The big bang.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Your last statement I don't agree with.
If we are talking about infinity of time then T0 in fact does not exist. ...”

yes, that is what I said: reminder: “if time had no beginning then …...you cannot talk about a specific point in time infinite period in the past from the present only a specific point in time that is finite period in the pas aying time has no beginning, I am just saying there is no logical flaw with the concept)

===================================
yes, that is what I said: reminder: “if time had no beginning then …...you cannot talk about a specific point in time infinite period in the past from the present only a specific point in time that is finite period in the past from the present ”
======================================

I remember what I said. And I remind you that I also said afterwards that it was a poor nomenclature. So while I admit that I should have been more careful in my use of Ts, the problem is still not solved, to my understanding, regardless.

It is good lawyering or debating to hold me to my expressions. However, for me this does not solve the problem of infinity in past time.

=================================
but that does not mean my conclusion is false.

OK, just thought of a way to prove this to you using a truly perfect analogy! :
==================================

A truly perfect analogy ? That's a rare thing.

====================================
would you agree that there is an infinite number of integers? (integers are whole numbers i.e. -infinity …..-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ….+infinity although, strictly speaking, “infinity” is not a number! )

if yes, then according to your logic, there cannot be 'no beginning' to the positive integer sequence!
======================================

The idea set forth by some mathematitians is that an infinity of anything in the real world is impossible. However, theoritically in the mind we may conceive of infinity.

Your analogy with integers, I think would be considered theoritical, in the mind, an abstraction. An even there things like "What is infinity minus infinity?" lead to mathematically unaswerable delimmas.

You would not dare speak of an infinite number of atoms, or stars, or galaxies, or minutes, or hours.

================================
That's because you can make “-infinity” analogies to infinite time in the past and “+infinity” analogous to to infinite time in the future and “0” analogous to the present point in time (would you agree that that is a very good analogy! ? If not, why not? )
=================================

I think a beginning of something extending forever into infinity, as time in the future, is a more understandable. Afterall, as a Christian, we are promised by God everlasting life. From now onward ----------.

So I think you're morphing the problem of infinity past into something more comprehendable. That is time begins and never stops.

But time had no beginning and we arrive at today is not possible as I understand the mathematical concepts. It would take forever to get to now. However, with time starting and arriving at some moment a trillion or trillion trillion, or a trillion to the trillionth power, is possible.

==============================
Now, using this analogy and using your own logic, there cannot be 'no beginning' to the integer sequence! (which is a false conclusion because it has no beginning) Because we can use the same premise here that you cannot specify a particular number that is infinitely negative ...

infinitely to the left of that “0” ! (which is true ) and even if we could, that infinitely negative number cannot ever be reached from counting from it to “0” !
==================================

Here in is where I think your analogy fails. Counting is an actual physical activity in reality. It is not theoritical. You actually are doing something in the real world.

The physical changing of matter also is something in the real world like human counting. As I cannot count from infinity past so also physical changing of matter could not extend into the infinite past to arrive at THIS present state - Today.


==========================================
(which is true ) but then, using your own erroneous logic, you would conclude that this fact means there could not be 'no beginning' to the integer sequence! (which is a false conclusion because it has no beginning)
====================================

As a concept in the mind, infinity has a place. In actual reality infinity is impossible. That is what I understand the mathematical thinkers to be saying.

I don't see a way out of that delimma. The Integer analogy you are using is a kind of theoritical mental excersise where we can play around with the concept of no beginning of integers.

You know computer programming. And you know what an infinite loop is. In fact it is quite easy to write the programming statements to an infinite loop.

But could a computer perform an infinite loop that had no beginning ? That would be quite an algorithm. And it would be quite a computer that could execute it. Of course hardware executing an infinite loop into the infinite future has its own problems.

But my point really is that in real life, an infinite number of things doesn't exist. In the mind, theoritically, in abstractions, we can play around with infinity somewhat.

You can discribe infinite things on paper. But actual number of infinite things does not exist

================================================
so is there a beginning to the integer sequence? If not, then were is the logical flaw in saying that time has no beginning? (and I am NOT saying time has no beginning, I am just saying there is no logical flaw with the concept)
=============================================

I think if you postulate Time having no beginning (though I understand that you are not necessarily commiting to that ) you do some damage to the principle of cause and effect. And in doing that, you do not help the philosophy of science you are actually weakening it.

This is the irony of much skepticism about theism. Under the assumption that you are using science to rid the world of God, you often end up undermining the philosophy of science.

