My motivation is to work out the truth of how the universe came about. That may or may not include God.

I have argued for God's existence in the past but I have come to the conclusion it is more productive to discuss whether there was a creator or not; that question is amenable to logic; the question 'is there a God?' is ill defined and probably not answerable.

I think it is unlikely that a traditional God exists but likely that there was a creator of the universe.

Devans99

My motivation is to work out the truth of how the universe came about.

I truly doubt that...but we'll discuss that more as we move along.

- - - - -

That may or may not include God.

That may or may not include a god, Devans! A god or gods...not God. At least that is the way it should be worded if you truly are working on what you say you are working on.

- - - - - -

I have argued for God's existence in the past but I have come to the conclusion it is more productive to discuss whether there was a creator or not; that question is amenable to logic; the question 'is there a God?' is ill defined and probably not answerable.

I think you are kidding yourself.

You are still seeking ways to argue for the existence of "God"...something you have in mind, whether traditional in the sense of "the god of the Bible"...or as a "creator GOD" concept.

- - - - - -

I think it is unlikely that a traditional God exists but likely that there was a creator of the universe.

That is a FINE blind guess about the REALITY...and MAY BE CORRECT.

But it is a blind guess...and you truly are not treating it as a blind guess.

You are doing to the question, "Does God exist"...what the people who argue for Intelligent Design are trying to do to "Creationism."

↪coolguy8472 But for it to be one object, the temporal start must be connected to the temporal end (else it is two separate objects).

I think you have to think about the topology of objects in space and then transfer that thinking to time. In space, saying something has no identifiable start point is equivalent to saying it does not exist - if it has no start point, it has no length (end-start) or breadth so it can't exist. It is exactly the same thing when you come to consider time.

For me, things without starts are in an infinite regress and thus are impossible. If you think about a moment, it defines the following moment. So infinite time forms an infinite regress. But there is no overall starting moment, so none of the moments in the infinite regress can ultimately be fully defined. Each moment makes sense by its own, but overall infinite time cannot be because the whole think is undefined.

If you think about the set of negative integers:

{ ..., -4, -3, -2, -1 }

The ... means the set is partially defined. Strictly speaking that means undefined. Anything without a start is undefined. — Devans99

I don't know about the topology angle. You'd have to link me to something like why things without starting points don't exist, or exist as 2 objects, etc.. Is there a reason why you're preferring to evaluate the nature of time under those constraints?

Space is the only other dimension so drawing analogies to time is tempting. So I'm thinking from the spacetime viewpoint. So thinking of an object as a solid brick in 4D space time, if there is no temporal start, it implies one side of the brick is missing. That's not a valid object IMO.

I'm trying to formulate an argument from a different angle:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence (else there would be nothing)
3. That something in itself has no cause
4. To have no cause; something must be beyond cause and effect; IE beyond time.
5. So time must have a start and eternalism holds

That may or may not include a god, Devans! A god or gods...not God. At least that is the way it should be worded if you truly are working on what you say you are working on. — Frank Apisa

I've already mentioned this; when talking in the singular; as in someone's name, you use the capitalised form, for example: God may exist. When using 'God' as just another noun and not someone's name, you use a small letter: He was a god, gods exist etc...

But it is a blind guess...and you truly are not treating it as a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

It's hardly a blind guess. Omniscience for example; knowing the status of every particle in the universe would require a brain much more massive than the entire universe. That's very unlikely hence my conclusion that such a God probably does not exist is not a bind guess.

You are doing to the question, "Does God exist"...what the people who argue for Intelligent Design are trying to do to "Creationism." — Frank Apisa

I am changing the question from something unanswerable to something answerable with logic and science. Intelligent Design is an inappropriate analogy as that is not logic/science; it purports that God was somehow involved in evolution which is ridiculous. All I am arguing for is that the Big Bang was caused deliberately which is not ridiculous (at least a 50%/50% shot).

