Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/14/05 11:59am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "I disagree with that" on 06/13/05 10:29pm
>>>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.
>
>The problem I have is that your "alternative
>possibility" seems completely manufactured from
>nothing.
Well, wherever you believe I got the idea from, it is an alternative possibility. So my claim of non sequitur is still quite valid.
>All I see is you saying you can't see how
>time could be infinite, therefore it's necessary for
>you to make something up.
No. I'm saying that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible and have cited evidential arguments to justify my claim. If an infinite past is indeed metaphysically impossible, and given ex nihilo nihil fit, an atemporally timeless agency creating the universe seems to be the most straightforward solution.
Do you have another?
>Conveniently, what you make
>up as a viable alternative fits the Christian
>worldview rather well.
It does seem convenient that the most straightforward solution fits well within the theistic worldview doesn't it? Perhaps its because theism is actually true? (Yes, I know you'll disagree with that.)
>I do recognize that the "existence outside time" idea
>is one that philosophers have proposed for ages.
>Nevertheless, I have never seen any reason to see it
>as anything but something manufactured with zero
>evidence. Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, how about my argument(s) justifying my claim that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible?
>>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.
>
>It logically follows in my way of thinking because
>your "atemporally timeless agency" has no rational
>pull on me. I see no reason to think that it is any
>more likely than some other idea
Nonetheless, it is as I said before a logical possibility, and thus your claim that "we know that there must be something or things that have always existed [emphasis mine]" is false.
>>>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.
>
>Again, I can only say at this point that there may be
>things about the universe at this level that we don't
>yet understand. To me, an "atemporally timeless
>agency" is at least equally as hard to believe as an
>infinite past, if not much more so. I know you've
>taken several logic classes, but I think it's
>important to remember that things can be logically
>sound and still be utter nonsense.
Call me a rationalist, but I don't quite believe that.
>>>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?
>
>Because it doesn't seem "logical." It seems "made
>up."
Then perhaps you wish to address my justification for my position?
>>>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.
>
>Yes, I am open to it. My problem is that you are
>treating is like it's a natural assumption in this
>argument. It isn't. If you will admit that it is
>pure speculation
It isn't. I did give justification for my position. Feel free to address it.
>>>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.
>
>
>If it's a circle, in your picture the Big Bang would
>also be the end of the universe. Or you could pick
>any other point on the circle and call it a beginning
>and an end.
The Big Bang would seem more logical, since that is when the known physical universe began (as far as current scientific evidence goes).
>>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.
>
>You wouldn't make a very good Hindu.
I suppose not.
>>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.
>
>This just makes no sense to me. Don't you see that
>this agent had to decide to cause the universe to
>begin? And that decision would have represented an
>event, which would be time.
Again, you're still thinking temporally. Remember, the entity would have to be changeless. So, there is no "change." There is only a timeless "state" in "having chosen" to create the universe (go back to my diagram).
>>
>>[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.
>
>This
> |
> |
> |
>idea + + + + > makes no sense.
>
>It reminds me of the idea of the Trinity... we are
>expected to believe that 3 = 1.
Not quite. In mainstream Christian theology, God exists in there "components." Think of it this way. We humans are composed of trillions of living cells, though a human is still an individual entity. Wait, does that mean trillions = 1?? Biology is incoherent and wrong!!!
Or it could just mean that you misunderstood the concept.
>I suppose once you
>can accept that, your mind is ready to accept
>anything.
Not at all. I'm not ready to accept violations of ex nihilo nihil fit, the abandonment of logic and reason, the denial of free will and objective moral values etc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 