Checkmate in 3 moves

[CatSci]

If time is finite, then it necessarily has a beginning.

No, not necessarily. Much like the surface of a ball is finite, yet has no beginning.

Its irrelevant that there isn’t a point where time does not exist.

It is relevent, because to have a beginning requires a point of non-existence to begin from.

There is however a distinct physical point which represents the first part of motion.

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

All that means is that there is no “physical before” the point in question. “Nothing” is not a physical quantity. It does not change the fact that time is finite. There is a finite quantity of physical change.

There is no getting around that fact.

But that doesn’t matter. My argument stands that time, itself, cannot begin.

No. You are telling me that because i cannot speak of a before time, i cannot say that time is finite, which is evidently false.

No, time is finite. That’s that.

Its true that i cannot speak of a “physical before” time, but that doesn’t mean i cannot speak of time as being a finite quantity of “evolving events” that require a cause. The fact of the matter is, time is by definition a finite quantity of evolving events, as apposed to a static being that just exists. So long as there is change (an actualization of possibility/potentiality), we have to account for it by positing some kind of cause (non-physical if necessary).

You’re looking at time wrongly. Don’t think of it as the medium through which things pass… just constantly ticking along. Time is another dimension which is a part of the Universe. The Universe “has” time, it doesn’t go through it.

Your argument gives a deadly blow to the idea that the universe has a physical cause. But what you have said does not effect my particular argument at all, because all you are saying is that you cannot get physically past the point from which change originates, which is only to be expected if change has a first part of motion.

There’s that, but what I’m actually saying is that you can’t get temporally past it either.

That there is no physics before any particular point, only verifies my argument, since it does not change the fact that anything that is finite in its process is necessarily contingent upon a cause for that process; and this is to say anything which has a point which represents the beginning of a process requires a sufficient cause for the existence of that process because you cannot get change or potentiality out of nothing

There never was nothing! We don’t have to consider coming from nothing at all. You’re stuck in this idea of there being a time/place where there was nothing and then there was something, so it had to have a cause. The Universe does not exist within some medium with which to put a point beside to have a place for it to come from.

1. There is a point that has no before. There is nothing physical before it.

Those lines contradict each other. If there’s no before, then you can’t talk about the before.

Your argument amounts to saying that because we can say that there is no physical before time, that therefore we can just say that time exists for no reason; that it is an effect without a cause.

I wouldn’t really call it an “effect”. There’s a point on the surface of a ball that you could nonsensically call the “beginning of the ball”, but that there is a point on the surface is not an effect that needs a cause. The ball simply exists and has the shape that it does. The same goes for the Universe.

But, logically speaking it doesn’t work like that because you cannot get potential out of nothing. Therefore you cannot get change out of nothing.

There never was nothing.

You would have to contradict that fact in-order to say that the process of time simply existed by itself according to itself.

No, you don’t. That’s what I’m trying to explain, that the existence of time, itself, doesn’t contradict some "coming from nothing’ even without a cause.

Originally Posted by CatSci
There is no point in time where there is nothing.

Its irrelevant. Change cannot begin to exist from nothing. If change is finite then it requires a cause that is not physical.

Its totally relevent and a big part of my point. But you can’t make your case without relying on the existence of nothing at some point. If there never was nothing, then your case falls apart. Time didn’t “begin to exist” in a temporal sense like you are ascribing to it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, not necessarily. Much like the surface of a ball is finite, yet has no beginning.

To have the surface of ball is not to be dynamic, but rather it is to be spherical. Thus your analogy is contextually false

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is relevent, because to have a beginning requires a point of non-existence to begin from.

It seems that you haven’t even considered anything i have said.

There is no “physical sense of before” the smallest quantity of change. If change is quantitatively finite, then it necessarily follows that change has a beginning in so far as the fact that change is finite and therefore contingent. There has been a finite distinct number of changes, or for lack of a better word revolutions of distinct points. There does not need to be a measurable point of nothing in-order for this to be true.

It is both true that time has always existed and that time has a beginning.

Until you address this fact, i am not going to continue addressing your circular argument.

 

[CatSci]

To have the surface of ball is not to be dynamic, but rather it is to be spherical. Thus your analogy is contextually false

The 4D manifold that is the Universe isn’t dynamic either. Its just has a shape like a ball does.

There is no “physical sense of before” the smallest quantity of change. If change is quantitatively finite, then it necessarily follows that change has a beginning in so far as the fact that change is finite and therefore contingent. There has been a finite distinct number of changes, or for lack of a better word revolutions of distinct points. There does not need to be a measurable point of nothing in-order for this to be true.

That’s pretty muttled… “Beginning” is not a good word to describe that, because it implies that there is a point of nothing to begin from.

It is both true that time has always existed and that time has a beginning.

No, “beginning” is a terrible word choice… its like saying the surface of a sphere has a beginning.

Until you address this fact, i am not going to continue addressing your circular argument.

That’s cause I’m right. Simply calling it circular doesn’t make me wrong.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The 4D manifold that is the Universe isn’t dynamic either. Its just has a shape like a ball does.
.

