amount of energy they had in their gas tank.

    • Girl... a) yes, you have way more authority than me to explain physics. But this debate isn't really about the specifics of science and physics, is it? Since, as you rightly say, one can't find those be all and end all answers: this is philosophy. I studied that, and I studied this subject. So all I am saying is don't be too quick to judge me, as I can and have challenged every professional in their field on these type of debates.

      B) here comes philosophy of psychology (nature vs nurture), I believe that given the right teachers, the right time and training, I could do physics too. Yes, you have outliers in thinking (like Tesla and Einstien) but generally, like every field, you can be tought these things if you really want them bad enough. My personal issues involve solving a harder riddle: women and sex. I think a top player with women is just as genius, if not more, than a physicist.

      P. s thanks for letting me know about the collider: makes me feel better.

Most Helpful Guy

  • Just because we cannot yet explain something does not mean that there is no logical reason behind it you arrogant prick. Time as we perceive it is simply an illusion created by the interaction of matter and energy relative to the speed of light. Time only appears to be fixed and unmoving because of the mild conditions of our world. If time is a fixed construct created by your imaginary god, as opposed to a byproduct of the ever changing universe, then why does time slow down in a gravity well or when approaching the speed of light? God doesn't provide you an explanation for that. Science does. If time is simply our brains perception of the changing of the universe then time cannot exist without the universe, so all you have to do is figure out why the universe exists and you find out why time exists. The idea that time progresses backwards infinitely makes sense to us as we cannot perceive a possibility of time being nonexistent but just because something is counterintuitive and hard to understand doesn't mean that it is wrong. In fact, the existence of Relativity is irrefutable proof that our natural understanding of time (that it is a fixed property) is wrong. Like Newtonian physics, our perspective of time works well under relatively 'normal' conditions but is proven to be inaccurate when you push it to extremes.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 9

  • Alright, first off, 'the only possibility' of the creation of time being a 'free agent' is nonsense. It may be the only possibility that you can comprehend, but that does not make it the only possibility that exists.
    As for an explanation of time... well, the laws of thermodynamics explains the existence of time. It's complicated, and since I'm not a physicist, I only understand the basics and am absolutely not qualified to explain it. If you would like to learn more about it, I suggest doing some research on entropy and thermodynamic theory.

    5|4
    0|0
    • That like saying the opposite of addition being subtraction is not the only possibility. You're completely in denial. Within time everything follows laws, but without time there are no laws to govern those processes. Literally the only logical possibility is a free agent, something acting outside of a law.

      Lol at your second part, can you give me a link?

    • Show All
    • Please, just stop. I have repeatedly said I am not interested in arguing with you anymore. You're a hypocrite, an idiot, and frankly boring.

    • @TheUltimateUsername How do you know there are no processes without time? What are you basing that logic on? There could be plenty of other mechanisms that govern processes. Maybe 1000 years in the future someone will discover another mechanism.

      How does a free agent logically act outside of time when nothing can act outside of time? What makes this free agent so special? Can the free agent act within time? Can we witness a free agent acting within time?

      What is the large object that is stretching space? How does this object make all things with energy to be brought towards one another? In other words, how does it create gravity?

  • what? lol. how do you explain time WITH god? there can't always have been a god if everything must have had a beginning.

    5|4
    0|0
    • The author is stating that a god would be some sort of (perhaps multi-dimensional being) that would not be constrained by the concept of time and therefore space (as space is linked to time). Thus, to the godlike being, there is no being or ending -to quote the christian bible "[He would be] alpha and omega". This would mean that the being unconstrained by space/time could theoretically create proposed space/time.

    • Show All
    • *Sorry, in my comment I meant beginning, not ending.

    • *Lol goddamit, beginning not being

  • This is a pointless question. You just want us to tell you you're right (when I don't believe you are) while you ignore any contradictory evidence that others have presented.

    6|4
    0|0
    • Nobody has provided contradictory evidence yet.

