I didn't even have much of a problem with his god argument. For me the real problem was his use of a principle that is born of the belief of a created universe to prove that the universe was created. Not realising that the principle is believed to be true only because it was first believed to be true of the universe. So the proposition "(Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason)" cannot be used as evidence of the beginning of the universe because it comes from this very conclusion. If the proposition is only true if the conclusion is true, then we are going to have some very sticky problems grounding this argument logically.

there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state. — Brett

You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight.

I think Brett and Devans99 is the one and the same person. Their dialogue in the beginning was suspciously directed.

Everyone needs a person to support him or her in his or her going agaisnt the flow, otherwise the person loses heart. If no such support can be found, one can manufactue one. On the forums at least. I've seen it happen over and over again.

My post here is neither here nor there as far as the argument is concerned. This post of mine is outside of the argument, and does not apply to it. I am fully aware of that.

We are arguing with the sum of your original argument. Not with your conceptualisation of Forever. You can't pick and choose which part of your arguments we are disagreeing with. You are the one who is making your claims and not tying how they even relate to your original argument.

In case you hadn't noticed myself and god must be an atheist are really trying to help you understand and are posting substantive comments that cannot be broken down by short and poor responses to it.

The only one with a plain limitation on insight is you as you cannot see how "The principle of sufficient reason proves the existence of the initial state of the universe." Also can go this way "The initial state of the universe proves the principle of sufficient reason.". Which means that both concepts rely on the other to be true in order to be true themselves.

I'm not even disagreeing with your conclusion, just your argument for it. Thomas Aquinas believed in god and still disagreed with others arguments for gods existence if he perceived them to be logically inconsistent.

Sorry, replied to the wrong person.

Wait people really do that?! That's kind of weird.

a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. — Devans99

Why would you say that we have to be determinists?

a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. — Devans99

Yes, that is true, but initial state does not have to be a start state. It could be any point in a continuing series of states. If today's state is taken, then we could deterministically calculate the state as of tomorrow, AND still have a state preceding today's state, such as yesterday, last year, ten billiion years ago, any time ago.

Your deterministic approach does not exclude and infinite chain of states predicating other states. Initial, that is, starting time is NOT a necessary feature of determinism.

there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state.
— Brett

You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight.
an hour ago — god must be atheist

You don’t read very carefully. The above statement I made was confirming to Devans99 what I believed he was saying. I’m not pushing any argument. As I said I’m just exploring ideas.

WTF? Will you just keep spamming these idiotic threads about infinity? One is not enough for you?

Next time try and do philosophy though otherwise you're just going to annoy people on here when you don't understand what is being said to you. — Mark Dennis

I cannot see one post addressed to me by you.

Because you're the one who made the post. You have two accounts. You got so mixed up when using them you kept using the Brett account to counter the arguments I made to the Devans one. both accounts are arguing for the same thing and making fallacial arguments that can be countered with the same argument.

That and I mixed up who I was replying to a lot because I'm new to this particular forum.

You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight. — god must be atheist

If you go back to the beginning if this thread you’ll see that I don’t actually deny the existence of something that has been forever. I actually questioned the denial of that idea.

Because you're the one who made the post. You have two accounts. — Mark Dennis

Someone help me here.

See this is what happens when people don't frame out their thoughts a little clearer and with a little more substance. Have you ever read any philosophy paper with only one page? I have went back and read three times and even though Devan wasn't framing out his thoughts you seemed to just know what he was getting at. So it makes sense that you're the same person really.

Also, "Someone help me here." is a strange reaction to the accusation, any normal person would be offended and deny it outright. Are you switching accounts right now?

Yes, that is true, but initial state does not have to be a start state. It could be any point in a continuing series of states. If today's state is taken, then we could deterministically calculate the state as of tomorrow, AND still have a state preceding today's state, such as yesterday, last year, ten billiion years ago, any time ago.

Your deterministic approach does not exclude and infinite chain of states predicating other states. Initial, that is, starting time is NOT a necessary feature of determinism. — god must be atheist

I don't think that we can just assume determinism though. At least not in a "proof."

So the proposition "(Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason)" cannot be used as evidence of the beginning of the universe because it comes from this very conclusion. If the proposition is only true if the conclusion is true, then we are going to have some very sticky problems grounding this argument logically — Mark Dennis

My argument does not rely on the PSR, but I think an altered version of the PSR is supportive of my argument:

- Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason for itself

I think this is more reasonable than Leibniz's original and it points to a minimum of one 'brute fact'. I'd argue that brute facts can only exist outside of time.

Why would you say that we have to be determinists? — Terrapin Station

Even if reality is not fully deterministic, there is still a relationship between prior and subsequent states - if the prior state does not exist then the subsequent state does not exist.

So for a non-deterministic eternal particle, I would argue it has no start (because it existed 'forever') so it cannot have a start+1 state, a start+2 state, so by induction, it can't exist.

Even if reality is not fully deterministic, there is still a relationship between prior and subsequent states - if the prior state does not exist then the subsequent state does not exist. — Devans99

Well, just in the sense that if there's not a prior state of x, there can't be a subsequent state of x, sure. That's because of what "prior" and "subsequent" refer to.

So for a non-deterministic eternal particle, I would argue it has no start (because it existed 'forever') so it cannot have a start+1 state, a start+2 state, so by induction, it can't exist. — Devans99

If it "has existed eternally" then sure, those words conventionally refer to there being no start to it. And indeed it wouldn't have a starting state then, because of what "start" refers to. But this doesn't imply that something can't have existed forever. It just wouldn't have a "start + n" state, because there's no start to it. Again, that's what "existed forever" refers to--there's no start.

