Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A finite past, and a coming into being

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 5:11:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You made this thread with regard to me and so I obliged and showed my face in honesty. Don't provoke me and I won't chastise you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 5:15:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 5:13:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This was infantile to the last.

You trolling my thread was very infantile indeed, I am glad you admit it. Also what do you mean that I made this thread "with regards to you", that makes no sense. This about about the universe having a finite past, and it coming into being....That has nothing to do with you. I think you are insane...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 6:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
andoctuir the filth of your trolling idiocy is a disease to this thread. this is actually a very interesting argument
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
X begins to exist if X exists & there was a time prior when X did not exist.

Problem ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

You are only saying that if one were to accept this on faith, then one would have no reason to question it. That isn't an argument.

If time began 13.7 billion years ago, then it is fair to question what was the process by which it came into being, and how can there even be a process without time for that process to occur in. You referred to 13.7 billion years ago, well then what about 13.8 billion years ago, your supporting argument is only "don't ask"?

The universe just is, time just is, there was no before, it always ways,...nice words, as an axiom of faith maybe, but it isn't supported by anything other than "why not"?

It just isn't an argument.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:12:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 10:00:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

You are only saying that if one were to accept this on faith, then one would have no reason to question it. That isn't an argument.

My argument is that a finite past of the universe doesn't necessary entail that it came into being, and I supported that argument fairly well.


If time began 13.7 billion years ago, then it is fair to question what was the process by which it came into being

Once again, this assumes that if the universe has a finite past, or a beginning point, that it came into being. I disproved that already.

, and how can there even be a process without time for that process to occur in.

I deny this "process" all together. As any process that brought the universe into being would have to be prior to the universe. What I am saying, is there is no reason to assume a "prior" to the universe at all. Have you not been paying attention?

You referred to 13.7 billion years ago, well then what about 13.8 billion years ago, your supporting argument is only "don't ask"?

There is no such thing as 13.8 billion years ago, as time only goes back 13.7 billion years.


The universe just is, time just is, there was no before, it always ways,...nice words, as an axiom of faith maybe, but it isn't supported by anything other than "why not"?

Actually, it is supported by our best science. The Big Bang states that time itself extends back 13.7 billion years, just like the universe (as they are intertwined). Sure, maybe time existed before that, but you would have to take that on faith..


It just isn't an argument.

Of course it is. I argued that a finite past doesn't necessitate that the universe came into being, and proved it.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:11:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 10:12:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/29/2013 10:00:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

You are only saying that if one were to accept this on faith, then one would have no reason to question it. That isn't an argument.

My argument is that a finite past of the universe doesn't necessary entail that it came into being, and I supported that argument fairly well.

No, you didn"t, and the hypocrisy with which you present your faith based assertions is astounding, you whine like a baby and throw a hissy fit when theists make similar claims that God just is. You want to argue that there was no prior to the Big Bang, then present an actual argument, don"t just make faith based declarations. What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles with uninformed pat answers which are not scientifically derived nor are they logical. Your unwarranted opinions amount to a na"ve misinterpretation of the cosmology you feign to know something about.

Your argument is that this assertion "just is", that is not an argument, how about you agree to formally debate me on it.


If time began 13.7 billion years ago, then it is fair to question what was the process by which it came into being

Once again, this assumes that if the universe has a finite past, or a beginning point, that it came into being. I disproved that already.

It"s comical that you call this inane blather a "proof", debate me.

, and how can there even be a process without time for that process to occur in.

I deny this "process" all together. As any process that brought the universe into being would have to be prior to the universe. What I am saying, is there is no reason to assume a "prior" to the universe at all. Have you not been paying attention?

What you are saying is that these are the axioms of my faith, believe in me and don"t question it. Have you not been paying attention?
Let"s debate it.

You referred to 13.7 billion years ago, well then what about 13.8 billion years ago, your supporting argument is only "don't ask"?

There is no such thing as 13.8 billion years ago, as time only goes back 13.7 billion years.

Sorry, but I"m not going to just join your religion and embrace your faith based beliefs, you have to actually have an argument to convince me.

The universe just is, time just is, there was no before, it always ways,...nice words, as an axiom of faith maybe, but it isn't supported by anything other than "why not"?

Actually, it is supported by our best science.

No it isn"t, it is supported by Google scholarship, and our "best science" isn"t what you read on Wikipedia and didn"t understand. Since you mention it, let agree that we stick with science and logic in the debate, I"m not interested in arguing with a religious fundamentalist that simply repeats unwarranted assertions.

The Big Bang states that time itself extends back 13.7 billion years, just like the universe (as they are intertwined).

Nope, debate me and you might learn something about science and logic.

Sure, maybe time existed before that, but you would have to take that on faith..

Just as you take on faith that time didn"t exist before that. You would need to have an actual argument to convince me, I"m not converting to your beliefs on nothing but faith.

