Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Eternalism and the Existence of God

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Now considering that this view is new to me, I am going to present a plethora of questions in reference to this argument, or I may present objections myself. I wish to better understand this argument, and hopefully by better understanding it I can formulate a sound opinion on it.

Actual Infinities

The common argument I have seen is that if all moments are simultaneously actual, then creation is unnecessary since the implication is that there is nothing to create given that everything already exists. The mere idea of creation implies presentism. Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?

a. If yes again, doesn't William Lane Craig's arguments against actual infinities apply here? For example, "Craig argues that if actual infinites that neither increase nor decrease in the number of members they contain were to exist, we would have rather absurd consequences. For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose that the library also contains an infinite number of red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as red and black books combined. But this is absurd; in reality the subset cannot be equivalent to the entire set. Hence, actual infinites cannot exist in reality." Now simply replace red books with say, moments before my presence on the eternalistic time line, and black books with moments after my presence on the time line. We would see then that there are as many moments before me "existing" (I use this term loosely because given eternalism, everything always actually exists. However, there are moments that actually exist in which I am not present in. For example, prehistoric times.) as there are moments after me existing, and there are as many moments before me existing as there are moments in the entire infinite set.

B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?

Causation

It would seem that if causation did not exist, then there would be no reason for some things to happen and others to not happen. For example, if causation does not actually exist, then why do acorns grow into oak trees, as oppose to say, growing into a puppy? Or why is it that when a healthy heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse, a pregnancy results?

Even more puzzling, why is it that given certain circumstances, certain consequences always follow? If I throw a brick at the right force at a frail enough window, the window will always shatter. Yet, if causation does not exist then there should not be a consistency in certain causes and certain effects. In fact, no change should ever occur at all if causation does not exist. Every actual moment on the eternalistic timeline should be exactly the same. How does eternalism explain the differences between each actual moment?

Also, we use science and math to determine what causes will produce what effects, or to make observations about our world. However, if causation does not exist, then the use of science and math to determine causes and effects is dubious. It isn't physical laws that determine that when I throw a brick at a window it will shatter, because throwing a break at a window has no correlation with the window shattering given that change does not exist (since all moments are always actually existing) and each moment exists independently of every other moment. Likewise, using science and math to make observations about our world would be dubious because there exists no correlation between using science and math (the cause) to produce the effect of discovering things about our world. Also, since every moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist, there is no reason to believe that a green coffee mug in one moment will remain a green coffee mug in the next. From here, an argument can be made that belief in eternalism through scientific inquiry is self defeating.

P1. One should believe in eternalism because current scientific discoveries imply it

P2. If eternalism is true, then causation does not exist

P3. If causation does not exist, then there is no reason to believe that certain causes create certain effects, nor do certain observations of one moment have any bearing on what will exist in another moment

P4. The scientific experiments used to determine that one ought to believe in eternalism are experiments of cause, effect, and observation

P5. But if eternalism is true, then cause, effect, and observation are ultimately dubious since each moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist

C1. Eternalism is self defeating

Eternalism implies Determinism

If all moments exist actually, and causation does not exist, then it would imply that free will does not exist given that the past, present, and future are all fixed. If everything is fixed, then you were also fixed so as to believe in eternalism. But if you were fixed to believe in eternalism and did not choose to believe in it out of free will and reason, then you have no justifiable reason to believe in eternalism. Therefore belief in eternalism is self defeating.

The Flow of Time

If every moment exists actually, then why is it that I perceive this particular moment? Moreso, why is it that I perceive a plethora of actually existing moments throughout my life time? Why aren't I simply fixed in particular moment, or why don't I randomly perceive actually existing moments of my lifetime? How does eternalism explain our sense of a flow of time? Why is there a certain order and consistency to the events that I perceive? Finally, why is it that there was a time when I perceived nothing (before I was born)? Shouldn't this be impossible given that I always actually exist?

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

Even if eternalism were true, the universe cannot explain its own existence given its contingency. A universe that exists eternally still would have to derive its existence from something, since the universe does not necessarily exist. The only way something could exist eternally and necessarily is if its essence were its existence (or to be a bit more aristotelian, if it were pure actuality with no potency). We call this being God. So even if an eternalistic universe existed, it would still have to derive its existence from God since the universe exists contingently, and not necessarily.
Nolite Timere
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

I guess I am famous now.

The mere idea of creation implies presentism.
How eternalism relates to the idea of creation in general, I don't know. However, the important thing is how WLC defines "begins to exist" in his KCA:

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

(iv) predicates the KCA on presentism, as under eternalism tensed facts don't exist.

Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."
Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?
No actually, I'll expand on this one below.

a. If yes again, doesn't William Lane Craig's arguments against actual infinities apply here?
WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?

Causation

It would seem that if causation did not exist, then there would be no reason for some things to happen and others to not happen. For example, if causation does not actually exist, then why do acorns grow into oak trees, as oppose to say, growing into a puppy? Or why is it that when a healthy heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse, a pregnancy results?

I had to remove parts of your post because of character limits.

Also, we use science and math to determine what causes will produce what effects, or to make observations about our world.
Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time. Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

However, if causation does not exist, then the use of science and math to determine causes and effects is dubious.
I am not quite sure in what sense mathematics is related to causation.

It isn't physical laws that determine that when I throw a brick at a window it will shatter, because throwing a break at a window has no correlation with the window shattering given that change does not exist (since all moments are always actually existing) and each moment exists independently of every other moment.
In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

P1. One should believe in eternalism because current scientific discoveries imply it
Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

P2. If eternalism is true, then causation does not exist
I doubt many eternalists actually believe this.

Eternalism implies Determinism
Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

If all moments exist actually, and causation does not exist, then it would imply that free will does not exist given that the past, present, and future are all fixed.
Most eternalists, me included, are compatibilists.

If everything is fixed, then you were also fixed so as to believe in eternalism. But if you were fixed to believe in eternalism and did not choose to believe in it out of free will and reason,
Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

The Flow of Time

If every moment exists actually, then why is it that I perceive this particular moment?
Frankly, even under presentism every (spatial) place exists at this moment, but that does not mean that you perceive it.

Moreso, why is it that I perceive a plethora of actually existing moments throughout my life time? Why aren't I simply fixed in particular moment, or why don't I randomly perceive actually existing moments of my lifetime? How does eternalism explain our sense of a flow of time? Why is there a certain order and consistency to the events that I perceive?
That is actually a very good question. As far as I know, when you go down to sub-atomic physics the equations are reversible. We don't know why there seems to be this arrow time. Perhaps entropy explains the macro phenomenon of time directionality, I don't know. But if it does, then the eternalist can simply claim that in some parts of the blockuniverse entropy is lower.

Finally, why is it that there was a time when I perceived nothing (before I was born)?
Well "you" did not exist back then, so "you" could not perceive anything.

Shouldn't this be impossible given that I always actually exist?
"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

Even if eternalism were true, the universe cannot explain its own existence given its contingency. A universe that exists eternally still would have to derive its existence from something, since the universe does not necessarily exist. The only way something could exist eternally and necessarily is if its essence were its existence (or to be a bit more aristotelian, if it were pure actuality with no potency). We call this being God. So even if an eternalistic universe existed, it would still have to derive its existence from God since the universe exists contingently, and not necessarily.
Now you shifted from the Kalam Cosmological argument to the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Sure, eternalism does not count against the latter. But that is usually not what people, who claim the universe was created, appeal to.

I hope this helps.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 8:06:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Now considering that this view is new to me, I am going to present a plethora of questions in reference to this argument, or I may present objections myself. I wish to better understand this argument, and hopefully by better understanding it I can formulate a sound opinion on it.

