Existence is the default

[jcrichton]

Lets see.

What is your understanding?

Hi!

…let’s see…

…you accept the natural laws… which include everything that has been observed by man… some of which man has defined/redefined through a certain meter/law/understanding (sound/light speed; rotation of planets around the sun; the expansion of the universe; gravity; let’s throw in: e = mc2; H2O; quantum physics…)?

Did any of it exist prior to man’s discovery/understanding of it?

Did the cycle of life (planetary/universe) exist prior to the invention of the clock?

Is man’s understanding of “time” linear?

Did time start after the invention of the clock or prior to it?

Can man travel back to the moment of origin of that linear pre-clock time?

…the universe did not cease to function because man had no understanding nor method of measuring linear time!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ericc]

Could you please define time and act of creation?

There is no need to go through the whole charade again. Just a simple question, did the universe exist 20 billion years ago? Yes or no? If existence is the default, your answer would be a yes. But I think anyone honest will say nothing exist then.

Just a yes or no will do. I think we are all tired of this and would like to put it to an end.

 

[STT]

Hi!

…let’s see…

…you accept the natural laws… which include everything that has been observed by man… some of which man has defined/redefined through a certain meter/law/understanding (sound/light speed; rotation of planets around the sun; the expansion of the universe; gravity; let’s throw in: e = mc2; H2O; quantum physics…)?

Did any of it exist prior to man’s discovery/understanding of it?

Yes.

Did the cycle of life (planetary/universe) exist prior to the invention of the clock?

Yes.

Is man’s understanding of “time” linear?

Yes.

Did time start after the invention of the clock or prior to it?

After.

Can man travel back to the moment of origin of that linear pre-clock time?

No.

…the universe did not cease to function because man had no understanding nor method of measuring linear time!

Yes. But this has noting to do with my argument.

 

[Tyrel]

Well, it depends how do you define God. God is by definition the creator. The act of creation is meaningless if you are certain that nothing cannot exist. Therefore there is no creator.

… and there, I think, is where you make your informative mistake. God is not essentially a creator. If God were, that would imply that creation wasn’t a free act on God’s part but that is explicitly contrary to Catholic faith. Instead, God would be God even in the absence of creation (thus, logically prior to creation, God exists; otherwise God would have to create himself in creating anything at all, and nothing can create itself). Being creator is not a superlative attribute, for it is not in all respects better to be creator than not - in fact, the goods of creation and a total absence of creation are literally incommensurable goods (on a Catholic metaphysic).

God exists necessarily. If the paradigm theory of existence (or onto-theology) is correct, then existence consists in something like a relation of intimation to a paradigmatic existent. God is nothing if not that (see what I did there?).

Is it logically possible that nothing exists? No. Therefore there must be at least one metaphysically necessary being. The theist is arguing that there is such a being, and that being is God. The atheist typically argues that it is logically possible for nothing to exist.

You have, I think, stumbled onto an argument for the existence of God (one, in fact, which I have previously formulated and bandied about).

 

[STT]

There is no need to go through the whole charade again. Just a simple question, did the universe exist 20 billion years ago? Yes or no? If existence is the default, your answer would be a yes. But I think anyone honest will say nothing exist then.

Just a yes or no will do. I think we are all tired of this and would like to put it to an end.

I don’t know know how to approach you. You don’t want to give the definition time and and creation.

 

[ericc]

I don’t know know how to approach you. You don’t want to give the definition time and and creation.

If you won’t even answer a simple yes or no question, why would you expect others to give lengthy replies? You know what the answer is. Don’t bother folks here with silly statement such as this that any kid can answer. Go and start a new post with something meatier.

 

[STT]

If you won’t even answer a simple yes or no question, why would you expect others to give lengthy replies? You know what the answer is. Don’t bother folks here with silly statement such as this that any kid can answer. Go and start a new post with something meatier.

Yes. Big Bang existed. If that is what you are looking for. Now what?

 

[Tyrel]

There is no need to go through the whole charade again. Just a simple question, did the universe exist 20 billion years ago? Yes or no? If existence is the default, your answer would be a yes. But I think anyone honest will say nothing exist then.

Not even God existed then because there is no then then. The universe is, by our best estimation, no more than 14 billion years old (it is approximately 13.82 billion years old, to be more precise), before which there was not any time.

However, if you are disputing that it is not a necessary fact that something exist, then you are disputing that God necessarily exists necessarily. Are you sure you want to go that route?

 

[ericc]

Yes. Big Bang existed. If that is what you are looking for. Now what?

No, I asked whether did anything existed 18 billion years ago. This question was asked to settle your contention that existence is the default. Yes or no.

