The First Cause

Originally posted by knightmeister
THe universe could be eternal but eternal means without beginning or end and infinite and permanent. If the universe is finite in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it?

According to Merriam Webster:
Eternal:
4 : valid or existing at all times

Note that if time is a property of the universe then something can be "valid or existing at all times" and still be finite in extent. Similarly something that is spread throughout space in the spacial dimensions can be said to be "everywhere" even though it too is finite in extent.

If the universe is finite in time ..
Time is a property of the universe so the universe cannot be "in time". It is the time dimension itself which is finite and not an object that exists in that dimension.

The universe seems to fail one of the conditions of eternity in that it appears to have a beginning.
Your made up conditions yes. But not by the dictionary definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to Merriam Webster:
Eternal:
4 : valid or existing at all times

Note that if time is a property of the universe then something can be "valid or existing at all times" and still be finite in extent. Similarly something that is spread throughout space in the spacial dimensions can be said to be "everywhere" even though it too is finite in ext ...[text shortened]... have a beginning.
Your made up conditions yes. But not by the dictionary definition.[/b]

If the universe is finite in time ..
Time is a property of the universe so the universe cannot be "in time". It is the time dimension itself which is finite and not an object that exists in that dimension. WHITEY

Why does one need an external time reference in order to say that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time? It can easily be measured by it's own time dimension.

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to Merriam Webster:
Eternal:
4 : valid or existing at all times

Note that if time is a property of the universe then something can be "valid or existing at all times" and still be finite in extent. Similarly something that is spread throughout space in the spacial dimensions can be said to be "everywhere" even though it too is finite in ext have a beginning.
Your made up conditions yes. But not by the dictionary definition.[/b]

The universe seems to fail one of the conditions of eternity in that it appears to have a beginning.KM
Your made up conditions yes. But not by the dictionary definition.WHITEY

Curious.... I went to Merriam Webster (because I knew this couldn't be right) and found your exact definition. Alongside it I also found the following phrases (below). I also noticed that the small part of it you quoted was right at the bottom so you must have scrolled down to find the definition that most suited your argument whilst skimming past the others. Me thinks you've been a tad selective?? You quote only PART of the different definitions and yet you accuse me of making up my own definitions! Would you care to revise your last post?

"perpetual"

"having infinite duration"

"continued without intermission"

"seemingly endless"


(BTW- This seemed quite a silly thing to do - did you not consider that I would challenge it or do my research? I am sooo tempted right now to go on about how disingenuous this is but like you I want to give my debating opponent the benefit of the doubt . What were you thinking? How about you just admit you made a pig's ear of it and move on)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why does one need an external time reference in order to say that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time? It can easily be measured by it's own time dimension.

Your sentence could be interpreted in different ways. But my point was that you are attempting to imply that there is something external to the universe of which the universe is only a finite part.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Me thinks you've been a tad selective?? You quote only PART of the different definitions and yet you accuse me of making up my own definitions! Would you care to revise your last post?

Of course I knew you would look it up.

You clearly don't know how to use a dictionary. A dictionary lists the possible meanings. A word in a dictionary may mean 1. or 2. or 3. or etc. You are interpreting it as a word in a dictionary must mean 1. and 2. and 3. and etc

If I say something is finite and eternal I may mean "4 : valid or existing at all times" and I would not be wrong.

You however were wrong to make the claim:
If the universe is finite in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course I knew you would look it up.

