1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSure. I agree with that statement.
It was either for a finite time or it wasn't.
However, there's also the possibility that there actually was a beginning of time at the Big Bang - that time did not exist before then - and I simply don't understand what that means. I don't think this is true however. It makes no sense.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe thought experiment is logically flawed in that you assume a timeline external to 'existence'. If everything got sucked up, then at the point that time itself gets sucked up, time ceases to flow and thus the point you seem to think exists where nothing exists can never actually exist as time never reaches there.
A. That this machine has delivered absolute death on all existence and that it's impossible for anything to ever exist again.
B. That there is a reasonable chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
I know the language just doesn't do justice but I am sure you get the basic idea.
Of course you are trying hard to get back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSounds like you agree with me that existence either had a finite beginning or no beginning. Once you then realise that existence having a finite beginning directly conflicts with answer A then you are logically pushed towards eternal existence being a logical conclusion. Eternity turns out to be pretty rational.
Sure. I agree with that statement.
However, there's also the possibility that there actually was a beginning of time at the Big Bang - that time did not exist before then - and I simply don't understand what that means. I don't think this is true however. It makes no sense.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat's a "finite beginning"? I agree that it either had a beginning or that it didn't, but I don't know what a "finite" beginning is.
Sounds like you agree with me that existence either had a finite beginning or no beginning. Once you then realise that existence having a finite beginning directly conflicts with answer A then you are logically pushed towards eternal existence being a logical conclusion. Eternity turns out to be pretty rational.
Once you then realise that existence having a finite beginning directly conflicts with answer A then you are logically pushed towards eternal existence being a logical conclusion.
Sure, I suppose so. Why are you emphasizing all this?
Originally posted by knightmeisterGreat. Ok so now we have established that life/existence must be eternal. The real question then is: did it exist as some kind of single Godlike entity or as a peanutbutter sandwich?
Good spot . It would disingenuous of me to not admit the loaded nature of this thought experiment. If you really believe B , what is your rationale for B ? Why is existence not gone forever? Is there any reason for favouring B over A when A would seem to be the most logical and simple answer? If existence is gone then there is nothing there to kick sta ...[text shortened]... n some way...door C leads to a holiday for 2 in Jamaica but you have to get 200 points for that)
What was before the big bang? Another big bang, and before that yet another.
Imploding, exploding, imploding, exploding...
Someone else has mentioned it before in these threads - the eternal breathing of God.
Isn't it beautiful?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, you intend to prove with the use of a though experiment about something illogical that you can logically show that time cannot be finite? Sounds to me that having failed to prove your point in your something from nothing thread you are just trying to hide your lies under another layer of obscurity.
Once you then realise that existence having a finite beginning directly conflicts with answer A then you are logically pushed towards eternal existence being a logical conclusion. Eternity turns out to be pretty rational.
Existence and time having a beginning is not illogical and you have never provided any evidence or reasoning that implies it is. Instead you instantiate an imaginary nothingness that sits outside time and try to show that because that is illogical then time cannot have a beginning. Simply flawed logic.
Then you tried to show that time does not exist.
Now you want to use a thought experiment involving something that is self contradictory, illogical and ultimately meaningless.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf everything got sucked up, then at the point that time itself gets sucked up, time ceases to flow and thus the point you seem to think exists where nothing exists can never actually exist as time never reaches there. WHITEY
The thought experiment is logically flawed in that you assume a timeline external to 'existence'. If everything got sucked up, then at the point that time itself gets sucked up, time ceases to flow and thus the point you seem to think exists where nothing exists can never actually exist as time never reaches there.
I know the language just doesn't do jus ...[text shortened]... back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.
That's not the way the machine destroys time . It sucks up time but doesn't destroy it until the same moment when the machine destroys itself. Thus time is kept running long enough to complete the process. Since time cannot be proven to exist anyway , your objection seems pretty thin.
Now , maybe you would like to find a different way of avoiding the question. I'm sure you have plenty of them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course you are trying hard to get back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.WHITEY
The thought experiment is logically flawed in that you assume a timeline external to 'existence'. If everything got sucked up, then at the point that time itself gets sucked up, time ceases to flow and thus the point you seem to think exists where nothing exists can never actually exist as time never reaches there.
