Eternal truth equals the existence of a neccesary timeless reality

[MindOverMatter2]

1.Inorder for something to be eternally true, there cannot be a time when that truth is wrong.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, and if there are such things as eternal truths, then it is not possible that there could ever be a time when there was absolutely nothing.
2. 2+2=4 is an eternal truth.
3. In order to account for an eternal truth we cannot say that it is caused by a potential reality or potential truth, because then it would not always be true within its proper context (which is logically impossible); and neither can we say that it is caused by an infinite regress because an infinite regress is made of potential realities and events or potential truths.
4. Therefore we must say that eternal truths are caused by a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality.
5. This being would have to be absolutely perfect in its existence.

 

[lemondiesel]

Very, very interesting read man. I am going to smoke and ponder about this for awhile and I will definitely get back to you on this.

 

[RobNY]

1.Inorder for something to be eternally true, there cannot be a time when that truth is wrong.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, and if there are such things as eternal truths, then it is not possible that there could ever be a time when there was absolutely nothing.
2. 2+2=4 is an eternal truth.
3. In order to account for an eternal truth we cannot say that it is caused by a potential reality or potential truth, because then it would not always be true within its proper context (which is logically impossible); and neither can we say that it is caused by an infinite regress because an infinite regress is made of potential realities and events or potential truths.
4. Therefore we must say that eternal truths are caused by a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality.
5. This being would have to be absolutely perfect in its existence.

There may be a harmless or harmful equivocation in your usage of “timeless” and “eternal.”

The first premise uses ‘eternal’ in the sense of ‘at every time.’

But eternal truth in the sense of 2 and 5 is not “eternal” merely in the sense of “it exists at every time” but rather, in the sense that “it exists, not in time, necessarily.”

-Rob

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The first premise uses ‘eternal’ in the sense of ‘at every time.’

-Rob

When i say that in order for something to be eternally true there cannot be a time when that truth is not true, i am merely saying that there is no potential event that can falsify that which is eternally true. I do not intend to use the word eternal in the sense of time or to imply that time has some causal effect on that which is eternal.

I can see why you thought that there might be an error. However; if something is timelessly or eternally true, then it is impossible that there can be a time where that truth is not true. The fact of its truth is not made existent or real because of some potential event; but rather it is necessarily true because of something else that is not a potential event. I am not using eternal in the sense of all time, such as an infinity of events, but rather i intend to show the logical consequences and the effect that a timeless truth has upon time. A timeless truth necessarily entails that any finite event must also agree with that truth, and that which is the “ground” of eternal truths is synonymous to that which causes finite “events” to be real. It is not possible that something can timelessly/eternally be true and not true withing the context of time. The implication is that nothing potential or changing is cause of eternal truth.

Do you see what i am saying?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

1. Therefore we must say that eternal truths are caused by a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality.
2. This being would have to be absolutely perfect in its existence.

Lets just say i grant you the first 5, how do you get from there being a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality. To it being a “being” of perfection?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Lets just say i grant you the first 5, how do you get from there being a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality. To it being a “being” of perfection?

A being that cannot fail to exist is by definition that which exists perfectly. If it could in principle possibly fail to exist or not exist it could not be the eternal ground of the eternal truths that we experience in time. If such a being was the existential ground of eternal truths, that would mean that 2+2 could in principle possibly fail to equal 4, which would contradict the fact that it is an eternal truth. It would be a metaphysical/logical contradiction; an impossibility, much like the fact that it is impossible for us both to exist and not exist at the same time. You either exist or you don’t. Therefore, in order to account for eternal logical truths there has to be a being that has no possibility of failing to exist. In other-words, in order for such a being to be logically intelligible in terms of eternal truth, its existence cannot be arbitrary or accidental. It has to exist by virtue of an objectively perfect nature. Only that which is perfect in its existence has no possibility of ceasing to exist.

 

[hatsoff]

1.Inorder for something to be eternally true, there cannot be a time when that truth is wrong.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, and if there are such things as eternal truths, then it is not possible that there could ever be a time when there was absolutely nothing.
2. 2+2=4 is an eternal truth.
3. In order to account for an eternal truth we cannot say that it is caused by a potential reality or potential truth… and neither can we say that it is caused by an infinite regress…
4. Therefore we must say that eternal truths are caused by a timeless reality that transcends all potentiality.

(5) does not follow from (1)-(4).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

(5) does not follow from (1)-(4).