But I will keep my ears opened for peers of Hilbert then or latter who argued against his idea of the impossibilty of a real life infinite number of things - not theoritical or on paper, but in physical reality.

And Time requires the existence of matter as I have been taught.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
yes, that is what I said: reminder: “if time had no beginning then …...you cannot talk about a specific point in time infinite period in the past from the present only a specific point in time that is finite period in the past from the present ”
======================================

I remember what al reality.

And Time requires the existence of matter as I have been taught.[/b]

“...You would not dare speak of an infinite number of atoms, or stars, or galaxies, or minutes, or hours. ...”

no, that is not the analogy I used here. The analogy I used here is that infinity into the past is like infinitely less than zero on the integer sequence.

“...think a beginning of something extending forever into infinity, as time in the future, is a more understandable. Afterall, as a Christian, we are promised by God everlasting life. From now onward ----------. ...”

but then using your own logic there must be an end of time in the future for the same reason that there must be a beginning of time in the past! How can your logic be valid for one but not the other?
Using your logic, I could say that no point in time infinity in the future could be “traversed” (if that is the correct word) from the present! (just like I could say no point in time infinity in the past could be “traversed” from then to the present ) so “therefore” there could not be no end to time (for the same type of reason that there could not be no beginning to time) (note that I don’t particular believe time must end because I know that this logic is flawed)
would you agree that this is applying the same logic in both cases?

“...Here in is where I think your analogy fails. Counting is an actual physical activity in reality. It is not theoritical. You actually are doing something in the real world.

The physical changing of matter also is something in the real world like human counting. As I cannot count from infinity past so also physical changing of matter could not extend into the infinite past to arrive at THIS present state - Today. ...”

why cannot I physically count the number of days on a calender?
If there is something wrong with my analogy, it isn't that.


“...You can discribe infinite things on paper. But actual number of infinite things does not exist ...”

I just thought you said that time has no end?
If so, isn't there an infinite number of seconds to the future? Will there also be an infinite number of events in the future? Or an infinite number of thoughts in the future?

“...I think if you postulate Time having no beginning (though I understand that you are not necessarily commiting to that ) you do some damage to the principle of cause and effect. And in doing that, you do not help the philosophy of science you are actually weakening it. ..."

how so? It is not part of science that everything has a “cause”. You just have to look at quantum physics to see that.

“...This is the irony of much scepticism about theism. Under the assumption that you are using science to rid the world of God, you often end up undermining the philosophy of science. ...”

firstly, I hope you understand that we are not intentionally “ using science to rid the world of God” even if such a world exists. Scientific observations does a pretty good job of dismissing the more extreme religies claims without anybody intending to do anything.
Secondly science has never been undermined by scepticism about theism; it is often religious dogma that gets in the way of scientific discovery thus scepticism about theism often removes this obstacle.

“...And Time requires the existence of matter as I have been taught. ...”

you have been taught wrong for that isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...You would not dare speak of an infinite number of atoms, or stars, or galaxies, or minutes, or hours. ...”

no, that is not the analogy I used here. The analogy I used here is that infinity into the past is like infinitely less than zero on the integer sequence.

“...think a beginning of something extending forever into infinity, as time in t have been taught. ...”

you have been taught wrong for that isn't a scientific hypothesis.

================================
but then using your own logic there must be an end of time in the future for the same reason that there must be a beginning of time in the past! How can your logic be valid for one but not the other?
================================

In my logic I have a first day. Then I experience a second day, and forever, I live an additional day.

I begin and never stop adding another day. Forever, I can always look back to the first day. Do you deny that ?

Adding a day forever never makes the start day go away so as to never have existed. Do you deny that ?

Do you believe that my day #1 will one day cease to have existed from history?
Or do you affirm with me that my day #1 will never cease to have been history?


=========================================
Using your logic, I could say that no point in time infinity in the future could be “traversed” (if that is the correct word) from the present!
===================================

There will never cease to be a future. That is all. Today exists. And tomorrow I can say it has come too. Forever, each day I can say has arrived. There will always be a future.

But regardless of that, my day # 1 will never cease to have been history.


===============================
(just like I could say no point in time infinity in the past could be “traversed” from then to the present ) so “therefore” there could not be no end to time (for the same type of reason that there could not be no beginning to time) (note that I don’t particular believe time must end because I know that this logic is flawed)
would you agree that this is applying the same logic in both cases?
=====================================

Your logic is wrong. Forever, one can look back into the past and know that there was a beginning. Since you are pressing my explanation of life everlasting, I think you are now moving into something more theological.

