question on existence

Originally posted by no1marauder
That post reaches a new level of dumbness.

To say this point is 2007 is already using an external point of reference.

And which external point of reference would that be? Are you not able to say it is 2007 or can you stand outside time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , if you are saying that it's impossible for existence to non-exist then there can be little point in saying that existence has a beginning . Things that have beginnings move from a state of non-existence to a state of existence. You must believe existence to be beginningless.

Yes, by your definition of beginning, existence is necessarily be beginningless and existence necessarily exists.

In fact your definition of beginning instantiates a dimension and places the item in question on that dimension, and a state of non-existence of that item in question on that dimension. You therefore cannot then claim that there are no dimensions at the point of non-existence.

For you to instantiate nothingness in any shape or form you are placing it in a dimension (all dimensions in fact) and thus violating its definition.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And which external point of reference would that be? Are you not able to say it is 2007 or can you stand outside time?

2007 what? 2007 has no intrinsic meaning in this context.

Are you really that stupid to not understand that?

Originally posted by no1marauder
2007 what? 2007 has no intrinsic meaning in this context.

Are you really that stupid to not understand that?

My point is that how do you know it's the year 2007?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, by your definition of beginning, existence is necessarily be beginningless and existence necessarily exists.

In fact your definition of beginning instantiates a dimension and places the item in question on that dimension, and a state of non-existence of that item in question on that dimension. You therefore cannot then claim that there are no dim ...[text shortened]... rm you are placing it in a dimension (all dimensions in fact) and thus violating its definition.

I would agree. Remember I don't believe in nothingness either. So existence exists and cannot "not exist" because that would make no sense and be paradoxical right?

Is existence a temporary state of affairs with a start and a finish? Or is it beginningless and endless (eternal)? If it makes no sense to talk about existence having a beginning then it's probably because it has no beginning (which I thought was what I had been saying all along). If it's possible for existence to have a beginning then the phrase would make more sense than it does to you , right?

So would you agree that if existence is beginningless then it is also causeless? (uncaused - ie in and of itself not reliant on anything else)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Is existence a temporary state of affairs with a start and a finish? Or is it beginningless and endless (eternal)? If it makes no sense to talk about existence having a beginning then it's probably because it has no beginning (which I thought was what I had been saying all along). If it's possible for existence to have a beginning then the phrase would make more sense than it does to you , right?

I agree that existence is beginningless by your definition of "beginningless". However where we disagree is that you seem to think that your definition implies that time is infinite which is an unfounded conclusion. I see no problem with time having a minimum value for which there are no prior values. This is not a "beginning" by your definition.

But of course the main reason why I accept that the universe has no "beginning" is because your definition for "beginning" is internally inconsistent and thus cannot be applied to anything. So for you to draw any conclusion from the fact that the universe does not fit a nonsensical definition is flawed from the very beginning.

So would you agree that if existence is beginningless then it is also causeless? (uncaused - ie in and of itself not reliant on anything else)
Yes I would.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that existence is beginningless by your definition of "beginningless". However where we disagree is that you seem to think that your definition implies that time is infinite which is an unfounded conclusion. I see no problem with time having a minimum value for which there are no prior values. This is not a "beginning" by your definition.

But o ...[text shortened]... useless? (uncaused - ie in and of itself not reliant on anything else)
Yes I would.[/b]

Ok so I get the idea that you think existence is beginningless and you also agree that it is uncaused and not reliant on anything else (at some level , either God or some other explanation). Your disagreement is the implication that time itself is beginningless? Or that existence consists of infinite dimensions. ?

To me for existence to be beginningless and uncaused one of it's dimensions must be infinite otherwise it would be a limited universe and a beginning point could be found or it could at least be described as finite in some way.

You seem to be saying that existence has no beginning (because that would imply there once was nothing) but also that existence has not been around forever (has an infinite time dimension). So you think that time itself does not have a beginning point but you also think that time is not infinite ? So theoretically we could measure the time dimension of existence (in the way some scientists have already calculated the time dimension of the universe itself to be 14 billion years ish) BUT you also think that time does not have a beginning (do you?) and that existence is beginningless.