It just isn't an argument.

Of course it is. I argued that a finite past doesn't necessitate that the universe came into being, and proved it.

No, you didn"t "prove" anything; you simply made uninformed assumptions and said "why not". In the end, your argument is logically inconsistent, unscientific, and based solely on lack of real knowledge about the subject matter, and your simplistic semantics games, the pretended certainty with which you present your uninformed opinions about scientific theory, and your hopelessly inconsistent logic do not in fact constitute "proof" by any stretch of the imagination.

I could easily refute this nonsense here, but then you"d just resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling, so I"d rather do it in a formal debate.

So rather than just blather your faith based nonsense constantly, how about you debate it and try to muster an actual supporting argument that has something to do with science and logic.

Let"s keep it scientific and logical, how about the resolution is "Our best science and logic proves that the universe has a finite past and no prior to the Big Bang", that is what you are contending here.

Since you made the assertion, you"re pro of course, and the burden of proof is on you, 8,000 words, five rounds, blah blah blah"the usual formal debate stuff.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 10:24:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote: : Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question: : : "When was the universe ever out of being?" : : If one responds with : : "Prior to the first state of the universe" : : Then I would ask: : : "Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

So a universe has still a finite past if it did not exist prior to the moment it started to exist ?

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe? "

Because it's a very possible thing with time, nothing forces us to consider the beginning of the universe as the beginning of time. Or is there ?!

With time it is possible to speak about a time before the Big first Banged. there is no reason we should limit ourselves to others otherwise we'd have to explain what cause time to start as well !
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Would it be fair to say that your conception of existence is 'being in the world' (nothing to do with Heidegger!)?

With this definition, 'being in the world' necessitates a 'world' to be in, and I believe you take the Universe to be this 'world'.

Does this not raise the problem of how the Universe exists, considering that the thought of the Universe being in itself (again, no connection to Existentialism) does not seem to make sense? E.g. you would not say that a box is contained within itself.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:37:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
A circle has a finite circumference, yet no point on that circumference is "the beginning."

So the circle just appears from nowhere in full form?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:31:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

Ok, I will attempt to tackle this again,

Firstly you work under the assumption that time began, I assume this concept stems from Steven Hawkins, Only I was tried to assert this same concept and I believe I was rightly shown that Steven is utterly assuming this position and very weakly at that.

I would like to see your argument for how time actually began, I assume it's along with the expansion of the universe, and is now what is known as space/time, that is that space and time are a fabric which is what the universe consists of.

Secondly we have an idea of something before the universe began, and it is the singularity, an infinitely dense and an infinitely small point, which expanded and caused space/time to exist........So the singularity existed before the expansion and thus before the creation of space/time.

Here is an excerpt of Professor Hawkins idea of the beginning of time.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.

So above we see that Steven Hawkins states that because we are unable to observe anything prior to the actual expansion of the singularity, then we might as well cut that bit out. Not that there was nothing prior but it is impossible to know what was prior due to not being able to know or observe what it was.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:32:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ Sidewalker

"No, you didn't"

Clearly I did. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote.

"...and the hypocrisy with which you present your faith based assertions is astounding, you whine like a baby and throw a hissy fit when theists make similar claims that God just is."

When did I ever throw such a hissy fit? If one wishes to avoid infinite regress, then something has to be "just is"; whether God, the universe, or anything else one can think of.

" You want to argue that there was no prior to the Big Bang, then present an actual argument, don"t just make faith based declarations."

I did not once say that there was on prior to The Big Bang, I said that this could be the case. Meaning, it is not necessary that a finite past equates to a coming into being. That's all I was arguing.

" What you are doing is dismissing foundational scientific principles with uninformed pat answers which are not scientifically derived nor are they logical. "

What scientific principles and I dismissing? It seems that statement was just randomly pulled from your a*s with nothing to support it.

"Your unwarranted opinions amount to a naive misinterpretation of the cosmology you feign to know something about."

How exactly does my view indicate I have a naive misinterpretation of cosmology? All you are doing is just saying random things without any argument lol How embarrassing...

"Your argument is that this assertion "just is", that is not an argument, how about you agree to formally debate me on it."

I never said that this view was actually the case, just that nothing rules it out. There could be a prior to the universe for all we know, but that assumption is not necessary. That is all I was arguing; quit straw-manning my position.

"It"s comical that you call this inane blather a "proof", debate me."

I'll debate you with this resolution:

"A finite past of the universe does not necessarily entail that the universe came into being"

...As that is all I am arguing; nothing more.

"What you are saying is that these are the axioms of my faith, believe in me and don"t question it. Have you not been paying attention?
Let"s debate it."