And doing so, I anticipate that you will next attempt to bring up scientific problems with something our technology cannot do. But God is able to do it with us.

Your attempt to make "From NOW on" as problematic logically as"From always TO NOW" does not make win the day for your argument.

=======================
why cannot I physically count the number of days on a calender?
If there is something wrong with my analogy, it isn't that.
=============================

You can, show me which calender you would like to count on. There is probably not a calender in the world that you could not pick up and start counting:

Page 1, day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, etc.
Page 2, ... etc.

And if you could live forever and wanted to spend it proving that you could do it, I see no reason why you could not given you had life which never ends and you make each day that pasts another day on that calender.

Have you any calenders that have been compiled from the infinite past ?
I suspect that what you are now going to say is that you could start today and count backwards forever.

Okay, if that is the case it is like wanting to turn the problem around backwards.
It does not win the case because you still have a start point.

You're kind of turning time backwards in your mind and counting from a beginning point backwards on some infinitely large calender which has an infinity of pages on it representing time in the past with no beginning.

Now we're getting into science fiction. I am imagining for your argument's sake coming in today from the future on a time machine and arguing - "Jaywill I come from infinity in the future on this time machine. And this infinitely huge calender will be even bigger in the infinite future. I have always been counting the days. And now I am going to stop here, and continue my counting forever to count the infinity of days on this infinitely large calender."

From some point as a start you may conceivably count on forever in either direction theoritically. But in either case your days of counting had a start.

==============================
“...You can discribe infinite things on paper. But actual number of infinite things does not exist ...”

I just thought you said that time has no end?
===========================

I see you using good lawyerly tactics to make issue with my words and expressions. I do not see you saying the problem of an infinite past time and arriving at today is not a problem. What I see you doing is attempting to exploit inconsistencies of utterances as we discuss this more and more.

I find this clever. Clevernesss is not always wisdom.

====================
If so, isn't there an infinite number of seconds to the future? Will there also be an infinite number of events in the future? Or an infinite number of thoughts in the future?
=====================

At what point in the future are you speaking of ? At any particular point in the future there will be a finite number of seconds, or events, or thoughts.
It will just continue to get larger and larger - very large finite number of things NOW.

=================================
“...I think if you postulate Time having no beginning (though I understand that you are not necessarily commiting to that ) you do some damage to the principle of cause and effect. And in doing that, you do not help the philosophy of science you are actually weakening it. ..."

how so? It is not part of science that everything has a “cause”. You just have to look at quantum physics to see that.
================================

If you're an atheist you'll love quantum physics. That's a atheist's happy hunting ground.

Now I do not do quantum physics. I am a pure layman at quantum physics.
If you want to give me a wink and a smile that quantum physics allows for no beginning to time, I won't argue much with that now.

But I think that they may learn that there are processes that are happening perhaps on tinier scales then we can measure. And because these causes and effects are faster and smaller then we can measure, they presently appear to be things poping into existence from nothing.

That could be thier appearance today in 2012. I grant you that. Maybe, in the future will discover the causes and effects with far far greater human ability to measure and observe.

============================
“...This is the irony of much scepticism about theism. Under the assumption that you are using science to rid the world of God, you often end up undermining the philosophy of science. ...”

firstly, I hope you understand that we are not intentionally “ using science to rid the world of God”
=============================

Some are not. But when a guy frequents the Spirituality Forum as an Atheist with various submissions of his science knowledge, he might be.

=========================
even if such a world exists. Scientific observations does a pretty good job of dismissing the more extreme religies claims without anybody intending to do anything.
=========================

That's ok. You see I beleive that all truth is God's truth. But that's me.

For me God is not the God of religion. He is the God of reality.
Socialogists say God is a religious matter.

Its like this - If the law of gravity is true, its true not just in the physics lab.

If there is God, that is not the God only inside steepled buildings with colorful stain glass windows.

========================================
Secondly science has never been undermined by scepticism about theism; it is often religious dogma that gets in the way of scientific discovery thus scepticism about theism often removes this obstacle.
================================

I am sure that both sides are sometimes at fault. And when you call Robert Jastrow or Carl Sandage morons born every day, I think you're not doing science any favors.

========================
“...And Time requires the existence of matter as I have been taught. ...”

you have been taught wrong for that isn't a scientific hypothesis.
=============================

The only way you can conceive of Time is with motion through space. If there is nothing to move, how do you do that ?

