1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    26 Apr '07 23:13
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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 mus ...[text shortened]... ns finite and if so why cant you apply your "logic" to them ?
    I have already shown that your concept of no-existence is nonsensical and you agreed. so why do you keep reverting to it? WHITEY

    Because I don't automatically assume that because something seems nonsensical to us that that means it can't exist or be true.

    The premise "all that exists or can be must make complete sense to human beings" is not one I signed up to. It is a premise and a premise only. Infact I can see how it's quite likely that many things do exist which may be nonsensical to us.
  2. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    26 Apr '07 23:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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 mus ...[text shortened]... ns finite and if so why cant you apply your "logic" to them ?
    The problem is that you are incapable of conceptualizing an edge which has no beyond WHITEY

    On the contrary , I find this easy to imagine . For me it would be the conceptualising of the fact that there was no beyond that would lead me to think there was an edge in the first place. For if there was a beyond there would be no edge , existence would continue.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '07 09:08
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    The problem is that you are incapable of conceptualizing an edge which has no beyond WHITEY

    On the contrary , I find this easy to imagine . For me it would be the conceptualising of the fact that there was no beyond that would lead me to think there was an edge in the first place. For if there was a beyond there would be no edge , existence would continue.
    And yet you insist that there is a "nothing" in the beyond. The problem is that you don't see the difference between 'no beyond' and 'nothing beyond'.
    If there is no 'before' the beginning of time then all your arguments become invalid.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '07 09:12
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Because I don't automatically assume that because something seems nonsensical to us that that means it can't exist or be true.

    The premise "all that exists or can be must make complete sense to human beings" is not one I signed up to. It is a premise and a premise only. Infact I can see how it's quite likely that many things do exist which may be nonsensical to us.
    If you are quite comfortable with the concept that nonsensical entities can exist then you might as well accept that there are invisible purple unicorns hiding in your cupboard because there is no reason not to as nonsensical entities do not follow any laws or rules and cannot logically be discussed at all.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '07 13:58
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Because I don't automatically assume that because something seems nonsensical to us that that means it can't exist or be true.
    This is of course the complete opposite of all your arguments so far claiming that an eternal universe is a necessity in the face of an illogical 'S from N'. Now you are saying that S from N is OK as illogicality is not an issue for you.
  6. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    02 May '07 17:512 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    This is of course the complete opposite of all your arguments so far claiming that an eternal universe is a necessity in the face of an illogical 'S from N'. Now you are saying that S from N is OK as illogicality is not an issue for you.
    PRECISELY!! Nothingness is nonsensical really and illogical too.I have got myself in a bind trying follow your argument.

    I neither believe in nothingness or S from N. You agree with me as well but you argue that space/time has a start but somehow that this doesn't imply that its start has a boundary with nothing because for you although there is a fixed amount of time that time exists for it does not imply that nothing can ever exist. But if there can be no nothingness then there is somethingness and that somethingness has to exist to prevent any nothingness. You don't think that somethingness(existence) continues forever and that it has temporal limits but you will not allow yourself to define what the borders of those limits are.

    How are you able to define the "start" of existence if you rule out non-existence? Surely a start to a universe requires said universe to not exist which implies nothingness?

    It's simple . If nothingness is a ridiculous idea then to me saying that somethingess is just temporary and has boundaries to it's existence makes no sense as well . The two go hand in hand. It makes little sense just to say "existence does have a start but that does not imply nothingness because nothingness is ridiculous" . Far better to start from the other way round and say "Nothingness is ridiculous therefore existence cannot be temporary but must be permanent/eternal"

    So let's agree , nothingness and S from N is nonsensical. What I need to know from you is how a universe that is NOT around forever and continuously is able to keep nothingness at bay? Surely such a universe could only prevent nothingness for a temporary duration?

    You may of course argue that this requires an external time frame but to me it doesn't. You just use the internal one the universe itself provides (eg 12 billion years) .
  7. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    02 May '07 17:57
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And yet you insist that there is a "nothing" in the beyond. The problem is that you don't see the difference between 'no beyond' and 'nothing beyond'.
    If there is no 'before' the beginning of time then all your arguments become invalid.
    If there is no 'before' the beginning of time then all your arguments become invalid.

    ..and this also invalidates the concept of time having a "start"!

    It works BOTH ways.
  8. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    02 May '07 18:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And yet you insist that there is a "nothing" in the beyond. The problem is that you don't see the difference between 'no beyond' and 'nothing beyond'.
    If there is no 'before' the beginning of time then all your arguments become invalid.
    And yet you insist that there is a "nothing" in the beyond.

    ...no I don't I just express it that way because that's the only way my puny time trapped mind can give rise to such an idea. I don't believe in nothing anyway. What makes the least sense is how you think existence can be temporary without nothingess.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree