Spacetime is Eternal and Omnipresent

[metis]

It is virtually impossible to some how prove that infinity exists, but it's also impossible to prove that it doesn't. It is impossible to prove that a god or gods exist, but it's also impossible to prove that they don't. What makes discussions like this so endless is that neither group can find enough evidence to prove their point, which is why I profess I-don't-knowism.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I agree it isn't necessary to write out mathematically. However, it is often good to write out semi-formal or informal proofs using "natural language" (i.e., not a bunch of symbols) but "mathematical" structure, etc.
....

There are:

Polkinghorne, J. C. (2007). Quantum physics and theology: An unexpected kinship. Yale University Press.

Coyne, G. V., & Heller, M. (2008). A Comprehensible Universe: The Interplay of Science and Theology. Springer.

Amoroso, R., & Rauscher, E. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything). World Scientific.

Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (Eds.) (2006). The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion. Oxford University Press.

Saunders, N. (2002). Divine action and modern science. Cambridge University Press.


Among others.



Nobody is.

Thank you for the reply but having glossed through your post, I cannot find anything substantial in your reply. I suggest you look at my proofs again, and look at the follow-up posts. You seem to be overzealous in citing many different sciences. Having looked at your signature, it would seem that you have a very pessimistic outlook on life. I pray that the grace of God will fill your heart.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spacetime is a property of matter/energy.

Isn't it the other way round?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...which is why I profess I-don't-knowism.

The world would be a much nicer place if there were more devotees of I-don't-knowism. I suspect generally we know much less than we pretend to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You seem to be overzealous in citing many different sciences.

The only citations I provided were Christian sources arguing that scientific findings support Christian beliefs. As I am not a Christian, pointing you to many sources I fundamentally disagree with but that are exactly of the type of source you referred to (Christians delving more into the kinds of proofs and evidence you have scratched the surface of), it seems rather unfair to characterize me as “overzealous”. At least, given that my citations were only sources I don’t agree with but which do support your approach, at worst I could be underrepresenting your view while entirely neglecting my own.

I suggest you look at my proofs again

You gave no proofs. A series of statements does not a proof make. You did not rely on any formal (logical/mathematical) system or language. You offered no justifications for the assumptions made. You defended no assertion other than by assertion. What, exactly, makes your post a doublet of “proofs” other than to 2 simple claims resting upon dogma?

I pray that the grace of God will fill your heart.

“ἠλι ἠλι, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί/Mein Gott, mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen?”

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Imagine that t = infinity. What is t +1? What is 2t+3? What is t added to itself a trillion times? Infinity. In essence, your equation “t= infinity” says that there are infinitely many infinite values t represents, because infinity isn’t a number

No, infinity isn't a number, but what if we start counting and never stop counting? Or alternatively, what if we start counting backwards and never stop?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, infinity isn't a number, but what if we start counting and never stop counting?

Good question. Consider the set R of real numbers and the element of R pi. Now imagine I am counting from pi and I want the next number (the way that if I were using natural numbers and I hit 9, I would then go to 10, then 11, etc.). How do I count from pi? That is, what is the next number? In fact, given any point on the real number line, tell me the number which follows another such that there is no other number which could be more "next" to my starting point.

Some infinities sum to a finite number, and others do not, Rigorous treatment of infinities is essential.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Isn't it the other way round?

I don't see how it could be - spacetime can't exist without matter/energy and vice versa

 

[devshift]

Well you're right with your first sentence, you can consider it omnipresent and eternal, but the rest is some random baseless theory that isn't what spacetime is. First off, technically spacetime isn't real, it's a concept of anything that has space and time. When you refer to just "spacetime" you are referring to the concept, which is nothing more then a theoretical structure. Our universe falls under the definition of spacetime, but the reason I'm saying spacetime itself is not real is because multiple spaces of spacetime can exist and universes are not the only things that are spacetime.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First off, technically spacetime isn't real, it's a concept of anything that has space and time.