You clearly don't know how to use a dictionary. A dictionary lists the possible meanings. A word in a dictionary may mean 1. [b]or 2. or 3. or etc. You are interpreting it as a word in a dictionary must mean 1. and 2. and 3. and etc

If I say something is finite and e ...[text shortened]... in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it?[/b][/b]

You clearly don't know how to use a dictionary. A dictionary lists the possible meanings. A word in a dictionary may mean 1. or 2. or 3. or etc. You are interpreting it as a word in a dictionary must mean 1. and 2. and 3. and etc WHITEY

However , out of 3 or 4 definitions you selected the only one that supported your view and de-selected the ones that suported mine. On top of this you claimed that my idea of eternity is made up by me and not a dictionary definition , and yet there it was in black and white. Of course the word eternity can be interpreted in different ways but you were wrong to suggest that my idea of eternity was out of step with dictionary definitions because clearly they aren't . You also fail to consider that although there are different meanings listed one is supposed to view the word in context over ALL the meanings. Even you know that taking a line of scripture out of context with anything else is missrepresentation. For most people the concept of eternity involves some sense of being endless , timeless or something beyond time lasting forever or for infinity. You know it , I know it . The fact that you have found some specific wording in a dictionary definition does not change the generally acccepted meaning of the word for most people. However , you are entitled to have your own idiosyncratic version if you like , but don't tell me my definition is made up when it isn't. My definition is if anything much more in line with the generally accepted meaning of the word than yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course I knew you would look it up.

You clearly don't know how to use a dictionary. A dictionary lists the possible meanings. A word in a dictionary may mean 1. [b]or 2. or 3. or etc. You are interpreting it as a word in a dictionary must mean 1. and 2. and 3. and etc

If I say something is finite and e ...[text shortened]... in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it?[/b][/b]

You however were wrong to make the claim:
If the universe is finite in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it? WHITEY


This is a fair point because what you are saying is that there are other, less common , ways of interpreting the word than the generally accepted one. Where you were wrong was to suggest that I was using a made up version of the word. Now before this ends up turning into dull semantics let's agree that we both have different definitions of the word. I for one see little point in using the word eternal if you are not using it to distinguish something eternal from something within time , you may as well say that the universe "lasts a xxxxxdy long time" rather than give it a label that is normally associated with something else.

For example , why would the universe be eternal whereas say the sun wouldn't be? The sun will last for about 3-4 billion years (?) , the universe so far 12 billion years? How long does something have to last to cross the threshold into eternity? You might as well say that a daddy long legs is eternal? The difference between the universe and a daddy long legs is only a matter of quantity but not qualiy. The idea of eternity is supposed to reflect an idea of a change in quality of existence , just as the idea of infinity is not supposed to reflect a huge number but an unending number.

But then you are a compatabilist , so you are used to nicking words (free will) and giving them meanings that don't really fit.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But then you are a compatabilist , so you are used to nicking words (free will) and giving them meanings that don't really fit.

Whether it is the less common definition or not, my understanding of eternal is "throughout time" and it is a common enough use to be in the dictionary. I think it is meaningful and useful. Your use of the word as meaning "infinite in extent" is only useful if there actually is something that is infinite in extent. But since we do not know of anything that is, it is hardly a useful definition. You were actually going further and trying to imply that something eternal (by your definition) must necessarily exist (without proof) and that if the universe is finite in extent then it must necessarily be a subset of something else. That is why I was nitpicking.
And by the way my understanding of free will also matches the dictionary definition and it does fit the dictionary definitions of the two words "free" and "will".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether it is the less common definition or not, my understanding of eternal is "throughout time" and it is a common enough use to be in the dictionary. I think it is meaningful and useful. Your use of the word as meaning "infinite in extent" is only useful if there actually is something that is infinite in extent. But since we do not know of anything tha ...[text shortened]... efinition and it does fit the dictionary definitions of the two words "free" and "will".

Your use of the word as meaning "infinite in extent" is only useful if there actually is something that is infinite in extent. But since we do not know of anything that is, it is hardly a useful definition WHITEY

There are plenty of words that are in dictionaries with all sorts of meanings then that are deemed by you to not have useful definitions. I could say time existing is not a useful definition since no such thing exists but that would be idiosyncratic of me because someone might say , "well the concept exists in men's minds even if it can't be proved to exist"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether it is the less common definition or not, my understanding of eternal is "throughout time" and it is a common enough use to be in the dictionary. I think it is meaningful and useful. Your use of the word as meaning "infinite in extent" is only useful if there actually is something that is infinite in extent. But since we do not know of anything tha ...[text shortened]... efinition and it does fit the dictionary definitions of the two words "free" and "will".

