A Proof For Gods Existence By M.O.M

[MindOverMatter]

Ill be back later. Sorry.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So your argument is, out of nothing comes nothing, therefore, God exists?

When placed within the context of our preceding debate, yes. But your response doesn’t tell me that you care for the context.

When you talk about the necessity of an explanation you are invoking the PSR, not just logical necessity.

I am talking about logical necessity. Something that follows necessarily from a particular premise according to logic.

I certainly agree that out of nothing comes nothing; that is a logical impossibility. For if absolutely nothing exists, time does not exist. Yet time must exist for there to be change from “nothingness”

There cannot be change from nothingness, nor the potentiality for change from nothing, for out of nothing comes nothing. If change does not have infinite past, then it necessarily began to “exist” regardless of whether or not it is impossible to go back before T=0. Such an impossibility is what one expect given that time began to exist; That it is impossible doesn’t mean that time must exist, for it only means that once time exists, it is impossible to conceive of a measure of “change” before its existence, since there is no change and thus no before in the sense of change. But this does not undermine the existence of an eternal/unchanging being, which i made evident in previous posts. While the beginning of time does render a precedent spatial physical cause impossible, it does not preclude the existence of an immaterial transcendent hierarchical un-caused cause; so long as such a cause is the expression of a perfect entity. If all of reality itself began to exist with with time at t=0, then we are talking about the logically impossible. We are talking about reality beginning to exist from absolutely nothing. If we are forced to apply logic without prejudice we have to conclude that something timeless and unchanging caused the potentiality for that change to occur and also caused that change to occur.

But if time exists, it must always exist, there can’t be a time before time by definition - that is also a logical impossibility.

In respect of change, time began to exist. You are trying to define time in to existence. But the fact still remains that time began to exist at t=0, and out of nothing comes nothing. The fact that we cannot logically imagine a time before time, doesn’t tell me that it must exist; it only tells me that i cannot imagine a time before time. At most, it tells me that time cannot have a preceding “physical cause”. But logically speaking it has to have a cause that is not itself in time or is time.

Just a clarification to avoid confusion: potential realities don’t “exist” in the real sense of the word, which you yourself state later on.

They don’t exist yet, but they have the potential to exist based upon the existential act of another being. However the word “potentiality” has no meaning outside of the concept of a precedent reality or ultimate reality.

But there is a third type of possible entity:
3) An uncaused (e.g. eternal) but logically contingent entity.

What does that mean? What do you mean by contingent? Why should it exist?

It seems to me that you are imagining that things exist “because” of the word logic; as if to say that logic causes beings in to existence irrespective of logic having an actual reality of its own. But what is logic outside of “reality”? If something is the “absolute logical” cause of potential reality, such a cause does not exist because of some imposing logic from outside itself, but rather it exists because it is the root of all logical truth; it is the embodiment of logic; thus it exists absolutely. It is absolute truth. It is true that out of nothing comes nothing because of that which is reality by nature of being. It is not truth because of nothing. Absolute reality does not begin to exist or change. Things are logically true because of that which is the ground of all things. That which is absolute Reality is fundamentally logical since it is the reason for logical truth. Anything less than an absolute reality that exists by nature of being cannot be the absolute ground of all potential existences. Anything that begins to exist and changes, cannot be the root of all logic. Time began to exist. Time is the extension of logically possible beings in to a potential reality that doesn’t yet exist. Time is possible because of that which absolute reality and is timeless. Time is not a thing in itself but rather it is a being or a group of beings that move from one potential moment to the next.

 

[MindOverMatter]

For those reading this thread. Sorry for the missing words or grammatical errors. I hope this has not made it to difficult to understand my arguments.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Basically, I agree with you on some points but not on others.

I am talking about logical necessity. Something that follows necessarily from a particular premise according to logic.

OK.

There cannot be change from nothingness, nor the potentiality for change from nothing, for out of nothing comes nothing.

Agreed.

If change does not have infinite past, then it necessarily began to “exist” regardless of whether or not it is impossible to go back before T=0.

It is impossible to go back before T = 0 just like it is impossible to go north of the north pole or underneath the center of the earth.

While the beginning of time does render a precedent spatial physical cause impossible, it does not preclude the existence of an immaterial transcendent hierarchical un-caused cause; so long as such a cause is the expression of a perfect entity

.

Why? Why must such an entity be perfect? Why must an un-caused cause be not spatial? There are few leaps here.