1) Even if spacetime is a mathematical convenience that doesn't "really 'exist'", the above is still wrong.
2) There are many theoretical physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, etc., who would absolutely deny that "technically spacetime isn't real". There is no theoretical reason within physics to believe that it "isn't real", much to say it is, and the assertion that it is not (which might be true) is as it stands in your post simply a glaring lack of any and all interaction with the theory and modern physics combined with a dismissal of serious literature that is now a century old.

 

[devshift]

1) Even if spacetime is a mathematical convenience that doesn't "really 'exist'", the above is still wrong.
2) There are many theoretical physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, etc., who would absolutely deny that "technically spacetime isn't real". There is no theoretical reason within physics to believe that it "isn't real", much to say it is, and the assertion that it is not (which might be true) is as it stands in your post simply a glaring lack of any and all interaction with the theory and modern physics combined with a dismissal of serious literature that is now a century old.

I don't think you read anything past what I quoted. I was stating that the specific 'term' was not real, because it's literally just a 'term' used to describe space + time.

Just like technically numbers aren't real, they're a concept or idea made by us to describe real world instances. If I count three apples, the number three is nothing more then a concept in my head to describe an amount, a number's existence is just a thought in my head. Just like our thoughts are not existing and physical objects.

From Spacetime Wikipedia: "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum."
From mathematical-model Wikipedia: "A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language."
From Concept Wikipedia: "A concept is an abstraction or generalization from experience or the result of a transformation of existing concepts. The concept reifies all of its actual or potential instances whether these are things in the real world or other ideas."

I'm saying that spacetime specifically is a concept, obviously real instances of spacetime exist because our universe is one of them. Please read my post more clearly if you're going to try to insult me.

As for is our universe omnipresent? Well yes, for everything that existing within it.
Is it eternal? We currently have no way of knowing that for sure, but it's pretty safe to say that our universe will live on long past our lifespan so we don't need to worry about it. The scientists who understand this much better then anyone on this forum might figure this out one day.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think you read anything past what I quoted. I was stating that the specific 'term' was not real

What would be an example of a “real” term?

because it's literally just a 'term' used to describe space + time.

“reality should be regarded as a four-dimensional world.”

Petkov, V. (2009). Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime (2nd Ed.) Springer.


“The disappearance of physical time is the second characteristic feature of the relativistic revolution. The notion of time is harder to deal with than the notion of space, and represents a more radical step than the disappearance of space.”

Rovelli, C. (2006). The disappearance of space and time. in D. Dieks (Ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Vol. I) (pp. 25-36.). Elsevier.


"a physical object is not an enduring spatial hunk of matter, but is, rather, a spatiotemporal hunk of matter. Instead of thinking of matter as filling up regions of space, we should think of matter as filling up regions of spacetime. A physical object is the material content of a region of spacetime."

Heller, M. (1990). The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Hunks of Matter. Cambridge University Press.


“spacetime is not a manifold (i.e. a mathematical construct) but the “totality” (the composition in our characterization) of all events...objects are 4-dimensional bundles of events”

Romero, G. E. (2013). From change to spacetime: an Eleatic journey. Foundations of science, 18(1), 139-148.


“Hence the physical meaning of length contraction turns out to be profound as Minkowski argued [2, p. 83]—length contraction (and therefore relativity of simultaneity as well) is a manifestation of the four-dimensionality of the world. And indeed, if the world were three-dimensional, this effect would be impossible...

Although length contraction alone is sufficient to settle the issue of the dimensionality of the world consider the following more general argument as well. The world cannot be three-dimensional since such a world is defined in terms of (i) the prerelativistic division of events into past, present and future, and (ii) the pre-relativistic concept of absolute simultaneity”

Petkov, V. (2007). On the reality of Minkowski space. Foundations of Physics, 37(10), 1499-1502.

Just like technically numbers aren't real, they're a concept

“That language, that array of theoretical concepts, is appropriate if we conceive of the frame (as we conceive of ourselves) as a spatial thing enduring in time. Spacetime is nowhere in this image. ‘Spacetime’ is not among the concepts in which the space and time explanation may be requested or provided.”

