Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Beginning of time?

DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
--If time is defined as a measure of change, and if a beginning requires a change on some level, then logicaly time could not have had a beginning. Could it?

A. Time is a measure of change
B. A beginning requires a change (In this case: from non-existance to existance)
C. No change exists without time [A]
D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]
E. Time could not have began without time [D]
F. Time did not exist *before* time ( *not sure I can use that word)
G. Time did not begin [E, F]

--Any thoughts?
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:04:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
how bout if there is multiple "times", like other space-time systems.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:37:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 5:42:05 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
unless if time itself had a creator who was not bound by it. . . .

this doesn't add much to the conversation. You're denying the assumed rules w/o giving reason.

C. No change exists without time [A]
D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]

I could do the exact same thing by saying:
"well change can exist without time and beginnings can occur w/o time", and then not explain why.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:13:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:37:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/4/2009 5:42:05 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
unless if time itself had a creator who was not bound by it. . . .

this doesn't add much to the conversation. You're denying the assumed rules w/o giving reason.

C. No change exists without time [A]
D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]

I could do the exact same thing by saying:
"well change can exist without time and beginnings can occur w/o time", and then not explain why.

While the human mind is unable to grasp the concept of eternity, I support the belief that God has existed for eternity, hence there never was a change, and time itself was created by this being who is "above" time, who is unchanging and eternal.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:35:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:13:32 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:

While the human mind is unable to grasp the concept of eternity, I support the belief that God has existed for eternity, hence there never was a change, and time itself was created by this being who is "above" time, who is unchanging and eternal.

hence there never was a change

so time always was.
but then, why is this god a necessary component.

For with a claimed to be "eternal" reality the question is why/how it came to be, there is this same question with an "eternal" god. Adding God to the equation doesn't make it any better.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:40:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--If time is defined as a measure of change, and if a beginning requires a change on some level, then logicaly time could not have had a beginning. Could it?

A. Time is a measure of change
B. A beginning requires a change (In this case: from non-existance to existance)
C. No change exists without time [A]
D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]
E. Time could not have began without time [D]
F. Time did not exist *before* time ( *not sure I can use that word)
G. Time did not begin [E, F]

--Any thoughts?

Premise B is wrong. Assuming time had a beginning, there would never have been a time when it didn't exist. To change from state A to state B, you have to have actually been in state A at some prior point in time.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:02:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's impossible that there is no beginning of time. Reason? Well if there is no beginning then the an infinite body exists between now and the beginning. You can't cross an infinite body. Meaning that what is happening now would be impossible.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:03:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:35:53 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:13:32 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:

While the human mind is unable to grasp the concept of eternity, I support the belief that God has existed for eternity, hence there never was a change, and time itself was created by this being who is "above" time, who is unchanging and eternal.

hence there never was a change

so time always was.
but then, why is this god a necessary component.

For with a claimed to be "eternal" reality the question is why/how it came to be, there is this same question with an "eternal" god. Adding God to the equation doesn't make it any better.

ummmm . . . .. you must not understand the meaning of eternal. . . . if it was eternal it never "came to be" it always was. . . . .THIS is why I said that it is difficult for the human mind to grasp, because it doesn't match up with anything we can physically see in our universe.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Sylux
Posts: 290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 9:08:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Though it's based on no fact at all (to my knowledge), I believe that time is an everlasting loophole that repeats itself a lot and doesn't afraid of anything.
"Can you see? Do you know?
The string behind you, it's shiny and pretty.
Where is my string.
Give me because I don't know.
Give me your string.
Give me everything."
-grasshoppa
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 9:14:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--If time is defined as a measure of change, and if a beginning requires a change on some level, then logicaly time could not have had a beginning. Could it?

A. Time is a measure of change
B. A beginning requires a change (In this case: from non-existance to existance)

What does a beginning have to do with anything? You're forgetting the idea that something could have "always been" which is one theory.

C. No change exists without time [A]

False. If time is merely a measurement, then the change could have absolutely existed without time... You would simply use another measurement (or not be able to measure it at all).

D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]

Uh, why not? Again, if time is just a measurement, this doesn't follow.

E. Time could not have began without time [D]

Again, no?

F. Time did not exist *before* time ( *not sure I can use that word)

Okaaay? Again, if time is just a tool for measuring then I don't see how this follows at all.

