Everything was always

[Wesrock]

My universe is infinite. With your stated - a beginning - where is the beginning wall?
Hubble captured light that travelled 13 billion years. Is that getting close to the wall?
How long before this did your perfect god create his imperfections?

You can have a finite universe that has no edge. It would be more like a surface than an interior. Think of the surface of the earth: finite but no boundary.

 

[younique]

Any circle, finite, no boundary if you are on it. There are nice pictures
of the earth from our moon. Now finite.
There is no place from which a picture of infinity could be taken.

 

[Wesrock]

Any circle, finite, no boundary if you are on it. There are nice pictures
of the earth from our moon. Now finite.
There is no place from which a picture of infinity could be taken.

No. I was only saying, your post suggested that if the universe was finite that it would have a boundary. That’s not necessarily true.

 

[PetraG]

Only stories of something from nothing.

What happens when matter meets antimatter?

Also, what is implied to you by identity? Do you have a non-trivial way of defining who you are that could, for instance, differentiate you from me? How do you differentiate something from nothing? How do you say that everything has always existed unless you can differentiate everything that is from everything that could have been or everything that ever will be?

 

[younique]

Nothing is a state of something. When you die you will go to nothing.
Some have great fear of this, some welcome it, some don’t seem to care. Some accept an answer of “mysterious ways”, some continue to search for a possible answer. My little evolved brain doesn’t accept
a power hurting, and killing for an answer of “mysterious ways”.
In history so much misery inflicted by humans onto others in the name
of mysterious powers, those who had “faith” instead of looking for reason.
When faith tells you to kill to be rewarded with virgins, when you
enjoy masturbation and will burn in the fires of hell for eternity, at
the pleasure of god looking on.
As evolved humans we can strive to improve. A great start is the great
constitution of the United States. Your mysterious god is your business in your house, your christmas tree is a beautiful thing, in
your house, outside in the public area it is a symbol of joy of the
end of a cycle around the sun, and the starting of a new.

 

[IWantGod]

Nothing is a state of something.

No. It is nothing. It is the complete ontological absence of a state.

 

[IWantGod]

outside in the public area it is a symbol of joy of the
end of a cycle around the sun, and the starting of a new.

Outside there is no Christmas. Just a meaningless celebration about something that is ultimately meaningless. Far be it from me however to criticise the human need to celebrate for whatever reason they can imagine.

 

[IWantGod]

Since i am, everything always was.

Something always was. However we experience a reality that is in a continuous state of becoming. That reality cannot be the reason why there is something rather than nothing at all.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Something always was. However we experience a reality that is in a continuous state of becoming. That reality cannot be the reason why there is something rather than nothing at all.

But God cannot be the only eternal thing. Time must also be eternal.

Why must time also be eternal?

 

[IWantGod]

It is most definitely beyond our imagination. Our language can barely signify it.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Why must time also be eternal?

How long did God exist before time existed? The answer must be zero. How long has God existed, forever, or to put it another way, from the beginning of time.

God has always existed. This doesn’t mean God has existed for infinite time, as when there is no change, there is no time.

The eternity of God refers to his timelessness, not to be confused with the idea of existing for infinite time. God never came into being, nor changes, so even though there is time now God remains timeless. He’s without beginning or end, without successive moments, even.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This doesn’t mean God has existed for infinite time, as when there is no change, there is no time.

You’re absolutely correct. To say that God is eternal doesn’t mean that God has existed for an infinite amount of time. But forever is a meaningless term in the absence of time. If you say that God has existed for all time, then time has also existed for all time. It can’t be any other way.

Time is finite, and there’s no moment when God did not exist. “For all time” doesn’t mean an infinite amount of time, it just means there was no time when God was not.

As for “God has existed forever”, I don’t believe I’ve seen that used in formal theology. Typically, the term is eternal/eternity, which isn’t meant to indicate a “forever” amount of time, but is used specifically to refer to God’s timelessness (no successive moments, no beginning, no end).

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Time is finite, and there’s no moment when God did not exist. “For all time” doesn’t mean an infinite amount of time, it just means there was no time when God was not.

Can we agree that there’s no such thing as “before” there was time?

If you’ll allow me to make a distinction. A person can be before you in line, or said to be before you in some type of order of dependence or hierarchy. There are nontemporal ways the word can be used.

But in terms of time/temporality/sequence of events, yes, it’s nonsense to speak of there being a before if there is no time. I can agree with that usage. There is no “before” time began.

 

[IWantGod]

Can we agree that there’s no such thing as “ before ” there was time?

In a sense it is true that the universe has always existed with God as manifestation of his creative act, but the fact that there wasn’t a “before time” doesn’t mean that time has no beginning or that time is eternal in the same way that God is. It simply means that eternity and the first moment of time exists simultaneously together. There wasn’t a moment where time was not.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

There wasn’t a moment where time was not.

I don’t expect either you or Wesrock to concede this point, but if there is no such thing as “before” time, then time has always existed. Not that time is infinite, but that the very concept of something existing before or after the existence of time is meaningless.

But the thing is, if time has always existed, and time is simply the measure of change, then change has always existed as well. And if change is an attribute of “things”, then things must always have existed.

Which brings us back to the premise of this thread, where you the have the existence of anything, you will also have the existence of time, and where you have the existence of time you will also have the existence of things. Thus you can extrapolate that existence, by necessity must include the existence of things.

