Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 3:57 AM
195 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,962 Year: 16,785/29,783 Month: 773/1,956 Week: 276/331 Day: 4/50 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1782 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 151 of 268 (642591)
11-29-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by kbertsche
11-29-2011 7:42 PM


Reply to kbertsche #145
I think either 1 or 2 would be an acceptable equivalent to "begins to exist" although I would favor 1 only because it has fewer words.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 7:42 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 152 of 268 (642594)
11-30-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 11:43 PM


Re: Reply to Rahvin
When you see someone actually change their mind because of new evidence, it is time to look more closely at that evidence. That is the way I feel about Allan Sandage learning the big bang was a unique event. It started him on a journey which resulted him becoming a Christian. Pretty startling evidence for the former atheist.

This is, of course, not true, as you know.

Perhaps you could find something new to be wrong about. For one thing, if you fail to deceive us the first time you utter a falsehood, you're not likely to deceive us the second or third time by mere repetition; and for another thing the sheer monotony of your dishonesty is extremely boring.

Finally, I would note that your garbage about Sandage is off-topic. Perhaps you could at least try to be wrong about something germane to the issue being discussed.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 11:43 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14485
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 153 of 268 (642599)
11-30-2011 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 7:39 PM


Re: Reply to Rahvin
quote:

It is not an argument from ignorance because it is not my argument. We are discussing PaulK's argument. PaulK could strengthen his argument if he could prove an immaterial realm does not exist. He cannot.

No, I couldn't. The existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm is irrelevant to the argument in the OP. YOUR argument requires the existence of an immaterial realm, and it would be strengthened if you could give a good reason to think that one exists. Apparently you can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 7:39 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Larni, posted 11-30-2011 5:12 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 162 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 10:10 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14485
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 154 of 268 (642601)
11-30-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by kbertsche
11-29-2011 7:42 PM


quote:

I suggest that "begin to exist" is roughly synonymous with:
1) "have a finite age"
2) "have a temporal starting-point of its existence"

If past time is finite, everything must have a finite age. Which would give you an infinite regress unless past time is infinite.

2) is unclear. What is a "temporal starting-point of it's existence" ? If it is merely a first moment in time when the thing exists then it only differs from 1) in the case of an infinite past. If it is something else then it needs to be explained.

William Lane Craig has provided his own gerrymandered definition, but he has not supplied the extra argumentation required. For one thing he has failed to even show that our universe has a beginning by his special definition !

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 7:42 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2011 9:32 AM PaulK has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 155 of 268 (642605)
11-30-2011 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
11-30-2011 3:43 AM


The more the merrier
YOUR argument requires the existence of an immaterial realm, and it would be strengthened if you could give a good reason to think that one exists. Apparently you can't.

I'll go one better. I posit a third time dimension with an even bigger god than Designtheorist's.

This god (who may or may not be His Noodlyness [but I refuse to be drawn on that point]) exists in an immaterial realm (from the perspective of Designtheorist's god) and as a separate time dimension it can be seen as 'prior' to Designtheorist's immaterial realm.

I'm sorry, PaulK but as you have ruled out both immaterial realms existances I take this to mean that you do hold to the unexamined, implicit and false premise which Designtheorist identified earlier.

So you see you are wrong x2.

Hang on, maybe there is another timeless immaterial dimension!

Wrong x3

Etc......


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:43 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 268 (642608)
11-30-2011 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2011 6:57 PM


Re: Reality of Time
That they have a material basis, yes.

You are suggesting that ideas do not exist separate from a material basis. In fact you are suggesting that ideas are noting more thoughts.

I disagree, and it might just be that we are defining ideas differently. What I believe ideas to be are abstract concepts that are separate from the thoughts, writings, and objects that express them. For example, the story of Goldilocks and the three bears is independent from any medium or thought that contains that story.

If indeed our difference is one of definition, then it either we need to agree on a definition or I need to use different examples. But I don't believe the equivocating we are engaged in is helpful. Yes I will agree that concepts must be embodied before they have a physical effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2011 6:48 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 157 of 268 (642611)
11-30-2011 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
11-30-2011 6:01 AM


Re: Reality of Time
I have an idea for a novel. An original story. Before I can write or otherwise express this idea to anyone else I am run over by a bus and my head crushed under a giant wheel.

Does my idea still exist?
Did the idea exist before I had thought of it?

NN writes:

What I believe ideas to be are abstract concepts that are separate from the thoughts, writings, and objects that express them.

As I said before - There are arguably objective aspects of reality (e.g. mathematical truths) which meet your criteria here. But whilst such things can be conceived of as ideas not all ideas qualify as objective aspects of reality (e.g. my now pavement splattered idea for a novel).

You seem to be conflating things.

NN writes:

For example, the story of Goldilocks and the three bears is independent from any medium or thought that contains that story.

Did the story of Goldilocks and the three bears exist before there were any people to think of it? Has Goldilocks and the three bears existed since the beginning of the universe?

Did we discover or invent the idea of Goldilocks?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2011 6:01 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2011 10:03 PM Straggler has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 158 of 268 (642616)
11-30-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by kbertsche
11-29-2011 8:55 PM


The universe did not begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago.
So you would actually deny that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago?!? If you don't like "begin to exist", how would you prefer to describe the finite age of the universe and its origin in a singularity? Any comments from Cavediver or others actually trained in cosmology?

