X-Ftn-To: quibbler 

quibbler  wrote:
>Time does exist at
>the same instant that matter does.  However, time is not required before the
>non-causal event.  The fluctuation takes place in time.  It does not need a
>prior temporal or material event to cause it.

The fluctuation takes place in time and space, and you imply that,
basically, the universe and some of its laws need to exist in order
for the universe to exist, which actually means that you believe that
one fundamental aspect of the universe resulted in manifestation of
what we see today. It's all ridiculous to me, because it shows that
you just can't accept the state of nonexistence of the universe - you
always imply that it needs to be there in order for it to be. It
doesn't sound even a least bit convincing.

>> , and therefore,
>> if time is created with the space, it cannot exist prior to the event
>> of creation, and therefore the event itself can never come to be,
>> because everything is frozen into static nonexistence, in which
>
>This argument could be used against your god.  

Not against my God, if you listened carefully (which I doubt). As I
said, videogame's time begins when you run it, but it says nothing
about computer's time. It is already boring, but I'll once again
repeat that my God does not exist within the universe - the universe
exists within God, as a figment of his mind. The universe itself has
no existence outside of God. God is the sole reality, and the universe
is as real as any dream or a simulation.

>Relativity predicts that time
>would be infinitely dilated in the singularity.  

Actually, all those theories are just crap. None of that has any
scientific basis. It's like all those particles generated in the
accelerators - any fool can tell you that, according to the equations
regarding mass and energy, if you make enough tests with enough
energy, you'll end up getting any possible form of condensed energy,
in statistical distribution. If it amuses people to call those things
elementary particles, so be it, but it's all total bullshit of a
proof. With such "evidence", you can prove any theory you like, but
sooner or later somebody will figure out that this is not the way to
do things. Likewise with the superstrings, quantum fluctuations of the
vacuum and like. Those theories are scientific bullshit, invented with
the sole purpose of avoiding to admit defeat, when it is obviously
demonstrated.

>Therefore your god could do
>nothing causal.  

:)) As I thought, you're not really listening to what I write, you're
too obsessed with attempts to prove that something that doesn't exist
doesn't exist. Get over it. I don't believe in God by most
definitions. They suck, and such God would be a limited, frustrated
being made on human image. Your problem is that you believe that God,
according to some bad definition, exists, and now you're trying to
spite him by proving that he doesn't exist. It's childish. The God
that you believe in doesn't exist. A much better one does exist.

>> If you define this universe as the totality of existence, all events
>> freeze with the singularity, and any change of that condition is not
>> possible, except by external force.
>
>A particle and an anti-particle pair are a net zero change.  

And those particles and anti-particles existed where, in rat's ass?

>> This is not a proof of God, but
>> it's reason enough not to believe that this universe came out of
>> nothing,
>
>Nobody said it came out of nothing.  

Aha, so it always existed. In spite of the evidence of the contrary. 

>Nothing cannot by definition exist.  

Oh, but a state in which no thing has existence can exist.

>it will not have any of the properties attributed to god by
>established religion.

Depends on the religion. I would advise that you look up vedanta,
according to Shankaracarya. You'll be surprized.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org