There is simply the first motion, and time starts. Nothing before. — Gregory
You have to really think about it for awhile with an open mind — Gregory
There is a God
The uncaused cause must be able to cause an effect without itself being effected. Therefore it must be self-driven. Therefore it must be intelligent. An intelligent creator of the universe fits my personal definition for God.
Universe is uncaused cause, it existed before time. — Zelebg
And although there are reasons to call the universe intelligent and equate it with god, to take that metaphor to biblical proportions and personificate universe as a stupid, angry, jelaous and psychopathic magical being is unnecessary and far more complicated postulate, bringing in more questions than answers, and is thus childishly unreasonable idea. — Zelebg
The universe is fine-tuned for life. Saying the universe existed before time means there is no room for a fine tuner so that leaves a billions to one shot that the universe is fine tuned by accident.
In every your argument I can substitute the word “god” with “universe”, and vice versa. And neither god nor universe as the first axiom explain anything, but god will always be more complicated and thus less reasonable assumption. — Zelebg
With god the question about fine tuning is not answered but exaggerated as we can ask not only why is god fine tuned to create life, but also why is “nothing” fine tuned for god to exist in the first place. — Zelebg
It's not about the numbering of moments — Devans99
4. If time has no start, it has no 1st moment. If it has no nth moment, it has no nth+1 moment — Devans99
the fact that the previous moment defines/determines the next moment — Devans99
And logic suggests it stops at an intelligent, timeless, fine-tuner — Devans99
Then what's 1st and nth about here? — jorndoe
So, without such a 1st moment, you can't number such moments like that. (y) (though whatever indexical numbering will do, it's what we already do anyway) — jorndoe
A supposed 1st moment, having no defining previous moment, is then undefined? — jorndoe
Timeless? In that case, you break the principle of sufficient reason. (and some other things) — jorndoe
#1 Where I live there are lotteries. In one of them the odds are around 250x10^6 against, yet people win them. You are yourself unlikely. Does that mean you do not exist, or that any reasonable account of you is nonsense? — tim wood
#2, #3 In a book I have referred to before to you, Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees, it's made clear that in a multiverse environment, there's no law that says the the laws in any given universe match those in another. That is, your comments here are incoherent. — tim wood
#4 Really? You do not seem to grasp that the criticism you receive is substantive and not mere invective. Your "views" are unreasoned, unreasonable, unreasoning expressions of belief. But in the dining room of reason, they're merely an offensive snout that just pokes above the level of the table and tries to steal a morsel. — tim wood
If you remove God, you are left with something completely inexplicable / unexplained, so that is not a more reasonable explanation, it is a less reasonable explanation.
I would think by definition there can not possibly exist anything more inexplicable and unexplained than god itself. Every property of god is maximally fantastic and magical, to say the least, and not to go into how they are paradoxical as self-refuting or contradicting each other. — Zelebg
I am not claiming time is actually numbered, just that in order to think about time, it is useful to have numbering — Devans99
If there is no first moment, then there is no time at all — Devans99
The first moment of time is caused by the creation of space time — Devans99
Everything in time has a cause — Devans99
Subtly switching between moments and causes in mid-run. :meh:
So, "the creation of space time" is supposedly the 1st cause and the 1st moment?
Anyway, let's have the proof instead. — jorndoe
1. The universe is indubitably fine tuned for life and the WAP/SAP are both flawed explanations of why. So there can be only one explanation, that a fine tuner exists.
2. Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect. Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime.
Your counter arguments please... — Devans99
It looks like you misinterpreted me. What I said was that we cannot base our understanding of time based upon the way our brain perceives it - this also applies to our understanding of gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into.However, I think this is a bit defeatist. With such an attitude, science will not progress. — Devans99
This notion of causality has no place in physics. I can speak from experience as I was a physics major in college - albeit not a very good physicist. I can assure you that the notion of causality never appeared in my 4 years of undergraduate study. I did encounter it when I took Philosophy 101 & 102. However, this philosophical concept of causality does not correspond to reality at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Events happen with no prior measurable or discernible "cause" whatsoever.We understand time and causality well enough to draw some initial conclusions — Devans99
How do you know that life is not merely an evolved state of matter, inevitable where matter is, and enough time? — tim wood
"Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect." Really? Does it? — tim wood
"Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime." A completely unsupported claim. Please support. — tim wood
If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into. — EricH
This notion of causality has no place in physics. — EricH
As far as time goes, it appears - based on our current understanding - that time started with the big bang some 13 odd billion years ago. However, that knowledge is *very* preliminary - and we cannot draw any other conclusions from it. — EricH
I have no idea what you're getting at with the hamsters. — EricH
1. You put the hamster in the cage and observe
2. You take the hamster out of the cage and observe
3. You conclude that there must be a God — Devans99
"Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime." A completely unsupported claim. Please support.
— tim wood
1. If there is no first cause, there is no second cause
2. If there is no nth cause, there is no nth+1 cause
3. So there are no causes. But there are causes all around us so this is a contradiction
4. So there must be a first cause
5. A first cause must be uncaused; IE beyond causality; IE beyond time. — Devans99
Logic/language are tools, shaped to conform to our needs in our version of the world as we experience it. That in no way means that the world is itself obligated to conform to either. — tim wood
And, you take the meaning of "cause" for granted and leave it undefined — tim wood
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.