You were actually going further and trying to imply that something eternal (by your definition) must necessarily exist (without proof) and that if the universe is finite in extent then it must necessarily be a subset of something else WHITEY

I implied no such thing. The argument was based on definitions and semantics. No-one can prove eternity .

Originally posted by knightmeister
I implied no such thing. The argument was based on definitions and semantics. No-one can prove eternity .

The issue only came up because you said that scotishinnz's world view was incoherent because he said that time was finite and that the universe was eternal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The issue only came up because you said that scotishinnz's world view was incoherent because he said that time was finite and that the universe was eternal.

By my definition of eternal (and most peoples) it is incoherent but scotty is entitled to come up with marginal definitons of eternal if he likes. In the end it's just playing around with words. As long as he or you accepts that it is inconsistent with my definition then I'm happy. He can say that a circle can be a triangle if he likes and if he cares to re-define a circle as a three sided shape that's up to him.

Originally posted by knightmeister
By my definition of eternal (and most peoples) it is incoherent but scotty is entitled to come up with marginal definitons of eternal if he likes. In the end it's just playing around with words. As long as he or you accepts that it is inconsistent with my definition then I'm happy. He can say that a circle can be a triangle if he likes and if he cares to re-define a circle as a three sided shape that's up to him.

Eternal can only mean existing for all time. Any other definition would require time to be a subset of itself.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If a person chooses mysticism over logic and reason then, in my opinion they may do science as an occupation, but they are not a good scientist.

Okay, a revision. A backpeddle. I still question your backpeddle.

And you introduce a new phrase - "chooses mysticism." Jastrow chose mysticism.

Robert Jastrow is a scientist but not a good one, you now say.

The founder of NASA's Goddard's Institute of Space Studies is, in your opinion, not a good scientist.

Well, I suppose Albert Einstein was also not a good scientist in your opinion because he mentioned God? Einstein said that he didn't believe that God played dice with the cosmos. Oooops, according to Scotty, Einstein is not a good scientist because he chose mysticism, mentioning what he believes God does and does not do?


Jastrow chose to label forces outside of that which were produced in the Big Bang (the scientifically accepted starting point of the cosmos) as "SUPER - natural" (my emphasis). So this choosing of "mysticism" makes him not a good scientist.

I guess the real "good" scientists like you are all so busy arguing every hour on Chess Club Spirituality Forums that they don't have any time left for useful research. Huh?

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay, a revision. A backpeddle. I still question your backpeddle.

And you introduce a new phrase - "chooses mysticism." Jastrow chose mysticism.

Robert Jastrow is a scientist but not a good one, you now say.

The founder of [b]NASA's Goddard's Institute of Space Studies is, in your opinion, not a good scientist.

Well, I suppose Albert ...[text shortened]... Spirituality Forums that they don't have any time left for useful research. Huh?[/b]

Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".

Once a scientist chooses mysticism over logic, they allow "magic" into their explanation repertoire. This debases everything - no explanation is beyond "goddunit". And how do we even know it was God? Why not Allah, or the FSM? The distinction is absolutely arbitrary.

Of course, before Big Bang theory was formulated it was impossible to understand where everything came from without God. And the church was very strong in the past. It would be ludicrous to judge, for example, Newton or Hooke by today's standards. However, I'm doubting that Jastrow believes in "God" in anything like the way that you choose to think of this mythical beast.

In fact, he doesn't mention God at all. He says "supernatural" forces. If that is taken to mean forces outside those of nature, and the first 2 definitions that answers.com give would certainly agree with that (see below), then technically he is right, even if he phrased it badly (in my opinion). The forces at work during the big bang are certainly not the ones at work now.


Supernatual
1 Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2 Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.