I've already mentioned this; when talking in the singular; as in someone's name, you use the capitalised form, for example: God may exist. When using 'God' as just another verb and not someone's name, you use a small letter: He was a god, gods exist etc... — Devans99

You are talking about "God"...a specific entity or supposed entity.

The difference in wording I am calling to your attention has NOTHING to do with grammatical rules...and I think you realize that.

It's hardly a blind guess. Omniscience for example; knowing the status of every particle in the universe would require a brain much larger than the universe. That's very unlikely hence my conclusion that such a God probably does not exist is not a bind guess.

All you are talking about it a blind guess. None of it is the result of logic. You are simply searching for something that looks like logic...hoping to bolster your blind guesses about the REALITY of existence.

I am changing the question from something unanswerable to something answerable with logic and science. Intelligent Design is an inappropriate analogy as that is not logic/science; it purports that God was somehow involved in evolution which is ridiculous. All I am arguing for is that the Big Bang was caused deliberately which is not ridiculous (at least a 50%/50% shot).

You are being duplicitous.

You are attempting a back-door shot at answering the question "Does God exist?"...and you are talking about a specific type of god.

Get real.

All you are talking about it a blind guess. None of it is the result of logic — Frank Apisa

How exactly is that a blind guess? How would a brain exist of such dimensions? It would take years for distant parts of the brain to communicate with each other... not a viable brain... so not a viable god.

Or omni-benevolence... that requires getting it right all the time, but clearly things go wrong in the universe, so again we can use LOGIC to rule out the traditional view of God.

You are being duplicitous. — Frank Apisa

I am not a deceitful person. I see nothing wrong with answering the question 'was the universe created?'. It would further human knowledge if we had an answer.

How exactly is that a blind guess? How would a brain exist of such dimensions? It would take years for distant parts of the brain to communicate with each other... not a viable brain... so not a viable god. — Devans99

One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING.

Secondly, you are constantly pontificating "this cannot be" "that must be" kind of nonsense that is PURE BLIND GUESSWORK.

THAT...is exactly how it is a blind guess.

Or omni-benevolence... that requires getting it right all the time, but clearly things go wrong in the universe, so again we can use LOGIC to rule out the traditional view of God.

Then get off speaking of what you are looking for as a variation of the "traditional view of God"...which is another wording error if you are doing what you pretend you are doing.

I am not a deceitful person.

You are being duplicitous whether wittingly or unwittingly...and whether toward your audience or toward yourself.

Do not rule that last part out. You may have convinced yourself that you are doing what I see as pretense...and have done such an effective job that you have fooled yourself.

I see nothing wrong with answering the question 'was the universe created?'.

Neither do I. And I can give you the definitive answer to that question: There is no goddam way we can determine that! The greatest minds ever to live on this planet have toiled endlessly over that problem...and have come up short.

To think that YOU have made major determinations about it says more about ego than about logic and research.

It would further human knowledge if we had an answer.

It would...and I suspect "human knowledge" has a very long way to go.

But the stuff you are tackling is as far beyond you as it was beyond people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan...and their like.

Explore it. Don't claim victory over it even in modest amounts.

One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING. — Frank Apisa

You can't fit a pint in a half pint pot. That information (on all the particles in the universe) has to fit somewhere. This is logical.

Besides, to be truly omniscience would require a nervous system that encompasses every particle in the whole universe. How likely is that? We have not noticed such a thing empirically (CERN etc...). So we can inductively conclude it's unlikely. Again, that's using logic.

You are being duplicitous whether wittingly or unwittingly...and whether toward your audience or toward yourself. — Frank Apisa

Hardly... I'm being perfectly straight-forward in saying a think there is probably a creator and its not like the traditional God. What is dishonest about that?

Explore it. Don't claim victory over it even in modest amounts. — Frank Apisa

I am exploring it. You are not helping a great deal. Specific counter arguments to my points would help us get at the truth rather than this endless rant about me having a hidden agenda.

