He's presenting a logical argument. He wasn't presenting an argument a la "This is the current scientific consensus, and the current scientific consensus must be right" was he? (That would clearly be a fallacious argument after all, in logical terms, which is what an argument needs to be assessed on.)

my only point was, you seemed willing to leave scientific consensus to argue against his point. Would you be as willing to leave scientific consensus to argue against an issue it supported? His point that the universe is finite seems a valid assumption for his argument, supported by current scientific consensus.

Re (3), time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it. Or space could be infinite, too. Or matter/energy could disappear, too. There are any number of possibilities that would make (3) false. — Terrapin Station

-'time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it' - so that would be an unnatural event caused by God.
- 'Or space could be infinite'. So what. Matter/energy density would still reach infinite levels with infinite time.
- Or matter/energy could disappear. As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds

As for (4), the notion that finite time requires a God is completely arbitrary. — Terrapin Station

If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time. There is only one time so we can say its creation was not a natural event; IE the work of God.

my only point was, you seemed willing to leave scientific consensus to argue against his point. — Rank Amateur

Yes, because it's a logical argument, and those don't rely on scientific consensus in any significant way (it would be to their fault if they were to; a premise could be a statement of a common scientific view, but there's no requirement for it to be, and the argument--that is, the connections/implications of one statement in the argument--can't assume scientific consensus without committing a fallacy).

It needs to be critiqued purely on logical grounds.

His point that the universe is finite seems a valid assumption for his argument, — Rank Amateur

Validity, especially in a logical context, has to do with the connection between premises and the conclusion. The only way a premise can itself be valid is if it has premises and a conclusion packed into it and it meets the definition of validity (which is that it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, where "and" is traditionally parsed as the inclusive "or"). Truth in logic isn't at all the same thing as validity. Whether any premises are true isn't for logic itself to decide (again unless a statement or formula has a logical argument packed into it).

so that would be an unnatural event caused by God. — Devans99

It would be unnatural and caused by God per what? Those claims don't follow from anything.

So what. Matter/energy density would still reach infinite levels with infinite time. — Devans99

Again, this is a complete non-sequitur. You're assuming something that you're not stating. Imagine that we have a universe with infinite time and space and re matter/energy, we have a single gym sock and that's it. You'd have to argue why that's not possible. You can't just assume whatever you're assuming.

As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds — Devans99

You'd need to present an argument that matter/energy increases on average.

If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time — Devans99

What does that follow from?

If you want to present a logical argument for something, you need to make sure that your conclusions actually follow from your premises. Otherwise you're not actually presenting an argument (which is fine--there's no requirement that you present anything like a formal argument, but you claimed to be presenting one).

You also need to be careful with your premises. If you want to persuade people rather than simply preach to the choir, you need to start with premises that are pretty easy to accept as true (for persuasive purposes, you want the premises to be easily acceptable to people who don't already accept your conclusion). And then the conclusions need to logically follow from the premises.

It would be unnatural and caused by God per what? Those claims don't follow from anything — Terrapin Station

If the event occurred once only in infinite time it must be unnatural. The rule is with infinite time, if an event is possible it happens an infinite number of times. So any natural event would happen an infinite number of times. A singular event is a non-natural event in infinite time.

Again, this is a complete non-sequitur. You're assuming something that you're not stating. Imagine that we have a universe with infinite time and space and re matter/energy, we have a single gym sock and that's it. You'd have to argue why that's not possible. You can't just assume whatever you're assuming. — Terrapin Station

An infinite time single gym sock universe is not possible through natural means; if whatever caused the gym sock is natural, it would occur infinite times, giving an infinite gym sock universe.

"As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds
— Devans99

You'd need to present an argument that it does. — Terrapin Station

Time is infinite and matter/energy increases on average. So it must reach infinite density. Even if the universe is expanding on average, it can't have been expanding forever; at best it is oscillating; resulting in infinite density with infinite time.

"If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time
— Devans99

What does that follow from? — Terrapin Station

Creation of time naturally requires some natural causation mechanism to exist. If time was created within that mechanism naturally, there should be multiple instances of time (because creation of time is a natural event). So its the same, 'if it can happen it will happen and infinite number of times' argument as for infinite time.

Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, it could be God but is it?

Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, it could be God but is it? — TheMadFool

The creation of time and the universe was not a natural event and was performed by a non-natural agency. As I mentioned above this agency would have to be timeless:

I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time. — Devans99

So a powerful, timeless intelligence of some form. That does not fully encompass the traditional definitions of God but it's someway there.

So, a key premise is the unnatural ONE Big Bang which shouldn't be the case if time is infinite and the Big Bang is a natural event.

But, didn't you say time is finite. If so, ONE Big Bang isn't unnatural is it? There just wasn't enough time for more Big Bangs.

But, didn't you say time is finite. If so, ONE Big Bang isn't unnatural is it? There just wasn't enough time for more Big Bangs. — TheMadFool

If time is finite, the argument is that God created that finite time. Again I'd class creation of dimensions as an unnatural act.

If time is finite, the argument is that God created that finite time. — Devans99

Reason?

It would require a timeless intelligence to create a dimension. I call that God (although that may not be everyone's definition of God).

There is also the same argument as above applied to time; if creation of time were a natural event, we should expect infinite times, so creation of time was non-natural; IE God.

So it really could be turtles all the way down?
— tim wood

Turtles all the way down is just an infinite regress and all infinite regresses are nonsense. — Devans99

So you say. Consider, though; whatever you say, you have not really solved any problem. Even if the Godliest God you can imagine is exactly right, where did he come from? It would help if you spent even a little time with even secondary literature of the better thinkers on the subject of God. At the very least there seems consensus among them that God is incomprehensible. But even that is self-recognized as an assumption, by those who make it.

