3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI absolutely agree that time is the fourth dimension of the universe and I have argued for hours with AGERG on this
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with time being finite . I speculate that time may not even exist in reality since time is not an object or thing. I absolutely agree that time is the fourth dimension of the universe and I have argued for hours with AGERG on this , but being a 4th dimension does not prove time is substantive , just as a centim if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Careful KM...I don't disagree with this statement...I do disagree with the properties that people assign to time though. (such as time coming to a stop (which in my terms means that for some event A, there will never be a progression to event B (where event A doesn't necessarily have to be different from event B))
By this I mean one possible event A could be me sitting down, an event B is me still sitting down a bit later...(I have made an obvious simplification here just to communicate the point)
Originally posted by twhiteheadI say no, the universe just started and there was no 'before'.WHITEHEAD
Have you defined eternal for us yet? I missed it if you did. If time is finite they why not call it temporary?
[b]I only use these phrases because they are the only phrases I've got. Whatever words you use you are done for with S from N because the whole idea is so silly anyway.
You don't think I actually believe S from N do you?
I don't think ...[text shortened]... ore come from 'Nothing'. I say no, the universe just started and there was no 'before'.[/b]
....and as well as there being no "before" you must also believe that there is no cause to the universe either , since you have already stated clearly that causality depends on time. Would you then agree that logically you are bound by reason to the idea that the universe (if the universe is all there is) must be UNcaused.
Maybe you think the universe created itself?
My task is not to define eternity as such but more to show that one must logically believe in one of two things ...either a) a form of exitence that started but is totally uncaused or b) a form of existence that didn't start (because it has no beginning) and is totally uncaused.
b) to me is eternity but if you prefer you can call it the "uncaused thing without a beginning" (UCTWAB) that's fine , the principle is the same.....beginningless existence. Would it make you less twitchy to call it UCTWAB?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't think I actually believe S from N do you? KM
Have you defined eternal for us yet? I missed it if you did. If time is finite they why not call it temporary?
[b]I only use these phrases because they are the only phrases I've got. Whatever words you use you are done for with S from N because the whole idea is so silly anyway.
You don't think I actually believe S from N do you?
I don't think ...[text shortened]... ore come from 'Nothing'. I say no, the universe just started and there was no 'before'.[/b]
I don't think I believe it either but that of course depends on how you use the words. Was there nothing before the universe 'started'? I would say yes. Did the universe therefore come from 'Nothing'. I say no, the universe just started and there was no 'before'.WHITEHEAD
This little interchange is very very illuminating . In my view what you have said here is illogical and contradictory. What your model implies is that there are two states to existence . Non existence (nothing) and existence (universe) . You also say that the universe 'started' , so there is at least some progression from non-existence to existence. But how can this be? You believe by implication in a state of complete non-existence of life and you also don't believe that the universe is beginngless or eternal. So this state of non-existence must have been "around". However , it is very reasonable to assume that if life never existed at all it would just never exist and nothing would "start" because there would be no reason or cause for it to start , ...there's nothing to make anything start not even the thing itself!
The way you phrase your argument suggests to me that you believe in S from N semantically but in actuality you are aware at the back of your mind what a ******* bizarre and unreasonable notion it really is. Scientifically and rationally it makes no sense and you suspect this , ... but you do know that you can use the neat word game ploy to avoid asking the very questions that make this idea look really silly.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
Again...though grudgingly I'm willing to accept that there is perhaps some way that the existance of an eternal FSM/magic pot/holy hobgoblin... and eternal universe co-existing cannot be ruled out, I have zero faith in it. AGERG
I admire your intellectual honesty . The option you reluctantly said could not rule out involved two things that were eter ...[text shortened]... dered why you found that more likely than one eternal thing and one temporary thing (universe)?
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that though you want to rationalise the physical universe and consider the logical consequences of what you hold are others beliefs; you still hold that there should be some magic entity that does not need to be logical or rational...and THIS is the main problem I find with many theist arguments; they will savagely attack scientific theories and hypotheses that are based on strong evidence, yet at the same time refuse to consider the logical implications of their favourite deity for the convenient reason that this unsubstantiated being is beyond our mortal understanding etc...why cannot theists apply the same rules to both the scientific and religious disciplines???
I hold that all theists have been misled (as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc... you must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergThe only thing this solution really does is suggest that though you want to rationalise the physical universe and consider the logical consequences of what you hold are others beliefs; you still hold that there should be some magic entity that does not need to be logical or rational...and THIS is the main problem I find with many theist arguments;
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that thou ...[text shortened]... u must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
Hold your horses, bud!
I'm sorry, I have difficulty understanding how you get from a non-temporally-bound, uncaused first cause to an illogical and irrational "magic entity" without showing such a phenomenal degree of intellectual dishonesty as to make Ronny Hubbard seem like a veritable Einstein. Do tell: how does logic or reason necessitate a temporo-spatial state of being? Methinks this smacks of a profound argument from ignorance.