I never said that the no "prior" to the universe was true, I suggest you learn how to read. I just said that it could be true....Thus, it is not necessary that a universe with a finite past came into being, because to come into being, there would have to be a prior at which the universe was out of being.

"Sorry, but I"m not going to just join your religion and embrace your faith based beliefs, you have to actually have an argument to convince me."

What faith? I argued for my position in the OP, you STILL haven't even rebutted any part of my argument.

"Since you mention it, let agree that we stick with science and logic in the debate, I"m not interested in arguing with a religious fundamentalist that simply repeats unwarranted assertions."

How am I a religious fundamentalist, because I proved that a finite past doesn't equate to a coming into being necessarily? How does that non-sequitur follow? Oh ya, that's right, it doesn't.... I presented a rock solid argument that you are dodging. All you are doing is calling me names and questioning my understanding. These are Ad hominem fallacies...You still haven't even addressed my argument.

"Nope, debate me and you might learn something about science and logic."

Learn from you? Haha, that's a good one. Like I said, these are just Ad Hominems. How can I learn about logic from someone who commits countless fallacies like you?

"Just as you take on faith that time didn"t exist before that."

I don't take it on faith, and I don't hold that belief. I only said that it could be the case, I never said that it was. I think your reading problems are extremely severe...

"No, you didn"t "prove" anything; you simply made uninformed assumptions and said "why not". In the end, your argument is logically inconsistent, unscientific, and based solely on lack of real knowledge about the subject matter, and your simplistic semantics games, the pretended certainty with which you present your uninformed opinions about scientific theory, and your hopelessly inconsistent logic do not in fact constitute "proof" by any stretch of the imagination."

Translation:

"You know nothing, you didn't prove anything!"... Ummm yes I did. You can call my logic inconsistent, but what do you have to support that statement with? Oh ya, nothing. You haven't even addressed my argument once, all you have done is commit Ad Hominem fallacies by trying to attack my knowledge... That is pathetic bro, I suggest picking up a logic book.

"I could easily refute this nonsense here, but then you"d just resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling, so I"d rather do it in a formal debate."

Dude, this whole time all you have done is resort to Ad Hominem attacks. "You know nothing, you have no knowledge!". Actually, you also committed countless bare assertion fallacies. You say my position is illogical and goes against science, but never explained why. Assertions a a dime a dozen you know.

"So rather than just blather your faith based nonsense constantly, how about you debate it and try to muster an actual supporting argument that has something to do with science and logic."

See? All you have is name calling lol You say my argument is "faith based nonsense" but you don't actually attack my argument, you just call it names. Why don't you actually learn how to address people, because these Appeal to Ridicule fallacies you are spewing are not doing you any good pal.

"Let"s keep it scientific and logical, how about the resolution is "Our best science and logic proves that the universe has a finite past and no prior to the Big Bang", that is what you are contending here."

There could be a prior to the Big Bang, but then we have to ask what was prior to that? This is an infinite regress. Something has to exist, that has no "prior" to it.

You would need to have an actual argument to convince me, I"m not converting to your beliefs on nothing but faith.|
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 10:24:39 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote: : Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question: : : "When was the universe ever out of being?" : : If one responds with : : "Prior to the first state of the universe" : : Then I would ask: : : "Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"

So a universe has still a finite past if it did not exist prior to the moment it started to exist ?

Huh?? Lol


"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe? "

Because it's a very possible thing with time, nothing forces us to consider the beginning of the universe as the beginning of time. Or is there ?!

Yes, because space and time are intertwined with the universe itself. However, of course it's possible that time existed prior. I am just saying it is not a necessary assumption; that is all.


With time it is possible to speak about a time before the Big first Banged. there is no reason we should limit ourselves to others otherwise we'd have to explain what cause time to start as well !

No, because there would have to be a prior to time for this cause to exist. If there is no "prior", then no cause is possible (God would be causally prior to the universe if he caused it, but with no prior, that is impossible). The theist has to prove that there is a prior to the universe, because they can shove their God anywhere.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:37:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 12:29:45 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Would it be fair to say that your conception of existence is 'being in the world' (nothing to do with Heidegger!)?

With this definition, 'being in the world' necessitates a 'world' to be in, and I believe you take the Universe to be this 'world'.

Does this not raise the problem of how the Universe exists, considering that the thought of the Universe being in itself (again, no connection to Existentialism) does not seem to make sense? E.g. you would not say that a box is contained within itself.

The same problem goes for God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 1:31:45 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"


Ok, I will attempt to tackle this again,

Firstly you work under the assumption that time began, I assume this concept stems from Steven Hawkins, Only I was tried to assert this same concept and I believe I was rightly shown that Steven is utterly assuming this position and very weakly at that.

Most theists try to argue that a finite past is necessary, if you disagree then cool...


I would like to see your argument for how time actually began, I assume it's along with the expansion of the universe, and is now what is known as space/time, that is that space and time are a fabric which is what the universe consists of.