All the paradoxes and confusions concerning the world are not part of the world itself. They're just products of mind, language, ignorance. Play if you like, don't attach too much value to your toys, though.

Even if the Godliest God you can imagine is exactly right, where did he come from? — tim wood

As I pointed out above, God would be timeless, IE he 'always' existed, was not created, just is. So there is no chicken and egg/infinite regress of creators once you remove time from the picture.

BTW an infinite regress of events in time is really impossible:

- the number of past events would be greater than any number
- but thats a contradiction (can't be a number AND be greater than any number)
- so an infinite regress in time is impossible

it must of been created — Devans99

Oh, sweet baby Jesus. Please condemn this unholy abomination to the pits of Hell.

If the event occurred once only in infinite time it must be unnatural. The rule is with infinite time, if an event is possible it happens an infinite number of times. So any natural event would happen an infinite number of times. A singular event is a non-natural event in infinite time. — Devans99

That's a longer, more detailed version of the claim. It's not an argument for any of it.

Same with the responses afterwards that I'm not quoting.

Creation of time naturally requires some natural causation mechanism to exist. — Devans99

It requires some natural causation mechanism per what?

Yes, because it's a logical argument, and those don't rely on scientific consensus in any significant way (it would be to their fault if they were to; a premise could be a statement of a common scientific view, but there's no requirement for it to be, and the argument--that is, the connections/implications of one statement in the argument--can't assume scientific consensus without committing a fallacy). — Terrapin Station

So he says finite, you say infinite, and science has nothing to do with it. Not sure I see the logic

Validity, especially in a logical context, has to do with the connection between premises and the conclusion. The only way a premise can itself be valid is if it has premises and a conclusion packed into it and it meets the definition of validity (which is that it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, where "and" is traditionally parsed as the inclusive "or"). Truth in logic isn't at all the same thing as validity. Whether any premises are true isn't for logic itself to decide (again unless a statement or formula has a logical argument packed into it). — Terrapin Station

Lots of words. So the overwhelming scientific support for his position over yours is irrelevant to assuming his over yours

Interesting concept

I wasn't making a claim about what's really the case either way. I was critiquing the logic of his argument as he presented it. "[3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now" doesn't logically follow from anything in the argument.

So the overwhelming scientific support for his position over yours — Rank Amateur

Again, I was making no claim about anything except for whether the argument works as a matter of logic. Logic has nothing to do with "scientific support." It has to do with what follows given some set of assumptions.

understand

That's a longer, more detailed version of the claim. It's not an argument for any of it. — Terrapin Station

Its just a consequence of the maths of infinity. Assign a tiny probability that an event will happen each time period and then multiply that by infinite time:

(some small number) * ∞ = ∞

So with infinite time anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times no matter how unlikely it was in the first place.

It requires some natural causation mechanism per what? — Terrapin Station

The act of creation is the cause and the created thing is the effect. If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. So there must be something outside of time that supports cause and effect. At the very least it the cause of time is outside time.

The act of creation is the cause and the created thing is the effect. If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. So there must be something outside of time that supports cause and effect. At the very least it the cause of time is outside time. — Devans99

Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. They are a certain representation of events in time. So outside of time, there are neither causes nor effects. There are no "events" at all.

It follows that there cannot be an "act of creation" outside time, since an act is an event.

Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. — Echarmion

I think thats debatable; cause and effect are enabled by time; that does not mean there could be something else time-like that also enables cause and effect.

I think thats debatable; cause and effect are enabled by time; that does not mean there could be something else time-like that also enables cause and effect. — Devans99

And this "time-like thing", would it then be finite or infinite? Replacing time with not-time doesn't solve any problem with the argument, at most it shifts it. A timeless "act" that is also a "cause" with time as the "effect" is simply incoherent.

This is one of the oldest problems in philosophy, and one that almost everyone with more than a basic education is familiar with. If you want to take a serious stab at it, you are going to have to come up with a clear an concise argument. No-one is going to take "could, sorta, maybe" seriously.

And this "time-like thing", would it then be finite or infinite? Replacing time with not-time doesn't solve any problem with the argument, at most it shifts it. A timeless "act" that is also a "cause" with time as the "effect" is simply incoherent. — Echarmion

The photon changes (position) and yet it experiences no time. That suggests time and change are independent. Change is possible without time. Cause and effect without time follow.

As I pointed out above, God would be timeless, IE he 'always' existed, was not created, just is. So there is no chicken and egg/infinite regress of creators once you remove time from the picture. — Devans99

And as I pointed out above, you can conjecture whatever you like. And just for the heck of it, a timeless god would be around for some amount of time - but the amount of time he was around would always be longer.... Right?

Anyway, I'm letting loose of the tar-baby; it's all yours. Conjecture away.

nd just for the heck of it, a timeless god would be around for some amount of time - but the amount of time he was around would always be longer.... Right? — tim wood

Not sure I follow. I would have thought a timeless god would not feature in time at all. He would be external to time, viewing all of time in one go but not being part of it.

I would have thought a timeless god would not feature in time at all. He would be external to time, viewing all of time in one go but not being part of it. — Devans99

Your view, account, of the existential status of this god, please.

The photon changes (position) and yet it experiences no time. That suggests time and change are independent. Change is possible without time. Cause and effect without time follow. — Devans99

And how many photons have you talked to?

It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them. And we, the observers, certainly do experience time.

Your view, account, of the existential status of this god, please. — tim wood

Space time is 4 dimensional. I can imagine God in a separate 4D world in which each point has a one-to-many relationship with our spacetime points. So at each point in God's time he can see all of our time. God's time is maybe an inbuilt facet of the deity. So God can change and act and effect our world but is not part of it.

It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them — Echarmion

We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time.