Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/ 9/05 3:16pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Time... is on my side (yes it is)" on 06/ 8/05 1:10pm
>>
>>Since something cannot arise spontaneously from
>>nothing, then we know that there must be something or
>>things that have always existed.
>>
>>First I must commend you for acknowledging ex
>>nihilo nhil fit. However, I must point out that
>>the last half of your sentence is a non
>>sequitur.
>
>I don't think so. We see stuff. We know that stuff
>can't come from non-stuff, so the only other option is
>that stuff in some form or other has always been
>around.
It's not the only other option, and I gave a counterexample to prove it.
>>Under
>>my worldview, God exists outside time. Outside
>>of time there would be no change, only being and
>>nonbeing. While the concept of a timeless entity may
>>seem weird, it is not logically impossible.
>
>Fine. Then maybe there was some matter that existed
>"outside time,"
Not plausible, for a number of reasons. One is that outside of time there is no change (only being and non-being) yet the very nature of matter requires change (e.g. electrons orbiting the nucleus). For similar reasons, we have to rule out event-causation entirely. Why? Agent-causation involves creating effects without being determined by prior causes; event-causation (almost by definition) doesn't and can't do that.
>Sure, everything has to have a
>beginning... except God. It's awfully convenient, and
>since there is no empirical evidence for it
We do have good empirical evidence to think that the known physical universe began to exist some 10 to 20 billion years ago, and we have good philosophical reason for thinking that past is finite. Given ex nihilo nihil fit, some atemporally timeless agency had to create the universe. It's the only alternative to an infinite past.
>>Why resort to it in the first place? An infinite past
>>is metaphysically impossible. The details why are for
>>another thread (I’ll post it later), but for now let
>>me say it has something to do with being able to
>>completely traverse an infinite region via successive
>>finite steps (quick example: count 1, 2, 3, 4…you’ll
>>never reach “infinity”).
>
>Actually, a universe that cycles through itself in a
>circle makes more sense to me than some entity
>existing "outside time." It's at least logical to
>think of a universe that starts over again and again,
>each time making a circle back to its original point.
Except that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible, so we have to discard that possibility.
>The problem you're having with envisioning infinity is
>simple: you're thinking of it as a line. Think of it
>as a circle, and your problem is solved.
Not quite, since we still have the same basic problem of an infinite past (e.g. the universe began and ended infinite number of times, going through an infinite number of iterations, thus traversing an infinite number of years etc.) not to mention the problems that known physics suggests....
>To play my own devil's advocate, the most recent
>research on the expansion of the universe says that
>the universe will never collapse into itself again...
>it will continue expanding and getting colder and
>darker forever... kind of a bleak picture. But
>anyway, that would seem to violate the idea of a
>universe that collapses into itself and begins again
>in a circular fashion.
Well, yes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 