Surely the most simple solution is to say that time is infinite . I mean what's your problem with this idea anyway , it's no big deal . It doesn't make you a theist!

" I see no problem with time having a minimum value for which there are no prior values. This is not a "beginning" by your definition."WHITEY

Ok , so it may not be a beginning of time to you but it would make time finite and not infinite.It would also make existence a time limited event (without a beginning though?) If the universe ended tomorrow then the universe could be said to be 14 billions years old from beginning to end. Could it not? This is a bit similar to asking does the universe have an edge or is it infinitely big? How big do you think it is? Does it have an edge? What's on the other side?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that existence is beginningless by your definition of "beginningless". However where we disagree is that you seem to think that your definition implies that time is infinite which is an unfounded conclusion. I see no problem with time having a minimum value for which there are no prior values. This is not a "beginning" by your definition.

But o ...[text shortened]... useless? (uncaused - ie in and of itself not reliant on anything else)
Yes I would.[/b]

Not only is such a stance philosophically unsatisfying, the physical evidence is not in support.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not only is such a stance philosophically unsatisfying, the physical evidence is not in support.

There is no physical evidence to support or deny any claim about
what preceded the Big Bang. Parsimony leads us to believe that,
since there was energy/matter which was unleashed at the Big Bang,
there must have been energy/matter before it, not that it appeared
ex nihilo.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
To me for existence to be beginningless and uncaused one of it's dimensions must be infinite otherwise it would be a limited universe and a beginning point could be found or it could at least be described as finite in some way.

The problem lies in the fact that you insist on using a definition for beginning which is flawed.

My understanding of a dimension is a way to measure the exact location of anything in existence in relation to another. By this definition every entity necessarily has a position in each and every dimension. Therefore dimensions are complete in that there is nowhere where one or more dimensions do not exist.

I do not see where you explain why one dimension must be infinite while that does not hold for other dimensions. Why do you assign special requirements to the time dimension?

Surely the most simple solution is to say that time is infinite . I mean what's your problem with this idea anyway , it's no big deal . It doesn't make you a theist!
I have not ruled out infinite time but so far I have not seen any evidence that it is so. All I have seen from you so far is a belief that it is so but no logical reasons. I don't see how infinite time is 'simpler' than finite time or why there would be a problem with finite time. You seem to have no problem with finite spacial dimensions.

Ok , so it may not be a beginning of time to you but it would make time finite and not infinite.It would also make existence a time limited event (without a beginning though?) If the universe ended tomorrow then the universe could be said to be 14 billions years old from beginning to end. Could it not? This is a bit similar to asking does the universe have an edge or is it infinitely big? How big do you think it is? Does it have an edge? What's on the other side?
I thought you generally agreed with big bang theory. If so then you already agree that the universe is finite in the spacial dimensions. The problem is that you do not understand dimensions and insist that there is "another side".

Originally posted by Nemesio
There is no physical evidence to support or deny any claim about
what preceded the Big Bang. Parsimony leads us to believe that,
since there was energy/matter which was unleashed at the Big Bang,
there must have been energy/matter before it, not that it appeared
ex nihilo.

Nemesio

The Steady State is impossible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem lies in the fact that you insist on using a definition for beginning which is flawed.

My understanding of a dimension is a way to measure the exact location of anything in existence in relation to another. By this definition every entity necessarily has a position in each and every dimension. Therefore dimensions are complete in that there ...[text shortened]... oblem is that you do not understand dimensions and insist that there is "another side".

I thought you generally agreed with big bang theory. If so then you already agree that the universe is finite in the spacial dimensions. The problem is that you do not understand dimensions and insist that there is "another side". WHITEY

Oh my...do we sooooo misunderstand each other! I do agree with the big bang theory and would sign up to it no problem. My position requires you to recognise that the universe may represent everything that exists or may infact only be a minute portion of unimaginable realities beyond. This is why I deliberately use the term existence rather than universe because the universe term implies we are talking about all that we currently know of (big bang etc etc) . Existence is a completely different matter because it includes all that we know of and all that could ever be known of (all that we know exists and all that we don't potentially know about).

