That there is no cause is not necessarily that there is no explanation, so your argument fails — S
In order to conclude that nothing exists if now doesn't exist, you would need to prove nothing exists besides space and time which you obviously don't believe yourself. There may be higher dimensions beyond time and space. — coolguy8472
The universe does not seem very finely tuned for life to me. Otherwise you'd think SETI would have discovered life somewhere else by now. Most life cannot survive outside of Earth's atmosphere without protection for more than a few seconds. Most of the observable universe is a vacuum. That's a lot of billions of light years of space that's not finely tuned for life. — coolguy8472
I argue here that there may very well be many things, infinite things, in fact, that are logically possible, and thus exist in the realm of logically possible entities, or logical space, but are unimaginable by humans. — Troodon Roar
For example, humans cannot imagine what a sixteen-dimensional space would look like, but it can still be described theoretically, and there is nothing logically contradictory about it. — Troodon Roar
Does anyone else here agree with me that such an entity is theoretically logically possible, and therefore, even though I cannot imagine it, the fact that I can describe it with language shows that it, nevertheless, exists somewhere in logical space (the space of logically possible entities or possible worlds, as philosophers talk about)? — Troodon Roar
Okay. Suppose again, the beginning was absolute nothingness - not even nonexistence, not even nothingness. I just used the word nothingness, only to start a concept. Nothing at all, that even nothingness was void. — SethRy
Yes, you just made an argument for creation ex nihilo with your photons example. Otherwise, it remains the case that "creation without time itself...seems impossible". — Luke
I don't follow why no events would exist without a first cause. This seems based only on your assumption that a first cause is necessary. It does not explain why it is necessary. — Luke
Then you must allow the same for presentism, and your previous argument fails. — Luke
What makes the first impossible? — Luke
If logic was discovered, then is it essential to this god and the universe? That without logic, the universe and the world could not exist? — SethRy
Even though creation without time seems impossible? — Luke
guess that also rules out your creator of time then...? — Luke
What do you take this to mean? — Luke
Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans — Frank Apisa
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
all local variable theories have essentially been ruled out — boethius
The beginning was undefinable — SethRy
It's not exactly true to say the photon does not experience "time" in the metaphysical sense. If time is change, the photon's "wave function" changes over "our time"; so this evolving wave function can be viewed as a metaphysical time. — boethius
Fundamental particles must somehow go from one event to another between events, there's simply by definition no "classical time" available for this more fundamental time. — boethius
With this concept of speed of causation we can now more clearly see that anything going at this speed cannot experience any internal events, no clock can tick for it — boethius
So it's not accurate to say "it's clock is stuck at the time of the cosmic microwave background" but rather that the photon "has no clock at all", and so any questions about the photon's clock are simply functionally meaningless: — boethius
One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING. — Frank Apisa
You are being duplicitous whether wittingly or unwittingly...and whether toward your audience or toward yourself. — Frank Apisa
Explore it. Don't claim victory over it even in modest amounts. — Frank Apisa
All you are talking about it a blind guess. None of it is the result of logic — Frank Apisa
You are being duplicitous. — Frank Apisa
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
But it is a blind guess...and you truly are not treating it as a blind guess. — Frank Apisa
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
Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed — Frank Apisa
But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. — Frank Apisa
Within your argument you're using the absense of existence of a start point to spread that non-existence to infinity to "now". That's the same concept as me using santa's non-existence at the north pole to spread his non-existence to where I'm at now to prove I don't exist therefore santa must exist by contradiction. — coolguy8472
Within your proof you we assume a start point does not exist but then invoking the existence of it anyway when doing "start+infinity". If we assume an eternal universe in our premise then we are assuming the start does not exist. — coolguy8472