Originally posted by knightmeister
My use of the word before occurs because any language we use is going to be limited to what we know of our universe. I can only describe what may be unknown in relative terms based on what we do know.

Brian Greene does this using analogies and ideas like "strings" all the time but no-one seems that bothered. But then he's not a Theist is he.

Lik ...[text shortened]... obsessed pedant who is seeking to disassemble an argument before it can cause to much damage.

You simply refuse to get a point don't you? We have had this discussion over and over and over in many threads and yet you refuse to get it.
Why do you use the word 'before' and not the word 'after' or the word 'brown' or the word 'cow'? Clearly because you are using it in an analogy. But is your analogy meaningful? The use of the word before when talking about some external time dimension might make a bit of sense. But then you cannot use the rules of the known time and space dimensions to try and make conclusions about some totally unknown dimension that you have hypothesized for no apparent reason.

But your use of the word 'before' in an attempt to extend the time dimension beyond a hypothesized limit point does not work. You are not in fact making an analogy there, you are attempting to defy the rules of logic - or more correctly - the term is meaningless in that context. Its like asking "what is yellower the big bang?"

Now heres one for you: what came before God?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
“scientists assume (by faith) that reason …”? that is the words of a moron for he is pretending that: reason=blind faith.
=========================================

Aside from more ad hominems and the introduction of a new term, your's - "blind faith", I don't see much else here.

"Rubbish" .... "moron nded a research institute and published at least one book that I know of ?[/b]

… I think both you and twhitehead actually betray a contempt for science when you don't like where the evidence points. , . ..…

Odd, that was my impression of you.

… 1.) mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them). .…

science doesn’t have to prove them because all correct mathematical/Boolean laws are tautologies (I.e. true by definition).

…metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own), . . ….

In this case, to believe that there are minds that exist other than my own is merely a reasonable assumption because there is no alternative hypothesis that has been presented to me that adequately explains similarities between my behaviour that I know is caused by my mind and the similar behaviour I observe other people do.
True there is no “absolute proof” but science isn’t usually about “absolute proof” but rather what is merely Reasonable” to assume to be “probable”.

… 3.) ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),
…

Correct -that just means ethics is not part of real science even though some people think it can be and some people are involved in the pseudoscience of “the science of ethics” which in my view is a contradiction in terms.

…4.) aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), …

That is because they are not “facts” about reality but rather mere descriptions on how we “feel” in response to something we see or hear etc -if I say something looks beautiful, what that really means (even if I do not quite know it!) is that I have a certain indescribable pleasant feeling when I look at it that I am aware is caused by me seeing it.

…5.) Ironically, science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself). …

But it is obviously the way that gives the greatest probability of giving the truth because it is based on observation and reason -certainly much more likely to give you the truth than using superstitious explanations such as when lighting strikes you just say “the gods are angry” etc.

… I doubt that the science can prove that technology has advanced society.…

I didn’t say “technology has advanced society”, I said technology wouldn’t work if the reasoning behind the science of that technology was wrong -do you deny this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You simply refuse to get a point don't you? We have had this discussion over and over and over in many threads and yet you refuse to get it.
Why do you use the word 'before' and not the word 'after' or the word 'brown' or the word 'cow'? Clearly because you are using it in an analogy. But is your analogy meaningful? The use of the word before when talkin ...[text shortened]... ng "what is yellower the big bang?"

Now heres one for you: what came before God?

Now heres one for you: what came before God?

-------whitey-------

I'm glad you asked , because here we come to the subtle but immensly important difference between the concept of God and something lie the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is said to have had a "beginning" , now this only makes sense if we postulate that there was a "time" when the Universe was not. You may argue about the language but the "term" beginning implies something of this nature.

God however is not conceived of in these terms . God does not "begin" , he always has been (and always will be). The simple idea that he has no beginning makes all the difference. There is no need to postulate what caused God because he did not "start" .

The answer to your question is .....more God...and more......eternally more without end.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… I think both you and twhitehead actually betray a contempt for science when you don't like where the evidence points. , . ..…

Odd, that was my impression of you.

