beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by knightmeister
no. because the first event ever marks the existence of time. one cannot have events without time. in a timeless state nothing ever happens. period. -----------zahlanzi----------------

And this is my very point - do you not see the paradox?

The fact that you say time has a beginning implies directly a timeless state because if there is no such ...[text shortened]... out time" and the beginning of time is an event then then the beginning of time cannot occur.

1. At the first page of this thread you asked:
“Therefore, the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless state? Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in" . However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur outside of time or without time.
Everything for you has to occur at a "point in time" does it not? But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.”

2. At the second page of this thread Mr Hamilton replied to your question as following:
-- … Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless STATE? ..…

1, when did this “STATE” exist?

2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.

… Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in". .…

Correct -I thought you were saying the exact opposite?

…However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur outside of time or without time. ….

Correct -and I still claim that.

… Everything for you has to occur at a "point in time" does it not? …

Except space and time itself -yes.

…But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.. …

Given the fact that what you refer to as “event B” is the beginning of time -yes -that is what I have been saying all the long.”
===

So the "paradox" of yours is not at all paradox.
And now you start it all over again! I would really like to know why you act this way.

Originally posted by black beetle
1. At the first page of this thread you asked:
“Therefore, the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless state? Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in" . However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur outside of time or without time.
Everything for you has to occur at a "p ...[text shortened]... And now you start it all over again! I would really like to know why you act this way.

I think you are confusing the points where I am arguing rhetorically using other people's logic in reverse with my own position. If you say something like , why does god not help small babies with cancer - then I don't automatically assume you think God exists , I know you are arguing from a different position.

For the record , I believe that the Universe exists in eternity and that God is without beginning or end . I believe there never was a time when there was nothing. I do not believe that time is a neccessary pre-requisite for existence.

Anything else outside of these beliefs is when I am arguing using others logic and pointing out the inherent paradox in it.

If you believe that nothing can happen in "no time" then how does "no time" become time. Surely if "no time" was ever a reality then the Universe could never have begun. (Using your logic not mine)

Hope this is clearer.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you are confusing the points where I am arguing rhetorically using other people's logic in reverse with my own position. If you say something like , why does god not help small babies with cancer - then I don't automatically assume you think God exists , I know you are arguing from a different position.

For the record , I believe that the U ...[text shortened]... he Universe could never have begun. (Using your logic not mine)

Hope this is clearer.

Nothing can happen in "no time".
"No time" cannot become "time".
Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence.
There is no "paradox".

Originally posted by black beetle
Nothing can happen in "no time".
"No time" cannot become "time".
Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence.
There is no "paradox".

For the record, there is not the slightest scientific evidence that the universe exists in eternity; and there is not the slightest evidence that your "God" exists, but surely you are free to enjoy your theology.
The problem arises when you try to promote your theological beliefs as theses well accepted by the scientific community and by the philosophy.

Originally posted by black beetle
Nothing can happen in "no time".
"No time" cannot become "time".
Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence.
There is no "paradox".

Nothing can happen in "no time".
"No time" cannot become "time".
Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence.
There is no "paradox".
--------------beetle--------------------

So it's impossible in your view for any progression from "no time" to time? Time is required for anything to exist?

If this is true then in what state does the event B (beginning of time) exist in ? Logically it cannot exist in time and time cannot create itself from no time because "time is a pre-requisite for existence"

If it is true that "Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence" (beetle) then logically time can never begin , because it would require time to exist , and since the beginning fo time logically requires the existence of "no time" - time has had it before it's had a chance to begin!

Are you sure there is no paradox here?

Originally posted by black beetle
For the record, there is not the slightest scientific evidence that the universe exists in eternity; and there is not the slightest evidence that your "God" exists, but surely you are free to enjoy your theology.
The problem arises when you try to promote your theological beliefs as theses well accepted by the scientific community and by the philosophy.

For the record , I did not say that there was scientific eveidence for God. I was merely clarifying where I stood for your benefit.

Don't let the chip on your shoulder get in the way of thinking about the issues.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nothing can happen in "no time".
"No time" cannot become "time".
Time is a necessary prerequisite for existence.
There is no "paradox".
--------------beetle--------------------

So it's impossible in your view for any progression from "no time" to time? Time is required for anything to exist?

If this is true then in what state does the ev ...[text shortened]... t before it's had a chance to begin!

Are you sure there is no paradox here?

This very question of yours is well answered by Mr Hamilton and bbarr; twhitehead and other friends they tried to help you understand but in vain. It is obvious that either you are totally ignorant, or that you are determined to understand not because you are driven by your theology.
So why should I repeat to you the same ole jazz again?

Originally posted by jaywill
Robert Jastrow did not say that we should not use reason.

Robert Jastrow wrote a book in which he explains his realization of the limitations of his scientific research.