Makes sense to me...



Secondly we have an idea of something before the universe began, and it is the singularity,

The singularity WAS the universe, just in a different compressed state... It didn't exist before the universe.

..an infinitely dense and an infinitely small point, which expanded and caused space/time to exist........So the singularity existed before the expansion and thus before the creation of space/time."

Impossible. Something existing "before" "time" is illogical.

Here is an excerpt of Professor Hawkins idea of the beginning of time.


Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.


So above we see that Steven Hawkins states that because we are unable to observe anything prior to the actual expansion of the singularity, then we might as well cut that bit out.

Might as well, I agree (Occam'z razor)

Not that there was nothing prior but it is impossible to know what was prior due to not being able to know or observe what it was.

Perhaps there was no prior at all?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 1:40:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 1:31:45 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/29/2013 4:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
More often than not, I find that people equate a finite past with a coming into being like they are synonymous with each other, or as if one necessarily follows from the other. This seems like a grave mistake to me. For something to come into being, it must have been out of being; this seems like a self-evident truth. It is similar to how I can only come into my house, if I was outside of my house prior to that. Now, a finite past of x, usually does imply that x came into being, but that is only because there is a "prior" to that at which x does not exist (or is "out of being" as I like to put it). For example, I was out of being in 1986, thus we can say I came into being in 1987, because there is a prior to 1987 at which I do not exist in 1986. With the universe however, there may not even be a "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. The idea of the universe coming into being would only make sense if prior to the universe's first state 13.7 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. However, if there is no prior to that, then how can we say the universe came into being? If the universe came into being, then it must have been out of being, but when was it ever out of being? Prior to the universe? This assumes there was a prior, why assume such a thing? It doesn't seem necessary at all. Even with a finite past, it would still make sense to say that the universe has never been out of being if we assume there is no "prior" to the universe. We can say the universe has always existed, even with a finite past as well as "always" simply means "at all times" (as far as we know, the universe has existed during all 13.7 years of time there has been).

Therefore, even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. One would have to answer this question:

"When was the universe ever out of being?"

If one responds with

"Prior to the first state of the universe"

Then I would ask:

"Why assume there was a prior to the first state of the universe?"


Ok, I will attempt to tackle this again,

Firstly you work under the assumption that time began, I assume this concept stems from Steven Hawkins, Only I was tried to assert this same concept and I believe I was rightly shown that Steven is utterly assuming this position and very weakly at that.

Most theists try to argue that a finite past is necessary, if you disagree then cool...


I would like to see your argument for how time actually began, I assume it's along with the expansion of the universe, and is now what is known as space/time, that is that space and time are a fabric which is what the universe consists of.

Makes sense to me...



Secondly we have an idea of something before the universe began, and it is the singularity,

The singularity WAS the universe, just in a different compressed state... It didn't exist before the universe.

The singularity was indeed the universe, but in it's compressed state, an infinitely dense and infinitely small point, only at this point not even time existed as everything was in such a compressed state that nothing counted for time to exsit.



..an infinitely dense and an infinitely small point, which expanded and caused space/time to exist........So the singularity existed before the expansion and thus before the creation of space/time."

Impossible. Something existing "before" "time" is illogical.

Why is it impossible. It's not that it existed before time, but time has no effect on it's existence....Similar to a black hole where even time stops when you get sucked into it.

Here is an excerpt of Professor Hawkins idea of the beginning of time.


Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.


So above we see that Steven Hawkins states that because we are unable to observe anything prior to the actual expansion of the singularity, then we might as well cut that bit out.

Might as well, I agree (Occam'z razor)

Not that there was nothing prior but it is impossible to know what was prior due to not being able to know or observe what it was.

Perhaps there was no prior at all?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 1:48:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Talking about time, My time is up, my shift is over and my relaxing at home has come to being.

Bake potato

That is slang see you later in the east end of London.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 2:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 1:07:38 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:37:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
A circle has a finite circumference, yet no point on that circumference is "the beginning."

So the circle just appears from nowhere in full form?

You're missing the point. The point was to note that something being finite in some dimension or measurement does not necessitate some sort of "beginning" or "end" and this is demonstrated by the concept of the circle; the practical considerations in constructing real-world representations of circles is immaterial.

Furthermore, the construction of a circle reveals a "beginning" and "end" only when you plot said construction on a timeline. That is, you extrude the "life" of the circle across the temporal dimension. That wouldn't apply here as the circle itself would represent the temporal dimension. In this sense, your question is incoherent. Out side of a temporal context, "appears" has no meaning.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 7:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is the whole reason I'm not so crazy about the Kalam argument...

Great argument by the way, RationalThinker. Not sure how to answer, but I'll keep it in mind and follow this thread. If I come up with anything of value, I'll post it here.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."