G. Time did not begin [E, F]

Right. Time did not begin because there's nothing to begin. Time does not mean past, present or future. Time is just a tool you use to describe what you think those things are (what they feel like; how things appear in this 3 dimensional world).
President of DDO
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 2:30:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
theLwerd: "What does a beginning have to do with anything? You're forgetting the idea that something could have "always been" which is one theory."

-- To address your first question; A 'beginning' has everything to do with the topic. I'm not sure if you read the topic name or not, but it is "Beginning of Time?". The entire argument is aiming to show that time could not have had a beginning.

-- And your second comment: I am not forgetting any such thing. My very argument is stating that time has "always been".

theLwerd: "False. If time is merely a measurement, then the change could have absolutely existed without time... You would simply use another measurement (or not be able to measure it at all)."

-- This is incorrect. A meter is a 'measure' of length. If an object is exactly zero meters long, then it does not have length.(or exist at all for that matter, but that's another argument) This is an analogy in which any unit of time is to meter as change is to length. Simply put, if time is the measure of change, then change does not exist where the measurement describing it has a value of zero(non-existance). What you are saying about time is like saying that something can have length and be zero meters long.

theLwerd: "Uh, why not? Again, if time is just a measurement, this doesn't follow."

--Ahhh, but it does follow. No beginnings can occur without time because change is required for a beginning to occur. Because change is required for a beginning to occur and time is a measurement of that change, then the mesurement of that change cannot be zero.

theLwerd: "Right. Time did not begin because there's nothing to begin. Time does not mean past, present or future. Time is just a tool you use to describe what you think those things are (what they feel like; how things appear in this 3 dimensional world)."

-- Yes, it is a tool, a measurement; But, using the definitions of the words involved can easily show that when someone says "time did not begin" this is equivalent to saying that "the Universe was never at a state in which change did/could not happen".
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 2:32:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
A. Time is a measure of change

I wouldn't use that definition.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 2:47:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 2:32:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
A. Time is a measure of change

I wouldn't use that definition.

...because it sets up the paradox you use. Seeing as everything follows from that definition, and that it can be proven that the universe has not existed indefinitely, the definition must be wrong or abused in some way.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 2:52:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
theLwerd: "DevinKing, that is a horrible explanation of what time is"

-- Please... enlighten me.

omelet: "Premise B is wrong. Assuming time had a beginning, there would never have been a time when it didn't exist. To change from state A to state B, you have to have actually been in state A at some prior point in time."

-- I would agree that it must have been in state A. I would argue though, the change could have been from how something was in an atemporal state [outside of time] to how it was in a temporal state.[Of course this would be assuming that time could have had a beginning or limits]

johngriswald: "It's impossible that there is no beginning of time. Reason? Well if there is no beginning then the an infinite body exists between now and the beginning. You can't cross an infinite body. Meaning that what is happening now would be impossible."

-- An infinite body of time can be crossed by an infinite amount of time.

johngriswald: "Reason? Well if there is no beginning then the an infinite body exists between now and the beginning."

--I just thought that I would point out how much this doesn't make sense. The only way that there is an infinite time between now and the beginning is if there was no beginning. This is absurd.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:12:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:03:23 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:

ummmm . . . .. you must not understand the meaning of eternal. . . . if it was eternal it never "came to be" it always was. . . . .THIS is why I said that it is difficult for the human mind to grasp, because it doesn't match up with anything we can physically see in our universe.

So how does positing God have any explanatory meaning??

If time always was, why does it need be explained? and if it does, doesn't god?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:18:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 2:47:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/4/2009 2:32:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
A. Time is a measure of change

I wouldn't use that definition.

...because it sets up the paradox you use. Seeing as everything follows from that definition, and that it can be proven that the universe has not existed indefinitely, the definition must be wrong or abused in some way.

-- Correct me if I am wrong but... there is no other accurate definition. If there is, then please provide it so that it may be analyzed.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:20:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 3:18:44 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 12/4/2009 2:47:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/4/2009 2:32:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
A. Time is a measure of change

I wouldn't use that definition.

...because it sets up the paradox you use. Seeing as everything follows from that definition, and that it can be proven that the universe has not existed indefinitely, the definition must be wrong or abused in some way.


-- Correct me if I am wrong but... there is no other accurate definition. If there is, then please provide it so that it may be analyzed.

"defining [time] in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars." http://en.wikipedia.org...
Time has not logically applicable definition.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:27:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future c : leisure <time for reading>
2 : the point or period when something occurs : occasion
3 a : an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something to happen, begin, or end b : an opportune or suitable moment <decided it was time to retire> —often used in the phrase about time "

--These are the relevant definitions from merriam-webster dictionary. I would like to point out that the term time is meaningless without referencing events or change in all of these definitions.

