Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cuasality and Time.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:55:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

lol...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:09:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

P1. Time has no cause
P2. ????
C. Time doesn't exist

There is a gap (chasm) in your argument here.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:09:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

P1. Time has no cause
P2. ????
C. Time doesn't exist

There is a gap (chasm) in your argument here.

If Time has no cause then it never had a beginning. If it never began it doesn't exist.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:09:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

P1. Time has no cause
P2. ????
C. Time doesn't exist

There is a gap (chasm) in your argument here.
How bout this, show me the physical evidence that proves time exists. Let me examine it, test it, verify it actually is time. Since you think there's a gap in the logic, prove the existence of something before questioning the use of an argument. That's the issue here, not the progression of thought.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 11:07:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

It's about time somebody pointed this out.

What about space, for space to have a cause you'd need some space for it to occur in, so space doesn't exist either.

According to relativity, if there is no time or space, there is no matter or energy.

Crap, nothing exists.

I hate it when that happens, well, you know, I mean I would hate it when that happens if there was a time and place where it could happen.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 11:11:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 11:07:49 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

It's about time somebody pointed this out.

What about space, for space to have a cause you'd need some space for it to occur in, so space doesn't exist either.

According to relativity, if there is no time or space, there is no matter or energy.

Crap, nothing exists.

I hate it when that happens, well, you know, I mean I would hate it when that happens if there was a time and place where it could happen.

Exactly. I hate it too. I would love for someone to show me some repeatable experiment that objectively indisputably demonstrates for everyone that space and time exist.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 1:02:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 11:11:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would love for someone to show me some repeatable experiment that objectively indisputably demonstrates for everyone that space and time exist.

Look at a clock.

We may not know exactly how space-time works, but it should be obvious that they exist. Disputing this is semantics.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 2:23:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 1:02:56 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/6/2015 11:11:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would love for someone to show me some repeatable experiment that objectively indisputably demonstrates for everyone that space and time exist.

Look at a clock.

We may not know exactly how space-time works, but it should be obvious that they exist. Disputing this is semantics.

Did you know clocks in deep gravity wells run slower than in shallow ones.

So time is subjective and everyone know when something is subjective it is immaterial, and immaterial stuff doesn't exist.

As for the clock itself it is a mechanical operation. It doesn't measure time or space. That's like saying length exists because man made rulers exist.

Ha clearly anything man made is made-up and made-up stuff are imaginary. imaginary stuff don't exist.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 2:37:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 2:23:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 1:02:56 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/6/2015 11:11:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would love for someone to show me some repeatable experiment that objectively indisputably demonstrates for everyone that space and time exist.

Look at a clock.

We may not know exactly how space-time works, but it should be obvious that they exist. Disputing this is semantics.

Did you know clocks in deep gravity wells run slower than in shallow ones.

So time is subjective and everyone know when something is subjective it is immaterial, and immaterial stuff doesn't exist.

It's relative, not subjective. Subjective means it's a matter of opinion. If I know the strength of gravity in your frame of reference, as well as its velocity, I can calculate how much time has passed for you, and also whether you're mistaken about it. Since we're dealing with a fact here, it's not subjective, and therefore not immaterial.

As for the clock itself it is a mechanical operation. It doesn't measure time or space. That's like saying length exists because man made rulers exist.

Regardless, all of these things measure a tangible change. We use the concepts of "time" and "space" to explain those changes. These concepts are not perfect, and we change them when new evidence is discovered, but they still work.

Your thread is built on semantic bullsh*t.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:00:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.

How could anyone observe the universe completely still?

I think you are assuming a lot. Hey if there isn't some technological empirical testing to observe the universe not moving then your argument is the stuff of legends and myths, full of assumptions.

If the universe is everything that exists then NO observer can be observing the universe if the whole universe stops moving.. This means the observer if they existed (making them part of the set called universe) would be stopped too.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:05:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 3:00:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.

How could anyone observe the universe completely still?

I think you are assuming a lot. Hey if there isn't some technological empirical testing to observe the universe not moving then your argument is the stuff of legends and myths, full of assumptions.

If the universe is everything that exists then NO observer can be observing the universe if the whole universe stops moving.. This means the observer if they existed (making them part of the set called universe) would be stopped too.