The universe is, by our best estimation, no more than 14 billion years old (it is approximately 13.82 billion years old, to be more precise), before which there was not any time.

I deliberately chosen a time longer than the age of the universe to prove the point. If the universe has always existed, you can go back 18 billion years ago. If existence was eternal, the OP would have been able to go back 18 billion years and he would be correct. If not, there was a point nothing existed. If there was a point where nothing existed, then existence as default is not true.

Not even God existed then because there is no then then.

Are you sure God didn’t existed then? If you are Catholic, you wouldn’t have said that. You would have known God existed timelessly.

However, if you are disputing that it is not a necessary fact that something exist, then you are disputing that God necessarily exists necessarily. Are you sure you want to go that route?

That wasn’t the subject I was replying to. I didn’t bring God up.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

After.

No.

Yes. But this has noting to do with my argument.

Hi!

…do you recall the exposition about time that was made on this thread?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Not even God existed then because there is no then then. The universe is, by our best estimation, no more than 14 billion years old (it is approximately 13.82 billion years old, to be more precise), before which there was not any time.

However, if you are disputing that it is not a necessary fact that something exist, then you are disputing that God necessarily exists necessarily. Are you sure you want to go that route?

Hi!

…by whose definition?

…by what standards is that approximation made?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

No, I asked whether did anything existed 18 billion years ago. This question was asked to settle your contention that existence is the default. Yes or no.

Yes. Existence is default.

 

[ericc]

Yes. Existence is default.

Ok. Now that gets interesting. What existed 18 billion years ago other than God (whom I suspect you don’t believe in.)?

 

[STT]

Ok. Now that gets interesting. What existed 18 billion years ago other than God (whom I suspect you don’t believe in.)?

Universe just existed. If nothing was default then creation was necessary.

 

[ericc]

Universe just existed. If nothing was default then creation was necessary.

An answer with no evidence supplied. Which renders it valueless. So to summarize what you are claiming

1. Existence is the default
2. Universe just existed

I think you can do better than that. Fatigue?

 

[STT]

An answer with no evidence supplied. Which renders it valueless. So to summarize what you are claiming

1. Existence is the default
2. Universe just existed

I think you can do better than that. Fatigue?

Nah, It is not like. One need to carefully define the act of creation and time to see the problem. The idea is very simple: you cannot have a theory which tells you how time starts.

Moreover that is true that the existence is the default since otherwise noting is the default which means that we need the act of creation to create the universe.

 

[STT]

Hi!

…do you recall the exposition about time that was made on this thread?

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes. I was making a argument that you cannot have a theory which tells you how time starts.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes. I was making a argument that you cannot have a theory which tells you how time starts.

Hi!

Here’s what you’ve theorized:

…You need time to create the universe. That is however problematic since time is an element of universe. The problem is that time requires time to start to exist. This is discussed in depth in another thread.

That theory is flawed!

…take a toddler, you tell him/her that you will take him/her to the park on Sunday. That tiny person has no concept of time. He/she knows (by the trust placed in you) that Sunday is the Big Day (‘going to the park’); so the reference is the knowledge and the tag/definition of a particular place in time (which he/she is not able to comprehend).

…so that child is forever mindful of Sunday… not knowing when “Sunday” will happen to come along he/she consistently asks the adults and others about him/her, who have a better understanding of the “time” reference: “Is it Sunday, yet?” or “Is today Sunday?”

The Universe exists even though that child has no reference to time lapse–other than “Sunday.”

From you inference “Sunday” will never happen because the child is unaware of a linear time frame which man engineered some thousands of years back.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

Hi!

Here’s what you’ve theorized:

That theory is flawed!

…take a toddler, you tell him/her that you will take him/her to the park on Sunday. That tiny person has no concept of time. He/she knows (by the trust placed in you) that Sunday is the Big Day (‘going to the park’); so the reference is the knowledge and the tag/definition of a particular place in time (which he/she is not able to comprehend).

…so that child is forever mindful of Sunday… not knowing when “Sunday” will happen to come along he/she consistently asks the adults and others about him/her, who have a better understanding of the “time” reference: “Is it Sunday, yet?” or “Is today Sunday?”

The Universe exists even though that child has no reference to time lapse–other than “Sunday.”

From you inference “Sunday” will never happen because the child is unaware of a linear time frame which man engineered some thousands of years back.

Maran atha!

Angel

I have no idea why you choose such a example. Of course time has a specific meaning in adult world.

 

[davidv]

I have no idea why you choose such a example. Of course time has a specific meaning in adult world.

Reality is.

Theory comes after, based on limited human knowledge.

Reality exists, whether there is a theory, or not.