Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god." — Frank Apisa


The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:

(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))
Is true.

One seems to be true. — Devans99

There seems to be no way to tell which is true...but some people like you will continue to insist your side is true (or more likely true)...and those on the other side of the equation will continue to insist their side is true (or more likely true.)

Both sides are being absurd.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY...and any estimates are nothing but gratuitous nonsense.

So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley. — devans

There is a HEAVY inclination towards AGOSTICISM in science.

And that is as it should be.

Give it a try, Devans.

You'll see why I say that.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.

That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it. — Frank Apisa

If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them?

If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them? — Shed

A blind guess that at least one god exists...and a blind guess that no gods exist...

...are by their nature mutually exclusive.

One, by any human standard, has to be correct.

But, yes, it does matter, because there seems to be no way to determine which is correct.

I'm playing devil's advocate with the idea of disproven an eternal universe. Other possibilities that I've speculated about that are easier to buy for me personally are:

1) time began at a moment such as the big bang and nothing caused it because it was the beginning nothing comes before the "beginning". And we're here because here, it's just how things are.

2) the speed of time slows to 0 as you approach the beginning of the big bang. From an internal point of view the universe had a beginning and from an external point of view the universe was eternal.

So you mean the 'block universe' view? The universe itself its eternal and in a sense timeless so it does not need creating. With this view, the future is real. The challenges for this view are: the universe shows signs of fine tuning for life and there is no room for a fine-tuner in this model and many people balk at the suggestion that the future is real.

There is also the 'growing block' universe view which may have merit: the past is real and the future is not. I've been personally leaning towards growing block recently but I'm not sure.

If you look at the difference between past eternity and future eternity, the the first is a completed infinity whilst the 2nd is not. — Devans99

If the present is considered to be the origin of one's spatio-temporal coordinate space, then there is no reason to consider past eternity to be any more complete than future eternity.

For example, a constructivist and anti-realist interpretation of time might consider both the past and future to be ongoing constructions that are semantically reducible to sense-data and memory. This view does not imagine time to be a completed and directed cartesian axis, with the past and future occupying opposite ends.

The same is also true of certain models of cosmology, for example the Hawking-Hartle Model that does not single out any point of space-time as being the unique causal-origin.

If the present is considered to be the origin of one's spatio-temporal coordinate space, then there is no reason to consider past eternity to be any more complete than future eternity. — sime

I think the nature of eternity varies depending upon the model of time:

1. Presentism. Then there is a distinct difference between past and future eternities; the former being complete.
2. Growing block (past and present real). Again distinct difference between past and future eternities; the former being complete.
3. Block universe ((pas, present and future real). Then as you point out, both past as present eternities would be complete.

The same is also true of certain models of cosmology, for example the Hawking-Hartle Model that does not single out any point of space-time as being the unique causal-origin. — sime

I read up on this a little, came away somewhat confused. It seems as though the model has a temporal start in 'real' time but no temporal start in 'imaginary' time? What that means I'm not too sure. What is the justification for treating time as a complex number when it seem to behave as a scaler dimension I wonder.

No way is that a number. It's a conception of a mad man. — Devans99

:rofl:

So is five.

I haven't read all the replies, so apologies if I'm repeating something:

Presentism posits 'only now always existed'... — Devans99

An odd way to phrase it - 'always existed'? That's not how presentism is typically defined.

Presentism makes no claims regarding whether or not time had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is unrelated to presentism.

...so all forms of it require an infinite regress, — Devans99

What infinite regress? Where is your reasoning or argument for this "requirement" of presentism?

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*. — Devans99

This appears to imply that an infinite regress is contradictory (ignoring the fact that an infinite regress pertains to logic, not events), but it does not imply that presentism is contradictory. You have yet to demonstrate that "all forms of [presentism] require an infinite regress". Your above argument appears to be about infinity, not presentism.

An odd way to phrase it - 'always existed'? That's not how presentism is typically defined — Luke

Presentism is usually defined as 'only now exists'. 'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views (IE what then caused the start of time?) so that implies that presentism also means 'only now always existed'.