If all of reality itself began to exist with with time at t=0, then we are talking about the logically impossible.

No, any reality existing before t = 0 is logically impossible. Even God can’t exist before t = 0.

We are talking about reality beginning to exist from absolutely nothing. If we are forced to apply logic without prejudice we have to conclude that something timeless and unchanging caused the potentiality for that change to occur and also caused that change to occur.

What is the meaning of “timeless”?

Here is your fallacy: you imagine things proceeding like this:

Nothing → Something (t = 0) → Changing (t > 0)

And then you say: this can’t be because reality beings to exist “from nothing”. But that isn’t right because time is a measure of change. You’ve misplaced your time-axis. If time is a measure of change it should be like this:

Nothing (t = 0) → Something (t > 0) → Changing (t > 0)

But now there isn’t really “Nothing” at t = 0 because time exists. Whatever the nature of time, it isn’t “nothing” and thus in the above scenario you don’t really have something coming from nothing.

In respect of change, time began to exist. You are trying to define time in to existence. But the fact still remains that time began to exist at t=0, and out of nothing comes nothing. The fact that we cannot logically imagine a time before time, doesn’t tell me that it must exist; it only tells me that i cannot imagine a time before time. At most, it tells me that time cannot have a preceding “physical cause”. But logically speaking it has to have a cause that is not itself in time or is time.

No there can’t be a time before time, it’s logically impossible. Let’s not confuse “metaphysical” time with “spatiotemporal” time. It’s possible for a world to exist in which there exist only spiritual entities, not physical ones, and yet there is change, or one in which a physical universe appears then disappears. So yes in that case “t = 0” isn’t the beginning of the **physical **universe, but the beginning of the world so to speak. But still in “metaphysical time” a cause precedes its effect or at least is simultaneous with it. Either way there can’t be cause of time before time!

Still, I think I sort of see vaguely where you are trying to go with this. You are trying to argue that the existence of time is logically impossible without the existence of God. Still “nothing comes from nothing” is not the way to go with this. There never is a time, by definition, in which “nothing” exists.

What does that mean? What do you mean by contingent? Why should it exist?

A logically contingent entity is one neither whose non-existence nor whose existence entails a contradiction. Thus time is a logically contingent entity. It need not exist, even under theism.

If something is the “absolute logical” cause of potential reality, such a cause does not exist because of some imposing logic from outside itself…

Oh dear. You lost me here. How can you hope to prove the existence of a logically necessary being using logic without first assuming the validity of that logic? Then even if you succeed, your assumption of that validity is prior to the proof of the being’s existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is impossible to go back before T = 0 just like it is impossible to go north of the north pole or underneath the center of the earth.

I have thoroughly explained to you what i meant by the word before in the context of T=0. I explained that i was using the word in a purely hierarchical sense in so far as determining the existence of a necessary being in which potentiality can be timelessly accounted for. You have chosen to ignore this, and so i will be ignoring you next post. If other readers of this thread would like me to reply to any future posts that you make; they can send me a private message.

Why? Why must such an entity be perfect?

Because that which is the cause of change cannot fail to exist or begin to exist. If it could, it would not exist necessarily, and so it would not be the existential reason for there being something rather than nothing; it would not be the root of logical truth, since logic cannot fail to be true and there is no objective truth in nothing. If it could possibly fail to exist or does not have to exist, then its possible for there to be such a thing as absolute nothing. But absolute nothingness is not a reality logically speaking. Therefore there must be that which is absolute reality, not just because it just happens to the first in line, but rather because its actual “nature” is existence/reality; while any being that begins to exist receives reality from that which is existence. This is the only kind of being that can be called perfect and it is perfect because it does not receive its reality from another being, and cannot fail to exist. Such a being is the absolute foundation and cause of change. With out that foundation of being, there is no logical reason for why change would exists in the first place.

Change began to exist and had the potentiality to exist because it began to exist in that which is absolute timeless existence. If time is existence, then existence as defined by change began to exist out of nothing and because of nothing, and is finite, and therefore so is logic, which is impossible. This is the same as saying that out of nothing comes nothing. T=0 is the beginning of the existence of change, before which there was nothing physical and there was certainly nothing in a state of temporal change. This means that Absolute existence, as a “timeless cause”, is necessarily simultaneous to its effect.

Why must an un-caused cause be not spatial? There are few leaps here.