    • Show All
    • No matter what I (or anyone else) say, you're going to dismiss it, so there's no point in arguing.

      I would like to point out that "evidence" based on your understanding of the universe/time is far from "indisputable," since you don't truly understand either.

    • Now you're projecting...

      I understand it perfectly, time logically had to have a beginning caused by a free agent. It may be mind-blowing and hard to comprehend but it's not that hard to understand.

  • Omg! You would be so good friends with my deskmate! Can I send him to you? I tried to sell him on OLX but no one wanted to buy him because he has this mindset too.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, I'm just amazed at how people can claim to be so much more intelligent than the rest of the population yet have no reasoning behind their rejection or denial. Denying is easy, it may make you an individual, but it does not make you smart.

      Anyways, I don't have a problem making friends. I've had atheist friends, the cool ones I've always been able to change their minds or at least get them to agree with me on certain things, the weird douchebaggy ones are the ones I can't and try to avoid.

    • Show All
    • Translation for dummies (aka you): No one wants him because he is so ignorant (like you) and doesn't want to accept the things that aren't written in that holy book called "bible".

    • Maybe you're just ignorant of what I said.

  • You can't fight atheism with a transcendent God.

    God can be best explained through immanence not transcendence.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I've thought about that, but atheists will deny any sort of metaphysics with the same elitist ignorance.

      For example, an atheist will say answered prayers are the result of the placebo effect, even though the placebo effect is not even science...

    • Show All
    • @Baggz Dude, you are so self-satisfied, I'm not even going to try.

    • What makes immanence a reliable source to explain something?

  • People who believe in God, how do you explain God without referencing something humans made?

    2|0
    0|0
    • the bible claims to be the words of/from God. And he used man to write it. Not very hard to understand. And if the books claims that, then it should be easy for you to disprove the book right? Sad to say no one ever has.

    • So because a man wrote a book of contradictions and made fallacious claims that thet were the words of God somehow the book is right? No, not at all. Besides, how could one say that the bible is the right book when so many other books about a God or Gods also exist (and were also written by men)?

  • We don't think about it. Just do your everyday life...

    0|0
    0|0
  • ... oh my fuck, you are so stupid. why would you ask this question when you're clearly not interested in hearing others opinions? All you want to do is fight and argue and convince everybody YOU'RE right and everything else isn't... if that's what you want to believe then you have fun being ignorant, but don't come on here just to ruffle feathers and take up everyone's time. go back and crawl under your bible and shelter yourself from the 'big scary universe' and use that horrible 'god' idea to explain everything science and logic haven't... YET!!

    2|1
    0|0
  • Religion itself is confusing and it shouldn't be, it should be simple. God now is some force right, light, or whatever it's called. God can not die, God only knows the end day, but Jesus is God and Jesus died. That's not going to convince a atheist to believe in a higher power either. No one truly knows the deal and that's the correct answer. We just choose to believe in how we think we got here and you choose to believe in God and follow the word. I don't make up theories personally or follow anything because I just don't know. And if I did choose to believe in God id have to pick the correct religion and book who am I to say which ones right or wrong? Would God really hold you, accountable for that? It just seems man made for control. Because if no one had a place to go when they died no one would care. More murders, suicides, rapes, all crime would happen more. Lying, stealing, no one would be scared to go to hell. Think about it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think if you study the world enough it becomes evident that there's a higher power/creator/sustainer. I think it's more ridiculous to claim it's existence is improbable.

What Guys Said 20

  • The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. One can neither prove or disprove the other. This is why religion is so controversial (yes, I consider (non agnostic) atheism a religion too, it's not as "scientific" as it would like to believe) Creating imaginary deities to explain it away is not a solution, but there isn't exactly a scientific solution to disprove creationism either. Either side requires "belief" or trust whether it be the theories of non-religious scientists or religious scientists + a bible.