And if there is no matter, then where is the space ? How do you measure space without instances of matter ?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"It think it is better to know what you don't know than to pretend to know."

Do you mean to say that it is better to know that you don't know than to pretend to know what you don't know?


We know we don't know everything. But I know the one who does.

That gripes you doesn't it?[/b]

"We know we don't know everything. But I [b]know the one who does.
That gripes you doesn't it?"[/b]

Not a bit. Many people think they know that omnipotent being. I don't. They all are continuously disagreeing with each other about what they 'know'.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
but then using your own logic there must be an end of time in the future for the same reason that there must be a beginning of time in the past! How can your logic be valid for one but not the other?
================================

In my logic I have a first day. Then I experience a second day, and here is the space ? How do you measure space without instances of matter ?[/b]

“...I begin and never stop adding another day. Forever, I can always look back to the first day. Do you deny that ? ...”

No, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “ I will end and I never did stop subtracting another day to the end. I was able to always look forward to the last day”

“...Adding a day forever never makes the start day go away so as to never have existed. Do you deny that ? ...”

Again, no, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But, again, that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “subtracting a day until the last day never makes the last day go away so as to never have existed”

“...
Do you believe that my day #1 will one day cease to have existed from history? ...”

No.

“...Or do you affirm with me that my day #1 will never cease to have been history? ...”

yes.
Although I don't believe time will end (I assume because I see no evidence that it will + intuition) , the above does not contradict the notion of time ending and nobody has yet to demonstrate by logical argument that it is logically impossible for time to end.

“....There will never cease to be a future. That is all. Today exists. And tomorrow I can say it has come too. Forever, each day I can say has arrived. There will always be a future. ...”

that is my and your assumption; we are yet to prove that hypothesis (and probably never will).

“...Your logic is wrong. Forever, one can look back into the past and know that there was a beginning. ...”

that is assuming that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past” because you will never die (because of the 'afterlife' ) . What if that assumption is wrong? Then it would not be true that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past”. You cannot use your conclusion ( i.e. that we will “forever” be able to “look back into the past” ) as the premise of that argument without making that argument circular.

“...You can, show me which calender you would like to count on. There is probably not a calender in the world that you could not pick up and start counting:

Page 1, day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, etc.
Page 2, ... etc.
...”

what on earth do you mean? Obviously I can count the days on a calender and any calender that has days on it! Can you give me an example of a calender with days on it that I cannot count!!! ?

“...Have you any calenders that have been compiled from the infinite past ? ...”

no, but that is not a reason why time could not have no beginning. Have you any calenders that have been compiled for the infinite future? If not, then, using the same logic, does that mean that time could not have no end?

“...I suspect that what you are now going to say is that you could start today and count backwards forever. ...”

you suspect wrong. I am now going to say “ could you start today and count forwards forever? “ and, if not, does that mean “therefore” there is not end of time in the future? And if not, then how can not being able to “ start today and count backwards forever” mean that there is no beginning of time in the past?
There may or may not be a beginning of time in the past but you cannot deduce which from this line of reasoning.

“...====================
If so, isn't there an infinite number of seconds to the future? Will there also be an infinite number of events in the future? Or an infinite number of thoughts in the future?
===================== (my quote)

At what point in the future are you speaking of ? At any particular point in the future there will be a finite number of seconds, or events, or thoughts.
It will just continue to get larger and larger - very large finite number of things NOW. ...”

clarify: are you saying here that there is NOT an infinite number of seconds/events/thoughts in the future?
If so, how can you reconcile with it making sense to say there is infinite time in the future? I mean, how can there be “ infinite time” in the future but NOT an “infinite” number of seconds in the future etc? Isn't that a logical contradiction? I cannot see how there could be BOTH“ infinite time” in the future but NOT an “infinite” number of seconds in the future! Surely if it makes sense to say one then it makes sense to say the other.

“...If you want to give me a wink and a smile that quantum physics allows for no beginning to time ...”

that’s not what I said. As far as I know, quantum physics does not confirm nor contradict the hypothesis that there is no beginning to time


“....========================
“...And Time requires the existence of matter as I have been taught. ...” (your quote)

you have been taught wrong for that isn't a scientific hypothesis.
============================= (my quote)

The only way you can conceive of Time is with motion through space. ...”

are you saying that time cannot exists in the absence of motion?
How would you know that? -lets continue and see...