Well unless you are willing to say that a space can be infinity great in size (a logical impossibility); you would have to say that a finite space existed in nothing. But nothing is not real. Thus absolute reality must be immaterial; as in to say that it transcends the meaning of size and width. Also, a timeless un-caused cause cannot cause anything, since it is not acting in time. If you say that its acting in time then it will suffer from the same logical defects as the idea of time being the cause of time from nothing.

Nothing (t = 0) → Something (t > 0) → Changing (t > 0)
But now there isn’t really “Nothing” at t = 0 because time exists.

Time is the measure of an entity progressing from one point to the next. This is what gives meaning to change. T=0 marks the beginning of “change”; not the beginning of reality. T=0 represents the beginning of change, but t=0 zero is not itself “changing” from a point of “change”, and is not changing from nothing. T=0 is not progressing from something that is itself in a state of change. Change is not causing the potentiality for change at T=0, because that change requires a cause, so on and forth. You cannot have a timeless change at T=0. Rather, change occurs at T=0, and from T=0. T=1 is the numerical fulfillment of time progression from the point of t=0; that progression is what gives meaning to the word change, before which there was nothing changing.

It doesn’t matter how you play it or mince with words. If time is finite, then logically it has a beginning. If there was nothing before time, then time does not have the potential to exist.

Your argument amounts to saying that the potential for change came from nothing, and that change and reality just began at T=0 for no reason.

This is not logical

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well unless you are willing to say that a space can be infinity great in size (a logical impossibility); you would have to say that a finite space existed in nothing. But nothing is not real.

Can you support those 2 assertions?

 

[NowAgnostic]

I have thoroughly explained to you what i meant by the word before in the context of T=0. …You have chosen to ignore this, and so i will be ignoring you next post. If other readers of this thread would like me to reply to any future posts that you make; they can send me a private message.

Please don’t blame everyone else for your sloppy use of language. You don’t get to just to change the definitions of words willy-nilly to suit your purposes, and no, you didn’t explain what you meant before very clearly. I believe the term you are looking for here is “metaphysically prior” - if A is metaphysically prior to B, B cannot exist without A, and thus B → A.

Ignore this post if you wish. It will show you are more interesting in grandstanding and attempting to win debate points with the crowd than in the truth.

Because that which is the cause of change cannot fail to exist or begin to exist. If it could, it would not exist necessarily, and so it would not be the existential reason for there being something rather than nothing;

Aha! You have come up with a completely different argument, completely unrelated to the fact of change. But let’s state it here and look at it.

1. There must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
2. This reason cannot be found in any logically contingent being, since any contingent being need not exist;
3. Therefore the reason must be found in a necessary being; the reason why there is something rather than nothing is that something must exist, logically speaking.

You can’t really justify 1) without appealing to the strong Principle of Sufficient Reason (every contingent fact has a reason) but that leads right into modal collapse (this world is the only possible one). Now I know posters like James Saint bite the bullet and embrace that, but most aren’t comfortable with it, which means that there simply are unexplained brute facts.

Of course this argument is invalid anyway; it could be a necessary fact that some contingent being must exist.

it would not be the root of logical truth, since logic cannot fail to be true and there is no objective truth in nothing.

Why does logical truth need a “root”?

If it could possibly fail to exist or does not have to exist, then its possible for there to be such a thing as absolute nothing. But absolute nothingness is not a reality logically speaking.

Explained above why that argument is invalid. But additionally you can’t reify “nothing” as a “thing”.

Therefore there must be that which is absolute reality, not just because it just happens to the first in line, but rather because its actual “nature” is existence/reality; while any being that begins to exist receives

reality from that which is existence. This is the only kind of being that can be called perfect and it is perfect because it does not receive its reality from another being, and cannot fail to exist. Such a being is the absolute foundation and cause of change. With out that foundation of being, there is no logical reason for why change would exists in the first place.

Even with that foundation of being, there is no logical reason why change would exist, since that being is unchangeable.

Change began to exist and had the potentiality to exist because it began to exist in that which is absolute timeless existence.

That’s logically impossible. If existence is “absolute timeless” it’s impossible for anything to change because there’s no time.

…T=0 is the beginning of the existence of change, before which there was nothing physical and there was certainly nothing in a state of temporal change.

Here you go using “before” T=0 again. Change can’t “begin” to exist as though there were anything “before” it. Change exists eternally.

…Also, a timeless un-caused cause cannot cause anything, since it is not acting in time. If you say that its acting in time then it will suffer from the same logical defects as the idea of time being the cause of time from nothing.