However , if you do think the universe is all that there is (existence) then do you not think it logical to extrapolate backwards to the non-existence of the universe. Was there a "time" when there was no time /space/matter/existence etc? Now you will no doubt object to the terminology of the question ( whilst offering no other alternatives) but the question remains. Did the universe ever not exist? Did existence not exist? Could there ever have been absolutely nothing? Could existence just not of existed instead or was it always destined to exist? All these questions hint at the something from nothing problem which presents massive logical paradoxes. Existence as eternal just seems the more simple solution.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , if you do think the universe is all that there is (existence) then do you not think it logical to extrapolate backwards to the non-existence of the universe.

It is illogical to extrapolate along a dimension to a point that is not on that dimension because it cannot simultaneously be on and off the dimension.
If you say there is a point that is not part of the visible universe then I might agree that it is conceivable. But for you to insist that that point is "before" the start of time is nonsensical because the fact that it is not positioned on the time dimension immediately implies that you cannot relate it to a point on the time dimension using a time measure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is illogical to extrapolate along a dimension to a point that is not on that dimension because it cannot simultaneously be on and off the dimension.
If you say there is a point that is not part of the visible universe then I might agree that it is conceivable. But for you to insist that that point is "before" the start of time is nonsensical because t ...[text shortened]... ately implies that you cannot relate it to a point on the time dimension using a time measure.

But for you to insist that that point is "before" the start of time is nonsensical because the fact that it is not positioned on the time dimension immediately implies that you cannot relate it to a point on the time dimension using a time measure.WHITEY

So would you not think it is also nonsensical to to insist that time has a "start" by the same reasoning?

You see for me time is an imaginary (but helpful) human construct so I feel at home using this imaginary concept to speculate about events before "time" (the universe) existed.

However , despite you finding it nonsensical you do need to find some way of expressing the idea of "no-time" because patently there must be something like "no-time" for time to have a "start". At the very least one must say "time has not always been" or "time is not infinitely continuous" . This implies (however incredible the idea seems) that something we can only call "no-time" or no-existence" must be a factor in our thinking. The fact that we struggle to conceptualise this idea needn't be an excuse for not considering it. It 's a kop out to say it's nonsensical because it being non-sensical to us is bound to be a truism. I realise it will seem non-sensical but despite this it is a logical implication of time having a "start" as you put it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You see for me time is an imaginary (but helpful) human construct so I feel at home using this imaginary concept to speculate about events before "time" (the universe) existed.

So if time is an imaginary human construct then it doesn't exist even now. So how can you talk about events when it didn't exist? Then later in your sentence you try to equate your imaginary time with the universe. Is the universe also and imaginary human construct? If you say "before it existed" aren't you admitting that time whether imaginary or not must necessarily exist (even if only in your imagination) at the point you are referring to?

However , despite you finding it nonsensical you do need to find some way of expressing the idea of "no-time" because patently there must be something like "no-time" for time to have a "start".
That is only because you have a nonsensical definition for "start". Whilst attempting to claim that "starting" is a transition from one state to another you simultaneously equate it to a boundary or edge.

At the very least one must say "time has not always been" or "time is not infinitely continuous" .
The two statements are not equivalent. The first is nonsensical.

This implies (however incredible the idea seems) that something we can only call "no-time" or no-existence" must be a factor in our thinking.
But your premises are false so your conclusions are similarly false. I have already shown that your concept of no-existence is nonsensical and you agreed. so why do you keep reverting to it?

The fact that we struggle to conceptualise this idea needn't be an excuse for not considering it. It 's a kop out to say it's nonsensical because it being non-sensical to us is bound to be a truism. I realize it will seem non-sensical but despite this it is a logical implication of time having a "start" as you put it.
No it is not a logical implication as the "start" I referred to is not the same as the "start" or "beginning" as you defined it. The problem is that you are incapable of conceptualizing an edge which has no beyond. That is a failure in your ability to understand and not a failure with the concept. I have tried to explain it to you in various ways giving various examples but you appear to not have the educational background to understand. Or possibly you intentionally avoid it just as you have avoided talking about the finite spacial dimensions a sign that you have a point to prove and to hell with the logic.

I will ask one more time: are the spacial dimensions finite and if so why cant you apply your "logic" to them ?