(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary
Universe without a beginning means a universe with infinite past events, which means there is no space for new event to add up to infinite number of events. — SpaceDweller
How you do dat? :nerd: — jgill
3. therefore there is no space for any further events because infinity can't be used in mathematical operations. (Hillbert hotel problem) — SpaceDweller
So even if the past is finite, we can still use the term "eternal" to refer to something that exists at all times. — Relativist
From video I posted...I'm still chewing on this — jgill
Do you have a link to his argument somewhere, I don't know what I'm looking for.Wittgenstein gave a simpler (less technical) argument to the same end — jorndoe
If you knock down earliest domino so that dominoes start to fall down then today cannot be reached — SpaceDweller
I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused.I disagree because usage of the word "eternal" here for universe which has a beginning brings only confusion into discussion. — SpaceDweller
I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused. — Relativist
That's the nature of all "proofs" of God: they depend on debatable metaphyical assumptions, made conveniently by theists to convince themselves they've "proven" God. — Relativist
Wittgenstein overhears someone saying “5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done.”
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
“But, how old are you?”
“Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished.”
You say that if I tell you I saw gods in my dreams showing heaven and the reason for creation is no proof. I ask you to reconsider. Why is that no proof? Because I can lie about it? — Hillary
The mere telling is no proof no. But the experience is. — Hillary
You're objecting to the meaning of the word "eternal". That is arguing semantics.It's not just semantics. Existing at all times is not existing eternally. — Hillary
I didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist.Of course something exists as long as it exists so at all times there are. How else can it be.
You're free to believe whatever, but you're not going to convince anyone else by this methodology. — jorndoe
didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.