Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Possible Kalam Objection?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, it seems like a contradiction to say that time has existed for 13.7 billion years, because only things IN time can be measured in such a way. If X has existed for a certain amount of time, then X must be in time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:36:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, we cannot logically give an age to the universe (and time), as that would presuppose time was in time (which is impossible). We cannot give spatial location to it either.

Ergo, the universe has existed for 0 time, and has 0 spatial location.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:40:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something that has existed for 0 time cannot begin to exist, so the universe couldn't have begun to exist. If something began to exist, then that presupposes it has an age (from then, the time it began to exist, till now). However, we already established that we cannot give an age to time itself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:41:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is one reason why Richard Swinburne's theology makes a lot of sense. Something can only begin to exist if it is IN time.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:45:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

Hmm... for some reason that just sounds like a contradiction to say that space/time is spaceless and timeless...
"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."
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:49:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:45:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

Hmm... for some reason that just sounds like a contradiction to say that space/time is spaceless and timeless...

It sounds that way, but it is not, for the reason I mentioned.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:51:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.

Yes, but that just pushes the question back further, potentially leading to an infinite regress.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:51:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:45:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

Hmm... for some reason that just sounds like a contradiction to say that space/time is spaceless and timeless...

Also, remember, only something within time can have an age. So, time itself has existed for 0 time. Something that has existed for 0 time couldn't have begun to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.

Also, all one needs to do is say that it is possible that there is only one time or one space. If this is even possible, then one can escape the Kalam the way I mentioned. Remember, the Kalam advocate has to prove the universe began to exist, so they would have to prove that there is more than one time, or more than one space. Seems impossible...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:51:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.

Yes, but that just pushes the question back further, potentially leading to an infinite regress.

How so? Do you mean that infinite space occupies a certain space? Or an infinite amount of time passes every second? Mathematically speaking, wouldn't this be true anyway? (E.g. between a second is half a second, then a fourth, then an eighth, and so on.)

Isn't it also debatable if timeless things could've had a beginning?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:58:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:56:39 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:51:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.

Yes, but that just pushes the question back further, potentially leading to an infinite regress.

How so? Do you mean that infinite space occupies a certain space? Or an infinite amount of time passes every second? Mathematically speaking, wouldn't this be true anyway? (E.g. between a second is half a second, then a fourth, then an eighth, and so on.)

Lets say that time exists in some other time, what does THAT time exist in? SOME OTHER TIME?! It just goes on forever. Eventually we have to stop at a time, that is, itself, not in time.


Isn't it also debatable if timeless things could've had a beginning?

Timeless things cannot begin to exist, because that presupposes temporal becoming. [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:02:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I would be willing to concede that the universe could have began to exist, but it would have to be in time, and in space, like Richard Swinburne advocates. The way Dr. Craig says it happened is what doesn't sit right with me.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:07:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The main argument here is that time as a whole cannot begin to exist. So, even if the universe exists in some other time, eventually, there would have to be a time which isn't in any other time. That time wouldn't begin to exist, ergo, no cause needed to explain the "chain" of times (or w/e) as far as the Kalam is concerned. The problem is that if there are enough of these universes, due to the laws of quantum mechanics, a universe like ours would pop out eventually through physical means alone. So, there is literally no reason for God to do anything.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:09:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, if there is this chain of times and spaces, then the Kalam is defeated in another way, because there is no chance for God to create space and time from nothing, as there is always more space, and more time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:22:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, to sum up, only something within time can have an age, this is true necessarily. If you say object A has existed for X amount of time, then you are saying that object A exists within time. Therefore, it is impossible for time to have an age. However, we can only refer to something with an age as something that began to exist (as that presupposes a time interval from between when it began to exist and now). Ergo, time didn't begin to exist. Ergo, if we define the universe as all space and time, then there is no reason why it couldn't be the case that the universe did not begin to exist!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:26:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You've essentially said that the universe is timeless and spaceless. Which is what is fishy to me. The universe clearly exists within space - there is just no space outside of the universe. It is more of a synthetic relationship than an analytic one. Take for example the singularity as a postulated state of existence before the 'big bang' and so before the universe. This object would exist within space-time.

I think this circles (that is, is very similar) to the objection that things that the phrase 'begins to exist' presupposes the existence of time. So 'time began to exist' supposes time existing before time, which is contradictory. In other words, you've got a second-rate version of this objection, and it sounds true because you're on the right lines. Or in nicer (and probably more accurate) terms, you've found another theory that's on the right lines, but not perfect.

As you've said referencing Craig's admission, "Timeless things cannot begin to exist, because that presupposes temporal becoming". Similarly, time cannot begin to exist, because that supposes temporal becoming. Therefore, the universe (which is said to mean space-time) cannot begin to exist, because space-time cannot begin to exist.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You are building all this on the premise that Time is only the universe time, and that space is only the Universe space.

with KCA, Time is infinite, yet the universe is finite at least in the past.

Can you prove time began to exist ?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:58:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:56:39 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:51:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:46:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You essentially just said:

Time is not within itself, and neither is space. After all, you defined the universe as space and time, and proceeded to say the universe is not in time or space, meaning space and time is not within itself.

This isn't necessarily true. There can exist space within space, or time within time.

Yes, but that just pushes the question back further, potentially leading to an infinite regress.

How so? Do you mean that infinite space occupies a certain space? Or an infinite amount of time passes every second? Mathematically speaking, wouldn't this be true anyway? (E.g. between a second is half a second, then a fourth, then an eighth, and so on.)