Actual Infinities

The common argument I have seen is that if all moments are simultaneously actual, then creation is unnecessary since the implication is that there is nothing to create given that everything already exists. The mere idea of creation implies presentism. Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that there is a first moment of the universe, no in the sense that the first moment was its first state in time.
A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?

No.
a. If yes again, doesn't William Lane Craig's arguments against actual infinities apply here? For example, "Craig argues that if actual infinites that neither increase nor decrease in the number of members they contain were to exist, we would have rather absurd consequences. For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose that the library also contains an infinite number of red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as red and black books combined. But this is absurd; in reality the subset cannot be equivalent to the entire set. Hence, actual infinites cannot exist in reality." Now simply replace red books with say, moments before my presence on the eternalistic time line, and black books with moments after my presence on the time line. We would see then that there are as many moments before me "existing" (I use this term loosely because given eternalism, everything always actually exists. However, there are moments that actually exist in which I am not present in. For example, prehistoric times.) as there are moments after me existing, and there are as many moments before me existing as there are moments in the entire infinite set.

I can't remember where, but I recall Craig specifically stating that this argument doesn't work with eternalism. I can't find the video. It was titled "William Lane Craig on the B theory" or something like that.

I've never liked that argument anyway, since it deals with an infinite amount of entities in a given place. Whereas an infinite series of events is placed throughout time.
B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?

The beginning is like inch one on a ruler that's existed forever. It has a beginning in one context, but it wasn't caused to come into being.


Causation

You're basically wanting an account for the arrow of time. The universe is bound by the second law of thermodynamics which accounts for an arrow of time. It's also not the case that eternalism doesn't allow for any type of causation, just some prohibit objective causation. Subjective causation or even causation that emerges internally wouldn't contradict eternalism or its argument's conclusion. Furthermore, certain subsets of eternalism allow for objective causation, but when applying it to the universe itself we get the same problem as the states of time have always existed. It's like a ruler that has existed forever, but a light moves throughout the ruler's inches.


Eternalism implies Determinism

If all moments exist actually, and causation does not exist, then it would imply that free will does not exist given that the past, present, and future are all fixed. If everything is fixed, then you were also fixed so as to believe in eternalism. But if you were fixed to believe in eternalism and did not choose to believe in it out of free will and reason, then you have no justifiable reason to believe in eternalism. Therefore belief in eternalism is self defeating.

You're assuming incompatiblism , but anyway you haven't shown that determined reasoning is necessarily unjustified reasoning. Computers don't have wills of their own, but they can be set up to solve mathematical problems that we haven't yet solved (four color problem). This doesn't entail that its solutions are unjustified.

The Flow of Time

Already answered in the causation section.

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

The eternalistic argument attempts to refute the conception of God that says he created the universe. Not that the universe is contingent upon him.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 8:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am on my phone right now so I won't be able to provide a link, but my post is in regards to the arrow of time point (as I feel the others have been or will be sufficiently explained).
Some experiments in quantum mechanics suggest that an arrow of time might exist due to quantum entanglement.
I also have read an interesting paper that suggested that if the mind is contingent on the brain then we would expect to have an experience of a flow of time. This is because the B-Theory of Time (which is an eternalist theory of time) allows for different physical states at different temoral locations. This means that the brain (and ultimately the mind) would have a different state at different temporal locations.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 8:26:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 8:24:58 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I am on my phone right now so I won't be able to provide a link, but my post is in regards to the arrow of time point (as I feel the others have been or will be sufficiently explained).
Some experiments in quantum mechanics suggest that an arrow of time might exist due to quantum entanglement.
https://medium.com...
I also have read an interesting paper that suggested that if the mind is contingent on the brain then we would expect to have an experience of a flow of time. This is because the B-Theory of Time (which is an eternalist theory of time) allows for different physical states at different temoral locations. This means that the brain (and ultimately the mind) would have a different state at different temporal locations.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 10:51:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:

I deleted a lot of stuff to make some character space, so you may need to refer back to the last post for some context on what I am responding to.

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I don't understand how causation can exist given that every event already exists. I am not sure how a simple regularity theory of causation applies to B-Theory given that there really is no such thing as past, present, and future since all things exist at once.

WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

So are you saying that the block universe did come into existence/have a beginning?

Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time.

I don't understand how change in a system over time is any different between causes and effects. Change implies cause and effect does it not?

Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

I would be interested in reading it.

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

But how does change happen if every moment simultaneously exists? What is the explanation for why it would have a different set of attributes?

Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

What other reasons? I thought that the reason it was being argued in favor of recently was because of scientific discoveries and theories regarding special relativity. Although I will be totally honest, I do not know or understand the science behind it well at all.

Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

How so?

Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

Because the only reason someone believes what they believe in determinism is because a certain set of physical factors preceding them forced them to hold that belief. It is not, however intuitive it may seem, because they actually reasoned properly came to that belief of their own reasoning and will.

Well "you" did not exist back then, so "you" could not perceive anything.

But I always exist, so should I not always be perceiving something? Also, in eternalism there is no such thing as "back then," because everything exists simultaneously.

"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

But why does that matter? If there is even a small portion in which I exist, and if all moments exist simultaneously, then I should always be perceiving something. Eternalism may imply many problems with self identity.

Now you shifted from the Kalam Cosmological argument to the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Sure, eternalism does not count against the latter. But that is usually not what people, who claim the universe was created, appeal to.

I have seen eternalism used as a general argument against the existence of God, not one specifically used against the KCA. My point in saying that was that even if eternalism is true, it does not imply that God does not exist.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 8:06:14 PM, Epica wrote:
You're basically wanting an account for the arrow of time. The universe is bound by the second law of thermodynamics which accounts for an arrow of time. It's also not the case that eternalism doesn't allow for any type of causation, just some prohibit objective causation. Subjective causation or even causation that emerges internally wouldn't contradict eternalism or its argument's conclusion.

Can you explain further how these types of causation can exist in a block universe? Perhaps provide examples?

Eternalism implies Determinism

Computers don't have wills of their own, but they can be set up to solve mathematical problems that we haven't yet solved (four color problem). This doesn't entail that its solutions are unjustified.

Computers are made by an intelligent being. Given atheism, humans are not. They do what they do because physical laws preceding them determined it.

The Flow of Time

Already answered in the causation section.

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

The eternalistic argument attempts to refute the conception of God that says he created the universe. Not that the universe is contingent upon him.

Okay.
Nolite Timere
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 12:14:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 10:57:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 8:06:14 PM, Epica wrote:
You're basically wanting an account for the arrow of time. The universe is bound by the second law of thermodynamics which accounts for an arrow of time. It's also not the case that eternalism doesn't allow for any type of causation, just some prohibit objective causation. Subjective causation or even causation that emerges internally wouldn't contradict eternalism or its argument's conclusion.

Can you explain further how these types of causation can exist in a block universe? Perhaps provide examples?

Imagine the all stage with a spotlight moving across it. The spot where the light is hitting can be thought of as the present and in front of it the future, behind it the past. There is change and thus causality, but there is no true first state of the universe in time.

Or change being emergent from quantum mechanics. Outside the universe, you'd see everything as static, but within the universe you'd experience change because of quantum entanglement. It would be a byproduct of the universe, not a feature of it.

Since the universe is bound by the second law of thermodynamics, it follows an arrow of time. Which is why states of the universe that are after any specific state follow each other. Beings in the world themselves are bound to this and thus experience causality.
Eternalism implies Determinism

Computers don't have wills of their own, but they can be set up to solve mathematical problems that we haven't yet solved (four color problem). This doesn't entail that its solutions are unjustified.