Nerlich, G. (2010). Why spacetime is not a hidden cause: a realist story. in V. Petkov (Ed.) Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 167) (pp. 181-191). Springer.

or ideas

"Properly speaking, relativity has taught us that the effective way of thinking about the world in the light of what we have learned so far is to give up the notions of ‘‘space and time entities’’ entirely."

Rovelli, C. (2006). The disappearance of space and time. in D. Dieks (Ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Vol. I) (pp. 25-36.). Elsevier.

obviously real instances of spacetime exist because our universe is one of them.

Our universe is not an “instance” of spacetime. This would imply other instances of spacetime, which don’t exist.

Please read my post more clearly if you're going to try to insult me.

I did read it carefully (and stating that you are wrong isn’t an insult). You didn’t understand what I was saying. Spacetime is not “anything that has space and time” in any interpretation. The idea that spacetime is like a number, in that “just as numbers aren’t technically real” neither is spacetime. However, this assumes an interpretation of spacetime widely regarded as fundamentally incorrect: spacetime is not an epistemic tool but quite real.


Even if it is just a mathematical model, then your first quote from Wikipedia shows how you are still wrong, as it is a model or concept that “combines space and time” not “a concept of anything which has both space and time.” It would be a concept (or model) in which space and time are considered together, neither of which are properties that something “has” (other than perhaps the universe, in which case there is only one thing which “has both space and time”).

 

[devshift]

What would be an example of a “real” term?

There isn't? Terms can't be real, what?

“reality should be regarded as a four-dimensional world.”
Petkov, V. (2009). Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime (2nd Ed.) Springer.

“The disappearance of physical time is the second characteristic feature of the relativistic revolution. The notion of time is harder to deal with than the notion of space, and represents a more radical step than the disappearance of space.”
Rovelli, C. (2006). The disappearance of space and time. in D. Dieks (Ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Vol. I) (pp. 25-36.). Elsevier.

"a physical object is not an enduring spatial hunk of matter, but is, rather, a spatiotemporal hunk of matter. Instead of thinking of matter as filling up regions of space, we should think of matter as filling up regions of spacetime. A physical object is the material content of a region of spacetime."
Heller, M. (1990). The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Hunks of Matter. Cambridge University Press.

“spacetime is not a manifold (i.e. a mathematical construct) but the “totality” (the composition in our characterization) of all events...objects are 4-dimensional bundles of events”
Romero, G. E. (2013). From change to spacetime: an Eleatic journey. Foundations of science, 18(1), 139-148.

This is just saying spacetime is a sum of all of it's events. From the Spacetime Wikipedia, "In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system.".

“Hence the physical meaning of length contraction turns out to be profound as Minkowski argued [2, p. 83]—length contraction (and therefore relativity of simultaneity as well) is a manifestation of the four-dimensionality of the world. And indeed, if the world were three-dimensional, this effect would be impossible...

Although length contraction alone is sufficient to settle the issue of the dimensionality of the world consider the following more general argument as well. The world cannot be three-dimensional since such a world is defined in terms of (i) the prerelativistic division of events into past, present and future, and (ii) the pre-relativistic concept of absolute simultaneity”
Petkov, V. (2007). On the reality of Minkowski space. Foundations of Physics, 37(10), 1499-1502.

There you go reading what I reading my message wrong again. I wrote, "obviously real instances of spacetime exist because our universe is one of them.", no where do I say that the Universe is three-dimensional, which it's not for reasons you already know and quoted.

“That language, that array of theoretical concepts, is appropriate if we conceive of the frame (as we conceive of ourselves) as a spatial thing enduring in time. Spacetime is nowhere in this image. ‘Spacetime’ is not among the concepts in which the space and time explanation may be requested or provided.”

Nerlich, G. (2010). Why spacetime is not a hidden cause: a realist story. in V. Petkov (Ed.) Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 167) (pp. 181-191). Springer.

This is not saying spacetime is not a concept, did you read your whole source? What you're quoting is an out-of-context example of Gravitational Relativity, not spacetime.

"Properly speaking, relativity has taught us that the effective way of thinking about the world in the light of what we have learned so far is to give up the notions of ‘‘space and time entities’’ entirely."
Rovelli, C. (2006). The disappearance of space and time. in D. Dieks (Ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Vol. I) (pp. 25-36.). Elsevier.