That's why I said if.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:16:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 2:37:13 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 2:23:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 1:02:56 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/6/2015 11:11:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would love for someone to show me some repeatable experiment that objectively indisputably demonstrates for everyone that space and time exist.

Look at a clock.

We may not know exactly how space-time works, but it should be obvious that they exist. Disputing this is semantics.

Did you know clocks in deep gravity wells run slower than in shallow ones.

So time is subjective and everyone know when something is subjective it is immaterial, and immaterial stuff doesn't exist.

It's relative, not subjective. Subjective means it's a matter of opinion. If I know the strength of gravity in your frame of reference, as well as its velocity, I can calculate how much time has passed for you, and also whether you're mistaken about it. Since we're dealing with a fact here, it's not subjective, and therefore not immaterial.

As for the clock itself it is a mechanical operation. It doesn't measure time or space. That's like saying length exists because man made rulers exist.

Regardless, all of these things measure a tangible change. We use the concepts of "time" and "space" to explain those changes. These concepts are not perfect, and we change them when new evidence is discovered, but they still work.

Your thread is built on semantic bullsh*t.

It's built on Atheist Logic I have picked up from forum members and youtube videos and a book by Dawkins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:18:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 3:05:40 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:00:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.

How could anyone observe the universe completely still?

I think you are assuming a lot. Hey if there isn't some technological empirical testing to observe the universe not moving then your argument is the stuff of legends and myths, full of assumptions.

If the universe is everything that exists then NO observer can be observing the universe if the whole universe stops moving.. This means the observer if they existed (making them part of the set called universe) would be stopped too.

That's why I said if.

If is a big word... you said IF an observer.. blah .. blah THEY would see .. <insert your claim>.

the fact that that IF can never happens means your claim is a bare assertion. It's un-falsifiable. And everyone knows when something is un-falsifiable it's not real and false.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:28:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 3:18:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:05:40 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:00:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.

How could anyone observe the universe completely still?

I think you are assuming a lot. Hey if there isn't some technological empirical testing to observe the universe not moving then your argument is the stuff of legends and myths, full of assumptions.

If the universe is everything that exists then NO observer can be observing the universe if the whole universe stops moving.. This means the observer if they existed (making them part of the set called universe) would be stopped too.

That's why I said if.

If is a big word... you said IF an observer.. blah .. blah THEY would see .. <insert your claim>.

the fact that that IF can never happens means your claim is a bare assertion. It's un-falsifiable. And everyone knows when something is un-falsifiable it's not real and false.

How do you know it can never happen? Are you God?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 3:41:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 3:28:10 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:18:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:05:40 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:00:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 2:09:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

Time is a measure of motion. No motion means no time. An observer is always in motion and therefore always in time. So even if everything were perfectly still, if you were able to witness it being perfectly still, there's time.

How could anyone observe the universe completely still?

I think you are assuming a lot. Hey if there isn't some technological empirical testing to observe the universe not moving then your argument is the stuff of legends and myths, full of assumptions.

If the universe is everything that exists then NO observer can be observing the universe if the whole universe stops moving.. This means the observer if they existed (making them part of the set called universe) would be stopped too.

That's why I said if.

If is a big word... you said IF an observer.. blah .. blah THEY would see .. <insert your claim>.

the fact that that IF can never happens means your claim is a bare assertion. It's un-falsifiable. And everyone knows when something is un-falsifiable it's not real and false.

How do you know it can never happen? Are you God?

Do you have any verifiable evidence that someone has ever observed the universe as whole? I didn't think so.

You are the one positing it can happen.. because you are positing something that has never been verified to happen before, then you have the Onus of providing evidence that it could or has happened.

So i await your evidence that an observer can see the universe as a whole stopped.. and then maybe we can get back to the fact you really don't have any reason to say what such an imagined observer would see. This is Atheist logic wins.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:02:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 3:41:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that someone has ever observed the universe as whole? I didn't think so.


Again, that's why I said if.

You are the one positing it can happen.. because you are positing something that has never been verified to happen before, then you have the Onus of providing evidence that it could or has happened.


I didn't say it can happen. I said if.

So i await your evidence that an observer can see the universe as a whole stopped.. and then maybe we can get back to the fact you really don't have any reason to say what such an imagined observer would see. This is Atheist logic wins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:07:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:02:32 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:41:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that someone has ever observed the universe as whole? I didn't think so.