The standard Big Bang model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM model) combined with experimental data tells us that the universe was very small 13.7 billion years ago, not that it began at that point.

The initial singularity is a mathematical artefact produced when you extrapolate General Relativity beyond the limits of its applicability, it's not the origin of the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 8:55 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 10:15 AM Son Goku has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 159 of 268 (642620)
11-30-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by kbertsche
11-29-2011 8:55 PM


So you would actually deny that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago?!? If you don't like "begin to exist", how would you prefer to describe the finite age of the universe ...

How about saying that the universe has a finite age?

Rahvin has a point: "begin to exist" does have its problems. Normally, when we say something begins to exist, we mean that there's a time when it didn't followed by a time when it did. But if, as many cosmologists seem to say, time is an aspect of the universe, then there was no time when the universe didn't exist, making it different from everything else that "began to exist".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 8:55 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2011 9:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 160 of 268 (642623)
11-30-2011 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
11-30-2011 3:53 AM


quote:
William Lane Craig has provided his own gerrymandered definition, but he has not supplied the extra argumentation required. For one thing he has failed to even show that our universe has a beginning by his special definition !


Can you please provide Craig's definition, and a reference to where he presents this definition?

Are you sure that he has not supplied the extra argumentation? (How can you be sure unless you've read everything he's written?)


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 10:00 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2011 4:43 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14485
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 161 of 268 (642626)
11-30-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by kbertsche
11-30-2011 9:32 AM


quote:

Can you please provide Craig's definition, and a reference to where he presents this definition?

I think that is a digression at this point. After all you are supposed to be presenting a purely logical proof that you already have.

quote:

Are you sure that he has not supplied the extra argumentation? (How can you be sure unless you've read everything he's written?)

I am absolutely certain that he did not do so in the article that I actually read, where he was using that definition ! I am also certain that it would be very difficult for him to argue for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2011 9:32 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1782 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 162 of 268 (642627)
11-30-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
11-30-2011 3:43 AM


Reply to PaulK #153
No, I couldn't. The existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm is irrelevant to the argument in the OP.

It is not irrelevant as you have already admitted in Message 124 where you wrote:

The argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in any time dimension. Assuming otherwise creates a contradiction.

As I made clear very early on, one does not have to assume the existence of an immaterial realm - only the possibility of an immaterial realm. As long as you refuse to admit a possibility of such a realm, then you are committing circular reasoning. If you admit the possibility of such a realm, then the issue you are discussing is immediately resolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 10:30 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 183 by Larni, posted 11-30-2011 1:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 186 by DWIII, posted 11-30-2011 9:40 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1782 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 163 of 268 (642628)
11-30-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Son Goku
11-30-2011 8:30 AM


Reply to Son Goku
The standard Big Bang model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM model) combined with experimental data tells us that the universe was very small 13.7 billion years ago, not that it began at that point.

Not true. This is one of the standard myths I showed was false in my earlier thread. The thread starts at Message 1. Briefly, it is impossible for an infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity to remain in that condition for any period of time without immediately expanding rapidly. As soon as the singularity came into existence, the universe began expanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Son Goku, posted 11-30-2011 8:30 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2011 10:27 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 11-30-2011 11:09 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 170 by Son Goku, posted 11-30-2011 11:33 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 268 (642630)
11-30-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by designtheorist
11-30-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Reply to Son Goku
This is one of the standard myths I showed was false in my earlier thread.

Nonsense.

For one thing, what you state does not even conflict with what Son Goku has said. Given that the BB model says nothing about the universe as a singularity, there is no conflict between what you are claiming to disprove and what Son Goku has described.

Secondly, you didn't prove anything was false. At best you asserted and presented an argument for your position. But you really didn't even do that. You simply told us that you didn't believe that a singularity could exist for more than a microsecond. But your personal incredulity is not proof or even evidence. At best it is an argument scarcely worth the trouble to address.

I understand that you aren't a physicist like Goku, but surely you can read what was actually posted before firing off that scattergun of yours.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 10:15 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 11:12 AM NoNukes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14485
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 165 of 268 (642631)
11-30-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by designtheorist
11-30-2011 10:10 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK #153
quote:

It is not irrelevant as you have already admitted in Message 124 where you wrote:

The argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in any time dimension. Assuming otherwise creates a contradiction.


The basic problem here is that the quote doesn't support your claim in the slightest.

quote:

As I made clear very early on, one does not have to assume the existence of an immaterial realm - only the possibility of an immaterial realm.

No, since you want to argue that the cause of the universe MUST be immaterial, you pretty much need your immaterial realm.

quote:

As long as you refuse to admit a possibility of such a realm, then you are committing circular reasoning. If you admit the possibility of such a realm, then the issue you are discussing is immediately resolved.

Since the only thing I've said on the subject is to ask you to support the idea that such a realm actually exists, this is just another collection of falsehoods.

All you are demonstrating is that you are irrational and have no care for the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 10:10 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 11:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018