… 1.) mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them). .…

science doesn’t have to prove them because all correct mathematical/Bool n’t work if the reasoning behind the science of that technology was wrong -do you deny this?[/b]

===============================
Odd, that was my impression of you.
===============================

Yet I'm not the one claiming a scientific fact which I cannot get another reputable cosmologist or astronomer on record to catagorically state.

ie. "Scientific Fact - We know that the universe came into existence with no cause."

====================================
… 1.) mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them). .…

science doesn’t have to prove them because all correct mathematical/Boolean laws are tautologies (I.e. true by definition).
========================================

Do you think Boolean laws of logic cannot be used in other disciplines beside science?

Philosophers imploy Boolean like laws of logic to find truth. And they are not using the scientific method.

The statement "Science is the only source of objective truth" claims to be an objective truth, but it is not a scientific truth. The statement is philosophical in nature. The statement cannot be proven by science.

The defense of reason by reason is a circular argument.

====================================
…metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own), . . ….

In this case, to believe that there are minds that exist other than my own is merely a reasonable assumption
========================================

"Reasonable assumption" yes. But reasonable assumption is an assumption, a kind of "faith" of sorts.

Don't jump the gun. I didn't say all assumptions that science builds upon as a philosophical base are unreasonable. I say that they are unprovable by science itself.

I don't think you know when you are crossing the line. The reason that you cannot quote up to now any other reputable physicists or cosmologists who have catagorically stated - We know that it is a scienctific fact that the universe came into existence uncaused" is because they are better scientitists then you. Many of them know the difference between scientific fact and the religious like assertion of scientism such as you wish to make.

Ironically, in an attempt to defend science, you really aren't doing it any favors and are in danger of giving it a bad name.

==============================
because there is no alternative hypothesis that has been presented to me that adequately explains similarities between my behaviour that I know is caused by my mind and the similar behaviour I observe other people do.
=====================================

It is perculiar that when you look at the ordering of nature you cannot readily see similarities in the activity of creative minds.

Rather you want to believe, for example, that the reproductive process producing a human out of the union of a sperm cell and a egg, is something that arose by a fortunate accident with no intelligent know-how behind a designed concept.

It is ironic that you cannot as readily suspect that a creative Mind similar to your logical and creative mind could be responsible for the process of human reproduction.

I suppose that if you add enough time you reason that such an accident could come about and replicate itself, establish itself, repeatably.

==================================
True there is no “absolute proof” but science isn’t usually about “absolute proof” but rather what is merely Reasonable” to assume to be “probable”.
================================

Then we can revize your announcement. You think it is reasonable or probable that the universe came into existence without a cause?

Publish that and let it be peer reviewed.


=========================================
…5.) Ironically, science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself). …

But it is obviously the way that gives the greatest probability of giving the truth because it is based on observation and reason -certainly much more likely to give you the truth than using superstitious explanations such as when lighting strikes you just say “the gods are angry” etc.
==========================================

The problem of probability comes back to the foundations of reason introduced at the start.

One wonders from where we get the concept of order or the ideal in our minds of order, if we talk about probability. A chaotic and random series of accidents arrives finally at a human mind which has a internal concept of "order"?

For me "Man made in the image of God" would explain where I get this internal sense of order as a backdrop against which I can measure disorder and relative probability.

I think once you talk about probability you are pre-supposing an ordered creation. I think that points to an Orderer.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm glad you asked , because here we come to the subtle but immensly important difference between the concept of God and something lie the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is said to have had a "beginning" , now this only makes sense if we postulate that there was a "time" when the Universe was not.

And here you betray yourself. A few posts ago you denied that you were attempting to place something or 'nothing' in a point in time before the big bang. Now you have dropped the whole analogy thing and admitted directly that you are attempting to extend the time dimension beyond the big bang and that your use of the word 'before' is a direct reference to that attempt.