Well there you go. Perhaps accidentally, you now see the problem. How does a timeless cause act in time? Indeed.

Time is the measure of an entity progressing from one point to the next. This is what gives meaning to change. T=0 marks the beginning of “change”; not the beginning of reality.

Yes, it does mark the beginning of reality. If there is nothing before T = 0, then T = 0 is the beginning of everything and all reality.

You cannot have a timeless change at T=0. Rather, change occurs at T=0, and from T=0. T=1 is the numerical fulfillment of time progression from the point of t=0; that progression is what gives meaning to the word change, before which there was nothing changing.

Before T = 0 again! You can’t use “before” in the sense of progression and then claim another meaning when it goes to “before” T = 0.

It doesn’t matter how you play it or mince with words. If time is finite, then logically it has a beginning. If there was nothing before time, then time does not have the potential to exist.

This argument is valid whether or not God exists. So that argues for an eternal universe. You will say God exists “before” time, of course, but that doesn’t help. In a hypothetical universe with God, but nothing else at all, including time, existing, then nothing can change.

Your argument amounts to saying that the potential for change came from nothing, and that change and reality just began at T=0 for no reason.

This is not logical

You consistently confuse a brute fact with “coming from nothing”.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. There must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
2. This reason cannot be found in any logically contingent being, since any contingent being need not exist;
3. Therefore the reason must be found in a necessary being; the reason why there is something rather than nothing is that something must exist, logically speaking.

You can’t really justify 1) without appealing to the strong Principle of Sufficient Reason (every contingent fact has a reason) but that leads right into modal collapse (this world is the only possible one). Now I know posters like James Saint bite the bullet and embrace that, but most aren’t comfortable with it, which means that there simply are unexplained brute facts.

Of course this argument is invalid anyway; it could be a necessary fact that some contingent being must exist.

In Metaphysics, ALL states must have a reason. They must have a reason for changing if they change and they must have a reason to not change if they don’t.

In (1) you merely state that “there must be a reason” - that is a fundamental fact of logical thought.

In (2), I don’t think you can have a “logically contingent being” that isn’t also a “necessary being”. Logic does not depend on the current state of anything. Logic involves the [eternal] principles. A “logically contingent being” is merely one that was preceded by logic. It is contingent on the logic (not the state), but such logic absolutely must be derived from prior logic to the point where “necessary logic” is the “First [Logical] Cause”. This is different than a “contingent being” that is dependent upon a prior state that might or might not have been formed.

(3) is metaphysically accurate as per (1) - ALL things must have reason. (2) is superfluous.

“which means that there simply are unexplained brute facts.”

I don’t understand where that came from, but “James Saint” didn’t “bite the bullet”, James Saint has always contended that all things have reason.

And while MOM is contemplating his retort, could you explain your comment about “modal collapse”?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Can you support those 2 assertions?

Sorry, i just assumed that people would know this.

Okay. The problem is to do with physical infinities.

Where in an infinite space can you place a finite object?
Hows is it meaningful to speak of a particular place or spatial number/location in something which has no definable limits? Where is a particular “location” that is an infinite space apart from another location?

It is difficult to see the problem, but spatial infinities suffers from the same problem that plagues the concept of an infinite past. Its like saying, you can take 345 from an infinite number. At first this might seem reasonable. But if you could take away 345 from an infinite number, then this would mean that an infinite number has a definite and countable amount, since when you take 345 away from it, it becomes finite, because it now lacks the 345 which was a necessary part of it being infinite; necessarily so because an infinite “number” is only meaningful in respect of each individual number that it contains. This is true because an infinite number by definition is contingent on the reality of numbers or amounts, since we are talking about an amount. Whereas a real infinite transcends all definable numbers, since it cannot be defined by a number. In other words it is not a number; but rather it is an immaterial reality that has no parts. In the context of a space, how is it then meaningful to speak of a definite number or an amount in terms of infinity? Space would transcend all numbers. Thus it is a meaningless concept. Also, even more meaningless is to speak of a finite space existing in nothing. It has to exist in something because “nothing” doesn’t actually exist, and in order to break free of a infinite spatial regression (spaces existing within spaces to infinity), which is just as meaningless and illogical as an infinite regression in time, that through which space exists cannot be something which is definable by spatial limitations or numbers. Space expands into existence (into ontologically speaking) or rather proceeds in being with time and potentially exists in the future. It is not a static or timeless entity. It is necessarily finite. Therefore the ultimate reality must be non-physical in nature.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Please don’t blame everyone else for your sloppy use of language. You don’t get to just to change the definitions of words willy-nilly to suit your purposes, and no, you didn’t explain what you meant before very clearly. I believe the term you are looking for here is “metaphysically prior” - if A is metaphysically prior to B, B cannot exist without A, and thus B → A.