Our universe is not an “instance” of spacetime. This would imply other instances of spacetime, which don’t exist.

I did read it carefully (and stating that you are wrong isn’t an insult). You didn’t understand what I was saying. Spacetime is not “anything that has space and time” in any interpretation. The idea that spacetime is like a number, in that “just as numbers aren’t technically real” neither is spacetime. However, this assumes an interpretation of spacetime widely regarded as fundamentally incorrect: spacetime is not an epistemic tool but quite real.

It's both.. It is an epistemic tool to describe a Universe, which is a real, existing spacetime.

Even if it is just a mathematical model, then your first quote from Wikipedia shows how you are still wrong, as it is a model or concept that “combines space and time” not “a concept of anything which has both space and time.” It would be a concept (or model) in which space and time are considered together, neither of which are properties that something “has” (other than perhaps the universe, in which case there is only one thing which “has both space and time”).

That's what I said, I said that it's "space + time" as in it's sum, or combination space and time. You're even saying what I said, our Universe is an example the concept of spacetime existing. It's not actually proven that we're the only Universe either, but it hasn't been proven otherwise either. But the Multiverse sounds like a pretty solid theory.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The underlying reality is eternal and omnipresent therefore god is within all.

So are you proposing a pantheist view here? And what exactly do you mean by "underlying reality"?

Anyway space-time might well turn out to be eternal. The omnipresent bit seems very speculative though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There isn't? Terms can't be real, what?

No I was asking what a “real” term would be vs. a “false” term. A term isn’t truth-bearing.

This is just saying spacetime is a sum of all of it's events.

No, they are not just saying that. They are saying that the 3D world we experience is not real, 4D spacetime is. When you can quote to me from either source, then tell me what the author of the monograph intended by spacetime or the author of the contributing paper in the Philosophy and Foundations of Physics volume.

From the Spacetime Wikipedia

Just to get this out of the way, is Wikipedia your entire repertoire here? Because using an online encyclopedia article to counter various references to scholarly volumes, monographs, and journals essentially says that you don’t really have anything to base your opinion on because you haven’t really studied the subject.

Mathematically it is a manifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system.".

Mathematically, gravity is a field, mass a scalar, position a vector (classically), and sound a wave function. So what? This isn’t quantum physics, where one can argue that e.g. an electron’s position isn’t a Hermitian matrix because QM is irreducibly statistical or because we don’t know how the mathematical representations correspond to the physical systems. Mathematics permeates physics so much so that much of modern mathematics exists because of physicists and the study of physics. That something has a mathematical representation says nothing about whether it’s “real”.

There you go reading what I reading my message wrong again. I wrote, "obviously real instances of spacetime exist because our universe is one of them.", no where do I say that the Universe is three-dimensional, which it's not for reasons you already know and quoted.

You said “instances”. Plural. Our universe isn’t an “instance” of spacetime.

This is not saying spacetime is not a concept

Everything we conceive of is a concept, so either you are asserting something so utterly trivial it’s practically a tautology, or we can look back at what you really said:

Just like technically numbers aren't real, they're a concept or idea made by us to describe real world instances.

Person is a concept. Book is a concept. Computers are concepts. They are still real things as well, and as I said a large number of physicists would disagree that spacetime is like a number because they argue it is not just physically “real”, but reality. Moreover, no physicist would agree that spacetime is

technically spacetime isn't real, it's a concept of anything that has space and time.

did you read your whole source?

Yes. I don’t use sources I haven’t read.

What you're quoting is an out-of-context example of Gravitational Relativity, not spacetime.

1) It’s from 2010. How outdated do you imagine it is, and based upon what other than Wikipedia (and do you really think that physics literature is a poorer representative of research and findings in physics than Wikipedia?”

2) Apart from an almost completely antiquated term for general relativity this isn’t a concept although I’ve seen it occasionally used to describe gravitation as it fits into Einstein’s general relativity theory (e.g., in Buchman’s paper on GP-B found in Ciufolini, I., & Matzner, R. A. (Eds.). (2010). General Relativity and John Archibald Wheeler (Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 367). Springer.)