Computers are made by an intelligent being. Given atheism, humans are not. They do what they do because physical laws preceding them determined it.

Computers do what they do because of the preceding physical state too. What does being made by an intelligent being have anything to do with its reasoning being justified?

Let's say someone is walking towards a swamp and gets struck by lightning. The lightning rearranges his molecules into a computer that is solving mathematical problems. It is identical to every other computer (hardware wise) and functions the same as them all, but is its solutions somehow unjustified now? Even though it has the same hardware. How is it intrinsically special? It doesn't seem to be any different than a computer that was created by intelligence.

The Flow of Time

Already answered in the causation section.

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

The eternalistic argument attempts to refute the conception of God that says he created the universe. Not that the universe is contingent upon him.

Okay.
Yep.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 10:51:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:

I deleted a lot of stuff to make some character space, so you may need to refer back to the last post for some context on what I am responding to.

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I don't understand how causation can exist given that every event already exists. I am not sure how a simple regularity theory of causation applies to B-Theory given that there really is no such thing as past, present, and future since all things exist at once.
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

So are you saying that the block universe did come into existence/have a beginning?
Well, no. The block universe exists as just that, a block universe.

Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time.

I don't understand how change in a system over time is any different between causes and effects. Change implies cause and effect does it not?
My point is that at no point do scientists actually talk about causality. I'll have to think about whether there is a difference tomorrow. But if it is just that, then I don't see your problem with eternalism and causality. The blockuniverse is basically like the Minkowski spacetime of general relativity.

Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

I would be interested in reading it.
I'll present it when I get the chance to seriously debate the topic. I have not seen it being used on this site so I'd like to save it up :)

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

But how does change happen if every moment simultaneously exists?
You observe an object at two different points of time and compare their attributes.

What is the explanation for why it would have a different set of attributes?
I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

What other reasons?
For example the argument I was talking about.

I thought that the reason it was being argued in favor of recently was because of scientific discoveries and theories regarding special relativity. Although I will be totally honest, I do not know or understand the science behind it well at all.
Special relativity does not on it's own posit that all times are equally real. Rather it denies that there is some kind of objective present moment that is ontologically privileged over preceding or succeeding moments. The only ontology compatible with this is eternalism.

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1.

Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

How so?
Determinism to me means that events are necessitated by antecedent events in combination with the laws of nature. Indeterminism then is this claims denial.
What is certain is that something will inevitably happen, whether or not it (in)determinism is true. This is I think all that is needed for it to be compatible.

Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

Because the only reason someone believes what they believe in determinism is because a certain set of physical factors preceding them forced them to hold that belief. It is not, however intuitive it may seem, because they actually reasoned properly came to that belief of their own reasoning and will.
Pardon but I don't understand how this is not an arbitrary distinction. A lives in a deterministic universe and B lives in an indeterministic universe. It is possible for the exact same process to happen in either universe. Therefore whether or not determinism is true, as long as the actual reasoning process is sound I don't see why determinism should factor into justification.

Well "you" did not exist back then, so "you" could not perceive anything.

But I always exist, so should I not always be perceiving something?
To this I have responded in my first comment.

Also, in eternalism there is no such thing as "back then," because everything exists simultaneously.
Under eternalism events extend in the earlier and later than direction. Similarly the special theory of relativity states that individual objects still possess an absolute past. Hence, at some point in time earlier than what you perceive to be the current moment, you did not exist.

"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

But why does that matter? If there is even a small portion in which I exist, and if all moments exist simultaneously, then I should always be perceiving something.
And you are indeed always perceiving something, but just the, from your perspective, current moment.

Eternalism may imply many problems with self identity.
Actually you need eternalism for perdurantism and exdurantism, the strongest theories of persistence.

Now you shifted from the Kalam Cosmological argument to the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Sure, eternalism does not count against the latter. But that is usually not what people, who claim the universe was created, appeal to.

I have seen eternalism used as a general argument against the existence of God, not one specifically used against the KCA.
Typically God is put forward as the creator of the universe. Very much in the KCA sense. And eternalism does, if true, show that no such creator God exists.

My point in saying that was that even if eternalism is true, it does not imply that God does not exist.
There might of course be other kinds of beings, ones that are omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, this possibility is not ruled out by eternalism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 8:42:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/5/2015 10:51:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:

I deleted a lot of stuff to make some character space, so you may need to refer back to the last post for some context on what I am responding to.

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I don't understand how causation can exist given that every event already exists. I am not sure how a simple regularity theory of causation applies to B-Theory given that there really is no such thing as past, present, and future since all things exist at once.
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

So are you saying that the block universe did come into existence/have a beginning?
Well, no. The block universe exists as just that, a block universe.

Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time.

I don't understand how change in a system over time is any different between causes and effects. Change implies cause and effect does it not?
My point is that at no point do scientists actually talk about causality. I'll have to think about whether there is a difference tomorrow. But if it is just that, then I don't see your problem with eternalism and causality. The blockuniverse is basically like the Minkowski spacetime of general relativity.

Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

I would be interested in reading it.
I'll present it when I get the chance to seriously debate the topic. I have not seen it being used on this site so I'd like to save it up :)

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

But how does change happen if every moment simultaneously exists?
You observe an object at two different points of time and compare their attributes.

What is the explanation for why it would have a different set of attributes?
I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

What other reasons?
For example the argument I was talking about.

I thought that the reason it was being argued in favor of recently was because of scientific discoveries and theories regarding special relativity. Although I will be totally honest, I do not know or understand the science behind it well at all.
Special relativity does not on it's own posit that all times are equally real. Rather it denies that there is some kind of objective present moment that is ontologically privileged over preceding or succeeding moments. The only ontology compatible with this is eternalism.

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1.

Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

How so?
Determinism to me means that events are necessitated by antecedent events in combination with the laws of nature. Indeterminism then is this claims denial.
What is certain is that something will inevitably happen, whether or not it (in)determinism is true. This is I think all that is needed for it to be compatible.

Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

Because the only reason someone believes what they believe in determinism is because a certain set of physical factors preceding them forced them to hold that belief. It is not, however intuitive it may seem, because they actually reasoned properly came to that belief of their own reasoning and will.
Pardon but I don't understand how this is not an arbitrary distinction. A lives in a deterministic universe and B lives in an indeterministic universe. It is possible for the exact same process to happen in either universe. Therefore whether or not determinism is true, as long as the actual reasoning process is sound I don't see why determinism should factor into justification.

Well "you" did not exist back then, so "you" could not perceive anything.

But I always exist, so should I not always be perceiving something?
To this I have responded in my first comment.

Also, in eternalism there is no such thing as "back then," because everything exists simultaneously.
Under eternalism events extend in the earlier and later than direction. Similarly the special theory of relativity states that individual objects still possess an absolute past. Hence, at some point in time earlier than what you perceive to be the current moment, you did not exist.

"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

But why does that matter? If there is even a small portion in which I exist, and if all moments exist simultaneously, then I should always be perceiving something.
And you are indeed always perceiving something, but just the, from your perspec

My point in saying that was that even if eternalism is true, it does not imply that God does not exist.


There might of course be other kinds of beings, ones that are omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, this possibility is not ruled out by eternalism.H

Prove what good is. Ill wait. You and your subjective moronic garbage is laughable.
Eteralism presupposes ontological nature of time. In order for time to have a nature at all it would have to exist outside the human mind and in The world. Show the physical evidence for the existence of time. Give me one example of anything that is a result of time. I.e. if the word and concept of time had never been invented or discussed there would be a physical affect to observe in the universe that proves there is a causal nexus between time and anything.
Wholly good being, lol, you can't even justify or prove what the concept of good is to people much less all the beings in the universe.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 9:19:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Now considering that this view is new to me, I am going to present a plethora of questions in reference to this argument, or I may present objections myself. I wish to better understand this argument, and hopefully by better understanding it I can formulate a sound opinion on it.