    1|1
    0|0
    • I wouldn't throw out Deism completely, but accepting an intervening god with all the inconsistencies of the Bible is another thing. There's no reason to accept something with no basis at all, just because it's one of many options.

    • Show All
    • @VomitReturns Lol if you're not going to be open to the convo then don't talk about things you don't understand.

    • @VomitReturns @TheUltimateUsername, attack each other personally will not make either of you more correct. Seek not to treat ignorance with judgement, but with understanding to convince someone.

  • "Really the only possibility is that a free agent began creating time"

    "Sometimes we need to explore things in order to come to a solid conclusion"

    I think your contradiction here is quite obvious.

    2|2
    0|0
  • I'm not an atheist but i'll jump in all the same. Science does not suggest that time exists forever. Special Relativity states that time does not exist at all outside the universe. General Relativity states that time (and space) came into existence when the universe did. I personally do not believe the universe was a random event. Nor do i understand science as displacing God. But it hardly proves his existence either.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Going by what thermodynamics tells us, there was a beginning point where order and potential energy were at their peak. Though we can only theorize as to what began the process, creating imaginary deities to explain it away is not a solution.

    4|2
    0|0
    • And the second Law of Thermodynamics is what. And what does Entropy tell us?

    • Show All
    • @palek Once again, a system's presence is not what determines the increase or decrease of entropy. What matters is whether or not it exchanges energy with its surroundings.

    • What matters is HOW it exchanges energy with its surroundings. You're trying to prove a point which can't be proven, very much like that of Irreducable Complexity. It's even highly ironic, given the nature of the original question, that sufficient TIME is not available to make an absolute conclusion. What does this mean? It means we both end up on our knees to our respective God's. The problem the Atheist encounters is that when his time in this life has expired and he's laid out in his finest for a final farewell, he ends up all dressed up with no place to go. Your position is hopeless on its best day.

  • One of the best things about being an atheist is not feeling compelled to have an explanation or a reason for everything.

    I don't really want to get into the whole trite "who created god?" business... but infinite time is no more or less implausible than a god who has always existed.

    0|3
    0|0
    • Infinite Regress:

      A *SEQUENCE* of something that can never end.

      I'll just leave you with the definition and hope you come to your senses.

    • 1. Who made god?
      2. God's creator.
      3. Who made God's creator?
      4. God's creator's creator
      5. Who made God's creator's creator?

      Also infinite regress.

      I've got a degree in computer science. I understand infinite loops and the problems they present. To say that infinite time is impossible and that without time nothing can happen, therefore a being that has always existed (infinity) created the universe before time (which you've just claimed to be impossible) is the definition of illogical. You can't comprehend infinity, so you fabricate an exception to give it an arbitrary stopping point that suits your needs.

  • Scientist don't have an answer to everything if we did there would be a cure for every disease in the world and we would be able to travel into other galaxies. The good thing about science is that it doesn't bs talk and claim things it doesn't actually know and lead people astray. I can point out several flaws in religion.

    1|2
    0|0
  • As soon as you close your mind to anything being "the only possibility" you basically remove yourself from experiencing the infinite possibilities of the universe.

    2|2
    0|0
    • Can you answer the question in its entirety?

    • Show All
    • I don't have any rules.

  • Infinite regress of ANY TYPE is Not solved by injecting God into the picture. All you've done is replaced one infinite regress with another and called it, "God."

    1|3
    0|0
    • Infinite Regress

      A SEQUENCE of reasoning or justification that can never end.

      You can't just redefine things as you please.

    • Show All
    • Now you're playing with semantics.

    • No. Whenever to try to communicate with a theist they always have the same answer, and it doesn't have to make any sense. Their answer is god. How can Jesus have been bornin Galilee and in Bethlehem? God. How come there is evidence for evolution? Intelligent design=god. There's no answer for what came before big bang? God. Why do people have wisdom teeth? God. Can't bother to use your brain to think with? God.