As always, by the way, you either have something existing forever or you have something spontaneously appearing "out of nothing" so to speak. Neither seems intuitively right, but there's no way around those being the only two options.

You're still assuming time as you understand it has a start.

Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason for itself

This argument here actually supports a cyclical universe that has been here forever, as the universe cannot be the reason for itself. See we are understanding what you are saying, the problem is you aren't making yourself understandable. I'm telling you 100% you are using a conclusion as proof of your proposition and then using it to prove your conclusion. It's logically inconsistent and fallacial.

I disagree with this notion entirely that everything has to have a reason. I think you are trying to ascribe human meaning and reason to a non human universe. Humans apply reasons to things but these same arguments for someone who first pushed a stone down a hill are so antiquated they are comical to me now.

You should read Cohens Preface to Logic. Maybe it will help you see why your argument doesn't follow logic for me.

If it "has existed eternally" then sure, those words conventionally refer to there being no start to it. And indeed it wouldn't have a starting state then, because of what "start" refers to. But this doesn't imply that something can't have existed forever. It just wouldn't have a "start + n" state, because there's no start to it. Again, that's what "existed forever" refers to--there's no start. — Terrapin Station

In general: 'to be X something has to start X' works for everything - counting, talking, spinning, oscillating and ultimately existing. Infinity does not have the ability to cause something to exist 'by magic' - to exist, something has to start existing.

As always, by the way, you either have something existing forever or you have something spontaneously appearing "out of nothing" so to speak. Neither seems intuitively right, but there's no way around those being the only two options. — Terrapin Station

I think that the start of time was the Big Bang. Matter either came into existence via the zero energy universe hypothesis or matter entered time (at the point of the Big Bang). Neither qualify as 'something from nothing'.

Is it just me that feels like this guy keeps jumping between these two options? I can't make sense of him anymore as I feel half the time he is saying he hasn't arguing for the thing he was just arguing for two minutes ago. First there is a forever then forever can't be. I am getting confused here.

This argument here actually supports a cyclical universe that has been here forever, as the universe cannot be the reason for itself — Mark Dennis

As I already mentioned, a cyclical universe still needs a start of time - something has to set the 'now' cursor of time in motion around the circle of time.

"I think that the start of time was the Big Bang. Matter either came into existence via the zero energy universe hypothesis or matter entered time (at the point of the Big Bang). Neither qualify as 'something from nothing'."

Then why are you using the confusing term "Universe" To mean the totality of everything. Now your argument sounds like you are saying the universe came into existence because other parts of the universe created it? Still Something from bloody nothing. Stupid.

"As I already mentioned, a cyclical universe still needs a start of time - something has to set the 'now' cursor of time in motion around the circle of time."
No it doesn't. Where does it say this exactly? Load of rubbish.

"Oh my argument is right because my bold claim with no evidence is also right"

In general: 'to be X something has to start X' works for everything — Devans99

If you think that works for everything, then it's necessary for you to have things always existing.

Is it just me that feels like this guy keeps jumping between these two options? I can't make sense of him anymore as I feel half the time he is saying he hasn't arguing for the thing he was just arguing for two minutes ago. First there is a forever then forever can't be. I am getting confused here. — Mark Dennis

I think it's because he has the aim of arriving at a particular conclusion (a religious conclusion), and the arguments are basically ad hoc means of getting to the conclusion he wants.

If you think that works for everything, then it's necessary for you to have things always existing. — Terrapin Station

I should have said: 'to be X in time, something has to start X'.

Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE.

I think it's because he has the aim of arriving at a particular conclusion (a religious conclusion), and the arguments are basically ad hoc means of getting to the conclusion he wants. — Terrapin Station

Deism is technically a non-religious belief. Because of considerations like the fine tuning argument, it seems to me that deism is the most likely explanation for the way things are, that's why I pursue it.

I am actually on the rocks with regards to Monotheism Vs Polytheism. There are arguments that there must be a first cause / a brute fact - so it maybe possible to prove there is at least one god. But disproving the existence of many brute facts (IE potentially many gods) is impossible I think. Disproving existence can only be achieved if it is possible to show existence results in a contradiction. Try disproving the existence of unicorns for example... it's impossible.

So I think deism will always remain a belief rather than something that can be proved.

There are also quite a few other arguments that the universe cannot have existed ‘forever’:
— Devans99

What's the alternative?
9 hours ago — Brett

a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. 'Forever' has no initial state so is impossible.
— Devans99

So, there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state. And if it did it wouldn’t be forever. — Brett

You (meaning "god must be atheist" by "you") don’t read very carefully. The above statement I made was confirming to Devans99 what I believed he was saying. I’m not pushing any argument. As I said I’m just exploring ideas. — Brett

Look Brett, you are starting to irritate me. You did not even with one word indicate that you are just affirming what had been said by your alleged alter-ego and indeed there is no agreement by you. So please don't smear on me that I don't understand what I read. I read you very well, and it is your ineptitude if you can't make a difference for your readers between what is your opinion and what is an opinion someone else said and which you only repeat.

Either you are intentionally misleading with your posts, or else you are moving the goalposts, or else you are in ineffectual writer.

Please don't blame me for any of the above.

I don't think that we can just assume determinism though. At least not in a "proof." — Terrapin Station

Why not? There is nothing that happens without a cause. Every cause has an effect. Do you doubt either statements?

Show me a cause that has no effect and show me an event that had not been caused. Please. Then I'll abandon determinism.