|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I am not proposing an exception to the "law" of cause and effect. What I find absurd is the idea that it is a logical rather than an empirical claim. Since you seem to agree that the basis for cause and effect is empirical, you are not disagreeing with my actual claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: In that case you agree with my point, and therefore your objection has no basis in anything I have written. I suggest that you go back to the OP and try to read it again.
quote: The hot Big Bang is not relevant to my simple point. Something that exists at the first moment of time cannot be said to come into existence because there is no prior point in which it did not exist. Since it did not come into existence it does not need a cause to make it come into existence. (I.e. if it has a cause, that cause must do something else) Can you understand that much? I want to go slow because I wish to avoid your bizarre misreadings. Or at least to make it even more clear that you have no excuse for them. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Then obviously you didn't require it to refute my argument. Which doesn't assume "a sequence where cause precedes effect".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I chose to clarify how your example relates to my argument. And, well, things went on from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The only error you are showing is yours. My argument does not use any such premise. If you imagine that one of my premises implicitly makes this assumption then you will have to show it. And please only deal with premises that are actually present in my argument, not those that are solely present in your imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Simply asserting that my argument is circular because it "assumes" something that is NEITHER a premise nor the conclusion shows nothing.
quote: This is not part of my argument at all. However since it is necessarily true (nothing can be temporally prior to time in the general sense since temporal priority is based on a measure of time) it really doesn't matter. Let us also note that just a little while ago you were asserting that the "circular argument" premise was:
"Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time."
Which does NOT assume that there is anything temporally prior to time.
quote: This is also inaccurate. It is better stated: Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist.
quote: You will note that this stands on it's own. You will also note that the conclusion is NOT the "premise" which you added, which is in itself enough to refute your claim of circular reasoning. I will also note that you omit supporting parts of the argument.
quote: Yes. You can read the argument and find that there is no such premise. Message 1. Or we can simply look at your so-called reconstruction and see that if we leave out the extraneous premise 1 (your addition) and correct premise 2, the argument still works, even without the parts you omitted.
quote: My tests are better since they don't require adding adding self-contradictory premises.
quote: In other words you wish to smuggle in the self-contradictory notion of a state temporally prior to time. And that is really what this "test" is about. Nothing to do with the possibility of a timeless and immaterial creator. Just to encourage a proper understanding of logical fallacies, ASSUMING a contradiction is a logical fallacy (and therefore your new premise invalidates your argument). Not assuming a contradiction is perfectly fine.
quote: Let us note that the possibility of a timeless and immaterial creator is irrelevant even to your argument. The only part of your premise that matters is the assertion of a state temporally prior to time. But since that is a logical impossibility including it invalidates the argument. I'm sure that you think that you were trying a clever trick there, but it falls apart. Even your "reconstruction" is enough to refute your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: By which you mean the logically necessary statement that there cannot be anything temporally prior to the first moment of time.
quote: You seem to be confused. A timeless realm by definition cannot include time.
quote: This doesn't address the point. Temporal priority requires time. As I have stated in other posts in this thread we can postulate other time dimensions which would allow there to be a first moment of "our time" and a temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension). But this is not what you want - because that leaves open the possibility that the cause is temporal, working in the other time dimension. That is why that possibility has not been discussed in detail here.
quote: So you are saying that it is possible that a timeless realm is NOT timeless ? By definition that cannot be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If you mean that then say that. Don't say "timeless" unless you mean "timeless". Especially when you are talking about an area where many people say "timeless" and mean it. And you certainly ought not to argue that other people are making circular arguments when all that is going on is that THEY mean what they say. Unlike you.
quote: Which in fact, could simply be another region of spacetime. And if we consider the implications of that, it seems that when you argue for a "timeless' and "immaterial" creator you really mean "a cause outside of our spacetime that could easily be temporal and material". That's really not very helpful or likely to lead to productive discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: More accurately it required the assumption that our spacetime was the only spacetime. I was willing to go with that for the sake of argument and because it seemed a reasonable possibility. But you've already admitted that your argument requires an "external" time dimension so you're left with no argument against an external spacetime. Which was always a possibility anyway. Assuming time without space is a step further than I'm willing to go without actual argument. Given the connection between space and time in modern physics it seems somewhat unlikely to me.