So you did know what i was talking about and you chose to pretend as if you didn’t. I may have not used the textbook terminology that you wanted, but i explained clearly what i meant, and any honest intelligent person would have understood or at least asked me to explain it in a different way or perhaps kindly make the helpful suggestion, as you have just done, that i ought to use the term metaphysical prior instead of ontological hierarchy. But instead you used it in order to make me look stupid in order to hide the fallacious thinking of your arguments. I explained to you that when i was talking about the word before i was using that word in the strict sense of “hierarchy” or “ontology”, or if you want metaphysical prior; either way i was not talking about before time, even though your weak replies insisted on implying that i was. You obviously don’t like people redefining words, because it disarms your argument. But how you feel is irrelevant; i am only interested in the truth. You are only interested in taking advantage of my word usage by pointing out that the word before is definable in the sense of time. That’s obvious, since that’s the popular usage. But your semantical attacks in no way restricts me to using the word before in that sense, so long as i explain what i mean; which is exactly what i did. The evidence is plain to see.

Time is a word that defines something changing or progressing from one point to the next or past to future; it is a measure of change. Outside of physical reality it is nothing; it has no meaning. So when you say there is nothing “before”, you can only mean that there was nothing “changing” before that point in the sense of “time”(which means change). This is not the same as saying there is no “ontological being” that exists hierarchically before time. It just means that if there is, it can’t be a being that is by definition something “changing” or potentially progressing in to the future. It is not a being in time, although it exists simultaneously to the beginning of time.

Ignore this post if you wish. It will show you are more interesting in grandstanding and attempting to win debate points with the crowd than in the truth.

No, i am interested in not farting about. If you think that you know what i mean, feel free to be charitable and make a suggestion. Don’t try to make out as if i am thick or that i am saying something unreasonable when in reality i am not. You can redefine words so long as the definition you give is meaningful. For instance that which is ontologically first or before, needn’t be that which is before in the sense of time; and thus i can use that word in the sense of hierarchy rather than time. You can either accept it or just go to another thread if you think i am being unreasonable or unclear.

 

[stenlis]

Sorry, i just assumed that people would know this.

Okay. The problem is to do with physical infinities.

Where in an infinite space can you place a finite object?
Hows is it meaningful to speak of a particular place or spatial number/location in something which has no definable limits? Where is a particular “location” that is an infinite space apart from another location?

It is difficult to see the problem, but spatial infinities suffers from the same problem that plagues the concept of an infinite past. Its like saying, you can take 345 from an infinite number. At first this might seem reasonable. But if you could take away 345 from an infinite number, then this would mean that an infinite number has a definite and countable amount, since when you take 345 away from it, it becomes finite, because it now lacks the 345 which was a necessary part of it being infinite; necessarily so because an infinite “number” is only meaningful in respect of each individual number that it contains. This is true because an infinite number by definition is contingent on the reality of numbers or amounts, since we are talking about an amount. Whereas a real infinite transcends all definable numbers, since it cannot be defined by a number. In other words it is not a number; but rather it is an immaterial reality that has no parts. In the context of a space, how is it then meaningful to speak of a definite number or an amount in terms of infinity? Space would transcend all numbers. Thus it is a meaningless concept. Also, even more meaningless is to speak of a finite space existing in nothing. It has to exist in something because “nothing” doesn’t actually exist, and in order to break free of a infinite spatial regression (spaces existing within spaces to infinity), which is just as meaningless and illogical as an infinite regression in time, that through which space exists cannot be something which is definable by spatial limitations or numbers. Space expands into existence (into ontologically speaking) or rather proceeds in being with time and potentially exists in the future. It is not a static or timeless entity. It is necessarily finite. Therefore the ultimate reality must be non-physical in nature.

There is also an infinite amount of numbers in the interval between 3 and 4 (or between minus infinity and plus infinity for that matter). That doesn’t imply that PI cannot exist. If you want to put a thing into an infinite space, you’ve got infinite number of possible place where to put it. Of course, you cannot put it in a definite position with regards to ‘infinity’ - all positions are the same if that space is empty. After that, if you want to put another object in there, you still got infinite number of possibilities, even though one of them is excluded, because one position is already occupied. And also, this time not all places are equal, because now you can consider the relation of the new object to the first object.