Actual Infinities

The common argument I have seen is that if all moments are simultaneously actual, then creation is unnecessary since the implication is that there is nothing to create given that everything already exists. The mere idea of creation implies presentism. Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?

a. If yes again, doesn't William Lane Craig's arguments against actual infinities apply here? For example, "Craig argues that if actual infinites that neither increase nor decrease in the number of members they contain were to exist, we would have rather absurd consequences. For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose that the library also contains an infinite number of red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as red and black books combined. But this is absurd; in reality the subset cannot be equivalent to the entire set. Hence, actual infinites cannot exist in reality." Now simply replace red books with say, moments before my presence on the eternalistic time line, and black books with moments after my presence on the time line. We would see then that there are as many moments before me "existing" (I use this term loosely because given eternalism, everything always actually exists. However, there are moments that actually exist in which I am not present in. For example, prehistoric times.) as there are moments after me existing, and there are as many moments before me existing as there are moments in the entire infinite set.

B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?



Causation

It would seem that if causation did not exist, then there would be no reason for some things to happen and others to not happen. For example, if causation does not actually exist, then why do acorns grow into oak trees, as oppose to say, growing into a puppy? Or why is it that when a healthy heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse, a pregnancy results?

Even more puzzling, why is it that given certain circumstances, certain consequences always follow? If I throw a brick at the right force at a frail enough window, the window will always shatter. Yet, if causation does not exist then there should not be a consistency in certain causes and certain effects. In fact, no change should ever occur at all if causation does not exist. Every actual moment on the eternalistic timeline should be exactly the same. How does eternalism explain the differences between each actual moment?

Also, we use science and math to determine what causes will produce what effects, or to make observations about our world. However, if causation does not exist, then the use of science and math to determine causes and effects is dubious. It isn't physical laws that determine that when I throw a brick at a window it will shatter, because throwing a break at a window has no correlation with the window shattering given that change does not exist (since all moments are always actually existing) and each moment exists independently of every other moment. Likewise, using science and math to make observations about our world would be dubious because there exists no correlation between using science and math (the cause) to produce the effect of discovering things about our world. Also, since every moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist, there is no reason to believe that a green coffee mug in one moment will remain a green coffee mug in the next. From here, an argument can be made that belief in eternalism through scientific inquiry is self defeating.

P1. One should believe in eternalism because current scientific discoveries imply it

P2. If eternalism is true, then causation does not exist


I've removed content,
The words past, present, and future when used in the context ,or when the concept of time is applied to them, become absurdities to the level of ridiculousness equivalent to a pregnant man. Perfect example
I am in Texas. It is 3am Sunday the 6th of Sept. By definition of "the future" in the concept of time , 3pm Sunday Sept 6th would be by definition the future. Well it is currently 3pm Sunday, sept6th in the Philippines, I can call my friend ehlyn and talk with her. Am I talking to someone who exists in the future? Of course not, that's absurd. But when you remove the concept of time as applied to the words future, past, and present the words then have cohesion. They are merely a relationship to the human mind as it records memories and experiences. Experiences may be an individual thing, but time is a universal thing that exists only In The mind of humans, not in the world or universe. Things that exist in the universe or world have an affect on physical realities. The creation or forming of the universe is a physical phenomenon. Therefore time would have to have physical attributes to affect the universe. Unless you know of something that has an effect in the physical world that isn't itself physical then eternalism attempts claims to relationships which do not exist. God is of course excluded from this because by definition God can affect anything in His creation. Any attempt at creating a definition of time as existing outside the human mind is pointless. Eternalism is garbage, It presupposes time affecting physical existence, it doesn't. Time isn't physical. You are more than welcome to offer up anything that time has a causal nexus with, but please only one because they are all easily defeated using reason or scientifically proven information.
Time doesn't exist anywhere but in words. And it is only Gods words that can affect physical reality. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God"... And to everyone who thinks there is no God, ur an idiot because there is. It is a fact. But you will not burn for eternity if you don't currently believe because that is in regards to your soul, which can think and decide and repent and change its "mind". And trust me, the experience of this world has a default built in by God, thus the infinitive wisdom of God demonstrated through actual grace at a level few humans could begin to accept much less comprehend.
Again, eternalism is bullshite, intellectualism run rampant to the extent of utter absurdity.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:15:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 8:42:00 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/5/2015 10:51:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:

I deleted a lot of stuff to make some character space, so you may need to refer back to the last post for some context on what I am responding to.

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I don't understand how causation can exist given that every event already exists. I am not sure how a simple regularity theory of causation applies to B-Theory given that there really is no such thing as past, present, and future since all things exist at once.
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

So are you saying that the block universe did come into existence/have a beginning?
Well, no. The block universe exists as just that, a block universe.

Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time.

I don't understand how change in a system over time is any different between causes and effects. Change implies cause and effect does it not?
My point is that at no point do scientists actually talk about causality. I'll have to think about whether there is a difference tomorrow. But if it is just that, then I don't see your problem with eternalism and causality. The blockuniverse is basically like the Minkowski spacetime of general relativity.

Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

I would be interested in reading it.
I'll present it when I get the chance to seriously debate the topic. I have not seen it being used on this site so I'd like to save it up :)

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

But how does change happen if every moment simultaneously exists?
You observe an object at two different points of time and compare their attributes.

What is the explanation for why it would have a different set of attributes?
I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

What other reasons?
For example the argument I was talking about.

I thought that the reason it was being argued in favor of recently was because of scientific discoveries and theories regarding special relativity. Although I will be totally honest, I do not know or understand the science behind it well at all.
Special relativity does not on it's own posit that all times are equally real. Rather it denies that there is some kind of objective present moment that is ontologically privileged over preceding or succeeding moments. The only ontology compatible with this is eternalism.

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1.

Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

How so?
Determinism to me means that events are necessitated by antecedent events in combination with the laws of nature. Indeterminism then is this claims denial.
What is certain is that something will inevitably happen, whether or not it (in)determinism is true. This is I think all that is needed for it to be compatible.

Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

But I always exist, so should I not always be perceiving something?
To this I have responded in my first comment.

Also, in eternalism there is no such thing as "back then," because everything exists simultaneously.
Under eternalism events extend in the earlier and later than direction. Similarly the special theory of relativity states that individual objects still possess an absolute past. Hence, at some point in time earlier than what you perceive to be the current moment, you did not exist.

"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

But why does that matter? If there is even a small portion in which I exist, and if all moments exist simultaneously, then I should always be perceiving something.
And you are indeed always perceiving something, but just the, from your perspec

My point in saying that was that even if eternalism is true, it does not imply that God does not exist.




There might of course be other kinds of beings, ones that are omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, this possibility is not ruled out by eternalism.H

Prove what good is. Ill wait. You and your subjective moronic garbage is laughable.
Eteralism presupposes ontological nature of time. In order for time to have a nature at all it would have to exist outside the human mind and in The world. Show the physical evidence for the existence of time. Give me one example of anything that is a result of time. I.e. if the word and concept of time had never been invented or discussed there would be a physical affect to observe in the universe that proves there is a causal nexus between time and anything.
Wholly good being, lol, you can't even justify or prove what the concept of good is to people much less all the beings in the universe.
I won't bother with you anymore. Defend your assertions in a debate or I'll just ignore you. If you think what I say is obviously false then here is your chance to show the world.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:26:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Now considering that this view is new to me, I am going to present a plethora of questions in reference to this argument, or I may present objections myself. I wish to better understand this argument, and hopefully by better understanding it I can formulate a sound opinion on it.