“...If there is nothing to move, how do you do that ? ...”

OK, I think you are implicitly using the assumption here that if we don't know that something physical is there (time in this case) then it does not physically exist (but assume this without using Occam's razor so this assumption is not qualified -if we take away X but not take away Y then it is not an unnecessary assumption to think we are still left with Y ).
If so, then I reject that assumption. I do not believe that the existence of anything (physical) is dependent on the conscious observer (thus I reject that particular interpretation of quantum mechanics but without rejecting quantum mechanics) . Suppose there is no way we can ever observe a core of a particular apple while it exists because it is somewhere inaccessible to us; does that mean that apple never had a core?


“...And if there is no matter, then WHERE is the space ? (my emphasis)

space is relative.

How do you measure space without instances of matter ? ...”

again, I think you are implicitly using the erroneous assumption here that if we don't know that something physical is there (space in this case) then it does not physically exist (but assume this without using Occam's razor so this assumption is not qualified) .

Originally posted by jaywill
The problem of an infinity of anything has been pointed out by mathematicians.

Exactly. So what you are talking about it logic, not nature. Hence anything that defies it is illogical, not supernatural.

There are some Quantum mechanical "laws" of quantum physics, which I understand are doing some very counter intuitive things logically.
But counter intuitive, does not mean illogical.

And some scientists are looking for some of these paradoxes which could now be signs of supernatural effects, to be explained someday.
And those scientists are being illogical if they are attributing effects to the supernatural. It is illogical to define all we see as 'natural' and then say some of what we see is not natural (and call it 'supernatural'😉.

I don't believe that greatly expanding and enlarging the scope of what we call Natural, will ever make the belief of a Supreme powerful Will, causing the universe/s to come into existence, obsolete and superstitious.
I did not 'greatly expand and enlarge the scope of what we call natural'. I pointed out that you were illogically reducing its scope. Nature includes everything we observe. If we observe something we do not understand it is still part of nature.

I think people on this Forum like yourself and others, are eagerly awaiting the day that Science makes belief in God obsolete.
Not particularly. I am awaiting the day that more people realize that God never was a part of science and never provided a satisfactory scientific explanation for anything. You can only make something obsolete if it was useful in the first place.

The [b]"Laws of Physics", I think require a Legislator. Laws, I think, nessecitate a Law Maker. Laws that just exist on thier own with no origin just do not make any sense to me. [/b]
Yet you believe God operates via laws and that you believe those laws to have no Legislator of Laws. Since that doesn't make sense to you, what do you do about that?

Try as they might, and complain as they might (even if some complaints have a social foundation in truth) unbelievers are not going to make Theism a thing of the past, for a lot of us.
I am sure you are right. But that has very little to do with science or logic. At some point you have to admit (or maybe you don't) that your beliefs are not based on science or logic but rather things like faith, superstition and desire.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I hope noone is trying to mix religion and science. It's impossible. Religion and science cannot be mixed.

Any phenomenon must either be scientific, within nature. Or religious, supernatural. Science doesn't deal with supernatural things.

========================================
But counter intuitive, does not mean illogical.
=============================

I don't recall making a case that it did. Quote me if I did.

============================
And some scientists are looking for some of these paradoxes which could now be signs of supernatural effects, to be explained someday.

And those scientists are being illogical if they are attributing effects to the supernatural. It is illogical to define all we see as 'natural' and then say some of what we see is not natural (and call it 'supernatural'😉.
====================================

Could you point out where we saw anything about what caused the Big Bang ?

==============================
I don't believe that greatly expanding and enlarging the scope of what we call Natural, will ever make the belief of a Supreme powerful Will, causing the universe/s to come into existence, obsolete and superstitious.

I did not 'greatly expand and enlarge the scope of what we call natural'. I pointed out that you were illogically reducing its scope. Nature includes everything we observe. If we observe something we do not understand it is still part of nature.
==============================

Then God is scientifically possible ?
Or the unobserved cause of the Big Bang is outside of nature ?

Which do you prefer ? If number 2, then I see nothing wrong with the term "supernatural". Nor do I see the use of it to be illogical.

===================================
I think people on this Forum like yourself and others, are eagerly awaiting the day that Science makes belief in God obsolete.

Not particularly. I am awaiting the day that more people realize that God never was a part of science and never provided a satisfactory scientific explanation for anything. You can only make something obsolete if it was useful in the first place.
==============================

Not particularly. But somewhat I think.