You may argue about the language but the "term" beginning implies something of this nature.
The term 'beginning' most definitely does not imply something of that nature. I have given you examples before of things with beginnings that do not have a 'before' but you suddenly go blind and cant see any posts of that nature. I guess the holy spirit works in mysterious ways.

God however is not conceived of in these terms . God does not "begin" , he always has been (and always will be). The simple idea that he has no beginning makes all the difference. There is no need to postulate what caused God because he did not "start" .
But a moment ago you were hypothesizing external dimensions etc. You never said anything about the Universe having to have a 'start' in those external dimensions. How would you even know anything about it when they are just hypothesized anyway? Let us suppose that the universe is eternal within your hypothesized external dimension. What now?

The answer to your question is .....more God...and more......eternally more without end.
Cant you see how stupid that answer is? I have asked what came before God. When there was no God. So say that God was there defies the definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And here you betray yourself. A few posts ago you denied that you were attempting to place something or 'nothing' in a point in time before the big bang. Now you have dropped the whole analogy thing and admitted directly that you are attempting to extend the time dimension beyond the big bang and that your use of the word 'before' is a direct reference to ...[text shortened]... ore God. When there was no God. So say that God was there defies the definition.

Cant you see how stupid that answer is? I have asked what came before God. When there was no God. So say that God was there defies the definition.--------------------whitey--------------


The term "when there was no God" has no meaning because God always has been eternally. God has no beginning so it makes no sense to ask what came before God because God did not come into existence. He's always existed.

If God had a beginning then one could ask "how did God happen?" or " what preceeded God?" . They would be strange questions to ask linguistically but they would at least have some validity because of God's beginning.

If I said that God did have a beginning I'm sure that you would point out that this diminishes his nature and makes him look like he was possibly caused by some else before or greater.

As I have said before , I see no reason why something that is uncaused and not contingent on anything else would have any need of a "beginning". It's that fact that the Big Bang does have a beginning that suggests that we shouild be asking questions about why or how it "began".

How does the term "the Universe began" make any sense at all unless there logical was a point when the Universe was not? If the Universe always was existing then it would have no beginning.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
Odd, that was my impression of you.
===============================

Yet I'm not the one claiming a scientific fact which I cannot get another reputable cosmologist or astronomer on record to catagorically state.

ie. "Scientific Fact - We know that the universe came into existence with no cau ou are pre-supposing an ordered creation. I think that points to an Orderer.[/b]

… Philosophers employ Boolean like laws of logic to find truth.
. ..…

Correct.

… And they are not using the scientific method,.…

That is not necessarily true. They CAN use scientific method by first making a hypothesis and then testing it not by observation but by applying logic to see if it make sense and is free of logical contradictions -that is still “scientific method” (if this was not true then, for example, the science of mathematics would not be a “science” because it does not involve observations of the real world)

…the defence of reason by reason is a circular argument. . . ….

Only when it is a tautology in which case it is true by definition.

Does this mean you reject reason? -if so, are you not at least claiming to be using “reason” in your arguments here and, if so, why would that not mean that you would not reject your own reason here? -I mean, don’t you see the logical inconsistency here -you think you are using “reason” to demonstrate that “reason” is wrong -but if “reason” is wrong then that “reason” you used to demonstrate “reason” is wrong must also be wrong and therefore “reason” is right.

… "Reasonable assumption" yes. But reasonable assumption is an assumption, a kind of "faith" of sorts. …

No. for it to be “reasonable” it has to be based on “reason” and NOT "faith" Else, by definition, it would be “unreasonable”

…It is peculiar that when you look at the ordering of nature you cannot readily see similarities in the activity of creative minds. …

You mean if, for example, if I see a snowflake growing under a microscope with its complex design then it is “peculiar” that I do NOT conclude that it is a result of “the activity of a creative mind”? -if so, how so?

…Rather WANT to believe, for example, that the reproductive process producing a human out of the union of a sperm cell and a egg, is something that arose by a fortunate accident with no intelligent know-how behind a designed concept. …

No. I do not “WANT” to believe this -I just do because of the evidence.