The only “thing” of which exists necessarily being God.

Also, this line is false, “where you the have the existence of anything, you will also have the existence of time”

If you have time then things must exist, but what you stated does not necessarily follow. If something exists immutably and nothing else, there is no time, as there is no change.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t expect either you or Wesrock to concede this point, but if there is no such thing as “ before ” time, then time has always existed. Not that time is infinite, but that the very concept of something existing before or after the existence of time is meaningless.

Imagine a mans foot in the mud for all eternity. The footprint being made by the shoe can be said to have existed for as-long as the foot has been in the mud. What cannot be said is that the foot-print exists of it’s own accord or that by itself is an eternal being because it’s existence is only due to the foot and not itself.

It’s even more problematic for time because there was a first instant of change, and there was no change preceding it. True, there was no before time, but that doesn’t change the fact that time has a beginning and therefore there hasn’t always been a procession of change.

Just because it is meaningless to speak of there being a before time, doesn’t make it meaningful to say that change doesn’t have a beginning to it’s existence, and i say this to signify the fact that the first moment of change was caused to exist regardless… Time has existed only for as-long as there has been such a thing as time and the fact there was no time before it doesn’t change that fact.

It’'s apparent eternity is an illusion.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

If you have time then things must exist, but what you stated does not necessarily follow. If something exists immutably and nothing else, there is no time, as there is no change.

It’s an interesting thought experiment.

If something exists which is immutable, then time need not exist, and if time doesn’t exist, then by what measure are we to define that anything exists at all?

By the fact that it is.

Time is secondary to the being or existence of anything, as time is only a measure of a change in something which exists.

I get your question, as we’re used to defining things by dimensions such as space and time.

 

[Wesrock]

looskanal:

I don’t expect either you or Wesrock to concede this point, but if there is no such thing as “ before ” time, then time has always existed. Not that time is infinite, but that the very concept of something existing before or after the existence of time is meaningless.

Imagine a mans foot in the mud for all eternity. The footprint being made by the shoe can be said to have existed for as-long as the foot has been in the mud. What cannot be said is that the foot-print exists of it’s own accord or that by itself is an eternal being because it’s existence is only due to the foot and not itself.

It’s even more problematic for time because there was a first instant of change, and there was no change preceding it. True, there was no before time, but that doesn’t change the fact that time has a beginning and therefore there hasn’t always been a procession of change.

Just because it is meaningless to speak of there being a before time, doesn’t make it meaningful to say that change doesn’t have a beginning to it’s existence, and i say this to signify the fact that the first moment of change was caused to exist regardless… Time has existed only for as-long as there has been such a thing as time and the fact there was no time before it doesn’t change that fact.

It’'s apparent eternity is an illusion.

I’m thinking we can probably think of the first moment of time as change in reference to the moments that follow it, if that makes sense.

 

[younique]

To me time is movement thru the solid of infinity. No movement, no time.
We’re here now. A little while ago we were there.
You have a brain, think. #1— Don’t hurt.

 

[Gorgias]

The question that I’m positing is, does existence itself require a means by which to differentiate it from nothing? And that absent the existence of time there’s no means by which to do that. Something that exists in the absence of time, can’t be said to exist at all. And where there is time, there must also be things by which to measure that time. Because time is a measure of change.

That question works just fine for things that exist within the universe. However, what you’re trying to do is to use a feature within the universe (i.e., its temporal dimension) to measure something outside the universe (i.e., God). That’s a logical error.

Look at what you’ve written: just because we can’t measure something outside time in terms of time, therefore we can’t say that it exists. Really? Seriously?!?

So while we agree that something must exist by necessity, I would argue that it must include the existence of time and things, because absent these two things, it can’t be said to exist at all.

Not so. It can’t be measured within the context of the contingent universe, but that doesn’t imply that it can’t be said to exist.

Nothing is a state of something. When you die you will go to nothing.

That’s an interesting use of the word “nothing.” I think that you’re using it to mean something different than what is generally meant. ‘Nothing’ as a member of the set of ‘things’ is an odd construct.

My little evolved brain doesn’t accept a power hurting, and killing for an answer of “mysterious ways”.

Good! Neither do Christians.

As evolved humans we can strive to improve.

I always have to laugh when someone talks about us as “evolved” or as somehow ‘better’ than earlier generations of humans. Sure, we have iPhones and Instagram… but we’re really no different than those who came before us, 2000 or 5000 years ago.

A great start is the great constitution of the United States.

Oh boy… really? The Constitution allowed slavery. It enshrined a ‘representative’ government that only really represented wealthy, white land-owners. Is that the kind of “great start” that demonstrate the powers of little evolved brains?

outside in the public area [your Christmas tree] is a symbol of joy of the end of a cycle around the sun, and the starting of a new.

LOL! This is such a classic example of The Emperor’s New Clothes that it’s amusing! It goes something like this:

• “Excuse me, sir – why did you cut down that tree, festoon it with lights and other sparkly things, and place a manger scene beneath it? Does it represent Christmas?”
  • “Oh, no, not at all! It is merely a symbol of joy at the arbitrary ‘end’ of a period of time!”
• “But, what about the fact that this, itself, is a traditional symbol of Christmas in the west?”
  • “I don’t see anything there. Nope, nothing at all.”