I am not having to wait for the day I'm talking about. It is already here.
And that is that science is not the only way man can know truth.

And those who proclaim science is the only way to know truth are making a claim which is self refuting.

=============================
The "Laws of Physics", I think require a Legislator. Laws, I think, nessecitate a Law Maker. Laws that just exist on thier own with no origin just do not make any sense to me.

Yet you believe God operates via laws and that you believe those laws to have no Legislator of Laws. Since that doesn't make sense to you, what do you do about that?
=========================================

Any laws of nature that God operates by He also has the authority to overrule if He wants. And to demonstrate that He is God He did just that a number of times as it is recorded in the Bible.

Saying it makes no sense to me, is you putting words in my mouth.

And it should be easy to see that whatever could cause the universe to exist from nothing and furnish it with laws, has unlimited authority and power.

And saying that that was God is not at all illogical.

============================
Try as they might, and complain as they might (even if some complaints have a social foundation in truth) unbelievers are not going to make Theism a thing of the past, for a lot of us.

I am sure you are right. But that has very little to do with science or logic. At some point you have to admit (or maybe you don't) that your beliefs are not based on science or logic but rather things like faith, superstition and desire.
===================================

It has to do with logic. And science is not the only way man can come to know truth.

If you say, that in your search for truth, you only want to use science, that is your choice. That does not mean other ways to know truth are illogical or should be discarded because they are not scientific.

And if science comes up against an insurmountable wall which it cannot pass, we are not illogical to imploy other disciplines to arrive at the truth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
jaywill, I admire your patience.

You have way, way, WAY more patience than I do.

I can argue for a while, especially if I am passionate about my point, but it usually ends with me becoming convinced that the person is only arguing with me to argue, not even necessarily because he believes what he's saying. The argument itself becomes their point. (M ...[text shortened]... u don't believe what you're saying, so don't get offended, please, that was not my intent.

I think Christian sisters are often spiritually deeper and more subjective in experience. So I admire sisters in Christ.

Here's a good relevant lecture :

"Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete?" J.P. Moreland

YouTube

Originally posted by jaywill
========================================
But counter intuitive, does not mean illogical.
=============================

I don't recall making a case that it did. Quote me if I did.

============================
And some scientists are looking for some of these paradoxes which could now be signs of supernatural effects, to be explained ot pass, we are not illogical to imploy other disciplines to arrive at the truth.

I hope you don't confuse me with twhitehead...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I begin and never stop adding another day. Forever, I can always look back to the first day. Do you deny that ? ...”

No, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “ I will end and I never did stop [b]subtracting anoth but assume this without using Occam's razor so this assumption is not qualified) .[/b]

====================================
“...I begin and never stop adding another day. Forever, I can always look back to the first day. Do you deny that ? ...”

No, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “ I will end and I never did stop subtracting another day to the end. I was able to always look forward to the last day”
=====================================

I am not sure why you add "if we assume". My understanding was we discussing the problems of counting infinitely, either from the past to now or from now on.

My position - From the inifinite past to today, logically not possible.
From today on and on forever, logically possible.

When I discribe the second scenario you say "Assuming no end of time"?

Yea. That's the logical problem with been discussing.

=================================
“...Adding a day forever never makes the start day go away so as to never have existed. Do you deny that ? ...”

Again, no, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But, again, that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “subtracting a day until the last day never makes the last day go away so as to never have existed”
==============================

The assumption of no beginning of time in the first case was explicit in the argument.

The assumption of no end of tme in the second case was also explicit.

You said " But, again, that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time "

We're not assuming that so it is irrelevant I think. In either case we are assuming no end point, firstly in the past, secondly in the future.

===============================
“...
Do you believe that my day #1 will one day cease to have existed from history? ...”

No.

“...Or do you affirm with me that my day #1 will never cease to have been history? ...”

yes.
Although I don't believe time will end (I assume because I see no evidence that it will + intuition) , the above does not contradict the notion of time ending and nobody has yet to demonstrate by logical argument that it is logically impossible for time to end.
==================================

I think that is another issue.

We had two logical problems:
1.) how to traverse infinity past to arrive at now.
2.) how to traverse infinity in the future starting from now.

I am saying logically #2 is possible whereas #1 is not.

You're caveat about assuming seems at the moment to be like raising an objection "Assuming that my voice doesn't give out." Or "Assuming that I don't go blind and cannot see."

I really don't see it germane to the logical problem of traversing infinity.