If you want to be taken seriously you have to do more than make assertions. I am not interested in your mere opinion. If you have a real argument, please post it.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

A being that cannot fail to exist is by definition that which exists perfectly. If it could in principle possibly fail to exist or not exist it could not be the eternal ground of the eternal truths that we experience in time. If such a being was the existential ground of eternal truths, that would mean that 2+2 could in principle possibly fail to equal 4, which would contradict the fact that it is an eternal truth. It would be a metaphysical/logical contradiction; an impossibility, much like the fact that it is impossible for us both to exist and not exist at the same time. You either exist or you don’t. Therefore, in order to account for eternal logical truths there has to be a being that has no possibility of failing to exist. In other-words, in order for such a being to be logically intelligible in terms of eternal truth, its existence cannot be arbitrary or accidental. It has to exist by virtue of an objectively perfect nature. Only that which is perfect in its existence has no possibility of ceasing to exist.

I still don’t see how you get from there being a timeless reality to that reality having to be a conscious being?

What i am specifically asking is why must the timeless reality be aware?

Anyway the bottom line is we simply do not know anything about before the inflation of space time. Therefore you can not use the laws of this universe to draw conclusions about that which is outside it.

 

[hatsoff]

If you want to be taken seriously you have to do more than make assertions. I am not interested in your mere opinion. If you have a real argument, please post it.

I’m sorry if my post seemed curt, but this isn’t just a matter of opinion. Your argument is deductively invalid. There are no inferential rules which yield (5) based on (1)-(4).

Now, maybe you don’t intend this to be a deductive argument, in which case my criticism is inappropriate. If so, that’s fine, but then I’m curious to hear how you do intend it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I still don’t see how you get from there being a timeless reality to that reality having to be a conscious being?

What i am specifically asking is why must the timeless reality be aware?

The title of the thread is “Eternal truth equals the existence of a necessary timeless reality”. I haven’t made any inferences to an intellect and will, and until you accept and understand why a necessary timeless being must exist, i am not going to.

Anyway the bottom line is we simply do not know anything about before the inflation of space time. Therefore you can not use the laws of this universe to draw conclusions about that which is outside it.

This is a common mistake. I am not using the laws of physics or any physical theory of science. I am using the rules of logic and metaphysics. For instance; i cannot both exist and not exist at the same time; and I can know for certain that this is objectively and logically true, even though my being physical entails the laws of physics. I don’t need to consult science in order to know this. In other words, physical laws are subordinate to and presuppose logic and metaphysics. Physical reality cannot do that which is metaphysically impossible; and thus i need not consider scientific theories in-order to gain knowledge about that which is possible and impossible.

Scientific theories (the natural sciences) are about how the universe (physical reality) and its particular parts and qualities developed. Metaphysics is the study of being as being as an act, rather than the study of its particular qualities as such; and when it speaks of a quality, it does not speak of it in the same sense as science; but rather it speaks of it in a very general sense that is self evident; i.e there is such a thing as change, or there is such a thing as beings. But when i want to know how the specific nature of atoms work, i have to consult the physical theories of science rather than metaphysics. Metaphysics deals with being from a different perspective that is certain rather than probabilistic. Metaphysics is the study of reality as an act in general, and thus we speak of potentiality, possibility, and change, since these things are evident to the senses. There are certainly truths that follow necessarily from the evidence that can be known accordingly.

When Metaphysics is done properly it applies logic to what is self evident to the senses and makes inferences that cannot possibly be false; i.e, i know that i exist and therefore in knowing this i can know with certainty that i cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. This is how i can know that Eternal truths cannot be based on events that potentially exist. Once you understand the self evident fact that there is change and that the reality of the senses is made up of potential realities or events; you cannot possibly ground the reason for the existence of eternal truths in that which potentially exists; because then we wouldn’t be talking about eternal truths. Knowing this truth is not dependent on my knowing the theories of science and neither is my knowledge dependent on the truth or falsity of any theory given by science.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

When i say that in order for something to be eternally true there cannot be a time when that truth is not true, i am merely saying that there is no potential event that can falsify that which is eternally true. I do not intend to use the word eternal in the sense of time or to imply that time has some causal effect on that which is eternal.

I can see why you thought that there might be an error. However; if something is timelessly or eternally true, then it is impossible that there can be a time where that truth is not true. The fact of its truth is not made existent or real because of some potential event; but rather it is necessarily true because of something else that is not a potential event. I am not using eternal in the sense of all time, such as an infinity of events, but rather i intend to show the logical consequences and the effect that a timeless truth has upon time. A timeless truth necessarily entails that any finite event must also agree with that truth, and that which is the “ground” of eternal truths is synonymous to that which causes finite “events” to be real. It is not possible that something can timelessly/eternally be true and not true withing the context of time. The implication is that nothing potential or changing is cause of eternal truth.

Do you see what i am saying?

I see what you’re saying…

Let me just say this about that on the grounds that I think I know a little bit more about that and this than you, even though I am making no attempt of any kind to determine what that and this or this and that are, and in fact my truth tables have completely short circuited…

Pseudo philosophical hucksterism of the cheapest and most vulgar and intellectually stunted kind.

I’m desperately trying to stifle my guffaws long enough to open my heart up to some compassionate influence towards you…