There is no evidence for God

The worldline is a concept useful in relativity physics, but it's not employed in quantum gravity hypotheses.

I don't understand the question.

What's restricting nothingness from creating something in something? Note: I'm not the one claiming nothingness has properties (and thus, potential). But if you're going to posit potentiality to nothingness, despite nothingness by definition precluding anything of the sort, then you need to show why nothingness is discriminatory in its production of things.

In a timeless (B-theory) view of the universe, all moments are "simultaneous". Moreover absolute simultaneity is about identifying simultaneous events at different locations in space. That's different from the simultaneous causation being discussed here, which is about whether effects can be simultaneous with their causes (which might apply at a single point in and/or at the beginning of spacetime). So I can reject absolute simultaneity without necessarily rejecting simultaneous causation.

not evidence because you don't want it to be? way to think inside box.

despite not having things to scan or feel, we can still come to reality that God may, can, and does exist.

We know relativistic physics works, quantum gravity is pure speculation. I would refrain from using speculative physics to 'disprove' accepted physics.

You asserted that potentiality *must* arise from something, I was wondering how you reached that conclusion.

Nothingness within something is not nothing because it is in the universe. As long as it is in the universe it is something.

You seem to be confusing nothingness from a physical perspective with nothingness from a philosophical perspective.

B theory is not timeless and it does not say that all events are simultaneous. For effects to be simultaneous with their causes you have to have some notion of time, and they both occur with no time passing between them. This notion requires the existence of time.

Relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions, hence the need for a quantum gravity model. No one is "disproving" accepted physics; your insistence on upholding concepts applicable in limited domains is unjustified and can be dismissed as a red-herring.

Considering we have no idea what, if anything, exists outside of our known universe, we do live in a limited domain.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "limited domain". In terms of physics, relativity is not universally applicable even inside the known universe. Worldline as a concept ceases to make sense in the quantum realm, for example. However causality still holds as a metaphysical principle, which is what we presuppose in science.

Does this change anything about what I said? Using know physics of the universe to make assumptions of what is or is not beyond it, is simply conjecture.

I wasn't the one using known physics to make any assumptions; on the contrary, the poster I was replying to was insisting that we must extend our understanding of relativity to domains outside of relativity.

And what is wrong with that? Extending our understanding?

What's wrong with extending relativity to these domains, you ask? We get nonsensical results. It doesn't work, hence the need for a higher quantum gravity model. Not really sure what any of this has to do with the topic we were discussing tbh, this was a bit of an unnecessary tangent.

The point is that you were dismissing an argument because it was limited and yet your argument is just as limited.

Relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions, hence the need for a quantum gravity model. No one is "disproving" accepted physics; your insistence on upholding concepts applicable in limited domains is unjustified and can be dismissed as a red-herring.



Potentiality relates to substance and the laws of physics. Absolute nothingness precludes potentiality by definition. This isn't that hard to comprehend :s



Irrelevant. If nothingness can produce universes, if nothingness has potential, surely it wouldn't be limited in its production of things. Surely objects that may appear out of nowhere in my room would violate the laws of physics and be out of nothing. What's stopping nothingness from producing things in something?



On the contrary, it's you who has conflated one species of causation as causation in general, and it's you who seems to be suggesting that nothingness may have something (namely, potential).



You don't understand B-theory in that case. And you're begging the question again; simultaneous causation doesn't require prior flow of time given timelessness, even if it did the beginning of spacetime would be in time. In simultaneous causation the cause and effect exist co-incidently. But in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation. So if simultaneous causation is possible, I see no reason to think timeless causation is impossible. At least we'd need an argument to show that it is.

How is the dismissal of causality in anyway comparable to the dismissal of relativity in domains where we know it breaks down? The former is a metaphysical concept that allows us to carry out investigations in the first place, while the latter is a theory that works in some areas but not others.

if you agree with me that relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions like for example I don't know maybe the creation of the universe then you're agreeing with my initial comment and you've spent this entire chain wasting both of our time.

Why do you need substance and the laws of physics to have the potential of something 'happening'?

As I said you're failing to understand the difference between philosophical nothing and physical nothing. Philosophical nothing may be able to exist in your room but physical nothing cannot.

Unfortunately people from different fields use the same words for different things. Causality in physics means something different to causality in philosophy, you were the one who interpreted my use of causality in a physical context as being in a philosophical context.

Would you care to explain how everything occurs simultaneously in b theory? In b theory time still exists, and events occur at different times.

What do you mean by "in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation"?

The beginning of space time would be in time but the creation of space time itself wouldn't be. Space time cannot be created in itself because that's just an infinite regression.

You want to carry out investigations about the origin of the universe, yet don't acknowledge our knowledge is limited to within the universe.

Knowledge of the content of scientific laws is limited to within the universe, sure, no one really disputed that. But why assume the concept of carrying out investigations and the need for explanations is limited to this universe? That would be special pleading. I don't see why we should just throw away causality as a metaphysical principle when it doesn't suit us; why would we keep cosmologists from trying to figure out the origin of the universe in causal terms?

Who said anything about throwing it away. I am simply saying anything one comes up with is pure conjecture.

That would depend on the individual reasoning behind the different models. There are dozens of cosmological models that are conjectural but more or less consistent with known science, so I'd prefer to assess the merits of these models on their own instead of dismissing the conjectural approach outright.

As for "theological" models that posit some sort of a God, personally, I don't think cosmological arguments like that one put forth by Craig et al are convincing arguments. But equally unconvincing is the common retort "causality doesn't exist outside of spacetime, therefore God CANNOT create the universe", which appears to be a very simplistic assessment of causality.