In an infinite space, your relation to the space itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is your relation to objects within that space.

What exactly is the problem then?

 

[MindOverMatter]

In a hypothetical universe with God, but nothing else at all, including time, existing, then nothing can change.

What is a hypothetical universe with God, but nothing else? If you mean there is nothing else but God, then we are necessarily talking about one being.

You consistently confuse a brute fact with “coming from nothing”.

I assure you that the confusion lies in your misunderstanding of what it means for something to be real and to have a proceeding in time. If something comes out of nothing, then we are talking about a logical impossibility, because something cannot logically begin to exist or potentially proceed from nothing. To say that a brute fact came from nothing doesn’t make the idea of all existence beginning with time anymore reasonable. You are still saying that a being had the potentiality and the possibility to begin from nothing for no logical reason.

A brute fact in terms of logical truth has to be redefined, since a thing cannot logically exist for no reason. If we were to redefine the word brute fact so that it rationally corresponds to something that does exist, then logically speaking a brute fact can only exist because it has a particular kind of “nature” that cannot fail to exist; i.e it is “reality” by nature of being rather then by the cause of something else. A better way to explain it would be to say that the ultimate reality is existence by definition rather than by “participation”(participatory beings are potential or contingent realities). Just like me saying that i have a “human nature”, it is in this sense that i am saying that Gods nature is “existence”. For God to be is to be existence, timelessly enabling the logical possibility for other beings to exist. That which is absolute existence by nature, cannot fail to exist or begin to exist from nothing because if it did it would mean that ultimate reality is not existence by nature, which would also mean that “absolutely nothing” could possible exist (which is illogical); either that or such being would have to have existence by participating in that which is existence by nature, and thus would not be the ultimate reality. True absolute existence cannot begin to exist, or have a cause outside of its self, or have an ending. And it has to be the timeless root of all logical truth.

Outside of that definition, logically speaking, there is no such thing as a brute fact. The word can be used to express an epistemological limitation in human comprehension, but when used in an absolute metaphysical sense, it is an irrational concept just like saying that absolute nothing is real. It cannot be used to express an ontological limitation in logical explanation because if that were true then the world would be fundamentally contradictory. Either way, in regards to potentiality, your argument is necessarily saying that something contingent came out nothing. Which is a logical impossibility.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is also an infinite amount of numbers in the interval between 3 and 4 (or between minus infinity and plus infinity for that matter).

Do you mean that there is an actual infinity of numbers in actual reality? Or do you just mean a potential infinity?

What you are failing to understand is that you cannot make up an infinite with numbers. An infinite is not a number that can be reached or defined. There is no amount of numbers that you can put together that would ever amount to an infinite; and thus it does not, and cannot, logically exist as a number. You are just saying that it exists, but imagination does not amount to actual reality.

If you want to put a thing into an infinite space, you’ve got infinite number of possible place where to put it.

You are saying that I have an actually infinite number of possible spaces. Is that what you are saying here? If so please refer back to my post i refuted this.

Thank-you for participating.

 

[NowAgnostic]

So you did know what i was talking about and you chose to pretend as if you didn’t.

No I didn’t know what you were talking about, and don’t blame me for your sloppy use of language as though I should be able to read your mind.

I may have not used the textbook terminology that you wanted, but i explained clearly what i meant…

It can’t be a being which is changing, true. However the rest of this doesn’t follow. It can be a being which could potentially change but in fact does not. And what does it mean to not be a “being in time” except to be a changeless being?

For instance that which is ontologically first or before, needn’t be that which is before in the sense of time; and thus i can use that word in the sense of hierarchy rather than time. You can either accept it or just go to another thread if you think i am being unreasonable or unclear.

No, I understand you now, you want to show this being logically necessary for the existence of time.

But what is an illegitimate argument is to use the principle that something cannot come from nothing. Why? Because that implies nothing being “before” something in the sense of time. That’s what the words “come from” mean.