His science eventually led him to a point where he was greeted by people who came to the same conclusions in their thinking. The beginning of the universe was caused by forces wh ople morons because they do not cling to your atheistic faith.

Are all agnostics morons ?

…Robert Jastrow did not say that we should not use reason. . …

No -but he implied it by talking about scientist’s “FAITH in the power of reason” thus implying that to believe that we should use reason it just blind “FAITH” (which, of course, is just total claptrap) -why would he do that if it is not the case that he wants use to abandon reason?
-why else would he try and totally rubbish reason by dismissing it as just mere “faith”?

…The beginning of the universe was caused by forces which transcend nature, are for all intents and purposes "supernatural". …

Is that conclusion based on “reason”? -answer -no. He is clearly against the use of reason here.
No doubt he would claim that it IS based on “reason” -the very thing he himself totally rubbishes as mere “faith”! can you see his logical inconsistency here?

...And it is pretty lame of you to get upset and want to call people morons because they do not cling to your atheistic faith. ….

This has nothing to do with my atheism or his theism. A person who is against reason is a moron simply because he is against reason -regardless of whether he is an atheist or theist. If he was an atheists and if he still dismissed reason as just “faith” -I would STILL call him a moron!

-so I will continue to use reason -and this reason is not “faith“.

Also, atheism is not a “faith” (as you suggested), it is the absence of a faith.

Also, I do not “cling” to my atheistic belief (as you suggested) because atheism is the ABSENCE of the existential belief that there is a god -thus there is no real existential “belief” to “cling to”!
To say I “cling” to my atheistic belief is just like saying I “cling” to my belief that there is no Santa -it is totally an inappropriate word to use here.
Do you “cling” to your belief that there is no Santa?


… Are all agnostics morons ?
...….

No. Now stop pretending this is about theism verses atheism. -This is about reason verses stupidity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For the record , I did not say that there was scientific eveidence for God. I was merely clarifying where I stood for your benefit.

Don't let the chip on your shoulder get in the way of thinking about the issues.

What is "the chip on my shoulder"?

Originally posted by black beetle
This very question of yours is well answered by Mr Hamilton and bbarr; twhitehead and other friends they tried to help you understand but in vain. It is obvious that either you are totally ignorant, or that you are determined to understand not because you are driven by your theology.
So why should I repeat to you the same ole jazz again?

Again I ask you - can you think for yourself? Stop retreating back on to the arguments of others. Do you have an argument of your own?

If time is a neccessary pre-requisite for existence then how does the beginning of time exist?

Another way of putting this is "if the Universe itself is a pre-requisite for existence then how did the Universe begin? "

I suspect you will probably just say "it did and that's all there is to it"

If so why make time a pre-requisite for existence?

Now you can either slag off my theism and hide behind others or engage with the argument -which is it going to be?

Originally posted by black beetle
What is "the chip on my shoulder"?

i dunno, maybe something left over from last nights fish supper? anyhow, i dunno if it has already been stated or not, that the universe was definitely caused, i.e. that the effect which we see, the physical universe must have had a cause and thus a beginning, and as i understand it, this must have been administered in a uniform way, like trying to get a golf ball to stay at the top of a hill, too much force and the thing goes over the other side, to little and it rolls back down, so with the universe, too much force and the thing would have expanded too rapidly, like a balloon and burst, too little and it would have imploded in on itself, now the question is, whether you are willing to accept that this cause was the result of blind chance or the result of forces applied in a uniform and controlled manner, the latter naturally inferring the presence of intelligence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dunno, maybe something left over from last nights fish supper? anyhow, i dunno if it has already been stated or not, that the universe was definitely caused, i.e. that the effect which we see, the physical universe must have had a cause and thus a beginning, and as i understand it, this must have been administered in a uniform way, like trying to g ...[text shortened]... in a uniform and controlled manner, the latter naturally inferring the presence of intelligence.

We nivver dee'd o winter yit rrroby🙂 afterall speir nae questions an ye'll be telt nae lees!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dunno, maybe something left over from last nights fish supper? anyhow, i dunno if it has already been stated or not, that the universe was definitely caused, i.e. that the effect which we see, the physical universe must have had a cause and thus a beginning, and as i understand it, this must have been administered in a uniform way, like trying to g ...[text shortened]... in a uniform and controlled manner, the latter naturally inferring the presence of intelligence.

you are forcing logic. just because you don't understand a concept doesn't mean you can invent outside forces that magically make it so. or better said, that you are making science when you do that.

sure, you can suggest a god that created the universe but from this to a "must be god" there are still many leaps of faith. and logic cannot bring you there.

Originally posted by black beetle
We nivver dee'd o winter yit rrroby🙂 afterall speir nae questions an ye'll be telt nae lees!

lay off the sauce man 😀

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
lay off the sauce man 😀

What sauce? This between rob and beetle has to do with pure single malt and Irn Bru
😵