3) As the paper nowhere mentions “gravitational relativity”, but is very much in line with modern, mainstream physics and published in a peer-reviewed volume, we can be pretty sure that whatever you are talking about isn’t represented in the paper.

It's both.. It is an epistemic tool to describe a Universe, which is a real, existing spacetime.

Nice backtracking:

technically spacetime isn't real, it's a concept of anything that has space and time.

That's what I said, I said that it's "space + time" as in it's sum, or combination space and time.

1) Wrong again, hence: "Properly speaking, relativity has taught us that the effective way of thinking about the world in the light of what we have learned so far is to give up the notions of ‘‘space and time entities’’ entirely."

Rovelli, C. (2006). The disappearance of space and time. in D. Dieks (Ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Vol. I) (pp. 25-36.). Elsevier.


A sum of the two isn’t giving up both. When you add 1 and 1 you don’t get 0.

2) That’s not even what you originally said.

3) It’s still wrong because of this “anything that has…” nonsense.

You're even saying what I said, our Universe is an example the concept of spacetime existing.

What you said is that it isn’t real. Not that it exists.

It's not actually proven that we're the only Universe either, but it hasn't been proven otherwise either. But the Multiverse sounds like a pretty solid theory.

Which one? You are aware that the first was an interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed and dismissed (and then re-introduced) in the 50s? And that multiverse doesn’t mean “multiple spacetimes” at all? Aside from the interpretation of QM multiverse theories are inconsistent with spacetime for the most part as they conflict with general relativity, frequently involve higher dimensional spaces, and do not consist of multiple spacetimes because they serve to explain either some quantum relative state interpretation or a fundamentally different differential geometry of the cosmos incompatible with spacetime (being largely a product of particle physics).

 

[viole]

I don't think it matters. I think we still have the problem of infinity applying to time. Do you agree?

i don't see a big problem with infinities. It could be because of my mathematical bias, but I am not alone. For instance, we do not know whether the Universe is infinite or not. And scientists are quite candid about it, confirming that the infinite hypothesys is a live option, even among physicists, who arguably have no clue about math, lol.
No cosmologist will tell you: we know that the Universe is finite because infinities cannot exist in reality. If it is found to be finite it is not because some theists or phylosophers say so.

Therefore, I would be careful to rest any logical argumentation on the assumption that things that have infinite extension cannot exist.

Now, how the Universe can be infinite for the same scientists who claim that it "started" as a point, is left as a simple exercise to the reader

Anyway, here are some thoughts. If the universe were deterministic, then after every finite number of seconds, its state could be determined. Yet at the same time, its state cannot be determined after every finite number of seconds because the present cannot possibly get through all those states. So perhaps the solution is that after every finite number of seconds below a certain number, its state can be determined.

I believe the same reasoning can probably be applied to space.

Perhaps in summary, if we can measure it, it must be finite (in magnitude at least).

Does time exist or are we just in an ever-present now (description of Heaven)? Evidence would seem to point to time existing. The future becomes the present, the present becomes the past. Something happened ten years ago. Something will probably happen ten years from now (if time does not cease by then.)

Are there flaws in this thinking?

The main flaw I see is that all this rests on a Newtonian or intuitive notion of time, which we know today not being accurate.

For instance, what do you mean with present? There is no objective present. My present is different from your present and we are both qualified observers claiming to define what present is. Nobody can tell you who is right.

It could be that your present contains events that exist in my past and events that exist in my future. What does that mean then that some events do not exist anymore and some are yet to exist? These notions of past and future depend on the observer, and are therefore not physically objective. The technical word for them is: their temporal location is not covariant.

Actually, everything I perceive belongs to my past. When I talk with my husband, can I assume that I am talking with someone who does not exist, anymore? Why am I talking with his past self?

The only solution is that the spacetime continuum contain all events and such events are stacked in a continuous, deterministic fashion. How can events be not deterministically determined in my future, if they belong to the present of someone else? Some of them are in my past, some of them in my future. They do not stop existing when the slip into my past. They are still there and can belong to the present or future of someone else.