Now, if you what you really mean is “come from” or “before” in the sense of metaphysically prior, then what you are saying is that nothing is not metaphysically prior to something, a trivial truth but one which does not disprove the existence of something as brute, unexplained fact.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I assure you that the confusion lies in your misunderstanding of what it means for something to be real and to have a proceeding in time. If something comes out of nothing, then we are talking about a logical impossibility, because something cannot logically begin to exist or potentially proceed from nothing.
To say that a brute fact came from nothing doesn’t make the idea of all existence beginning with time anymore reasonable. You are still saying that a being had the potentiality and the possibility to begin from nothing for no logical reason.

As I said before, this conception has nothing existing “before” something in time. Agreed that’s logically impossible, but because there can be no “before” time. A brute fact doesn’t “come from nothing”. A brute fact is just unexplained. It isn’t preceded in time. I think what is necessary here is for you to clarify exactly what you mean by “coming from nothing”.

A brute fact in terms of logical truth has to be redefined, since a thing cannot logically exist for no reason.

God’s creative act exists for no reason in orthodox theism. There is no reason why He created this world rather than that. If you insist there must be a reason, then you end up in modal collapse (this world is the only possible one). You end up with a brute fact no matter how you slice it.

If we were to redefine the word brute fact so that it rationally corresponds to something that does exist, then logically speaking a brute fact can only exist because it has a particular kind of “nature” that cannot fail to exist; i.e it is “reality” by nature of being rather then by the cause of something else.

That would not be a brute fact, but a necessary fact, and I’m not in favor of redefining words as you well know at this point

That which is absolute existence by nature, cannot fail to exist or begin to exist from nothing… True absolute existence cannot begin to exist, or have a cause outside of its self, or have an ending. And it has to be the timeless root of all logical truth.

Again what does “begin to exist from nothing” really mean? If you don’t mean a temporal progression “from nothing” then do you mean without cause or explanation?

Outside of that definition, logically speaking, there is no such thing as a brute fact. The word can be used to express an epistemological limitation in human comprehension, but when used in an absolute metaphysical sense, it is an irrational concept just like saying that absolute nothing is real.

If there are no brute facts then nothing contingent exists. Are you willing to state that this world exists of necessity and is the only possible one?

 

[stenlis]

Do you mean that there is an actual infinity of numbers in actual reality? Or do you just mean a potential infinity?

Well, you keep rocking back and forwards between conceptual things and ‘real’ things. You seem to argue that infinity is conceptually impossible but when we try to show you the concept of infinity you argue that we cannot demonstrate the infinity physically.

So let me get this straight:

1. We have a concept of infinity. Open up a math book and read up on it. It’s 17th century stuff in fact - Newton was the first one to use it for good measures - he made a sum of infinite set of infinitessimally small parts to derive (or rather - to ‘integrate’) the laws of gravity. Without the concept of infinity we would have none of our current technology.
2. We don’t know whether infinity is physically possible. If the space or time is in fact infinite, we don’t know any way of demonstrating it.
3. We don’t know whether infinity is physically impossible either. No one has demonstrated that.

MindOverMatter;6035395:

What you are failing to understand is that you cannot make up an infinite with numbers. An infinite is not a number that can be reached or defined. There is no amount of numbers that you can put together that would ever amount to an infinite; and thus it does not, and cannot, logically exist as a number.

You are quite right. Infinity is not a number. We have a concept of infinity and it’s NOT a number. What’s wrong with that? Infinity is a property of entities like number series or number sets or the property of lines. It may be the property of time itself. We don’t know. But we do know that it is not a number.

You might be confused because we sometimes say that there is an ‘infinite number’ of some things. That does not mean that there is an actual number called ‘infinity’ but rather that the set of those things is infinite.Once again, get a math book and learn.

You are just saying that it exists, but imagination does not amount to actual reality.

Same thing again - are you arguing that a concept of infinity does not exist or that a physical instance of infinity does not exist? See above.

You are saying that I have an actually infinite number of possible spaces. Is that what you are saying here? If so please refer back to my post i refuted this.

I’m not sure what you are refering to.
In a concept of infinite space you have an infinite number of possible places.
MindOverMatter;6035395:

Thank-you for participating.

You are welcome!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sorry, i just assumed that people would know this.

Okay. The problem is to do with physical infinities.

Where in an infinite space can you place a finite object?
Hows is it meaningful to speak of a particular place or spatial number/location in something which has no definable limits? Where is a particular “location” that is an infinite space apart from another location?