Again, that's why I said if.


You are the one positing it can happen.. because you are positing something that has never been verified to happen before, then you have the Onus of providing evidence that it could or has happened.


I didn't say it can happen. I said if.

So i await your evidence that an observer can see the universe as a whole stopped.. and then maybe we can get back to the fact you really don't have any reason to say what such an imagined observer would see. This is Atheist logic wins.

IF it could happen, what evidence do you have the observer will see the observation you claim they will see?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:16:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:07:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:02:32 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:41:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that someone has ever observed the universe as whole? I didn't think so.


Again, that's why I said if.


You are the one positing it can happen.. because you are positing something that has never been verified to happen before, then you have the Onus of providing evidence that it could or has happened.


I didn't say it can happen. I said if.

So i await your evidence that an observer can see the universe as a whole stopped.. and then maybe we can get back to the fact you really don't have any reason to say what such an imagined observer would see. This is Atheist logic wins.

IF it could happen, what evidence do you have the observer will see the observation you claim they will see?

On you on some medication or something? It's a hypothetical. Not proof.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:16:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:11:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:09:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

P1. Time has no cause
P2. ????
C. Time doesn't exist

There is a gap (chasm) in your argument here.

If Time has no cause then it never had a beginning. If it never began it doesn't exist.

And both of those premises are true because....?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:25:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:16:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:11:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:09:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist.

P1. Time has no cause
P2. ????
C. Time doesn't exist

There is a gap (chasm) in your argument here.

If Time has no cause then it never had a beginning. If it never began it doesn't exist.

And both of those premises are true because....?

Logically proven. There is no cause to time, because time would be needed for cause to happen. Therefore no cause.

Logically proven.. if something NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't exist.

Like asking when did mermaids, elves, leprechauns, Zeus, ect. begin to exist? Never

And we know those things don't exist.

It's called logic. Hitchens and Dawkins, two of the greatest minds of this century and book sellers say so.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:28:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:16:05 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:07:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:02:32 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 3:41:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that someone has ever observed the universe as whole? I didn't think so.


Again, that's why I said if.


You are the one positing it can happen.. because you are positing something that has never been verified to happen before, then you have the Onus of providing evidence that it could or has happened.


I didn't say it can happen. I said if.

So i await your evidence that an observer can see the universe as a whole stopped.. and then maybe we can get back to the fact you really don't have any reason to say what such an imagined observer would see. This is Atheist logic wins.

IF it could happen, what evidence do you have the observer will see the observation you claim they will see?

On you on some medication or something? It's a hypothetical. Not proof.

So nothing to demonstrate how such an observer can be verified, nothing to show what such an observer might actually see, and so nothing to support that time exists.

I'm glad you took up the burden of proof for Time existing because the person claiming a positive existence of something has the BoP, shame it's terribly unconvincing with no evidence and full of assumptions.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:28:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So nothing to demonstrate how such an observer can be verified, nothing to show what such an observer might actually see, and so nothing to support that time exists.

I'm glad you took up the burden of proof for Time existing because the person claiming a positive existence of something has the BoP, shame it's terribly unconvincing with no evidence and full of assumptions.

What have you ever been given proof of to exist with evidence?
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:43:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:46:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What is the Cause of time?

Well it has none, because for a cause to exist you need to have time so time has no cause.

Hence forth time doesn't exist. : :

Time doesn't exist. It can only be observed by someone counting time. In Paradise, we won't know what time means.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:51:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:40:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So nothing to demonstrate how such an observer can be verified, nothing to show what such an observer might actually see, and so nothing to support that time exists.

I'm glad you took up the burden of proof for Time existing because the person claiming a positive existence of something has the BoP, shame it's terribly unconvincing with no evidence and full of assumptions.

What have you ever been given proof of to exist with evidence?

Ah black holes, quantum gravity, evolution, ect.. all those are proven to exist. So sayeth the Atheist.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:52:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Logically proven. There is no cause to time, because time would be needed for cause to happen. Therefore no cause.

If time is needed for cause, and time doesn't exist, are you arguing that causes don't exist as well? I don't see how this is very logical. It is very circular.


Logically proven.. if something NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't exist.