  • Wait, I fail to realize how GOD made time is considered "logically" correct..
    Well some old folk story book tells us that God made sun on the first day, man on the fourth.. And shit like that.. They don't say anything about time, do they?
    Also if it did.. What do you think, "how much time would God had taken to make time?"

    2|1
    0|0
    • That's why I specified he began creating, he didn't create time as that is past tense. If time was created it wouldn't exist anymore, nothin would.

  • No point in arguing/reasoning with an atheist. They already made up their mind. As well as the bible says not to. It essentially says it's a waste of your time.

    1|3
    0|0
  • As I've always said, "God created time in order to furnish us with a point of reference lest we all go raving mad".

    0|0
    0|0
  • Time itself is mind-screwy whether god is involved or not.
    Do I believe in a god of some kind, Yes
    Do I go about ranting about shit like this.
    One of my two best friends is an atheist,
    You know what we talk about, well the last thing we said was talking about video games.
    You know my problem with these kinds of questions is that you really are just antagonizing someone and being a general ass.
    That ends up precluding you from getting to know them and befriending them because you disagree with only one of the many things that make them who they are when there are a billion things you might have in common and instead you feel the need to be an utter ass because you think your beliefs and life views are superior. Hint they are not. No ones are, We all find our own way.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I'm sure if you asked your friend if he thought you were stupid for believing in a God of some sort he would have trouble answering you... I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just pointing something out.

    • No he doesn't we have talked about that. He doesn't think I'm stupid especially considering I know far more about most of the sciences than he does. Neither of us think each other is stupid, we respect each others beliefs.

    • Listen, I agree that everyone finds their own way in a way. But if you don't have anything to combat a belief that 90% of the population holds, resorting to calling "the other side" stupid or inferior is pretty much the only thing you can do. I've had atheist friends of all sorts, they've never really been good company, for me at least.

  • Time is a man-made construct to evaluate change over time. Time doesn't actually 'exist.' All that does exist is what's happening right now. Everything that happened the millisecond before is just memory. Everything you believe that will occur in the future is just projection.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Time and space are both things that actually exist, according to scientists and astronomers themselves, I don't have a reference right now but I'm sure if you do some research you can find it.

      Just think how ridiculous this statement sounds.

      "Time is a man-made construct to evaluate change over time."

    • 2 minutes is no more real than 2 inches. They're concepts we made up to help us understand the world. There is no 'such thing' as an inch. An inch on it's own is not a physical object you can hold. Neither is time.
      Do you understand?

    • The same is said about space, but scientists have disputed that, actually gravity is just the stretching of space... I understand what you're trying to say, I'm telling you you're wrong. Time exists and is not just a concept, it is often manipulated by gravity.

  • Well good thinking really your talk leaves to people two explanation :

    ● number one is thay we are created from absolute nothing and this is aganist science and logic

    ● number two thay there was a creator who put life and time and laws of physics

    0|0
    0|0
  • the ultimate question: how did all of this come from nothing? Either it was always there or it came from something. Beyond my thinking. So I leave it. I just know that the different religions try to explain these things. Science tries too. But I personally wouldn't put my logic in Norse, Greek or Abrahamic mythology.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wait, why do I have to? As far as I'm aware I haven't made any assertions about time. My view on the matter of time being infinite or not is simply 'I don't know.' I don't need to explain time because I'm not claiming anything. You can be an atheist without asserting what the nature of time is.

    0|0
    0|0
  • why would time have to come before the universe? they would start at the same time

    0|0
    0|0
  • Scientists are way short of accounting for the universe. We know the universe exists, and we know a lot about how it works, but we don't know how it got here. Science was never intended to answer philosophical questions.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Put another way, there was a beginning point in which everything "came into being", but it makes no logical sense that something could come from nothing. Therefore an external, ultimate source outside of the laws of physics or nature created this universe. Most scientists who are anti-God would just say "we don't know but I doubt it was God." The truth is they can't answer that question. They have no suitable answer.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Time is relative so there's that

    0|1
    0|0
Loading...