===================================
“....There will never cease to be a future. That is all. Today exists. And tomorrow I can say it has come too. Forever, each day I can say has arrived. There will always be a future. ...”

that is my and your assumption; we are yet to prove that hypothesis (and probably never will).
===========================

Yes. In the first scenario we assume that time in the past was infinite.
Yes. In the second scenarion we assume that time will never end.

==========================
“...Your logic is wrong. Forever, one can look back into the past and know that there was a beginning. ...”

that is assuming that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past”
==============================

That's right. And it also assumes that my voice doesn't get so hoarse that I can no longer utter numbers.

I think your objection is weak here.

=================================
because you will never die (because of the 'afterlife' ) . What if that assumption is wrong? Then it would not be true that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past”. You cannot use your conclusion ( i.e. that we will “forever” be able to “look back into the past” ) as the premise of that argument without making that argument circular.
=================================

I feel the logical problem of traversing infinity is being morphed into another argument.

I think a rather simple logical problem you are attempting to transform into another debate.

If you are attempting to demonstrate that you can argue perpetually, I don't feel the need to show you that you cannot.

You're welcomed to have another opinion about it. I think I can stop here because I can't see how your rebuttal effectively defeats my proposition.

I'll look down a few more paragraphs to see if anything more is submitted.

=================================
you suspect wrong. I am now going to say “ could you start today and count forwards forever? “
==================================

I am saying logically traversing from now onto infinity is less problematic.
I am saying logically traversding from infinity past to now is problematic.

=================================
and, if not, does that mean “therefore” there is not end of time in the future? And if not, then how can not being able to “ start today and count backwards forever” mean that there is no beginning of time in the past?
===============================

Logically, traversing from point now to count backwards is conceivable.
To have always been counting to arrive at now is not.

It would take forever to arrive at any point now. So you would never get there.
With counting from now on, the number of nows would just get larger, and larger, and larger, and larger ... forever.

You don't have to count BEYOND now. You only have to count up to now. And do so perpetually.

I have to skip down to the end. No disrespect meant. But I am having my own "traversing" limitations this evening. And I don't really see your objections as strong ones.

=================================
again, I think you are implicitly using the erroneous assumption here that if we don't know that something physical is there (space in this case) then it does not physically exist (but assume this without using Occam's razor so this assumption is not qualified) .
==========================================

The present state of cosmology is that space, time, matter began at the Big Bang.

Between the two alternatives of the Big Bang and the existence of the univese having no cause, and the Big Bang and the universe having a cause, I choose the latter as making more sense.

At the present time the cause has to be understood as something outside of space, non-material, and timeless.

I think we must find the cause of the universe to be something beyond it or transcending it or outside of it.

I think its source was extremely knowledgeable, extremely powerful, and extremely purposeful.

I'm going with God as its Cause. You can say you do not know what.
Strictly speaking I don't know. But I'm running with God Almighty as the cause.
That's the best assumption I think.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
“...I begin and never stop adding another day. Forever, I can always look back to the first day. Do you deny that ? ...”

No, at least if we assume there was no end of time. But that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time by adapting the above to: “ I will end and I n hty as the cause.
That's the best assumption I think.[/b]

“...My position - From the inifinite past to today, logically not possible.
From today on and on forever, logically possible. ...”

how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of the same reason to give as a reason why the other is possible.
And whatever reason you give for one being impossible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of the same reason to give as a reason why the other is impossible.

“...You said " But, again, that same 'logic' would also appear to work if we assume there will be an end of time "

We're not assuming that so it is irrelevant I think. ...”

you think wrong: if we DID assume this (the fact that we don't is irrelevant to the argument here) then we would STILL see no contradiction -that's the point.

“...We had two logical problems:
1.) how to traverse infinity past to arrive at now.
2.) how to traverse infinity in the future starting from now.

I am saying logically #2 is possible whereas #1 is not. ...”

again, how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of the same reason to give as a reason why the other is possible.

“...==========================
“...Your logic is wrong. Forever, one can look back into the past and know that there was a beginning. ...” (your quote)

that is assuming that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past” (my quote)
==============================

That's right. And it also assumes that my voice doesn't get so HOARSE that I can no longer utter numbers.
I think your objection is weak here. ...” (my emphasis)

no, not if we “ also assumes that my voice doesn't get so HOARSE that I can no longer utter numbers” but if we assume that time does not end.
Obviously, if time DID end, then it would not be true that you will “forever” be able to “look back into the past” because there would be no “forever” and we would not be able to “look back into the past” “after” time ended ( becuase there will be no such "after" )

“...I am saying logically traversing from now onto infinity is LESS problematic.
I am saying logically traversing from infinity past to now is problematic. ...” (my emphasis)

how do you quantify the “LESS” in this “LESS problematic”?
And is there any reason why “more problematic” would mean “logically impossible”?