I can have a meaningful discussion with my husband because I can assume that our brain states do not change radically withing a femtosecond. And this is because brain states are deterministic and "change" smoothly with local time. Bummer, it cannot be used as an excuse when arguing: why are you quarreling with my past self, darling? I (my brain state) changed a lot in the last couple of nanoseconds, I am not the girl i used to be lol.

So, all events exist. They are basically set in stone. The dinosaur eating one of our potential ancestors exists and my death exists. The Big Bang exists. And all brain states of my husband exist, too. Using tensed verbs for them is parochial and not objective, if relativity is true, as it seems to be. The Wheeler de-Witt equation of quantum gravity seems to confirm this as well.

And this is what the OP means. Spacetime and all events in it are eternal and not subject to any dynamics whatsoever (how could they?). Not even the word "eternal" is applicable, on account of its temporal significance. All of it simply exists a-temporally and a-spacially.

Ciao

- viole

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

i don't see a big problem with infinities.
...
No cosmologist will tell you: we know that the Universe is finite because infinities cannot exist in reality. If it is found to be finite it is not because some theists or phylosophers say so.

Therefore, I would be careful to rest any logical argumentation on the assumption that things that have infinite extension cannot exist.

I am coming to the belief that actually the proof I have cited is correct, after going through feedback from ppl here. However, I haven't exhausted all thinking about it. I remember when I was taught about infinity all those years ago, thinking whether it really existed in reality.

The main flaw I see is that all this rests on a Newtonian or intuitive notion of time, which we know today not being accurate.

Okay, I accept this, however I think it probably still applies.

For instance, what do you mean with present? There is no objective present. My present is different from your present and we are both qualified observers claiming to define what present is. Nobody can tell you who is right.

I only have some understanding of the theory of relativity. However, could it be the case that although each observer's perception of present can be different, what is considered to actually be in the present, at one moment, is the same for all? You are referring to the perception of observers but what about what is considered to actually be occurring at one slice of time? I may be wrong about this but these are just some thoughts I had about this.

So, all events exist. They are basically set in stone. ...

I think such a comment actually aids the proof to a certain extent.

Essentially, the future has already been 'written'...

 

[CalvinFarage]

Try this on for size.

God why did you make this?