quote: I'd start with producing a solid argument for it. So far you haven't got one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Because there is no point to it. THe matter has already been covered in earlier posts stating that the argument assumes an absolute first moment of time. I will only comment that your "reworking" is clearly self-serving, as well as inaccurate.
quote: Of course if you assume a contradiction you get an incoherent argument. That's why your reworking is pointless.
quote: I see that you still fail to understand the concept of circular reasoning. Again it is quite simple. The conclusion of an argument must also be a premise. If that is not so there is no circular reasoning. And of course as we know there was nothing wrong with my actual argument. Your only "valid" objection (and there is a reason for those scare-quotes) was that when I use the word "timeless" I actually mean it. Unlike you, who went through an entire thread and a good part of this one before explaining that you were using your own private meaning (something you should have explained right at the start). So, instead of wasting time with these trivialities of obvious points already dealt with, misrepresentation and attempts to justify false charges made in the past we come to the real, relevant point. How do you justify the claim that there is a spaceless realm, with a different time dimension external to our spacetime? It does not follow from Davies' argument since Davies was arguing the position that our spacetime was all that there was. So where is the support for this assumption ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The fact that I am willing to postulate something is irrelevant. The argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in any time dimension. Assuming otherwise creates a contradiction.
quote: No, you can't make it clearer because it isn't there. The fact that you have implicitly conceded that my argument is sound is evidence of this. All you can do is deny the premise that there is no prior moment of time (in the absolute sense).
quote: This is untrue. You quoted Davies to support your claim of a "timeless immaterial" cause. But you've now admitted that - contrary to Davies you assume an additional time dimension (Davies can't be assuming that because it would just reinstate the problem that he is trying to solve!) And while it is true that "immaterial " and "spaceless" are not synonymous your argument relies on the absence of space to conclude immateriality. So your argument does require that your hypothetical realm lacks space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That you can call this a criticism just shows that you utterly fail to understand my argument. The point of my argument was to show that we cannot safely use "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to infer a timeless cause. Since inferring a timeless cause requires no prior time, this is the situation assumed for the sake of the argument. Looking at precisely the situation I wished to address is NOT an error. If there was a mistake it was believing that you meant what you said.
quote: Well let us remember that circular reasoning requires assuming the premise as a conclusion,. Let us remember that the conclusion is that we cannot safely infer a timeless cause via "everything that begins to exist has a cause"
quote: 1) Assume for the sake of argument that there is an absolute beginning of time. (this is required to argue for a genuinely timeless cause from "everything which begins to exist has a cause")
quote:Since "coming into existence" requires a prior state of nonexistence this would necessarily be true, given 1. quote: Which is clearly true.
quote: More accurately:4) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive argument and therefore cannot be trusted in situations significantly differing from our ordinary experience (which is what it is based on) 5) The obvious reason why a cause would be needed for a "beginning" is to bring the thing into existence. There seems to be no other reason which would always apply. 6) Therefore an absolute beginning of time is not only outside of our ordinary experience, it is different in a way that is directly relevant to the inference of a cause from "beginning to exist"
quote: This is purely your addition. I am satisfied with the conclusion that we cannot safely infer a genuinely timeless cause via "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Since you aren't actually interested in arguing for a genuinely timeless cause (unlike William Lane Craig or kbertsche) I have to ask why you are flailing around desperately trying to find an error in my argument ? Even with all the misrepresentations you didn't manage to actually produce a genuinely circular argument !
quote: No, it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. In fact since the argument deals with the case where the beginning is absolute, in the context of the argument time did NOT come into existence because there was no prior state where it did not exist. Obviously the only way that something could exist BEFORE time is if the "before" refers to a different time dimension. So you have to step out of the case the argument is covering for your question to even make sense.
quote: Well no, considering them doesn't make the argument incoherent. The argument simply doesn't address that possibility because assuming other time dimensions where there IS something prior to the beginning of our time negates the argument for a timeless cause. It's only when you try to add it as a premise to the argument that you get incoherence - but that's because you're doing something stupid.
quote: I can see that my argument is being grossly misrepresented by an irrational individual who has great difficulty admitting to his own errors. That does not cause me to think that the Big Bang has problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024