Lets say that time exists in some other time, what does THAT time exist in? SOME OTHER TIME?! It just goes on forever. Eventually we have to stop at a time, that is, itself, not in time.


Isn't it also debatable if timeless things could've had a beginning?

Timeless things cannot begin to exist, because that presupposes temporal becoming. [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]

You're thinking about it in the wrong way. Instead of going to higher levels of time, go to lower levels. For example, there exists one time, and within that time there is an infinite amount of times. Not so much this: "There's a time, but what time does that exist in?"

Alternatively (I think this was a debate you participated in), you could argue that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement, meaning there is more than one time (since time would be subjective, based on whether you are an internal or external observer).

There's something else I noticed. You're argument is, from what I understand, this:

1. To be timeless is to be outside of time.
2. Time cannot be within itself (so it must be outside itself).
C: Time is timeless.

You then repeated the process with space.

If we accept your definition of timeless (it actually means to not be affected by the passage of time, which I guess you could argue is the same as being outside of time ), then the problem occurs in your second point. Even if time cannot be within itself (which is entirely possible, as I demonstrated above), does that mean it is outside itself? No. This is because time is time. It is itself, and that's all there is to it. Using this logic, we can substitute time with "X" and form a new argument:

1. To be X'less is to be outside of X.
2. X cannot be within itself.
C: X is X'less.

Now just plug in any variety of concepts, and your argument suggests that everything that fits into "X" is a contradiction of itself. The following would be a poor example, but it's just something off the top of my head:

1. To be meaningless is to be outside of meaning (i.e. to not have meaning)
2. Meaning cannot be within itself.
C: Meaning is meaningless.

Lastly, what do you mean by temporal becoming?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

The universe cannot be spatial and temporal, because that would mean the universe is in time and space. But the universe IS time and space and what it contains.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 9:36:18 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

You are building all this on the premise that Time is only the universe time, and that space is only the Universe space.

with KCA, Time is infinite, yet the universe is finite at least in the past.

With the KCA time is finite, which is the support for the second premise..


Can you prove time began to exist ?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

Either way, the point is that only something with an age can have began to exist (there must be a interval of time from between when it began to exist, and now). However, for something to have an age, it must be IN time. Time itself cannot be within time, ergo, time itself must have existed for 0 time. Ergo, time couldn't have began to exist.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:13:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:06:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

The universe cannot be spatial and temporal, because that would mean the universe is in time and space. But the universe IS time and space and what it contains.

Here's the equivocation I think you're making.

Being IN space and IN time means that there's a spacial dimention and a temporal dimension that one is located within.

Being in space and time means that one is spacial and temporal. In other words, if something is in space and time, then it has a spacial dimension and a temporal dimension.

So there's an equivocation on the phrase "in space and time" that I think you're making. I can grant that the universe is not in space and time in the first sense, but it IS in space and time in the second sense because obviously the universe has a spacial dimension and a temporal dimension.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:14:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:09:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

Either way, the point is that only something with an age can have began to exist (there must be a interval of time from between when it began to exist, and now). However, for something to have an age, it must be IN time. Time itself cannot be within time, ergo, time itself must have existed for 0 time. Ergo, time couldn't have began to exist.

Again, this just strikes me as being an equivocation on the phrase "in time."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:32:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:13:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/3/2014 1:06:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

The universe cannot be spatial and temporal, because that would mean the universe is in time and space. But the universe IS time and space and what it contains.

Here's the equivocation I think you're making.

Being IN space and IN time means that there's a spacial dimention and a temporal dimension that one is located within.

Being in space and time means that one is spacial and temporal. In other words, if something is in space and time, then it has a spacial dimension and a temporal dimension.

Exactly, but space and time cannot be within space and time. Clearly contradictory lol


So there's an equivocation on the phrase "in space and time" that I think you're making.

Non-sequitur.

can grant that the universe is not in space and time in the first sense, but it IS in space and time in the second sense because obviously the universe has a spacial dimension and a temporal dimension.

The universe IS space and time, ergo, it cannot be within space and time. The universe has 0 spatial location, and has existed for 0 time necessarily.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:33:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:14:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/3/2014 1:09:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

Either way, the point is that only something with an age can have began to exist (there must be a interval of time from between when it began to exist, and now). However, for something to have an age, it must be IN time. Time itself cannot be within time, ergo, time itself must have existed for 0 time. Ergo, time couldn't have began to exist.

Again, this just strikes me as being an equivocation on the phrase "in time."

In time only means one thing... Within the temporal domain. Time cannot be within time. CLEARLY contradictory lol Come on now....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:14:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/3/2014 1:09:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 10:48:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:23:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To be timeless and spaceless is to not be in time, and to not be in space. The universe (space and time) is not in time or in space, that would be a contradiction (time itself cannot be within time, and space itself cannot be within space). Ergo, time and space are timeless and spaceless. If timeless things can't begin to exist, then the universe (space and time along with what it contains) couldn't have begun to exist.

Am I way off my rocker, or an I on to something here? lol

I think this is an equivocation on words. I mean granted, the universe does not sit in a broader meta-time and meta-space, but to say that God (or anything else) is in time or space is just to say that he (or it) is temporal and spacial. Of course the universe is temporal and spacial.

Either way, the point is that only something with an age can have began to exist (there must be a interval of time from between when it began to exist, and now). However, for something to have an age, it must be IN time. Time itself cannot be within time, ergo, time itself must have existed for 0 time. Ergo, time couldn't have began to exist.

Again, this just strikes me as being an equivocation on the phrase "in time."

Since "in time" can only mean one thing, it is impossible for me to be equivocating.