If something must began to exist, then the capacity that allows something to exist must also began, and you get ad infinitum of things that must began to exist. Doesn't seem very logical.


Like asking when did mermaids, elves, leprechauns, Zeus, ect. begin to exist? Never

And we know those things don't exist.

They exist as myths and stories.


It's called logic. Hitchens and Dawkins, two of the greatest minds of this century and book sellers say so.

Appeal to authority. Bad argument. I would also take a physicist over religion-experts in matters regarding physics.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:02:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:52:22 AM, treeless wrote:

Logically proven. There is no cause to time, because time would be needed for cause to happen. Therefore no cause.

If time is needed for cause, and time doesn't exist, are you arguing that causes don't exist as well? I don't see how this is very logical. It is very circular.


Logically proven.. if something NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't exist.

If something must began to exist, then the capacity that allows something to exist must also began, and you get ad infinitum of things that must began to exist. Doesn't seem very logical.


Like asking when did mermaids, elves, leprechauns, Zeus, ect. begin to exist? Never

And we know those things don't exist.

They exist as myths and stories.


It's called logic. Hitchens and Dawkins, two of the greatest minds of this century and book sellers say so.

Appeal to authority. Bad argument. I would also take a physicist over religion-experts in matters regarding physics.

What about Nobel Prize winning physicist?
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

But they rejected materialism so they must not have been that smart.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:19:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 5:02:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:52:22 AM, treeless wrote:

Logically proven. There is no cause to time, because time would be needed for cause to happen. Therefore no cause.

If time is needed for cause, and time doesn't exist, are you arguing that causes don't exist as well? I don't see how this is very logical. It is very circular.


Logically proven.. if something NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't exist.

If something must began to exist, then the capacity that allows something to exist must also began, and you get ad infinitum of things that must began to exist. Doesn't seem very logical.


Like asking when did mermaids, elves, leprechauns, Zeus, ect. begin to exist? Never

And we know those things don't exist.

They exist as myths and stories.

So no response to any of the above inaccuracies?



It's called logic. Hitchens and Dawkins, two of the greatest minds of this century and book sellers say so.

Appeal to authority. Bad argument. I would also take a physicist over religion-experts in matters regarding physics.

What about Nobel Prize winning physicist?
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

But they rejected materialism so they must not have been that smart.

Nowhere does anyone say time doesn't exist... In fact, the title of the article itself is about how "time doesn't exist as we think it does". It means our understanding of time may be different, not that it doesn't exist. It was an interesting read, though, so thanks for that.

And... still a fallacious argument, and the same appeal to authority. If two nobel prize physicists had a disagreement about physical theories, who would you choose? The one most convenient to your belief?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:24:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 5:19:24 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/7/2015 5:02:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:52:22 AM, treeless wrote:

Logically proven. There is no cause to time, because time would be needed for cause to happen. Therefore no cause.

If time is needed for cause, and time doesn't exist, are you arguing that causes don't exist as well? I don't see how this is very logical. It is very circular.


Logically proven.. if something NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't exist.

If something must began to exist, then the capacity that allows something to exist must also began, and you get ad infinitum of things that must began to exist. Doesn't seem very logical.


Like asking when did mermaids, elves, leprechauns, Zeus, ect. begin to exist? Never

And we know those things don't exist.

They exist as myths and stories.

So no response to any of the above inaccuracies?



It's called logic. Hitchens and Dawkins, two of the greatest minds of this century and book sellers say so.

Appeal to authority. Bad argument. I would also take a physicist over religion-experts in matters regarding physics.

What about Nobel Prize winning physicist?
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

But they rejected materialism so they must not have been that smart.

Nowhere does anyone say time doesn't exist... In fact, the title of the article itself is about how "time doesn't exist as we think it does". It means our understanding of time may be different, not that it doesn't exist. It was an interesting read, though, so thanks for that.

And... still a fallacious argument, and the same appeal to authority. If two nobel prize physicists had a disagreement about physical theories, who would you choose? The one most convenient to your belief?

No cause I don't accept things based on who says what. I evaluate the evidence myself and categorize the outcome along a line of confidence or agnosticism.

If two Nobel physicist were arguing about something I would just have to wait to see who science proves right. And would remain agnostic about the issue. That's what an Atheist would do.