Actual Infinities

The common argument I have seen is that if all moments are simultaneously actual, then creation is unnecessary since the implication is that there is nothing to create given that everything already exists. The mere idea of creation implies presentism. Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

You've got it the other way round. If eternalism is true, the universe's *beginning* is incoherent -- therefore causality of the universe is likely false.


A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

The universe didn't have a cause =/= no beginning. Rather, no beginning --> no cause.


A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?

No. Distinctions of "past," "present," "future" fail under eternalism.

B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?

Once more, you've flipped the argument.




Causation

It would seem that if causation did not exist, then there would be no reason for some things to happen and others to not happen. For example, if causation does not actually exist, then why do acorns grow into oak trees, as oppose to say, growing into a puppy? Or why is it that when a healthy heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse, a pregnancy results?

Even more puzzling, why is it that given certain circumstances, certain consequences always follow? If I throw a brick at the right force at a frail enough window, the window will always shatter. Yet, if causation does not exist then there should not be a consistency in certain causes and certain effects. In fact, no change should ever occur at all if causation does not exist. Every actual moment on the eternalistic timeline should be exactly the same. How does eternalism explain the differences between each actual moment?

Also, we use science and math to determine what causes will produce what effects, or to make observations about our world. However, if causation does not exist, then the use of science and math to determine causes and effects is dubious. It isn't physical laws that determine that when I throw a brick at a window it will shatter, because throwing a break at a window has no correlation with the window shattering given that change does not exist (since all moments are always actually existing) and each moment exists independently of every other moment. Likewise, using science and math to make observations about our world would be dubious because there exists no correlation between using science and math (the cause) to produce the effect of discovering things about our world. Also, since every moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist, there is no reason to believe that a green coffee mug in one moment will remain a green coffee mug in the next. From here, an argument can be made that belief in eternalism through scientific inquiry is self defeating.

P1. One should believe in eternalism because current scientific discoveries imply it

P2. If eternalism is true, then causation does not exist

Incorrect. Causality *of the universe,* because if eternalism is true, the universe never "began," rather it exists as a tenseless multi-dimensional block.


P3. If causation does not exist, then there is no reason to believe that certain causes create certain effects, nor do certain observations of one moment have any bearing on what will exist in another moment

P4. The scientific experiments used to determine that one ought to believe in eternalism are experiments of cause, effect, and observation

P5. But if eternalism is true, then cause, effect, and observation are ultimately dubious since each moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist

C1. Eternalism is self defeating


Eternalism implies Determinism

If all moments exist actually, and causation does not exist, then it would imply that free will does not exist given that the past, present, and future are all fixed. If everything is fixed, then you were also fixed so as to believe in eternalism. But if you were fixed to believe in eternalism and did not choose to believe in it out of free will and reason, then you have no justifiable reason to believe in eternalism. Therefore belief in eternalism is self defeating.

Fails as causality *of the universe* is false, because eternalism implies that the universe never *began.*


The Flow of Time

If every moment exists actually, then why is it that I perceive this particular moment? Moreso, why is it that I perceive a plethora of actually existing moments throughout my life time? Why aren't I simply fixed in particular moment, or why don't I randomly perceive actually existing moments of my lifetime? How does eternalism explain our sense of a flow of time? Why is there a certain order and consistency to the events that I perceive? Finally, why is it that there was a time when I perceived nothing (before I was born)? Shouldn't this be impossible given that I always actually exist?

You're begging the question, as you're assuming tenses "exist, but don't exist" -- under a tenseless ontology, there *are no tenses.* That doesn't imply that you "always actually exist," only that you were there at every point in time, as there's only one point in time.


Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

Even if eternalism were true, the universe cannot explain its own existence given its contingency. A universe that exists eternally still would have to derive its existence from something, since the universe does not necessarily exist. The only way something could exist eternally and necessarily is if its essence were its existence (or to be a bit more aristotelian, if it were pure actuality with no potency). We call this being God. So even if an eternalistic universe existed, it would still have to derive its existence from God since the universe exists contingently, and not necessarily.

You're assuming that the universe is contingent on something else. Justify.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 1:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:15:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/6/2015 8:42:00 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/5/2015 10:51:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:

I deleted a lot of stuff to make some character space, so you may need to refer back to the last post for some context on what I am responding to.

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.
Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I don't understand how causation can exist given that every event already exists. I am not sure how a simple regularity theory of causation applies to B-Theory given that there really is no such thing as past, present, and future since all things exist at once.
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

WLC actually acknowledges that eternalism and the universe coming into being are mutually exclusive. Note that eternalism is compatible both a finite and an infinite past/ future or rather finite and infinite "size" of the blockuniverse.
Indeed, WLC himself describes this very well:
""[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning"

So are you saying that the block universe did come into existence/have a beginning?
Well, no. The block universe exists as just that, a block universe.

Actually, no. Scientists do not describe the world in terms of cause and effect. Rather they do so in terms of change of a system over time.

I don't understand how change in a system over time is any different between causes and effects. Change implies cause and effect does it not?
My point is that at no point do scientists actually talk about causality. I'll have to think about whether there is a difference tomorrow. But if it is just that, then I don't see your problem with eternalism and causality. The blockuniverse is basically like the Minkowski spacetime of general relativity.

Indeed, I have quite an elaborate argument at hand for why we need eternalism to do science in the first place.

I would be interested in reading it.
I'll present it when I get the chance to seriously debate the topic. I have not seen it being used on this site so I'd like to save it up :)

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1. Sure, the universe as a whole does not change, but change within the universe does happen.

But how does change happen if every moment simultaneously exists?
You observe an object at two different points of time and compare their attributes.

What is the explanation for why it would have a different set of attributes?
I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Not quite actually. For once, there are other reasons to accept it. Furthermore it is not really implied by current science, rather it is the only ontology of time compatible with science.

What other reasons?
For example the argument I was talking about.

I thought that the reason it was being argued in favor of recently was because of scientific discoveries and theories regarding special relativity. Although I will be totally honest, I do not know or understand the science behind it well at all.
Special relativity does not on it's own posit that all times are equally real. Rather it denies that there is some kind of objective present moment that is ontologically privileged over preceding or succeeding moments. The only ontology compatible with this is eternalism.

In a B-universe change is simply an object having one set of attributes at t0 and a different set at t1.

Although I think determinism is true, I think eternalism might also be compatible with indeterminism.

How so?
Determinism to me means that events are necessitated by antecedent events in combination with the laws of nature. Indeterminism then is this claims denial.
What is certain is that something will inevitably happen, whether or not it (in)determinism is true. This is I think all that is needed for it to be compatible.

Wait, even if we accept libertarian free will, how does it affect reason? It seems to me that it does not matter whether it was determined or not for you to believe in something, in both a deterministic and an indeterministic world a similar process is possible.

But I always exist, so should I not always be perceiving something?
To this I have responded in my first comment.

Also, in eternalism there is no such thing as "back then," because everything exists simultaneously.
Under eternalism events extend in the earlier and later than direction. Similarly the special theory of relativity states that individual objects still possess an absolute past. Hence, at some point in time earlier than what you perceive to be the current moment, you did not exist.

"Always" is a misnomer. Of course, you always exist in the sense that it is not possible for the parts of the blockuniverse you occupy to stop existing, but you do not always exist in the sense that you only occupy a subset f the whole blockuniverse. There are areas in the BU where there is no Crypto.

