Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Against An Eternal Universe

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:15:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why can't the Universe be eternal.

Apparently there's scientific and philosophical reasons.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Define the universe for me first
http://www.debate.org...
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:16:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:15:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why can't the Universe be eternal.

Apparently there's scientific and philosophical reasons.

Because everything in our universe needs a cause.

ex nihilo nihil fit
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:18:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:15:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why can't the Universe be eternal.

Apparently there's scientific and philosophical reasons.

Law of thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology and impossibility of an actual infinite off the top of my head.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:18:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If the universe were eternal, then it has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Therefore, there was a point in time an infinite number of years ago.

However, it is impossible for an infinite to be crossed. A point in time an infinite number of years ago would never reach modern day, even in an infinite number of years.

Therefore, the universe isn't eternal.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:16:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:15:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why can't the Universe be eternal.

Apparently there's scientific and philosophical reasons.

Because everything in our universe needs a cause.

ex nihilo nihil fit

That doesn't refute the universe being eternal, it would refute the universe coming from nothing uncaused. An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:16:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:15:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why can't the Universe be eternal.

Apparently there's scientific and philosophical reasons.

Because everything in our universe needs a cause.

ex nihilo nihil fit

That doesn't refute the universe being eternal, it would refute the universe coming from nothing uncaused. An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Aye. You're right.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:23:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Yet that's impossible. A chain of causes cannot stretch back forever. If it did, how would the chain of effects ever reach today?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of existence
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:27:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of physical existence

Let's not get into this again, Geo.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:28:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:27:00 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of physical existence

Let's not get into this again, Geo.

Then is space physical
or time for that matter is it physical?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:29:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:23:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Yet that's impossible. A chain of causes cannot stretch back forever. If it did, how would the chain of effects ever reach today?

The distinction between separate events is arbitrary. There are no separate events.

Plus, your arguement begs the question and commits a non-sequitur. Our position on a timeline does not dictate whether the timeline extends infinitely in both directions of not. It simply does not follow.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:30:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:28:44 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:27:00 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of physical existence

Let's not get into this again, Geo.

Then is space physical
or time for that matter is it physical?

Yes, space and time are physical quantities. Replace 'physical' with 'natural' if you want.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:31:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:23:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Yet that's impossible. A chain of causes cannot stretch back forever. If it did, how would the chain of effects ever reach today?

At 7/9/2010 3:23:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Yet that's impossible. A chain of causes cannot stretch back forever. If it did, how would the chain of effects ever reach today?

By traversing an actually infinite number of points in time. A proposition that vaguely relevant analogies, IMO, don't go anywhere near disproving. Especially given the fallibility of intuition in contemporary physics.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:32:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:27:00 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of physical existence

Let's not get into this again, Geo.

You're simply wrong. It's earliest use in philosophy referred to all of a existence whether physical or not. Remember, dualism pervaded back in early philosophy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:35:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:32:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:27:00 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:21:32 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
You can't really have a good discussion on this until we are all in agreement for what the term universe means as to which there is a discussion going on at the place where my previous post linked to

Universe = the whole of physical existence

Let's not get into this again, Geo.

You're simply wrong. It's earliest use in philosophy referred to all of a existence whether physical or not. Remember, dualism pervaded back in early philosophy.

All right, how about we simply accept that we're talking about the creation of the physical universe then?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:29:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:23:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:20:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
An eternal universe would be an unbroken chain of causes stretching back forever.

Yet that's impossible. A chain of causes cannot stretch back forever. If it did, how would the chain of effects ever reach today?

The distinction between separate events is arbitrary. There are no separate events.
A match is lit.
The fireplace is lit.
How are those not separate events?

Plus, your arguement begs the question and commits a non-sequitur. Our position on a timeline does not dictate whether the timeline extends infinitely in both directions of not. It simply does not follow.
However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 4:02:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:


Plus, your arguement begs the question and commits a non-sequitur. Our position on a timeline does not dictate whether the timeline extends infinitely in both directions of not. It simply does not follow.
However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.

Unless time did not really exist and was simply a progression through a series of instances
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 4:49:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 4:02:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:


Plus, your arguement begs the question and commits a non-sequitur. Our position on a timeline does not dictate whether the timeline extends infinitely in both directions of not. It simply does not follow.
However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.

Unless time did not really exist and was simply a progression through a series of instances

Yet progression still requires time. Obviously, I am not sensing both 2000 and 2010 at once. My senses are obviously progressing through what we describe as time.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:32:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
A match is lit.
The fireplace is lit.
How are those not separate events?

I was referring to "events" that are causally related. For example, a a stick hitting a cue ball and the cue ball hitting the 8 ball. You may consider those separate events, but you merely arbitrarily define them as such.

As Richard Dawkins said "matter flows from place to place." It's simple as that. Matter is flowing. There are no empirical separate events except for what you define as separate.

Tell me if there's a logical issue with this statement:

Matter has always existed and matter moves.

However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.

See vid.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:55:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 9:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
A match is lit.
The fireplace is lit.
How are those not separate events?

I was referring to "events" that are causally related. For example, a a stick hitting a cue ball and the cue ball hitting the 8 ball. You may consider those separate events, but you merely arbitrarily define them as such.

As Richard Dawkins said "matter flows from place to place." It's simple as that. Matter is flowing. There are no empirical separate events except for what you define as separate.

Tell me if there's a logical issue with this statement:

Matter has always existed and matter moves.

However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.



See vid.

Great video Geo.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 10:08:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 9:55:25 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 9:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
A match is lit.
The fireplace is lit.
How are those not separate events?

I was referring to "events" that are causally related. For example, a a stick hitting a cue ball and the cue ball hitting the 8 ball. You may consider those separate events, but you merely arbitrarily define them as such.

As Richard Dawkins said "matter flows from place to place." It's simple as that. Matter is flowing. There are no empirical separate events except for what you define as separate.

Tell me if there's a logical issue with this statement:

Matter has always existed and matter moves.

However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.



See vid.

Great video Geo.

Really liked the video! :D

Felt kind of bad for the woman since she wasn't able to talk until the end but the man seemed to know his stuff!
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 9:56:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:33:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think the proper stance that all of you are looking for is " I don't know".

Lol, the correct term would be: "We probably do not know yet."
I miss the old members.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 4:59:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 9:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:01:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
A match is lit.
The fireplace is lit.
How are those not separate events?

I was referring to "events" that are causally related.
The fireplace has to be lit with the match.
For example, a a stick hitting a cue ball and the cue ball hitting the 8 ball. You may consider those separate events, but you merely arbitrarily define them as such.
What makes it arbitrary?
As Richard Dawkins said "matter flows from place to place." It's simple as that. Matter is flowing. There are no empirical separate events except for what you define as separate.
Matter is in Place A.
Matter is in Place B.
Flowing requires time!
Tell me if there's a logical issue with this statement:

Matter has always existed and matter moves.
Has matter always moved?

However, if the universe is eternal (the premise), then time must extend infinitely into the past. That does follow very logically. However, if time extends infinitely into the past, then time could never reach now. Hence, the premise is false.

See vid.

I'm not watching 9:15 just so you don't have to type out an argument.