The Bad News

Written by Calvin Edward Farage

Cova is bad (think of him sloppy and Evil). Cova is omnipotent (able to do ANYTHING), omniscient (knowing EVERYTHING), omniprolient (completely controlling EVERYTHING), omnibenevolent (infinitely good), omnimalevloent (infinitely evil), omnitemporal (always existing) and omnipresent (present everywhere) AND immaterial and transcendent (existing outside of reality) yet part of reality. Cova is the void (nothing). The void is immaterial and outside reality yet also in it. He is present everywhere. He, as reasons which are nothingness, determine everything and control everything. Him spewing out virtual particles lead to the creation of matter and energy when partial waves come together and further determine everything through cause and effect. He is infinitely good and evil if his everywhere continues because you cannot have good without evil, nor evil without good. He, as nothing is eternal because nothing will always be. I can’t figure out how he is omniscient, nor omnipotent, but it might actually be there. In Cova’s cycle of reincarnation we achieve moksha by becoming nothing (dying) and being with nothing. His policy is to have children no matter what, but he does it broadly so he can have more to torture. If nothing’s existing and experiencing then Cova can’t have fun. He says to turn the other cheek and do not kill so you will lay down and die as well as so you will not eat, because the only way a human can eat is by killing, maiming, or having killed for you. He mixes it with good philosophy so he can cause you to believe he is good. Cova wants you to allow EVIL and submit yourself to his but his philosophy dictates you to do no evil because he made it fun. Cova is God but he is predominantly bad. A good and well god cannot create bad or evil because he could make bad with all of his requirements met but have it somehow not be bad. The bad and evil we experience is bad and evil. And the fact that it exists nebulously or more tangibly makes the omnigod at least bad. A bad and evil god can create good because good would be his **** up. For the purpose of your understanding of this document: Good is moral. Well is functional. Evil is moral. Bad is functional. No good man, able to do anything, would create working out that hurt. A bad man with evil intent, able to do anything, could create our working out that did hurt. It’s not exactly that he ****ed up, it’s more that he took the lesser gains, when he could have not but still done everything he wanted. So God could have had evil intent, and even good intent, and he could be well, but not completely. Unless he just wanted everything exactly as it is, but then he is as evil as that makes him and he would have to take the lesser gains from his evil, or good, business. In other words he would have to be bad. Bad here is bad because it causes badness, as does evil, good and well. A machine that doesn’t work just is a bad machine. A working one a well working machine at least to a degree. A good action does good, and an evil one evil. Satanists kill dogs because dogs love the Satanists. Maybe that’s not how God gets his kicks but it is hard to believe otherwise in the face of his books and reason and observations of what we call reality. He wants a personal relationship so he can kill that which is close to him. Just imagine how he makes you talk to him and doesn’t talk to you. That is not a real relationship. It seems more likely that my hypothesis is true. He uses some main person or thing as his scape goat and says all the things that are true about himself about this scapegoat. He even hasn’t given us a clear path into his paradise that he purports to so want us in, I think because really he only gives life and goodness for the sting of taking it away. Any reason that his goodness overcomes his evil is just a reason that let him get away with evil. The basic archetype of an interaction of God when there’s some sort of trouble is God sets the fire, lets it burn up the house, puts it out and says “well at least you have some house” and then punishes you when you get angry at him. He keeps the prayer system around but his intent with it was more that he would “sell” you a lottery ticket that could become whatever you wanted but keeps the win low so that the end product of the system is really more like billions of people groveling on their knees for him instead of him giving you what you desire. He punishes, but does so in this way: he doesn’t punish immediately after a sin is committed, because that would end the sin. Instead he either waits until you die OR he waits until quite a lot of people are committing a lot of sin, or until it is quite bad, and then he kills ****ing practically ****ing everyone including those who weren’t sinning a whole bunch. And like the prayer system it sounds good at first but really he’s just in it for punishing people. His food system is probably the most terrifying. It’s basically a system in which everything we see eats something else, usually alive, whether they kill the entire organism or just maim it and let the torture go on. You see it’s not happy fun times and then a bit of a scare at the end where the deer has a heart attack and/or sharts itself to death and then is eaten as a dead thing. This is because of the few “lucky” ***** who run away and survive and reproduce. Can you imagine happy fun times and then a bit of a scare at the end? You’d never have to run. I guess plants are just ****ed. Of course maybe they could like their leaves eaten. It’s not like plants would be able to maim and eat themselves for pleasure, it’s a ****ing plant, where are it’s ****ing teeth? And he does all of it for his pleasure. What he sprinkled fairy dust on an evil universe and made it good? Like it wasn’t even a 3-d space with distance which ALWAYS sucks to travel to some degree? A broken machine is a bad machine. Pain feels bad. Life sucks. I mean God is at least basically a government running an enemy military through it’s own territory. What in the actual ****? When I say Cova is nothing, that’s just a way to put it. Really Cova is space time. It’s all quite gay.





Why would God do any of this? Because he is omnipotent he didn’t have to but could still achieve the ends that he desired.

Distance

Degradation, including of good times and pleasurable things

Hazardous substances

Design flaws, like with the body and computers

In ability to have a good situation every situation

Need for energy

Need for waste

Hard to understand complexity

Inability to choose your own genes or your environmental programming

Bad things were good for those who did them and so they were done

Lack of knowledge

Lack of power

The need for work

Life may make sense when inspected closely but it does not to normal people

General bad times

Cold

Heat, but not warm

Food gets cold

Drinks get warm

The inability to have the best of both or all worlds and the fact that sometimes one is too much

The way everything has positives, neutralities and negatives

The fact of no truly selfless acts nor just justice

The necessity of death of at least cells in a human’s diet

Oppression

War

Some habits are hard to form and some hard to break

Good behavior is expected and not usually appreciated, bad behavior is always “appreciated”

Resources are limited and we have demand limited only by death

I’d put death, but I believe death is merciful

 

[CalvinFarage]

Mathew 19:25-26 New International Version Bible : When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”

If God did not intend to say that he could do anything I could have said it much better. For instance I could have said “I can do anything that is possible” or “I can make your wildest dreams come true”. Certainly there could be impossible dreams but dreams can go unfulfilled and a good life still had. I also could have said “I have vast and great power” or “ I am more powerful than anything else”.