But why does that matter? If there is even a small portion in which I exist, and if all moments exist simultaneously, then I should always be perceiving something.
And you are indeed always perceiving something, but just the, from your perspec

My point in saying that was that even if eternalism is true, it does not imply that God does not exist.




There might of course be other kinds of beings, ones that are omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, this possibility is not ruled out by eternalism.H

Prove what good is. Ill wait. You and your subjective moronic garbage is laughable.
Eteralism presupposes ontological nature of time. In order for time to have a nature at all it would have to exist outside the human mind and in The world. Show the physical evidence for the existence of time. Give me one example of anything that is a result of time. I.e. if the word and concept of time had never been invented or discussed there would be a physical affect to observe in the universe that proves there is a causal nexus between time and anything.
Wholly good being, lol, you can't even justify or prove what the concept of good is to people much less all the beings in the universe.
I won't bother with you anymore. Defend your assertions in a debate or I'll just ignore you. If you think what I say is obviously false then here is your chance to show the world.

Love your arrogance,, exactly how is debate dotcom, "the world"? Over compensating I see.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 3:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

I decided a pithy answer was also warranted....
No one has ever proven there is a causal nexus between the human concepts of time and God. People who offer these types of relationships , assertions, etc., by injecting God into a subject that is irrelevant to God, are conveying an underlying claim that they have no proof of, I.e. God is ONLY a concept.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 4:56:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

One more perspective because a delusional mind perpetuates circularity as being "reasonable"....Deleted more unnecessary ideas. This argument is circular reasoning easily identified upon further inspection, and the fact is that this idiot thinks he done got him a good education.....
P) if eternalism is true, then the universe wasn't created...lol
Saying the universe wasn't created means there is no creator of said universe...I.e. God
Conclusion..
Therefore God does not exist....
Umm yeh ,if eternalsim is true then God (the creator who created the universe)doesn't exist
Eternalism is true
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This person actually thinks he learned how to think logically in college. Its apparent he hasn't got the necessary tools to understand he's only confirming to himself that he himself agrees with himself.
Circularity is only valid to people who already believe or agree that the conclusion is true. He has proved nothing, other than he's logically inept.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:26:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Now considering that this view is new to me, I am going to present a plethora of questions in reference to this argument, or I may present objections myself. I wish to better understand this argument, and hopefully by better understanding it I can formulate a sound opinion on it.

Actual Infinities

The common argument I have seen is that if all moments are simultaneously actual, then creation is unnecessary since the implication is that there is nothing to create given that everything already exists. The mere idea of creation implies presentism. Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

You've got it the other way round. If eternalism is true, the universe's *beginning* is incoherent -- therefore causality of the universe is likely false.

So causation can exist within the block universe? Also, can the block universe be said to have a beginning like inch 1 on a ruler is the beginning of the ruler even though every point on the ruler always exists?

A few questions:

1. If the universe had no cause, does this imply that it had no beginning?

The universe didn't have a cause =/= no beginning. Rather, no beginning --> no cause.


A. If yes, then if it had no beginning does this imply that there exists an infinity of actually existing past moments?

No. Distinctions of "past," "present," "future" fail under eternalism.

Past = every point before I am
Present = The current point I am at
Future = every point after me

Does this make sense?

B. If no, then how did the beginning of the universe come into existence?

Once more, you've flipped the argument.




Causation

It would seem that if causation did not exist, then there would be no reason for some things to happen and others to not happen. For example, if causation does not actually exist, then why do acorns grow into oak trees, as oppose to say, growing into a puppy? Or why is it that when a healthy heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse, a pregnancy results?

Even more puzzling, why is it that given certain circumstances, certain consequences always follow? If I throw a brick at the right force at a frail enough window, the window will always shatter. Yet, if causation does not exist then there should not be a consistency in certain causes and certain effects. In fact, no change should ever occur at all if causation does not exist. Every actual moment on the eternalistic timeline should be exactly the same. How does eternalism explain the differences between each actual moment?

Also, we use science and math to determine what causes will produce what effects, or to make observations about our world. However, if causation does not exist, then the use of science and math to determine causes and effects is dubious. It isn't physical laws that determine that when I throw a brick at a window it will shatter, because throwing a break at a window has no correlation with the window shattering given that change does not exist (since all moments are always actually existing) and each moment exists independently of every other moment. Likewise, using science and math to make observations about our world would be dubious because there exists no correlation between using science and math (the cause) to produce the effect of discovering things about our world. Also, since every moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist, there is no reason to believe that a green coffee mug in one moment will remain a green coffee mug in the next. From here, an argument can be made that belief in eternalism through scientific inquiry is self defeating.

P1. One should believe in eternalism because current scientific discoveries imply it

P2. If eternalism is true, then causation does not exist

Incorrect. Causality *of the universe,* because if eternalism is true, the universe never "began," rather it exists as a tenseless multi-dimensional block.

What explains the existence of the block universe though?

P3. If causation does not exist, then there is no reason to believe that certain causes create certain effects, nor do certain observations of one moment have any bearing on what will exist in another moment

P4. The scientific experiments used to determine that one ought to believe in eternalism are experiments of cause, effect, and observation

P5. But if eternalism is true, then cause, effect, and observation are ultimately dubious since each moment exists independently of every other moment and causation does not exist

C1. Eternalism is self defeating


Eternalism implies Determinism

If all moments exist actually, and causation does not exist, then it would imply that free will does not exist given that the past, present, and future are all fixed. If everything is fixed, then you were also fixed so as to believe in eternalism. But if you were fixed to believe in eternalism and did not choose to believe in it out of free will and reason, then you have no justifiable reason to believe in eternalism. Therefore belief in eternalism is self defeating.

Fails as causality *of the universe* is false, because eternalism implies that the universe never *began.*


The Flow of Time

If every moment exists actually, then why is it that I perceive this particular moment? Moreso, why is it that I perceive a plethora of actually existing moments throughout my life time? Why aren't I simply fixed in particular moment, or why don't I randomly perceive actually existing moments of my lifetime? How does eternalism explain our sense of a flow of time? Why is there a certain order and consistency to the events that I perceive? Finally, why is it that there was a time when I perceived nothing (before I was born)? Shouldn't this be impossible given that I always actually exist?

You're begging the question, as you're assuming tenses "exist, but don't exist" -- under a tenseless ontology, there *are no tenses.* That doesn't imply that you "always actually exist," only that you were there at every point in time, as there's only one point in time.

Under eternalism, isn't every point in a block universe always actual?

Even if Eternalism were true, it would not Explain the Existence of the Universe

Even if eternalism were true, the universe cannot explain its own existence given its contingency. A universe that exists eternally still would have to derive its existence from something, since the universe does not necessarily exist. The only way something could exist eternally and necessarily is if its essence were its existence (or to be a bit more aristotelian, if it were pure actuality with no potency). We call this being God. So even if an eternalistic universe existed, it would still have to derive its existence from God since the universe exists contingently, and not necessarily.

You're assuming that the universe is contingent on something else. Justify.

The universe is made up of contingent th
Nolite Timere
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:09:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:04:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

So causation can exist within the block universe? Also, can the block universe be said to have a beginning like inch 1 on a ruler is the beginning of the ruler even though every point on the ruler always exists?

That's the best way to describe it.

Past = every point before I am
Present = The current point I am at
Future = every point after me

Does this make sense?

Yes.

What explains the existence of the block universe though?

Why does there need to be an explanation?

The universe is made up of contingent things

Things within the universe can be contingent on each other, so the universe -- as a whole -- can be necessary. The universe doesn't have to be contingent on anything; it represents the totality of existence, so "outside the universe" is incoherent.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:10:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.

Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I meant causation *of the universe* would be incoherent.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:09:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:04:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

So causation can exist within the block universe? Also, can the block universe be said to have a beginning like inch 1 on a ruler is the beginning of the ruler even though every point on the ruler always exists?

That's the best way to describe it.

Past = every point before I am
Present = The current point I am at
Future = every point after me

Does this make sense?

Yes.

What explains the existence of the block universe though?

Why does there need to be an explanation?

Because things don't just exist to exist; they have an explanation for their existence. The only thing that does not need an explanation for its existence is that which is existence itself. This thing we would call God.

The universe is made up of contingent things

Things within the universe can be contingent on each other, so the universe -- as a whole -- can be necessary.

I don't follow this. Nothing that exists within the universe can explain its own existence. Everything has derived its existence from something else. And if the universe as a whole is the sum of all its parts, would it not follow that the universe must have derived its existence from something else? I see no reason to believe that the universe has simply always existed, especially given its extreme complexity. Finally, we would need something to explain the laws governing the block universe also. Why does the universe exist as a block? Why do atoms interact in the way they do? Why does gravity exist at all? You can tell me how this is the case, but you could not tell me why this is the case.

The universe doesn't have to be contingent on anything; it represents the totality of existence, so "outside the universe" is incoherent.
Nolite Timere
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:17:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:09:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:04:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

So causation can exist within the block universe? Also, can the block universe be said to have a beginning like inch 1 on a ruler is the beginning of the ruler even though every point on the ruler always exists?

That's the best way to describe it.

Past = every point before I am
Present = The current point I am at
Future = every point after me

Does this make sense?

Yes.

What explains the existence of the block universe though?

Why does there need to be an explanation?

Because things don't just exist to exist; they have an explanation for their existence. The only thing that does not need an explanation for its existence is that which is existence itself. This thing we would call God.

Bare assertion. Under your hypothesis, brute facts wouldn't exist -- but the laws of logic, for instance, are brute facts, therefore lack explanations. They are necessary inherently. Thus, the principle of sufficient reason fails. Sans this principle, we have no reason to believe the universe isn't necessary.


The universe is made up of contingent things

Things within the universe can be contingent on each other, so the universe -- as a whole -- can be necessary.

I don't follow this. Nothing that exists within the universe can explain its own existence. Everything has derived its existence from something else. And if the universe as a whole is the sum of all its parts, would it not follow that the universe must have derived its existence from something else? I see no reason to believe that the universe has simply always existed, especially given its extreme complexity. Finally, we would need something to explain the laws governing the block universe also. Why does the universe exist as a block? Why do atoms interact in the way they do? Why does gravity exist at all? You can tell me how this is the case, but you could not tell me why this is the case.

There doesn't have to be a "why." That's simply because you're *assuming* the principle of sufficient reason. Things *can* "just exist," sans explanations. There doesn't have to be an explanation for something sans with we lack cognition. Without the universe, we don't have any cognitive sense about anything, so we can't make inferences -- in that means, the universe can't really have an explanation. Maybe it does, but it isn't necessary. The universe *is* necessary, since if it isn't necessary, then it doesn't represent the "totality of space and time." Something can't coherently be "time-less," simply because without time, events don't happen and "existence" is incoherent when unconstrained by spacetime. Therefore, the universe is necessary. Your justification for a contingent universe commits the fallacy of composition -- objects can be contingent on each other, allowing the universe to have necessary existence.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:26:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

Causation is the actualization of a potency. A rubber ball has the potential to be melted down into a puddle of goo. It is not until a flame heats up that rubber ball that the potential to be a puddle of goo is actualized into existence. All things that go from potency to actualization are actualized by something that is already actual. For example, the flame that heated the rubber ball was actualized by two sticks rubbing together and creating enough friction to make a flame. And the rubbing of those sticks was actualized by a human being rubbing them together. Before the human being rubbed the sticks together, the sticks had the potential to become a fire, but it wasn't until the human rubbed the sticks together that they actually became a fire.

Does this make since?

I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Well they have a different set of attributes because something caused them to have a different set of attributes. A rubber ball left on its own will remain a rubber ball. But once it is heated by a flame it will become a puddle of goo. Things don't have a different set of attributes from one point to another for no reason.

Pardon but I don't understand how this is not an arbitrary distinction. A lives in a deterministic universe and B lives in an indeterministic universe. It is possible for the exact same process to happen in either universe. Therefore whether or not determinism is true, as long as the actual reasoning process is sound I don't see why determinism should factor into justification.

Because you are much more likely to come to the truth if you have reasoned of your own accord and chosen what you believe out of free will then you are to come to truth by random physical processes. But you are right, it is possible in principle.
Nolite Timere
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 6:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:26:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2015 12:47:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Before I respond, let me ask you how you understand causation. Under which circumstances does event A cause event B?

Causation is the actualization of a potency. A rubber ball has the potential to be melted down into a puddle of goo. It is not until a flame heats up that rubber ball that the potential to be a puddle of goo is actualized into existence. All things that go from potency to actualization are actualized by something that is already actual. For example, the flame that heated the rubber ball was actualized by two sticks rubbing together and creating enough friction to make a flame. And the rubbing of those sticks was actualized by a human being rubbing them together. Before the human being rubbed the sticks together, the sticks had the potential to become a fire, but it wasn't until the human rubbed the sticks together that they actually became a fire.
Does this make since?

Sure, but I still don't see how this is problematic for eternalism.
At some earlier point in time sticks have the potential to become a fire and at some later point in time the sticks are burning.

I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Objects generally have a different set of attributes when you consider them at different times. To this presentists will agree I suppose, no?

Well they have a different set of attributes because something caused them to have a different set of attributes. A rubber ball left on its own will remain a rubber ball. But once it is heated by a flame it will become a puddle of goo. Things don't have a different set of attributes from one point to another for no reason.

I don't really think cause and effect are actual features of the universe, to me they are more of a human tool to make it intelligible, but Ok.

Pardon but I don't understand how this is not an arbitrary distinction. A lives in a deterministic universe and B lives in an indeterministic universe. It is possible for the exact same process to happen in either universe. Therefore whether or not determinism is true, as long as the actual reasoning process is sound I don't see why determinism should factor into justification.

Because you are much more likely to come to the truth if you have reasoned of your own accord and chosen what you believe out of free will
You presuppose direct doxastic voluntarism, which I am rather skeptical about.

then you are to come to truth by random physical processes.
Well if eternalism entails determinism then there hardly is anything random.

But you are right, it is possible in principle.
And this is all that is needed to establish that eternalism is not self defeating in this regard. Further, in case you want to advance this line of reasoning, you need to find some solid criteria which either demarcate apparently similar reasoning processes in deterministic and indeterministic worlds or show that deterministic reasoning processes are much less likely to be truth directed than indeterministic reasoning processes. Then you can construct some kind of debunking argument, but otherwise you might commit the genetic fallacy.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 6:59:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:10:43 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/5/2015 7:50:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Tejretics states in one of his debates, "If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent."

Although tejretics is right on most things, I disagree with him on this one. Take for example a simple regularity theory of causation. We can then say that A causes B if and only if A happens regularly earlier than B happens.

Rather it is presentism that makes regularity and some other theories of causality hard to maintain as past events don't actually exist.

I meant causation *of the universe* would be incoherent.

My apologies. To that I of course agree.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 7:04:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 12:14:48 AM, Epica wrote:
At 9/5/2015 10:57:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2015 8:06:14 PM, Epica wrote:
You're basically wanting an account for the arrow of time. The universe is bound by the second law of thermodynamics which accounts for an arrow of time. It's also not the case that eternalism doesn't allow for any type of causation, just some prohibit objective causation. Subjective causation or even causation that emerges internally wouldn't contradict eternalism or its argument's conclusion.