Originally posted by AgergWhy is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal;
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that thou ...[text shortened]... u must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
You can't quite have your cake and eat it: either the universe is eternal, or it was (gasp!) caused. Unless you have some fringe idea for something else, you'll have to pick one of the two. Both options have profound ramifications (and difficulties), but please don't make the one seem like the obviously superior -- not to mention "intellectual" -- option. If you do pick the second option, then you are further faced with the question of whether the cause is itself eternal or caused. In your case, you seem quite content to place your universe on the backs of the turtles of infinite causality. Sound familiar somehow? "Magic enitity"?? Your ivory tower is very shaky indeed/your splendorous garb, dear emperor, might not be rather transparent.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergYou are going too far. If you notice I have deliberately tried to stay away from concepts of deity and used words like eternal existence etc . I will confess that God is in the background , but I don't want that to distract from the argument. At the moment I am making an argument for the eternal existence of life. My main thrust is that S from N is an irrational idea that makes no philosophical sense because it is self contradictory. My secondary point is that once we see it is self contradictory then logically we are compelled to find the idea of eternal uncaused existence far more likely because we have run out of other options.
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that thou ...[text shortened]... u must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
To put it simply we have the choice between a mindboggling mystery that goes beyond rational thought ( uncaused eternity) or a self contradictory concept that makes no sense (S from N) . So however unlikely eternity might seem , it's a lot less unlikely than S from N.
PS - Accepting this truth does NOT imply belief in God . Only eternity.
Originally posted by AgergI do disagree with the properties that people assign to time though. (such as time coming to a stop (which in my terms means that for some event A, there will never be a progression to event B (where event A doesn't necessarily have to be different from event B))
[b]I absolutely agree that time is the fourth dimension of the universe and I have argued for hours with AGERG on this
Careful KM...I don't disagree with this statement...I do disagree with the properties that people assign to time though. (such as time coming to a stop (which in my terms means that for some event A, there will never be a progression to ...[text shortened]... n a bit later...(I have made an obvious simplification here just to communicate the point)[/i][/b]
Could you elaborate on this "theory of time" of yours?
Would you say (according to your theory) that the space-time continuum of the universe is interdependent? Or don't you subscribe at all to a relativistic explanation of physics?
Originally posted by Agerg...why cannot theists apply the same rules to both the scientific and religious disciplines??? AGERG
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that thou ...[text shortened]... u must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
Good point , but I do do this and have had big arguments with fellow Christians about creationism etc. I know that some don't and you are right to make this point. But all Christians are not the same as are all scientists not the same. The above statement you have made works both ways. I know personally of a scientist who believes this S from N nonsense and I sense he does because it's a reaction against theism, which I find suspicious. He sees it as eitHer theism or S from N . I don't.
Originally posted by AgergWhy is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it. AGERG
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it.
The only thing this solution really does is suggest that thou ...[text shortened]... u must logically expect that those who do not conform to your particular belief are also misled)
..and what problem do you have with eternity? Do you accept that there must be or have been something uncaused in existence?
I also have a problem with eternity but I have bigger problems with the other theory so I choose the least problematic one.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseCould you elaborate on this "theory of time" of yours?
[b]I do disagree with the properties that people assign to time though. (such as time coming to a stop (which in my terms means that for some event A, there will never be a progression to event B (where event A doesn't necessarily have to be different from event B))
Could you elaborate on this "theory of time" of yours?
Would you say (according t ...[text shortened]... e is interdependent? Or don't you subscribe at all to a relativistic explanation of physics?[/b]
Would you say (according to your theory) that the space-time continuum of the universe is interdependent? Or don't you subscribe at all to a relativistic explanation of physics?
I say that relativity says nothing about the unjustified properties you or others assign to time (that you can exist outside of it, stop it, travel backwards through it etc...) Dr Who has a lot to answer for.
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't hold with uncaused *first* cause Halitose...none of my posts imply this.
[b]The only thing this solution really does is suggest that though you want to rationalise the physical universe and consider the logical consequences of what you hold are others beliefs; you still hold that there should be some magic entity that does not need to be logical or rational...and THIS is the main problem I find with many theist arguments;
...[text shortened]... a temporo-spatial state of being? Methinks this smacks of a profound argument from ignorance.[/b]
I have to accept that something needs to be eternal, I choose universe.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI do not choose caused, I do not choose eternal and caused, I choose eternal universe...with respect to my position on this matter you made a mistake (again!)
[b]Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal;
You can't quite have your cake and eat it: either the universe is eternal, or it was (gasp!) caused. Unless you have some fringe idea for something else, you'll have to pick one of the two. Both options have profound ramifications (and difficulties), but please don't mak s very shaky indeed/your splendorous garb, dear emperor, might not be rather transparent.[/b]