↪coolguy8472
Space is the only other dimension so drawing analogies to time is tempting. So I'm thinking from the spacetime viewpoint. So thinking of an object as a solid brick in 4D space time, if there is no temporal start, it implies one side of the brick is missing. That's not a valid object IMO.

I'm trying to formulate an argument from a different angle:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence (else there would be nothing)
3. That something in itself has no cause
4. To have no cause; something must be beyond cause and effect; IE beyond time.
5. So time must have a start and eternalism holds — Devans99

What's wrong with time having a beginning but was not caused by anything beyond time or otherwise? It would be time began when time began. There's would be no such thing as "began" without time afterall.

Having time start without a cause is a sort of creation ex nihilo but seems worse because time itself is absence too - could time start/be created whilst lacking both time and a cause?

Devans99
1.1k

One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING. — Frank Apisa


You can't fit a pint in a half pint pot. That information (on all the particles in the universe) has to fit somewhere. This is logical. — Devans99

Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans.

Your ego is larger than the hypothetical brain you are suggesting.

Besides, to be truly omniscience would require a nervous system that encompasses every particle in the whole universe. How likely is that? We have not noticed such a thing empirically (CERN etc...). So we can inductively conclude it's unlikely. Again, that's using logic.

It is using blind guesswork to present a pretense argument.

Your need for the 3 O's is too much.

Hardly... I'm being perfectly straight-forward in saying a think there is probably a creator and its not like the traditional God. What is dishonest about that?

I have no quarrels with what you think or suppose.

But claims that X has to be...and Y cannot be...are an absurdity.

That is what I am talking about. Stop beating around that. It won't work.

I am exploring it. You are not helping a great deal. Specific counter arguments to my points would help us get at the truth rather than this endless rant about me having a hidden agenda.

There are people here MUCH smarter than I who are giving what I suppose to be decent counter arguments to your pontificating. I am interested in a different kind of fish...the texture of your argument and your motivation.

My guess is that I have already nailed it. You are attempting a backdoor "There is a God" thesis. I further suspect a young, intelligent, ambitious, zealous, egotistical guy thinking he can do what people like Einstein, Sagan, Degrasse, Hawking and others could not.

Well...will see what your spine is made of.

What I am sending your way is peanuts compared with what knowledgeable peers will heave. You are not handling the easy stuff very well. Imagine the more difficult.

Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans — Frank Apisa

You seem to be denying 2000 years worth of scientific progress.

My guess is that I have already nailed it. You are attempting a backdoor "There is a God" thesis. I further suspect a young, intelligent, ambitious, zealous, egotistical guy thinking he can do what people like Einstein, Sagan, Degrasse, Hawking and others could not — Frank Apisa

I am middle aged if you must know. Look at it this way; why would you bother with philosophy if you did not think you had a chance of discovering something? I certainly would not. And I am not claiming to have discovered anything, I am just floating arguments for consideration. If someone shoots down one of my arguments; I shut up about it. That's the way it works. Why do you have a problem with it?

Devans99
1.1k

Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans — Frank Apisa


You seem to be denying 2000 years worth of scientific progress. — Devans99

You seem to be denying how little ants know about the cosmos outside our our galaxy, Devans.

I am middle aged if you must know. Look at it this way; why would you bother with philosophy if you did not think you had a chance of discovering something? I certainly would not. And I am not claiming to have discovered anything, I am just floating arguments for consideration. If someone shoots down one of my arguments; I shut up about it. That's the way it works. Why do you have a problem with it?

First I want to acknowledge an error. I left Neil Tyson's last name off in my list.

Anyway...you are doing a lot more than "just floating arguments for consideration" (you are making unwarranted assertions about what is and is no)...and a lot less than "just shutting up" about it when nailed.

The reason I am doing what I am doing is: It should be an imperative for every thinking human to to battle against anyone heading toward where I perceive you to be going. (This should be fun for you.)

