Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/11/05 9:43pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Can we just agree that I'm right?" on 06/11/05 7:34pm
>>>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.
>
>Well, in your counterexample, you're saying that some
>"stuff" (in this case, a deity) has always been
>around.
No, I'm not. I'm saying the agent is atemporally timeless, transcending space and time as we know it. Like it or not, believe it or not, but it is an alternative possibility. What you said was not quite right because the statement:
Since something cannot arise spontaneously from nothing, then we know that there must be something or things that have always existed.
does not logically follow. An atemporally timeless agency creating the universe is another logical possibility.
>>>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.
>
>I agree that it's not plausible, but mainly for the
>reason that I have never seen any evidence for this
>"existence outside time" except in philosophical
>arguments.
But if an infinite past is metaphysically impossible, a finite past is the only alternative. If that is true, we can't have something that has "always existed." Hence my proposal for an atemporally timeless agency.
>The reason I'm willing to think
>beyond what seems logical in this case is that the
>subject under discussion is so far into the unknown
>that there may be many things of which I'm not aware
>(e.g., the past can be infinite)
Maybe, but why not go with what seems logical instead of the (evidently) metaphysically impossible?
>In my original article, I did try to make a logical
>argument for it as best I could, but I am aware that
>logic at some point fails us here.
One of them was a non sequitur that I pointed out earlier. You seemed so open to the idea of what "beyond what seems logical" until I pointed out an alternative logical possibility; then you seem to dismiss it out of hand.
>>>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.
>
>I agree that it seems impossible using our current
>scheme of the universe.
Not only that, but reason in general.
>But an electron existing in
>multiple places at the same time violates what we
>think is possible too.
I haven't seen any compelling reason why that is metaphysically impossible. Counterintuitive maybe, but still possible. (However, things like Count Int reaching infinity is more than just counterintuitive; it really is impossible.)
>>>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....
>
>Well, then I have to ask you to please point out the
>beginning of a circle.
If it were the universe, I'd say about the time of the Big Bang.
By your own admission, you said
"But in a scenario where the whole process is circular, the universe would have had an infinite amount of such beginnings in the past"
Which would mean looping through an infinite number of times. In any case, whether time is linear, circular, or shaped like a pretzel; we get the same problem: the traversal of an infinite past.
>Let's go to the issue you have brought up several
>times... we need an agent that exists outside of time
>to create. You define time basically as a progression
>of events, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>Well, the obvious question is, you have this deity
>sitting around existing outside of time, which means
>he/she/it is not experiencing a progression of events.
> Nevertheless, at some point in that non-time, this
>deity chose to create.
Your still thinking temporally. There is no "some point," since there is no change. There is only one point. The agent that caused the universe (and therefore the first event) is the provenance of the universe.
[Agent]
|
|
+ - - > universe - - >
There really isn't any "action" in the traditional sense of the word; since there's no past to compare the existecne of the universe with its non-existence; no time t in which the universe did not exist. The agent is the provenance of the universe, and the agent is timeless and changeless sans the universe.
It's perhaps difficult to convey or understand the concept, but it is logically possible and at least avoids the metaphysical impossibilities of an infinite past.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 