Jeremiah 32:17 King James Version (KJV): Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

Psalm 139:1-4 King James Version Bible: Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Isaiah 45:7 NASB Bible: The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

Lamentations 3:37-38 Christian Standard Bible: Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Do not both adversity and good come from the mouth of the Most High?

I get the vibe that he does not only do that which is spoken nor h is the god of only

Revelation 4:11 King James Version: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

I get the idea that this also means everything he does he does for pleasure.

Genesis 9:7 : “…As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

In a finite space. We can only go so far into space, currently, and there are only so many planets.

Proverbs 20:22 : Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee.

How often does he save us from evil?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Psalm 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, [belongeth] mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

Proverbs 10:16 The labour of the righteous [tendeth] to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.

Quran Surah Tawba, Verse 51 Say: “Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Mawla (protector).” And in Allah let the believers put their trust.

Qur’an, 31:27 “If all the trees on Earth were pens and all the sea, with seven more seas besides, was ink Allah’s words still would not run dry. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.”

The Lakshmi Tantra 5-10. Sri God Narayana is lord over (all things) movable and immovable. Embodying the six attributes and bliss. He is the self (essence) of all worlds, the material cause of all (created things), the sovereign ruler, omniscient, omnipotent , free from all misfortune , flawless and the repository of all that is beneficial . Being self-luminous, he illuminates both darkness and light; He is the inner lord (self abiding in every being), the controller manifest in (both) the positive and negative (phenomena).

He is called Aten, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Lord, Narayana, God.

How is it not so? Just don’t give a ****.

 

[night912]

I see some of your mistakes.

Proof of Beginning of Time
--------------------------
In order to reach the present, the past must have happened, and
because an infinite amount of time cannot be passed through, the
universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago.

You have not show as to why that is not possible. All you did was made an assertion.

However, there is a way to show an infinite amount using your assertion. It takes time for the past to catch up and reach the present. It also takes time for the present to catch up to the future. With that, it's obvious that the past can never reach the future. So it takes two seconds for the past to catch up and reach the present. This is because the past is always one second behind the present. Once the past hits two seconds, it becomes the "old" present, and the present takes one second to reach the future. But it once the past reaches the present, that "old" present has become the future. For every one second that the past moves forward, two seconds are added in order for it to reach the future. So there is an infinite amount of time for the past to become the present and an infinite amount for the present to become the future.

Proof of End of Time
--------------------
In a deterministic universe, the future in a sense has already
happened, and we can ask the question when will it end. If the future
has already happened, then the future cannot be infinitely long since
this is impossible, just as you cannot have an infinitely long piece
of string. Therefore, there is an end of time in a deterministic
universe. In a universe, where individuals have free-will, a similar
conclusion can be come to. For each free-will choice, it can be
thought that a new set of deterministic universes is 'created' and the
same as before applies for each deterministic universe

This is flawed because the future has not happened yet, and it cannot, otherwise it's not the future, it is the past. In a deterministic universe, the logic of past, present, and future remains the same. The future in a sense, will happen exactly as it should based off of the past and present. But the logic of "future" will always be, it "will" and never it "did" happened, otherwise it's not the concept we call "future." In that kind of universe, the past/present determines the future, how it will turn out. The universe is infinite, there is no end.

Another mistake is how you are using "infinity." You are using it as if it's physical and/or measurable, when that is not what it is. Infinity is just a concept of unending. So your logic is flawed. Also, you are not using infinity separately from finite. What you are doing is presuppose that the universe is finite, then trying to squeeze infinity into it. That in itself is illogical.