Hi there,

I think that your "proof" cannot proof your point, (that there is no time and space), as all physical objects (even if the universe had one object) exists in a volume of space, at a particular moment. The point in ages at which the object exists is measured with a unit of time, but hey, we have the free will to choose to believe otherwise.

When I consider advances in the study of particles I realize that:

1. Perceptive capacity increases as humans integrate themselves with equipment and 'nature'.

2. The greater the perception the more non physical the universe becomes

Such that I can imagine singular fluidity that's also self conscious. In the end the 'smallest particle' loses meaning and the universe has no edges. The universe is pure spirit. Dream time.

Not so...it is not the Universe that exists within time and space. It is time and space that exist within the Universe, to the point where we insist that these effects are real. And the 'proof' I cited is just a tip of the iceberg as it were.

But lets pursue your argument. If the Universe contained only one object (as we are told it did before the big bang) how could there be space and time?

Secondly if there was no observer, how could there be time and space, seeing as these are effects directly tied to our ability, through our senses and consciousness, to perceive and interpret relationships between 'things'?

I think that I understand what is causing us to differ. We hold two opposing world views. My world view is that the universe had a beginning, while yours is that the universe does not have a beginning, that it has always been in existence.

The point of contention was in regards to time and space. In order for each of our world views to be supported, the nature of time and space has to adopt one world view or the other, not both.

In my world view, time and space encapsulates the universe, while with your world view, the universe encapsulates the "perceived" time and space.

The reason that your world view requires the universe to encapsulate time and space, is that in order for the universe to NOT have a beginning, there has to be NO time, it's existence has to be at a place where there is no time, hence your explanation of time and space being our perceptions, in our attempt to interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.

Quoting you: "The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse."

For my world view, in order for the universe to begin, time has to exist to mark the beginning of the universe's existence, as the universe cannot "begin", if not in time.

Until our world views are in sync, our perceptions of time and space will differ.

The deeper or next question then will be "Which of the two world views is true?" After all, both cannot be true.

Then another question that follows the just asked question is "Will we ever know the answer to the question of which world view is true?"

The answer to the last question is "Yes", if my world view is true, or "No" if your world view is true.

The reason for "No" if your world view is true, is that once we die, that's it. The universe will just continue, we were but a mere moment, in contrary, the reason for "Yes" if my world view is true, is that even if we die, our maker will resurrect us all in one of two resurrections.

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. John 5:29

How one chooses to live relative to the moral law, will be what will determine the eternal fate of an individual. In essence, we choose our eternal destiny by our everyday decisions.

The encounter with the creator during the resurrection will be proof that God is real, that the universe has it's creator, that the universe has rules to live by, that the universe had a beginning, but it will be too late if one resurrected in the resurrection of damnation.

In explaining my world view, speaking about the Creator was inevitable.

@D32, I don't think the two Worldviews are any different. At least when put in action one can't tell the difference.