What infinite regress? Where is your reasoning or argument for this "requirement" of presentism? — Luke

If 'only now always existed' then we have an infinite regress in time; an infinite regress of events stretching back forever.

'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views — Devans99

How?

(IE what then caused the start of time?) — Devans99

This is possibly an issue for 'there is a start of time', but it is independent of 'only now exists'. If we assume that 'only now exists', then what does this have to do with whether time has a beginning or not? The two are unrelated.

'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views
— Devans99

How? — Luke

If 'only now exists' and 'there was a start of time', what was there to cause the start of time? There is nothing; not even time, not a single quantum fluctuation, in existence before the start of time to cause it. So this is not just creation ex nihilo, this is creation ex nihilo without time too - which is surely impossible?

So the view 'only now exists' implies that 'only now always existed' IE no start of time with presentism.

How does 'only now exists' imply that 'there was a start of time'?

Furthermore, if this is a problem for presentism, then isn't it equally a problem for eternalism?

If 'only now exists' and you take away the 'only now' you are left with nothing. Creation ex nihilo without time is then required, which is impossible. So with presentism it is impossible for time to start.

I should qualify that type of eternalism I'm talking about assumes that there is something 'timeless' that caused the start of time. That timeless thing is beyond cause and effect so does not need creating in itself - it is timeless, eternal, it just IS.

This is the only way out of the infinite regress of creators (or one single creator in an infinite regress of time) - you have to assume something is timeless else the buck never stops anywhere.

So with presentism it is impossible for time to start. — Devans99

I thought you were arguing the opposite.

I should qualify that type of eternalism I'm talking about assumes that there is something 'timeless' that caused the start of time. — Devans99

Why can't presentism have this too?

I thought you were arguing the opposite — Luke

I'm arguing for a combination of both a start of time and eternalism.

Why can't presentism have this too? — Luke

The definition of presentism is 'only now exists'. If something other than 'only now exists' then presentism (the vanilla definition anyway) can't hold.

Note that the 'something other than now' has to be timeless (else we end up in an infinite regress) which further implies that presentism cannot hold (the timeless cannot have a sense of now; the timeless would have to see all 'nows' simultaneously, hence some kind of eternalism rather than presentism).

If something other than 'only now exists' then presentism (the vanilla definition anyway) can't hold. — Devans99

Why must something other than 'only now exists'?

If there was a start of time, there must be something 'other' to cause the start of time. And that 'other' must be timeless.

Why must there be a start of time?

Presentism is certainly a dramatically different viewpoint upon the meaning of the past. But in a sufficiently simple universe, presentist understanding of the past would be perfectly aligned with physical understanding of the past.

For example, suppose we lived in a very simple universe in which only the earth and the sun existed. Then looking at the appearance of the sun through a telescope, a presentist and a physicist might both say "We call this appearance of the sun "eight minutes ago". "

In reality, the reason why neither the presentist nor the physicist are prepared to say that "eight minutes ago" is the merely a name for the appearance of the sun, is because "eight minutes ago" is a holistic and open-ended collection of inferences in relation to our entire lives and anticipated experiences that we cannot call into mind simultaneously. Hence we are unable to define "eight minutes ago" in terms of our experiences, even though we are readily prepared to judge some of our experiences as referring to "eight minute ago".

Yet in a sufficiently simple and closed universe, "eight minutes a go" would be definable as an adjective referring to immediate experience, like "reddish", "circular", "rough-looking" etc.

Realists are right to point out that the meaning of past-contingent propositions transcend individual acts of verification or constructions out of sense-data. The anti-realist (including the presentist) should concede this, without feeling forced to conclude that the concept of the past transcends the entirety of experience.

Hence like the logical positivist Ayer, the presentist ought to be skeptical of any particular doctrine of verificationism, but not necessarily the spirit of verificationism.

My argument for why there is a start of time is given here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Fair to say not everyone agrees with me... it is only an argument.

Why must something other than 'only now exists'? — Luke

If there was a start of time, there must be something 'other' to cause the start of time. And that 'other' must be timeless. — Devans99

I note that you did not answer my question of why something other than 'only now exists'. Assuming there to be a start of time is not really an answer. Consider:

Only the present moment exists (P)

Past, present and future moments all exist (E)

There is either a start to P or not, and there is equally either a start to E or not. Why should this count for or against one but not the other?

Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence of the present moment but also the existence of the past. Presentism does not include existence of the past.

Only the present moment exists (P)

Past, present and future moments all exist (E)

There is either a start to P or not, and there is equally either a start to E or not. Why should this count for or against one but not the other? — Luke

But if there is a start of P, what came before it, bearing in mind nothing else exists apart from P?

Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence if the present moment but also the existence of the past. But that is not presentism. — Luke

So you would hold that presentism is:

- 'only now exists'
- At some point in the past it was the case that not 'only now exists'

That is an unusual form of presentism. Care to elaborate?

Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence if the present moment but also the existence of the past. But that is not presentism. — Luke

The fact that the past HAS existed means there WAS an infinite regress. The past does not need to still exist... even if the past does not exist then we still know there WAS an infinite regress.

But if there is a start of P, what came before it, bearing in mind nothing else exists apart from P? — Devans99

I don't know, maybe your timeless creator of time came before it. What came before E if it has a start?

The fact that the past HAS existed means there WAS an infinite regress. The past does not need to still exist... even if the past does not exist then we still know there WAS an infinite regress — Devans99

Presentism makes no claims about the existence of the past. It is your assumption that the past has existed. Only the present moment exists according to presentism.

don't know, maybe your timeless creator of time came before it. What came before E if it has a start? — Luke

Then that would mean it is not presentism - because something timeless IE other than only now exists.

Presentism makes no claims about the existence of the past. It is your assumption that the past has existed. Only the present moment exists according to presentism. — Luke

Presentism claims that 'only now exists'. That can be qualified as a statement that is:

- True for all time.
- Not true for all time.

If you take the first assumption above which I thought all presentist did, then you arrive at the natural conclusion that there can be no start of time (because 'only now always exists')

Then that would mean it is not presentism - because something timeless IE other than only now exists. — Devans99

Presentism and eternalism are about temporal existence. A creator outside of temporal existence doesn't count as a temporal existent.

Presentism claims that 'only now exists'. That can be qualified as a statement that is:

- True for all time.
- Not true for all time.

If you take the first assumption above which I thought all presentist did, — Devans99

"All time" for a presentist is only the present moment. If a presentist were to also believe in the existence of the past and the future, then they would be an eternalist.

Presentism and eternalism are about temporal existence. A creator outside of temporal existence doesn't count as a temporal existent. — Luke

What would the nature of a creator outside temporal existence be? What would his relationship to time be? Would he see all of time in one go (eternalism)? Or would he just see now? If he just sees now, in what sense is he outside temporal existence?

"All time" for a presentist is only the present moment. If a presentist were to also believe in the existence of the past and the future, then they would be an eternalist. — Luke

There is a distinction:

- You believe the past exists
is different from
- You believe the past did exist.

Most presentist would not deny the 2nd? And if the past did exist, the conclusion is that the past must have always existed, IE no start of time.

I'm new here. I came here because my lunch companions (retirees) talk mainly about whether the fish is better than the macaroni in the cafeteria today. I introduce politics and religion into the mix and it gets semi-interesting, though I am a minority of one in that group. My 2 dogs pretty much go woof, but I find their howling wondrous. After reading some of this, I'm beginning to wonder if the sushi is better than the fish and the macaroni. It is. Never heard the term 'presentism.' Does such a thing exist if our biology requires a small lag time in our experience of 'now' in essence turning into 'then?' I have this thought; entropy explains everything (though I 'm not privy to that explanation). Cheers from Indpls..

What would the nature of a creator outside temporal existence be? — Devans99

I don't know, it's your idea not mine.

There is a distinction:

- You believe the past exists
is different from
- You believe the past did exist. — Devans99

If you believe the past did exist then you believe it no longer does exist and that it therefore does not exist.

And if the past did exist, the conclusion is that the past must have always existed, IE no start of time — Devans99

.

Once did, no longer does. I don't think any inferences can be made from this about whether there was a start or not.