The 4d manifold is simply the sum total of all change relatively perceived outside the contextual flow of time. And so yet again your false analogy falls flat on its face. It only appears static because it is being perceived or treated holistically. We are not talking about a static object.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s pretty muttled… “Beginning” is not a good word to describe that, because it implies that there is a point of nothing to begin from.

It is the correct word to use for lack of a better non-temporal word. Its just counter-intuitive because we assume that all beginnings take place within time. The beginning of time however has no measurable point, and so the illusion of having no beginning is strong and easy to fool those with a weak discernment in these matters. But the fact that it does have a beginning is necessarily true nonetheless given the fact that there has been a finite evolution of distinct points.

Other seemingly paradoxical things ensure when we look at the concept of “space”. For example, all space is everywhere and nowhere at the same time; since there is no place outside of space. Space is also infinite and finite at the same time, since there is no possible place where space is not, and yet space is finite in its evolution. It seems contradictory to think that space is expanding into absolutely nothing. These things are counter intuitive taken at face value; but once you understand what is meant by the word “space”, the apparent contradiction dissolves, and any difficulties that remain do not change the fact that space is finite in its dimensions.

From now on i will say that time has a non-temporal beginning.

 

[Curious_Seed]

If you think i have said something wrong you should go to forum administrators so that they can review the thread and give out the appropriate punishments.

But thanks for the prayers anyway.

I do think your remarks fail the test of expected civility; but, I am not moved to “report” you. My preference it to avoid you, in any future topic.

Actually, I regret my sarcasm and have asked Forum Administrators to delete my text.

We all need prayers.

 

[vz71]

Let’s take the set of all material things. Let’s just suppose that material reality is gunky. Then, this set has an infinite amount of members, and each member is a physical entity.

Perhaps I can reword to make it clearer.
It is said that 5 pencils references a real object, I agree. We can count the pencils. We can see the pencils. We know the physical object someone is speaking of when they say 5 pencils.

But when they say infinite pencils, we know it is not real. There cannot be infinite pencils. There are physical laws in place that limit the number of pencils that exist at this time.
Infinite pencils are not real. They are a mathmatical construct that cannot be represented in the physical world. It is not possible to point at a set of pencils and claim there are an infinite number of them.

So what physical object are we talking about when someone attempts to claim infinite?

 

[vz71]

If time is finite, then it necessarily has a beginning.

Something can be infinite if it simply lacks an end.

 

[Perplexity]

Perhaps I can reword to make it clearer.
It is said that 5 pencils references a real object, I agree. We can count the pencils. We can see the pencils. We know the physical object someone is speaking of when they say 5 pencils.

But when they say infinite pencils, we know it is not real. There cannot be infinite pencils. There are physical laws in place that limit the number of pencils that exist at this time.
Infinite pencils are not real. They are a mathmatical construct that cannot be represented in the physical world. It is not possible to point at a set of pencils and claim there are an infinite number of them.

So what physical object are we talking about when someone attempts to claim infinite?

The physical objects which would be parts or members of infinite sums/sets needn’t be actual. It doesn’t follow that something cannot exist because it doesn’t exist.

All I’m interested in showing is that they’re able to be real (i.e. possible), not that they’re actual.

So, in reply I’d say the pencil example does work: I can easily conceive of God creating an actually infinite amount of pencils. That seems possible to me.

I realize this isn’t directly relevant to our discussion of physical objects, but I think it’s worth mentioning:

I believe many theists are committed to actual infinites. God is said to be omniscient, that is he knows every true proposition and believes no false one. Now, God’s omniscience thereby entails that God’s knowledge is reflexive: he knows that he knows.

So, take the proposition: “Perplexity exists”, let’s call it P. God knows P because it’s true. Therefore, God knows that he knows P. Therefore, God knows that he knows that he knows P. etc. ad infinitum.

Many theists conceive of God as in an eternal simultaneity, for them God doesn’t progressively acquire knowledge: he knows all propositions at once. Since the above illustrates that there are an infinite amount of true propositions, it follows that God knows an infinite amount of propositions at once.

 

[CatSci]

Are you editing these posts? They seem to have changed significantly since I first read them yesterday…

The 4d manifold is simply the sum total of all change relatively perceived outside the contextual flow of time. And so yet again your false analogy falls flat on its face. It only appears static because it is being perceived or treated holistically. We are not talking about a static object.

Here, you’re attacking the analogy for perceived errors within it… I suppose we could continue down that route, but I did have an original point here.

What brought me in was this claim by you:

Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself.

I’ve sufficiently shown a way to model the Universe that doesn’t fit within these.

It is the correct word to use for lack of a better non-temporal word. Its just counter-intuitive because we assume that all beginnings take place within time. The beginning of time however has no measurable point, and so the illusion of having no beginning is strong and easy to fool those with a weak discernment in these matters.