“...Logically, traversing from point now to count backwards is conceivable.
To have always been counting to arrive at now is not. ...”

yes, “ To have always been counting to arrive at now” from at point in time infinitely in the past is not conceivable.
It is also not conceivable that a person existing at point in time infinitely in the future can count backwards from his point in time to our point in time.
Does that mean that time will end? If not, then “To have always been counting to arrive at now is not conceivable” does not mean that time has a beginning (whether it actually has a beginning is a different matter)

“...It would take forever to arrive at any point now. So you would never get THERE. ...” (my emphasis)

...and, counting backwards, it will take forever to arrive at any point in time infinitely in the future to now.

“...Between the two alternatives of the Big Bang and the existence of the univese having no cause, and the Big Bang and the universe having a cause, I choose the latter as making more sense. ...”

why would something having no cause make “less” sense?

“...But I'm running with God Almighty as the cause.
That's the best assumption I think. ...”

in what way is this the “best” assumption? It certainly doesn't use Occam’s razor here.
If there IS a cause to the universe, then I would make no assumption of what that cause is (because I have insufficient data in my brain) .
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause? If not, then what criteria are you using to decide what physical phenomenon with unknown cause probably has a supernatural cause and what physical phenomenon with unknown cause probably has NO supernatural cause and can you justify/qualify that criteria?

Originally posted by mikelom
I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

-m. 🙂

Did you gents /party all night and then right that ? Is the party still going on? Can we come over? Good luck with finding out how the world began!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...My position - From the inifinite past to today, logically not possible.
From today on and on forever, logically possible. ...”

how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of t se probably has NO supernatural cause and can you justify/qualify that criteria?

==================================
“...But I'm running with God Almighty as the cause.
That's the best assumption I think. ...”

in what way is this the “best” assumption? It certainly doesn't use Occam’s razor here.
=================================

How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ?

You don't want to commit to Time having a beginning with energy, space, and matter at the Big Bang. You don't want to commit to Time being eternally having no beginning.

Present first an alternative explanation for the origin of the existence of the universe and then we can compare it to a creation of God Almighty and talk about Occam's razor.


==============================
If there IS a cause to the universe, then I would make no assumption of what that cause is (because I have insufficient data in my brain) .
===================================

But you also may plead "insufficient data in the brain" perpetually simply because you do not like where the evidence points. This is bigotry of a sort. You may always conclude insufficient data until you can assure yourself that God as a Creator cannot be considered.

You may have personal metaphysical preferences which compel you to plead " insufficient data".

So we're talking about at this time the data we have points to something timeless, non-material, immensly powerful, supremely purposeful, outside of the univese itself as the origin for its existence.

=============================
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
==============================

I am not talking about an avalanche of snow. I am concerned with the origin of the gravity that causes the snow to avalanche. I am concerned with the origin of the atoms which make the molecules of snow. I am concerned with the origin of the planet upon which the mountian exists for there to be an avalanche. I am concerned with the origin of the space through which the snow moves and the origin of the time through which it moves. I am concerned with the origin of the energy that drives the event and the orgin of the natural laws by which all this happens.

The origin of the existence of everything is what I am concerned with here.

==========================
If not, then what criteria are you using to decide what physical phenomenon with unknown cause probably has a supernatural cause and what physical phenomenon with unknown cause probably has NO supernatural cause and can you justify/qualify that criteria?
=================================

The example is not germane to my concern.

With the available data that we do have today, I am willing to commit to God being the Creator of the universe. I'll be following the encrease of data for the rest of my life. It is fascinating to me.

Do you have an Atheistic alternative ? If not then we are both eagerly awaiting more data to show up. The only difference is you don't suggest an alternative to the problem of the origin of the universe.

So I think you are miss applying Occam's Razor. What is on the other side of the razor's edge to God being the origin ? Athiesm is on the other side ? Atheism is more likely when contemplating the origin of the universe ?

I don't think "no God" is the easier solution in the problem of the origin of the universe. The final solution may be outside of the methods that science has at its disposal.

Have to cont. latter