It is difficult to see the problem, but spatial infinities suffers from the same problem that plagues the concept of an infinite past. Its like saying, you can take 345 from an infinite number. At first this might seem reasonable. But if you could take away 345 from an infinite number, then this would mean that an infinite number has a definite and countable amount, since when you take 345 away from it, it becomes finite, because it now lacks the 345 which was a necessary part of it being infinite; necessarily so because an infinite “number” is only meaningful in respect of each individual number that it contains. This is true because an infinite number by definition is contingent on the reality of numbers or amounts, since we are talking about an amount. Whereas a real infinite transcends all definable numbers, since it cannot be defined by a number. In other words it is not a number; but rather it is an immaterial reality that has no parts. In the context of a space, how is it then meaningful to speak of a definite number or an amount in terms of infinity? Space would transcend all numbers. Thus it is a meaningless concept. Also, even more meaningless is to speak of a finite space existing in nothing. It has to exist in something because “nothing” doesn’t actually exist, and in order to break free of a infinite spatial regression (spaces existing within spaces to infinity), which is just as meaningless and illogical as an infinite regression in time, that through which space exists cannot be something which is definable by spatial limitations or numbers. Space expands into existence (into ontologically speaking) or rather proceeds in being with time and potentially exists in the future. It is not a static or timeless entity. It is necessarily finite. Therefore the ultimate reality must be non-physical in nature.

That is not a sound argument, but maybe for another thread.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That is not a sound argument, but maybe for another thread.

Its Not a sound argument? Is that all you have to say? Do you actually ever attempt to give an actual argument to back up your assertions, or do you expect everybody to just take your word for it?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So let me get this straight:

1. We have a concept of infinity. Open up a math book and read up on it. It’s 17th century stuff in fact - Newton was the first one to use it for good measures - he made a sum of infinite set of infinitessimally small parts to derive (or rather - to ‘integrate’) the laws of gravity.

First of all, logic is not contingent on science. Secondly, an actual infinite, as apposed to a potential infinite, is not measurable, and thus cannot be proven or dis-proven by the empirical method; and thus is not an object of science, but is instead an object of philosophical reflection. That he used the concept of an infinite as a conceptual tool, doesn’t mean that it applies directly to objective “events” as a logical possibility. Perhaps you should read up on the “context” in which Newton viewed and used the term “infinite” and how that concept was applied to empirically measurable events.

1. We don’t know whether infinity is physically possible. If the space or time is in fact infinite, we don’t know any way of demonstrating it.

We can demonstrate it with logic, as i have just done.

1. We don’t know whether infinity is physically impossible either. No one has demonstrated that.

I just did.

You are quite right. Infinity is not a number. We have a concept of infinity and it’s NOT a number. What’s wrong with that?

If you’re going to talk about infinite objective “numbers” “measurable amounts” or “quantities”, then its obviously a problem.

Infinity is a property of entities like number series or number sets or the property of lines. It may be the property of time itself. We don’t know. But we do know that it is not a number.

If its not a number then what are we talking about? Its an empty word when applied to objective numbers.

You might be confused because we sometimes say that there is an ‘infinite number’ of some things. That does not mean that there is an actual number called ‘infinity’ but rather that the set of those things is infinite.

Perhaps you are confusing potential infinities with actual infinities. Potential infinities never reach infinity, they are just indefinite in length or number; but they are still finite. You claim that we can have a set of numbers that is infinite in quantity. But what does that mean, logically speaking? Objectively speaking, if you cannot make up an actual infinite with the addition of numbers, then you cannot logically speak of an actual infinite number or numbers. There is no such thing as a number or numbers that transcends a finite amount, it is always finite no matter how large the quantity. You cannot complete numbers. There is not a point beyond which we can claim an infinity. If you speak of an actual infinite number, then by definition you are necessarily saying that it is infinite because of the numbers that it contains, by including the word numbers. You are saying that numbers have the potentiality to become actually infinite. But like you say there is no number that is infinite, and saying numbers instead of “number”, doesn’t make it anymore rational. If an an actual infinite number is infinite because of the amount of numbers it contains then this means that an objective actual infinite is “contingent” on each individual number that it contains. That means that if i take even one away, it will become “finite”. But that would mean that an infinite number is a finite number away; which illogical.

Perhaps it is you that is confused. I am merely going by what logic is telling me.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Its Not a sound argument? Is that all you have to say? Do you actually ever attempt to give an actual argument to back up your assertions, or do you expect everybody to just take your word for it?

Sorry, I just didn’t want to interrupt you and NowAgnostic. It wasn’t exactly on topic.