Can you explain further how these types of causation can exist in a block universe? Perhaps provide examples?

Imagine the all stage with a spotlight moving across it. The spot where the light is hitting can be thought of as the present and in front of it the future, behind it the past. There is change and thus causality, but there is no true first state of the universe in time.
Are you a moving spotlight theorist or are you using a metaphor?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 8:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:04:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:26:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/5/2015 5:21:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Lately I have seen the follow argument thrown around as an argument against God:

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

this argument circular reasoning so you must already accept the conclusion. If you believe circularity achieves anything but self gratification then I think maybe you shouldn't think. Lol just kidding...and now the idiocy of why circularity is useless in my opinion.

If eternalism is true, then the universe wasn't created.
The statement the universe was not created means, well it wasn't created, if it wasn't created then there couldn't have been a creator of said universe. If there isn't a creator of the universe, then a creator doesn't exist.. If the creator doesn't exist then God doesn't exist..The person posted this with the preface of, "God as the creator?"
So therefore this progression of thought can be simplified into circular reasoning.
If eternalism is true, than the universe wasn't created (didn't have a creator) wasn't created, does not adhere to the proposition of creation, etc.
Then its blah blah blah, therefore God doesn't exist. The conclusion merely is a rewording of what is implied in the first premise. Nothing has been offered of any consequence to the grand scheme of intellectual discourse. So though the argument might help your garden grow, its useless to thinking intellects.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think a lot of Crypto's points weren't sufficiently answered.

Eternalism is internally inconsistent, in my opinion. I'm willing to admit that I'm ignorant of the details but I understand the concept.

If eternalism is true, cause/effect is completely unnecessary since cause/effect is always simultaneously actualized.

This means that free will, in the sense that we could've chosen otherwise, is untrue. I disagree with Crypto that eternalism could still possibly be true if determinism is true. If reality is determined by a certain configuration of physical constituents, and reconfiguration alters what can be known about reality, objective reality doesn't exist. Ontology without reference to an objective reality is meaningless. This means that ontological claims that pertain to an objective reality, like eternalism, are demonstrably false. It would be like calling "height" objective. Height can only be measured in relation to an objective reference point. If your reference point isn't objective, you can't reference it as being objective.. In order to have knowledge at all, we must presuppose that the reality we perceive is objective which is not possible if determinism is true.

The universe also doesn't exist necessarily. It exists contingently. To say that a sum of contingent parts makes a necessary whole is like saying that every mother has a mother ad infinitum.

So, basically.

Eternalism entails determinism.
Determinism entails the impossibility of ontology.
The impossibility of ontology renders eternalism self-defeating.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:33:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I think a lot of Crypto's points weren't sufficiently answered.

Eternalism is internally inconsistent, in my opinion. I'm willing to admit that I'm ignorant of the details but I understand the concept.

If eternalism is true, cause/effect is completely unnecessary since cause/effect is always simultaneously actualized.
The cause and the effect are actualized at two distinct points in the Blockuniverse. That is all that is needed for causation. E.g., the cause C is actualized at some point t0 and the effect E is actualized at some later point t1.

This means that free will, in the sense that we could've chosen otherwise, is untrue.
Luckily, most eternalists are compatibilists.

I disagree with Crypto that eternalism could still possibly be true if determinism is true. If reality is determined by a certain configuration of physical constituents, and reconfiguration alters what can be known about reality
This is epistemology.
objective reality doesn't exist.
This ontology. How do you infer what is from what can be known?

Ontology without reference to an objective reality is meaningless.
What do you mean by that? If there is no objective way reality is then it seems to follow that reality is subjective, not that every ontology is meaningless.

This means that ontological claims that pertain to an objective reality, like eternalism, are demonstrably false. It would be like calling "height" objective. Height can only be measured in relation to an objective reference point.
This is false even if eternalism is false. There is no objective, universal reference point in our universe. We know that since Einstein.

If your reference point isn't objective, you can't reference it as being objective..
And we know since Einstein that the universe is objectively relative.

In order to have knowledge at all, we must presuppose that the reality we perceive is objective which is not possible if determinism is true.
Knowledge is true justified belief. It is very much possible for the same events of a justification process to occur in an deterministic and an indeterministic universe. For beliefs you need minds which quite obviously are possible in a deterministic universe. If we understand truth as a relation between propositions and actual states of affairs, then it is still possible for propositions to stand in the truth relation to actual states of affairs as in a deterministic universe as determinism has nothing to do with this relation.

The universe also doesn't exist necessarily. It exists contingently.
Yes, it's a brute contingency.

To say that a sum of contingent parts makes a necessary whole is like saying that every mother has a mother ad infinitum.
Umhh, no. It is not a priori that every contingent fact has a cause or something. That needs an argument.


So, basically.

Eternalism entails determinism.
Well, you have asserted that, please justify it. Not even I as an eternalist and determinist am sure that we can speak of entailment here.

Determinism entails the impossibility of ontology.
The impossibility of ontology renders eternalism self-defeating.
What kind of ontology are you speaking of? Ontology in the sense of the study or ontology in the sense of what actually exists? I don't see how determinisms truth could possibly entail that nothing exists and neither do I see why we should be unable to do ontology. Whether we can do it successfully is a different question, but it's also not your premise.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1) God is necessarily the creator of the universe
2) If eternalism is true, the universe wasn't created.
3) Eternalism is true.
C) God doesn't exist.

This seems like a simpler formulation of the argument.
There are of course simpler ways to formulate the argument. It was merely a response to someone with a rather strange definition of God.
Besides, why do you introduce de re modality in premise one?
1) God is identical to the creator of the universe
When you say "God is" your statement is ambiguous between an identity claim (valid) and a fixed entity, God, having a certain predicate (invalid).

2) If eternalism is true, then there is no creator of the universe.
3) ...
4) Therefore, there does not exist a creator ...
C) ...

This is perhaps the shortest formulation.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:42:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:33:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I think a lot of Crypto's points weren't sufficiently answered.

Eternalism is internally inconsistent, in my opinion. I'm willing to admit that I'm ignorant of the details but I understand the concept.

If eternalism is true, cause/effect is completely unnecessary since cause/effect is always simultaneously actualized.

This means that free will, in the sense that we could've chosen otherwise, is untrue. I disagree with Crypto that eternalism could still possibly be true if determinism is true. If reality is determined by a certain configuration of physical constituents, and reconfiguration alters what can be known about reality, objective reality doesn't exist. Ontology without reference to an objective reality is meaningless. This means that ontological claims that pertain to an objective reality, like eternalism, are demonstrably false. It would be like calling "height" objective. Height can only be measured in relation to an objective reference point. If your reference point isn't objective, you can't reference it as being objective.. In order to have knowledge at all, we must presuppose that the reality we perceive is objective which is not possible if determinism is true.

The universe also doesn't exist necessarily. It exists contingently. To say that a sum of contingent parts makes a necessary whole is like saying that every mother has a mother ad infinitum.

So, basically.

Eternalism entails determinism.
Determinism entails the impossibility of ontology.H
The impossibility of ontology renders eternalism self-defeating.

If etrnalism is true then the universe wasn't created.....this statement falls within the rules of deductive reasoning if he is claiming formal logic. Which it is. Therefore a priori conclusion using very simple reasoning skills would therefore conclude that a not created premise equals the abscess of a creator, thus making the conclusion a restatement of what can be reasonably deduced from the first premise. The argument is circular logic nonsense.