God is eternal



About Mike

Hello, I am an atheist because of reason and personal experience. I am a father of THREE lovely living kids and two dead embryos, married to a lovely Christian Catholic devoted woman. Yes, black and white can coexist as long as there is respect and love, which is something abstracted from any belief or religion. I do not claim absolute truth and not 100% sure that a God does not exist somewhere out there. The scientific method is what I use to connect to reality. If there is something I don't understand, then it is because i don't understand, not because god exists. In case you haven't noticed, I am a native Arab, and English is my third language (yes there is second language). I like reading the Bible and the Quran and the critics of both of them. I also love watching documentaries especially astronomy, cosmology, Quantum Physics, and new discoveries in science in general, and Physics in particular.
Image | This entry was posted in Allah, Atheism, Belief, Bible, Christianity, God, Gospel, Islam, Judaism, Quran, Reasoning, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to God is eternal

  1. vonleonhardt2 says:

    Reblogged this on The Reformed Monk and commented:
    I wish people took the time to get into the “fun” of such arguments.
    The Christian response is a straw man, what I’m sure we all would say is:

    Your axiom that “eternity is a concept of time” relies on an outdated conception of absolute time, modern theories point to space-time being interlinked AND contingent (Big-Bang) AND empirically manipulable if you are a huge star (Einstein).

    The Hebrew God contains non-ontological simultaneous interrelationship (the Trinity, We in Gen. 1, 3 people in Gen 18) as a way to explain cause-effect ordering of the world promoting monism (homogenouse fundamentals), and change (heterogonous fundamentals) promoting pluralism. The answer they gave was a one fundamental being who contains some non-mechanical movement. They also already saw time as a contingent entity (Proverbs 2 I think).

    Thus, the challenge for a purist empiricist (no metaphysics whatsoever) is to show change and causal relations as both real while accounting for the contingency of time. Moreover, you cannot use the temporally active work power within the universe lim{t > 0} Delta (W) / Delta (T) because if t=0 means your undefined. It’s why we run up against Planck time and the equations degrade.

    The only answers scientist have so far is to try and prop up 12 dimensions of regular physics (and that kind of goes against our empirical experience but it may work) and try to avoid the 0… to have cause and effect (but I don’t think they avoid the no time rule with M or Loop theory, yet the singularities (monism) on the other end cause a problem too. You can try to fix it and give a black hole 3 event horizons… but there is a reason we look to particle physics for the answer more than the cosmology guys… personally I think it’s a limit of the scientific method/ being a human; that’s to Greek for modern people’s taste.

    Hence the drive towards reductionism to try and find a fundamental; that will lead back to the change problem unless that fundamental has an inward dynamic. But to answer that dynamic you’d have to find a way to gauge the energy that dispensed and maintains the physical laws (scientific metaphysics?).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s