Foolishness

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe there is currently insufficient evidence to decide whether the universe has a finite past or not. That lack of evidence does not lead me to discard either option.

The BigBang Theory doesn't say anything about the state when thetime began, i.e. at t=0, nor before, if or if it not was one time them. It says only things about the universe when t>0.

What if the BigBang wasn't the start of it all, only the start of our universe. What if the BigBang only was a transition from a state of the universe bfore the BB and the one after? An article in Scientific American speculates about a preBangian Universe.

If we want to speculate futher, we have to define 'the Universe' as 'our Universe' or one of many Universes. As the BigBang is a barrier for information from before we know nothing about it, perhaps we will never know anything about it. We have to differ speculations from observational facts.

A superbeing, a creator, a conscious entity who is 'in charge' of everything is nothing more than a speculation.

(This is not a posting against you, twhitehead, only supplementary ideas.)

Originally posted by josephw
Thank you for your replies, but I'm still not satisfied that my argument doesn't adequately prove a point.

Perhaps it isn't simple enough. What I mean is I thought I had broken it down to it's least common denomination.

I'll try again.

We have all that exists. That is, there is everything and nothing else.

My argument is this: Did all that exis ...[text shortened]... l that exists had a beginning or it has always existed.

What other alternative is there?

Not that I'm advocating this mind you, but there is at least one other possibility: some of all that exists had a beginning and some has always existed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are plenty of nouns that do not begin. Essentially anything that does not have a position in the time dimension such as 'happiness', 'love', 'logic' etc.
If you argue that God is different from those because he is a physical entity, then you run into the problem that he cannot be both a physical entity and separate from this universe (and time).
L ...[text shortened]... s not begin as everything within time necessarily began at or after the beginning of time.

Essentially anything that does not have a position in the time dimension such as 'happiness', 'love', 'logic' etc.
And to what do these attributes speak, if not some referent? They must all be based in or on something.

If you argue that God is different from those because he is a physical entity...
No, He is decidedly not physical.

... then you run into the problem that he cannot be both a physical entity and separate from this universe (and time).
God is not in time, but time is in God. He transcends all creation, including time.

Lastly, if the universe started at the big bang, then so did time and it is false to propose anything that does have a position on the time dimension but that does not begin as everything within time necessarily began at or after the beginning of time.
Finite time consists of both succession and duration, whereas infinite eternity has only duration. God is eternal and yet communes with man, who is finite in the sense that he has a beginning point.

Originally posted by amannion
Maybe, maybe not.
A big bang explanation for [b]this universe doesn't of necessity require a beginning to be valid.
And just what has been revealed to you?[/b]

The revelation I referenced was related to man's growing scientific understanding, which led to the currently-held idea that time definitely began.

As far as any other universe (as responsible for this one), such thinking is beyond highly speculative and currently belongs in the realm of science fiction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The revelation I referenced was related to man's growing scientific understanding, which led to the currently-held idea that time definitely began.

As far as any other universe (as responsible for this one), such thinking is beyond highly speculative and currently belongs in the realm of science fiction.

More speculative than consideration of the existence or nature of a god?

Originally posted by amannion
Not that I'm advocating this mind you, but there is at least one other possibility: some of all that exists had a beginning and some has always existed.

I'll advocate it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And to what do these attributes speak, if not some referent? They must all be based in or on something.

No, they are not. Can you tell me when love began? Can you estimate it?

No, He is decidedly not physical.
Then talk of his begging is a 'category mistake' just as talk of love begging would be.

God is not in time, but time is in God. He transcends all creation, including time.
Again, this

Finite time consists of both succession and duration, whereas infinite eternity has only duration. God is eternal and yet communes with man, who is finite in the sense that he has a beginning point.
So what is this 'eternity'? Are you saying time is infinite, or are you talking about something other than time?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
More speculative than consideration of the existence or nature of a god?

Given what we know, absolutely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not. Can you tell me when love began? Can you estimate it?

[b]No, He is decidedly not physical.
Then talk of his begging is a 'category mistake' just as talk of love begging would be.

God is not in time, but time is in God. He transcends all creation, including time.
Again, this

Finite time consists of both successi rnity'? Are you saying time is infinite, or are you talking about something other than time?

No, they are not. Can you tell me when love began? Can you estimate it?[/b]
Thought experiment: before something, love existed? Logic was considered? In the absence of anything, one plus one equaled two? The fact of the matter is, before creation of the universe, but One existed. In that One, love, logic, reason, justice, righteousness, holiness resided. Resides still.


Then talk of his begging is a 'category mistake' just as talk of love begging would be.
I no unnerstand.

So what is this 'eternity'? Are you saying time is infinite, or are you talking about something other than time?
Eternity is a state of being. Sandwiched between eternity past and eternity future, is time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Given what we know, absolutely.

When you say know do you mean know as in actual facts or know as in more of your beliefs that you consider to be facts but which are really not factual at all?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That sounds valid to me.
The problem is then when you make the following errors:
1. Equate 'beginning' with 'created'.
2. Contradict the original definition of 'all that exists' by suggesting that something other than 'all that exists' created 'all that exists'.

1. Equate 'beginning' with 'created'.

But, if 'all that exists' was created, then 'all' had a beginning, because 'all' did not previously exist.


2. Contradict the original definition of 'all that exists' by suggesting that something other than 'all that exists' created 'all that exists'.

Yes, I am assuming that in order for anything to exist it must have a cause. That would logically necessitate intelligent design, a creator.

But that is taking my argument a step further than I intended.


My primary focus is the idea of "a beginning" for all that exists in contrast to the opposing idea of all that exists having "always existed".


But I see your point. If all that exists includes a creator, then what created the creator? The difference is in the paradox the question raises. One is left with an infinite number of causes. I'm trying to avoid that. It leads nowhere.


My original point is a simple one.

#1. If all that exists has always existed, then we are left with an unanswerable question. In fact there is no question to ask. We are left with no frame of reference with which to organise a thought around. There's nothing to know about it other than "all that exists has always existed".

If all that exists has no origin, no beginning, no point in time that it came into existence, but has simply always existed, then there is nothing to talk about. The whole subject of existence becomes finite.

#2. If all that exists had a cause, then we are faced with the infinite. A power so unfathomable it defies our finite powers of reason and logic.

Do we play dumb and except the idea that there was no beginning to all that exists? Because that's what we get when we think in such limited terms. We may as well just role over and quit, because there is no point to the debate as long as we make the mindless assumption that "everything that exists has always existed". And it is mindless because we can't know that for sure.

On the other hand, the idea of a beginning for all that exists opens the door to an infinite number of possibilities. The least of which makes the logical assumption that there was a cause.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thought experiment: before something, love existed? Logic was considered? In the absence of anything, one plus one equaled two? The fact of the matter is, before creation of the universe, but One existed. In that One, love, logic, reason, justice, righteousness, holiness resided. Resides still.

So you admit that your claims were false? Or are you simply trying to avoid admitting it?

I no unnerstand.
What is the color of love? How long in metres is hate? These are known as 'category mistakes'. You cannot simultaneously claim that God is external to time whilst talk about whether or not he has a beginning.

Eternity is a state of being. Sandwiched between eternity past and eternity future, is time.
That is not clear at all. Is it some other dimension? Is it directional? (hence the 'past' and 'future'attributes?