Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 165 of 302 (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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 179 of 302 (642662)
11-30-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by designtheorist
11-30-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK #165
quote:
Paul, I am afraid you must be feeling emotional right now. Emotion has been shown to destroy the ability to reason correctly.
No, there is nothing wrong with my reasoning.
Let me remind you that you claim that the existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm is relevant to my argument.
ABE: In fact your specific claim was:
PaulK could strengthen his argument if he could prove an immaterial realm does not exist
In "support" of this claim you produced a quote which had nothing to do with the existence of non-existence of an immaterial realm.
Clearly if anyone's reasoning is impaired, it is yours.
quote:
Read the words again. You admit your argument depends on a time dimension where there is no prior time in any time dimension.
I "admit" that my argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in the absolute sense.
However, you still haven't shown any connection to the existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm, which is the point in question.
quote:
You also admit that postulating a prior time dimension creates a contradiction.
I "admit" that postulating that there is a prior moment of time in the case where there is no prior moment of time is a contradiction.
But let us note that neither of these have anything to do with the existence of an immaterial realm. Therefore you have still failed to support your assertion. It seems that you are the one who is having problems reasoning. Perhaps you should try calming down and being less emotional ?
quote:
By the way, I searched for "postulat" using Command F and the word was never used prior to Message 94. I have not been able to locate the "other posts in this thread" you are referring to here. If you can identify them for me, I would appreciate it.
Searching for "postulat"was not a good idea since there is no necessary link between the word and the point you are looking for.
The issue was addressed in Message 15 Written before you admitted that when you use the word "timeless" you don't mean "timeless".
quote:
We are not discussing my argument in this thread. We are discussing your argument. This is important because the person making the argument has the burden of proof
My argument - if you mean the one in the OP - does not address the issue of an immaterial realm at all. It is irrelevant to it. So obviously we can't be discussing my argument when talking about an immaterial realm.
quote:
All I have said is that your argument has an unexamined/implicit premise that a prior time in another time dimension is not possible and this is circular reasoning. At first you denied it. Then you admitted it. Then you denied it again. Now you are saying it is irrelevant. It is getting rather tiresome.
Perhaps if you were to pay attention to what I am saying - and took the time to understand what a circular argument is - things would go better. If you keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over again - without addressing the rebuttals then you will get the same responses.
A circular argument must use the conclusion as a premise.
The premise you object to is NOT the conclusion
Your objection is invalid since the premise simply describes the situation the argument is addressing (and in fact it does not even assert that the situation actually applies anywhere !)
You haven't addressed any of these facts.
quote:
This is an ad hom attack. You are better than that, Paul. Try to get control of your emotions.
Perhaps it would be better for you to stop ignoring points that refute your arguments, stop misrepresenting your opponents, and stop making a fool of yourself by talking about logical fallacies you don't understand.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by designtheorist, posted 11-30-2011 11:38 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 203 of 302 (642886)
12-02-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 11:45 AM


quote:
1) is this claim (that time "began" when the universe "began") really true? How do we test this scientifically or prove it logically? It seems to be the common opinion among cosmologists, but do we have any solid reasons for claiming it?
I think that we need to remember that it is your side that primarily promotes this point of view. William Lane Craig relies on it to argue that the creator must be timeless. And that's the only reason why I'm talking about it. I don't assume that it is true.
To the best of my knowledge many cosmologists are happy with alternative ideas (e.g Eternal Inflation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 11:45 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 2:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 206 of 302 (642905)
12-02-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 2:31 PM


quote:
"My side"?? Do you mean physicists or creationists??
I meant Christian apologists and would-be apologists. That's certainly the way William Lane Craig uses it, and he's not the only one.
quote:
Most physicists view time as a dimension similar to spatial dimensions. Thus it is natural for us to think that time "began" when the spatial dimensions did, at the Big Bang. However, we know that time is in some ways fundamentally different from the spatial dimensions. Time is asymmetric, with a direction given by entropy.

My understanding is that it is entirely possible that there are other regions of spacetime in addition to our universe, possibly with an infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 2:31 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 212 of 302 (642959)
12-03-2011 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 7:35 PM


quote:
But my first point was to question this initial assumption that time and the universe start together. What evidence do we have for this claim? Is it really true? How do we know?
Of course we don't. This is just another flaw in the argument that I am opposing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 7:35 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 271 of 302 (881731)
08-28-2020 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Phat
08-27-2020 8:08 AM


Re: Dredging up old topics from the archive
I’m really unable to find any point in your post that is on-topic and worth addressing. So I think leaving it unanswered is for the best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Phat, posted 08-27-2020 8:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 08-28-2020 11:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 273 of 302 (881746)
08-28-2020 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Phat
08-28-2020 11:49 AM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
quote:
Creationists often invoke the catch-all phrase "God did it" which explains nothing. Critics could well claim that "Math explains it" or that QM explains it and would in fact be using these scientific disciplines to explain a beginning point in time. They could further argue that if the creationist claimed that God was eternally before that first point when time began, then so too could be immaterial concepts such as mathematics, calculus, and ideas in general.
You mistake an important part of the critic’s view. There is no need to argue whether immaterial concepts exist eternally. These are just descriptions, and it is the things they describe that must exist - although not necessarily eternally.
quote:
So are you a materialist? A materialistic determinist? Do we have any reason to believe that it makes as much sense to speculate that matter is eternal as it would be to speculate that God is eternal?
I am not a determinist, and I prefer physicalist to materialist since matter is not as basic as was once thought. But there is no need to say that matter is eternal. Spacetime might be, or it might not. For the purposes of this argument I have assumed that it is not.
quote:
Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One.[1] In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else.
Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[2]
Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
Dual-aspect monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance.

Of these, substance monism comes closest to my views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 08-28-2020 11:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 275 of 302 (881785)
08-30-2020 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Phat
08-30-2020 2:09 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
Supervenience came up in NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? although Richard Wang didn’t seem to really grasp the concept.
To try to put it simply physical reality is basic. All mental states are based in the physical - no difference without a physical difference is a key phrase you may see.
To put it in terms relevant to the earlier thread, information in DNA is supervenient on the chemical structure of the DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:09 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 277 of 302 (881789)
08-30-2020 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Phat
08-30-2020 2:37 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
quote:
So would that then imply that Brain is over Mind?
I would say that the mind is a way of looking at the operation of the central nervous system (the brain is very important but it isn’t absolutely everything).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:37 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 08-30-2020 3:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 279 of 302 (881792)
08-30-2020 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by jar
08-30-2020 3:09 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
Obviously the mind is a process - thinking, feeling are all active things. That is why it’s another way of looking at the operation Of the central nervous system, rather than the physical system alone,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 08-30-2020 3:09 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 295 of 302 (883463)
12-09-2020 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Phat
12-09-2020 4:26 AM


Re: Speculation within the limits of a science mind
quote:
I understand your relativistic outlook on beliefs
It isn’t really relativistic. It just acknowledges that there are different opinions and no objective way to choose between them.
For instance, in Message 292 you say that Jesus is a more plausible creator god, but nothing you quote supports that claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Phat, posted 12-09-2020 4:26 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024