-- @ http://www.merriam-webster.com...
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:30:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Definitions are for colloquial use. You're trying to use time as a logical term.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:40:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 3:30:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Definitions are for colloquial use. You're trying to use time as a logical term.

-- You are going to have to ellaborate.

-- Everything is what its definition is. Definitions provide meaning to everything which is said. Without them on some level, language is non-existant.

-- Besides, what you are saying is non sequitur. You are trying to say that time is not what it is defined as. If you are saying that it has another definition, then it is not time, it is something different. And as such it is not what my argument is about and was not addressed nor is it relevant.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:44:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:59:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--If time is defined as a measure of change, and if a beginning requires a change on some level, then logicaly time could not have had a beginning. Could it?

A. Time is a measure of change
B. A beginning requires a change (In this case: from non-existance to existance)
C. No change exists without time [A]
D. No beginnings can occur without time [B, C]
E. Time could not have began without time [D]
F. Time did not exist *before* time ( *not sure I can use that word)
G. Time did not begin [E, F]

--Any thoughts?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA............ ok :)

Anyway, this is hysterical.

You're mistake here is that you equate time to change, when time isn't change. It is a measure of change.

You are saying the equivalent of "Cups are a measurement of sugar. Without a cup, there is no sugar."

I can't believe this thread wasn't over after the first or second reply :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 3:45:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I meant that those definitions of time are colloquial and invalid for logical assertions.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Vi_Veri: "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA............ ok :)

Anyway, this is hysterical."

-- You seem to be very intelligent... just kidding.

Vi_Veri: " It is a measure of change."

-- No disagreement here.

Vi_Veri: "You are saying the equivalent of 'Cups are a measurement of sugar. Without a cup, there is no sugar.' "

--Incorrect. I am saying the equivalent of "Cups are a measurement of sugar. If you measure your sugar and find that you have zero cups, then you don't have any sugar."

Vi_Veri: "I can't believe this thread wasn't over after the first or second reply :)"

--Then you don't have much of an imagination... or ability to reason beyond what others have told you for that matter.

wjmelements: "I meant that those definitions of time are colloquial and invalid for logical assertions."

-- I would disagree[obviously]. Now, if you decided to push this, then I could simply rearrange my wording to say: " The Time which we all know and love could not have had a beginning because..." Of course, I would not need to because the definition I provided is an exact definition in every sense of the word.

--As for my definition being invalid for logical assertions... it[my definition] is the most generably agreeable and is backed up by many dictionaries. Every word we every use in a "logical assertion" is backed up by a dictionary. This is because it is pointless to argue that the dictionary is wrong when it come to describing non-tangible concepts. I can reference some more [dictionaries] besides the one I had already provided if you so desire.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 4:14:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 3:44:11 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA............ ok :)

Anyway, this is hysterical.

You're mistake here is that you equate time to change, when time isn't change. It is a measure of change.

You are saying the equivalent of "Cups are a measurement of sugar. Without a cup, there is no sugar."

I think I misunderstood him, so you might be misundersting too. Suppose cups were our only measurement of sugar. And you said, "How many cups of sugar are there?" and I said, "There are 0 cups of sugar..." I think he's saying that if there are 0 cups of sugar then there's no sugar at all. Even if there was half a cup (or any fraction of a cup -- say .4 cup) there would still be some measurement of the cup. However, if there is 0 cups i.e. nothing to be measured then it means there's nothing that exists to be measured.

Anyway, I THINK thats what he was trying to say. If so, it makes sense.
President of DDO
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 4:15:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Look devin. If philosophy cannnot define time, then making philosophical assertions about time is absurd.

Refering to time as a measurement and then asserting that it either had a beginning or not is absurd equivocation. You're redefining the relative measurement into a physical thing that exists and comes into and out of existence.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 4:32:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Devin, that's what you're trying to say --- but that is not what's being said. I think it's your intelligence coming into question.

You said "A. Time is a measure of change" thus what I said completely follows.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 4:33:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 4:15:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Look devin. If philosophy cannnot define time, then making philosophical assertions about time is absurd.

Refering to time as a measurement and then asserting that it either had a beginning or not is absurd equivocation. You're redefining the relative measurement into a physical thing that exists and comes into and out of existence.

Exactly
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.