I know the language just doesn't do jus ...[text shortened]... back to your something from nothing idea which has been thoroughly refuted in other threads.
You can fool some but not me matey. At face value the contention of S from Nothing (IE answer B) is a pretty remarkable claim and by all logic we understand nothing should come from nothing. So the onus was on you, not me to show how and why S could come from N.
I note with interest how your approach to this thread has been to firstly try to sabotage the thought experiment (thereby delaying having to answer it) and secondly to declare a false victory from the other thread.
If you had so soundly "thoroughly" trounced me as you claim then it should have been no problem for you to have just waltzed in and answered B straight away and been able to show why B was the most rational and reasonable answer in contrast to A. The fact you have not done this is very interesting when contrasted with your claim of a "thorough" refutation of my argument.
So , I ask again , what reasons and rationale can you give us for choosing B and not A? I say A is the most likely and logical outcome (and it appears I am not alone) . Can you give us all a reasoned argument to choose B?
and remember...make it a "thorough" one! (LOL)
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, you intend to prove with the use of a though experiment about something illogical that you can logically show that time cannot be finite? WHITEY
So, you intend to prove with the use of a though experiment about something illogical that you can logically show that time cannot be finite? Sounds to me that having failed to prove your point in your something from nothing thread you are just trying to hide your lies under another layer of obscurity.
Existence and time having a beginning is not illog ...[text shortened]... experiment involving something that is self contradictory, illogical and ultimately meaningless.
Not really. Just trying to show how A is a pretty damn rational and reasonable response. It seems the most simple and obvious answer. It's up to you to show why it is not.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI just knew you would try and find a way of not answering the question. Go on trounce me !!! The thought experiment gives you the perfect opportunity to show the forum how stupid and misguided I am for thinking A . If B is so reasonable then go for it....it's an empty net...just slide the ball home......oh...he's hit the post!!!
So, you intend to prove with the use of a though experiment about something illogical that you can logically show that time cannot be finite? Sounds to me that having failed to prove your point in your something from nothing thread you are just trying to hide your lies under another layer of obscurity.
Existence and time having a beginning is not illog ...[text shortened]... experiment involving something that is self contradictory, illogical and ultimately meaningless.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat's a "finite beginning"? I agree that it either had a beginning or that it didn't, but I don't know what a "finite" beginning is. THOUSAND
What's a "finite beginning"? I agree that it either had a beginning or that it didn't, but I don't know what a "finite" beginning is.
[b]Once you then realise that existence having a finite beginning directly conflicts with answer A then you are logically pushed towards eternal existence being a logical conclusion.
Sure, I suppose so. Why are you emphasizing all this?[/b]
You are right . Something with a beginning must be finite so it's tautology really.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime having a beginning is in my opinion as illogical as Length having length or Weight having weight.
So, you intend to prove with the use of a though experiment about something illogical that you can logically show that time cannot be finite? Sounds to me that having failed to prove your point in your something from nothing thread you are just trying to hide your lies under another layer of obscurity.
Existence and time having a beginning is not illog ...[text shortened]... experiment involving something that is self contradictory, illogical and ultimately meaningless.
Originally posted by knightmeisterobviously the answer is either some big bang thing comes out of nowhere and very conveniently and luckily forms people, animals, and plants, only for a planet conveniently placed in the best spot of the solar system or God would go poof! out of thin air, create himself, and create everybody else too. i find it VERY hard to believe that life would just sooooo conveniently fall into place the way it did.
I have a thought experiment....
Imagine I have created a nothing-o-tron. It is capabale of sucking up anything in existence into it's great wobbly belly. I start her up and she starts sucking (oooer!) and whole galaxies are pulled into her mouth . The earth was destroyed in seconds, the sun in a minute. The nothing-o-tron has one special power... ...[text shortened]... chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSomething with a beginning must be finite...
What's a "finite beginning"? I agree that it either had a beginning or that it didn't, but I don't know what a "finite" beginning is. THOUSAND
You are right . Something with a beginning must be finite so it's tautology really.
...in age. It doesn't have to be finite in any other respect. This is something that Christians often do; they talk about God being "infinite" but not in what respect. Things are not just finite or infinite; they might be finite in size, or infinite in weight, but not just finite or infinite.