We'll do more battle. Use it wisely. Not all your "peers" will play nice. Get use to punches coming from all sorts of angles...and maybe some illegal kicks, so to speak.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

↪coolguy8472
Having time start without a cause is a sort of creation ex nihilo but seems worse because time itself is absence too - could time start/be created whilst lacking both time and a cause? — Devans99

Sure for some reason we aren't aware of. Like a hidden undiscovered universal constant. Something came from nothing for the same reason Pi starts with 3, because that's just how it is. When nothing exists something must exist then "poof", now something exists. Seems easier to believe than religious texts.

If something comes from nothing naturally and time is infinite then matter density ends up infinite. So can't get something from nothing applies or time in finite. In either case an unmoved mover is needed to avoid creation ex nihilo (which I think is not possible).

The unmoved mover was not originally associated with Christianity, it goes back to Aristotle. You are thinking of St Thomas Aquinas? Of the Summa Theologiae, Wikipedia says:

'Although unfinished, the Summa is "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature."'

Sure some of it is wrong, but that is always the case when dealing with old sources.

"(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist)."

When you get into the 4th, 5th and higher dimensions this sort of thing doesn't apply the same way. Check out "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.

As to what you said about eternalism, from what you said that appears to be true to me. Please lets not argue about the fine points. I'm to dumb and/or lazy right now to argue about the fine points. I'm not sure we even really disagree.

"(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist)."

I think if you move into higher dimensions like 4th, 5th and beyond you stop dealing with exact positions (10th dimension for example) and start dealing with existence itself as in all positions of an object exist at once.

I'm not sure why my previous reply to this was deleted because it wasn't the slighest bit adversarial towards you nor was it controversial.

When you talk about eternalism i would have to agree with that.

At last some sense... eternalism is possible.

It seems to me that the members of this site are mostly presentists.

I am often outnumbered when debating the issue. Maybe we should have a poll of presentism Vs eternalism?

"I am often outnumbered when debating the issue. Maybe we should have a poll of presentism Vs eternalism? "

Maybe i'll do that when i come back from my thing i'm doing.

I believe when youtube videos explain the higher dimensions that they are supporting eternalism.

is there a special way to do a poll? Is that something that is typically done on this site?

Yes you create a new post and at the bottom click on 'poll'...

Hi folks. It’s an argument in two parts. First I argue time has a start, then I argue eternalism (believe that past, present and future are all equally real) is true. — Devans99

I think it's contradictory to say that time had to start. I say this because change is analytic to time, i.e., time is simply the measurement of change. There would be no "starting" without time, that is, there would have to be some type of change to start the mechanism of time. In my view time is eternal, it's a necessary part of reality, this reality or any reality. The flow of time may be different in different places, but still there could not have been a time when there was no time or change.

I don't think it is possible for time to be eternal - that would require everything (matter etc...) to exist 'forever' which does not seem possible:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1

I don't think it is possible for time to be eternal - that would require everything (matter etc...) to exist 'forever' which does not seem possible: — Devans99

There sure isn't anything contradictory in saying that time could be everlasting. You couldn't have time if at some point there was no time. You would have to go from no change to change, how could that be possible? You couldn't get a universe from a completely static state.

There sure isn't anything contradictory in saying that time could be everlasting. You couldn't have time if at some point there was no time. You would have to go from no change to change, how could that be possible? You couldn't get a universe from a completely static state. — Sam26

Matter can't be eternal. Time cannot be everlasting. There are lots of ways to prove this. One is in the OP. Here is another:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5704/poincare-reoccurrence-theorem-and-time

The only way to avoid an infinite regress of time is to have a start of time with a timeless first cause. As you say, this implies that change takes place timelessly. It is possible to move in spacetime without moving in the time direction, so some types of change without time seem possible.

There is basically a choice here of how the universe could start. There are two options:

1. Everlasting time. This is ruled out because we can prove its impossible
2. A start of time + timeless change. This has not been ruled out

I think because [1] is impossible, it has to be [2], even though it's not exactly clear how timelessness works.