…I think once you talk about probability you are pre-supposing an ordered creation.…

How so? -explain your argument for this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The term "when there was no God" has no meaning because God always has been eternally. God has no beginning so it makes no sense to ask what came before God because God did not come into existence. He's always existed.

When someone cant get their story straight, you know they are not arguing from logic but arguing to try and avoid being wrong.
You now admit that certain terms make no sense when used in the wrong context. A moment ago you were insisting on using terms because you claimed they were analogies and referred to something else.

If I said that God did have a beginning I'm sure that you would point out that this diminishes his nature and makes him look like he was possibly caused by some else before or greater.
What I would say at that point is irrelevant. You cannot defend a poor argument with the excuse "If I admit defeat then you will insult my God".

As I have said before , I see no reason why something that is uncaused and not contingent on anything else would have any need of a "beginning". It's that fact that the Big Bang does have a beginning that suggests that we shouild be asking questions about why or how it "began".

How does the term "the Universe began" make any sense at all unless there logical was a point when the Universe was not? If the Universe always was existing then it would have no beginning.
So you are going back to the claim that the time dimension is necessarily infinite. So all your talk about other dimensions, was just smoke and mirrors. You simply cannot comprehend a finite time dimension. However that is a failure of comprehension on your part, not a logical argument.
What concerns me most is that it is a willful and dishonest failure to comprehend. Whenever I have tried to explain it to you or ask you searching questions to help you understand, you avoid my posts or try to take it off on another tack like claiming that you are talking in analogies etc.

If you want to be honest with yourself and explore the concepts I would be more than willing to go over it again with you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When someone cant get their story straight, you know they are not arguing from logic but arguing to try and avoid being wrong.
You now admit that certain terms make no sense when used in the wrong context. A moment ago you were insisting on using terms because you claimed they were analogies and referred to something else.

[b]If I said that God did ha lf and explore the concepts I would be more than willing to go over it again with you.

You think I am being willfully self deceptive? I think you are perceiving something that is not happening. We need to find some commone ground on..

a) What we are trying to establish as logical

and b) where the misunderstandings are.

Here's where I basically stand summed up in a few statements. I would be most interested to know what you think of point f).

a) If the Universe has a beginning then this logically implies the existence of nothing (or that the Universe didn't exist at some point in "time/or whatever" )

b)If the Universe was everlasting and eternal then it would have no beginning and would have always existed , therefore to say that the Universe has a beginning is to imply that it began "from" nothing.

c) To say the Universe is finite and has a beginning (or end as well) is to imply nothing because the only way to define the beginning of something is to say that at some point it didn't exist. It has to not exist at some point otherwise it cannot be said to have "begun".

d) If the term "before the Big Bang" cannot be used meaningfully because it relies on a concept of time , then neither can "the Universe began" be meaningful either because it trelies on the concept of the Universe not existing at a point in time. Therefore , the Universe could be said to be eternal.

e) So unless we can say that the Universe did not exist at some point in time then by your logic it is foolish to say that the Universe had a beginning , because the concept of beginning relies upon a time when the universe didn't exist.

f) To use your logic--- The concept of everything needing to have a "point in time" to exist in is a logical paradox that folds in on itself. If nothing can exist without time to exist in then time itself could never have begun in the first place. Time itself must have begun out of a timeless state because according to you there was no time before time. Therefore , logic dictates that at least one thing that exists (namely time itself ) must NOT require time to exist in -- therefore the statement
--- everything that exists or happens has to happen at a point "in time"--------------- is false because time itself must be a logical exception to this rule.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You think I am being willfully self deceptive? I think you are perceiving something that is not happening.