Or perhaps, it doesn’t have a beginning (as you say: the beginning of time has no measurable point[which is a lot like something that doesn’t exist]), and the fuzziness of the concept is what allows people who want to make arguments for a creator feel like they have a good gap to put him in.

But the fact that it does have a beginning is necessarily true nonetheless given the fact that there has been a finite evolution of distinct points.

Which can be modeled with the surface of a sphere to show how it could be finite, yet unbounded, and thus not have a point that can be meaningly called a beginning. The two-dimensional surface of the sphere represents all four dimensions of spacetime. Latitudinal lines represent the differences in space as you move through time down the longitudinal lines, so its not static in the since of having no change. As you go up a longitudinal line, say northwards, the spatial dimensions get smaller and smaller as you approach the pole. At the point of the pole, there is no north direction anymore (you’ve gone as far back in time as you can and reached a singularity). And its nonsenical to call that pole the “beginning” of the sphere. Even more nonsensical, is talking about things before that “causing” the beginning, i.e. there is no north of the north pole.

Other seemingly paradoxical things ensure when we look at the concept of “space”. For example, all space is everywhere and nowhere at the same time; since there is no place outside of space.

The space in front of my nose is not in China… not all space is everywhere.

Space is also infinite and finite at the same time, since there is no possible place where space is not, and yet space is finite in its evolution.

No, space is finite… its just unbounded. Being unbounded does not mean being infinite like you are using it. You have to think of it as a manifold.

A mobius strip is a finite manifold, even though you could walk in a single direction on the surface forever and ever… but that doesn’t make it “infinite”.

These things are counter intuitive taken at face value; but once you understand what is meant by the word “space”, the apparent contradiction dissolves, and any difficulties that remain do not change the fact that space is finite in its dimensions.

Its apparent that you have your own misunderstandings of what space is, but we can agree that its finite.

From now on i will say that time has a non-temporal beginning.

And now you’re the one claiming there is a square-triangle. Non-temporal beginning is a contradictory and nonsensical phrase. You should say that time has a finite past (and stop trying to call it a beginning).

 

[Nimeniton]

. Just like i can infer that “out of nothing comes nothing”. "

Creation ex nihilo

 

[Jaaanosik]

Creation ex nihilo

There is the Creator that creates out of nothing therefore the creation ex nihilo.

If there is no creator nothing happens therefore out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[CatSci]

There is the Creator that creates out of nothing therefore the creation ex nihilo.

Which contradicts the first premis in the OP.

If there is no creator nothing happens therefore out of nothing comes nothing.

There never was nothing.

 

[Nimeniton]

Quote:
"Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself"MOM2.
I’ve sufficiently shown a way to model the Universe that doesn’t fit within these…

Your religion says Catholic but you are answering this as if you are an atheist. I am puzzled

 

[CatSci]

Your religion says Catholic but you are answering this as if you are an atheist. I am puzzled

The truth is the truth, and if someone’s wrong they’re wrong.

It is possible to model a finite Universe without a need for a creator or a beginning.

I don’t need to hide from that fact to maintain a belief in God, and I was raised Catholic.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The truth is the truth, and if someone’s wrong they’re wrong.

It is possible to model a finite Universe without a need for a creator or a beginning.

I don’t need to hide from that fact to maintain a belief in God, and I was raised Catholic.

Exactly, I don’t need metaphysical arguments to underpin my faith. I don’t have a problem that there are alternative explanations of the universe that may stack up to a certain degree and have some credibility. That’s not the same as saying they are true or that I believe them. I am not so insecure in my belief that I must deconstruct everything I don’t believe.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Exactly, I don’t need metaphysical arguments to underpin my faith. I don’t have a problem that there are alternative explanations of the universe that may stack up to a certain degree and have some credibility. That’s not the same as saying they are true or that I believe them. I am not so insecure in my belief that I must deconstruct everything I don’t believe.

Religion, philosophy, science are supposed to be in sync because they are looking for the Truth.
There is only one Truth.
If they are not then there is some work left to be done.
Eventually the Truth prevails.

 

[CatSci]

Exactly, I don’t need metaphysical arguments to underpin my faith. I don’t have a problem that there are alternative explanations of the universe that may stack up to a certain degree and have some credibility. That’s not the same as saying they are true or that I believe them. I am not so insecure in my belief that I must deconstruct everything I don’t believe.

Yup, that’s part of the reason I challange these “Arguments for God”. Especially when the posters are cocky and claim to be irrifutable. If God wanted to be proven, he wouldn’t rely on faith. I can appreciate writings from, say Thomas Aquinas, but some nerd on an internet forum… not so much.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The truth is the truth, and if someone’s wrong they’re wrong.

It is possible to model a finite Universe without a need for a creator or a beginning.

I don’t need to hide from that fact to maintain a belief in God, and I was raised Catholic.

If its logically possible for the universe to exist with no cause, then God, as the catholic church understands him, does not exist. It only takes the “logical possibility” to disprove the God of catholicism. You evidently do not understand the Catholic faith or the nature of God, or the importance of proving that the universe is a contingent entity.