Earlier in the thread you made it clear that you thought that the time dimension was necessarily infinite. I discussed it at length and asked you some difficult questions. You then tried to back out of it and claim you were talking in analogies or that there was some external time dimension. Now you are back to the infinite time dimension - without having addressed my difficult questions. That is being willfully deceptive.

f) To use your logic--- The concept of everything needing to have a "point in time" to exist in is a logical paradox that folds in on itself. If nothing can exist without time to exist in then time itself could never have begun in the first place.
You were doing so nicely then you throw it all away. In point e) you realize that your whole concept of a universe 'beginning' is foolish, and then you proceed to use it in f).
You need to throw away your ingrained belief that everything has a cause and follows a sequence of infinite causal chains through time. Stop trying to see the universe as an object being 'made' by God. Stop insisting that the initial point of time is a 'beginning' or event or some other word that implies in your mind that there was a before or prior cause.
Stop being deceived by the 'arrow of time'. If I told you that the spacial dimensions wrap around and that heading in a straight line would eventually lead you back to the start, you would have less problems with it, simply because there is no arrow in space.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Earlier in the thread you made it clear that you thought that the time dimension was necessarily infinite. I discussed it at length and asked you some difficult questions. You then tried to back out of it and claim you were talking in analogies or that there was some external time dimension. Now you are back to the infinite time dimension - without having ...[text shortened]... tart, you would have less problems with it, simply because there is no arrow in space.

Stop insisting that the initial point of time is a 'beginning' or event or some other word that implies in your mind that there was a before or prior cause. -------whitey------------

I think I see where you are misunderstanding me now. You are going too fast and assuming that I am arguing for causality whereas in fact in f) I am arguing for an event called "the beginning of time" occuring outside of time itself. Let's leave prior causes / God and all that stuff alone for a minute. Can you do that?

I will ask you some simple questions

Did time begin?
Was there an initial point of time?
Is the beginning of time an event?

If so did this event occurr within time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I will ask you some simple questions

I have answered them all before.

Did time begin?
I am not sure what you mean by 'begin' as you keep reading more into it than my understanding of the word. Let me answer the 'initial point version'.

Was there an initial point of time?
I do not know. I do think it is a viable possibility.

Is the beginning of time an event?
Yes and No. It might not fit what you think of as an event, but it probably fits a strict definition.

If so did this event occurr within time?
As an 'event' is a phenomena within time it necessarily occurs within time. Even 'occur' is a phenomena within time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have answered them all before.

[b]Did time begin?
I am not sure what you mean by 'begin' as you keep reading more into it than my understanding of the word. Let me answer the 'initial point version'.

Was there an initial point of time?
I do not know. I do think it is a viable possibility.

Is the beginning of time an event?
...[text shortened]... within time it necessarily occurs within time. Even 'occur' is a phenomena within time.[/b]

Ok , so this event that might not be an event , or initial point in time cannot really "occur" because that's a point in time. It didn't "begin" as such , but time is still finite?

Whatever we say though , something did happen it seems at the Big Bang and time itself was "born" (is that acceptable?). My point is that maybe there was a beginning , maybe not , but somehow space/time is here and I guess you would argue that it is not eternal (in the way that Theists talk about God being eternal).

Where does that leave us? I think there is still a paradox in that the Universe obviously exists and it cannot exist in time because that would mean it existed in itself. Therefore , it must exist in some timeless state.

I'm curious also how you on one hand are able to be so definite about things when challenging me but when I ask you questions you come out with non-committal yes/no stuff?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Did time begin?
Was there an initial point of time?
Is the beginning of time an event?

If so did this event occurr within time?

The way you're asking these questions betrays your confusion about time. Time is a measurement
between events, just like height is a measurement between two locations.

Asking what is the initial point of time is like asking what's the initial point of height. It makes
no sense.

As thinking, rational individuals, we can assign position X to equal 0, but that assignment is
arbitrary. We may have good reason to do so, but it is still arbitrary.

So, as long as there are events, there is temporality. Similarly, as long as there are objects,
there will always be distance.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The way you're asking these questions betrays your confusion about time. Time is a measurement
between events, just like height is a measurement between two locations.

Asking what is the initial point of time is like asking what's the initial point of height. It makes
no sense.

As thinking, rational individuals, we can assign position X to equal ...[text shortened]... porality. Similarly, as long as there are objects,
there will always be distance.

Nemesio

I was asking from the point of view of his logic not mine. I don't believe time exists in reality. He does.