Nothing to something

[quaestio45]

I am afraid that this is not an argument for what I have asked.

You asked the question “why infinte thing is noncontingent”, and I then gave an answer as to why. It does not seem as if I misinterpreted your words, though I will acknowledge if they don’t satisfy you.

Time is continuous. Each time sustains another one simultaneously.

If by “time is continous” you mean time is eternal, then sure, it is as a framework. And it is also only eternal because a noncontingent reality eternally gave sustance to it, which I think is an important detail because I do not hold the idea that time is a noncontingent reality, and therefore it must have explanation on something ontologically prior to it. Without it, time would not be eternal, but non existent.

I don’t hold the opinion that a contingent being maybe eternal through its own powers; instead, only a noncontingent being maybe eternal through its own powers, which might be where we come at an impasse, because on that note, the two times sustaining each other idea comes crashing down, as it would - correct me if I’m wrong - rely on each other through their own power and eternal being. But if no contingent beings hold the keys to eternality in themselves but only by what is noncontingent, then it doesn’t matter how many contingent beings you have, they all end up never being eternal or even existent.

Could we agree that time changes?

Yes

Could we agree that time is needed for any change.

yes

then it follows that you need time for passage of time

you need time for the passage of time?? As in, you need time in order for time to operate? Could you elaborate on that point, because it doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

 

[quaestio45]

Gorgias:

Hmm… don’t think so. He agrees if you mean something that he recognizes you do not . So… not so much.

Ask him please.

If the question is what I think of time, then it is actually rather well captured by @Gorgias in the quote:

Yep, that’s the way I see it, too: when viewed ‘externally’ (merely as a ‘system’ or ‘container’, rather than with respect to its contents), the universe is eternal. It is created in eternity by God. (Now, God precedes the universe – not temporally, mind you, but as an cause to an effect – and creates it eternally .)

On the other hand, when looking inside the universe, you encounter its dynamics: there is physical extension (in three dimensions) and temporal dimension. From the interior of the universe, there was a temporal beginning (i.e., a time t0).

 

[quaestio45]

If I were to perhaps put what Gorgias said in imagery, it would be that the universe (or time, if they are separable) is like a film reel. It itself can be much much older than what the time length of the film on the reel actually is. And it too has a “start” in its film, but as a whole its real start is far beyond when the film is actually played. Now, if you were to replace the film reel with the temporal framework and the contents with time, and make the reels age eternal rather than temporal, then it seems like a good analogy I hope.

 

[Pattylt]

Great! What kind of “non-physical evidence” are you willing to accept!

May I ask, what was the non-physical evidence that you accepted?

 

[STT]

You asked the question “why infinte thing is noncontingent”, and I then gave an answer as to why. It does not seem as if I misinterpreted your words, though I will acknowledge if they don’t satisfy you.

Your answer has two paragraphs. In first you argue about bringing something out of nothing. That is out of question scenario as we already discussed that it leads to a regress. In the second you argue Time.

If by “time is continous” you mean time is eternal, then sure, it is as a framework. And it is also only eternal because a noncontingent reality eternally gave sustance to it, which I think is an important detail because I do not hold the idea that time is a noncontingent reality, and therefore it must have explanation on something ontologically prior to it. Without it, time would not be eternal, but non existent.

I don’t hold the opinion that a contingent being maybe eternal through its own powers; instead, only a noncontingent being maybe eternal through its own powers, which might be where we come at an impasse, because on that note, the two times sustaining each other idea comes crashing down, as it would - correct me if I’m wrong - rely on each other through their own power and eternal being. But if no contingent beings hold the keys to eternality in themselves but only by what is noncontingent, then it doesn’t matter how many contingent beings you have, they all end up never being eternal or even existent.

I just to role out your scenario of God. Please follow my argument in the next comment.

STT:

Could we agree that time changes?

Yes

Could we agree that time is needed for any change.

yes

then it follows that you need time for passage of time

you need time for the passage of time?? As in, you need time in order for time to operate? Could you elaborate on that point, because it doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

1. Time changes
2. Time is needed for any change
3. Therefore, time is needed for time

 

[STT]

If the question is what I think of time, then it is actually rather well captured by @Gorgias in the quote:

The key question is whether time is needed for any change? Could you please comment on that part?

 

[Abrosz]

Great! What kind of “non-physical evidence” are you willing to accept!

Aha. Mr. Evader strikes again… how predictable. That is your problem.

I presented a question, and there could have been several answers.

1. I have no evidence, it is all faith based.
2. This is my evidence: “yadda, yadda”. And then it could be discussed.
3. However, instead of coming clean, you try to play a tennis-match, and try to evade by presenting a “counter-question”… No, I am not interested in “helping you”. Since you are unable to present a physical evidence - even though that alleged non-physical is in constant interaction with the physical, the problem is yours.

To my best knowledge, this is against the forum rules. (Hopefully the @camoderator will correct me if I am wrong.) If I remember correctly, the rule was: “If you have no answer, admit it.” Don’t evade, be intellectually honest.

Now, for the faith-based argument, there are two possibilities. One is presenting some extra, non-faith based evidence, OR admit that your faith is “blind faith”, unsupported by evidence. If I would write a simple computer game resembling “Space Invaders”, it was based upon you, and it would be called: “Space Evader.”

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Great! What kind of “non-physical evidence” are you willing to accept!

May I ask, what was the non-physical evidence that you accepted?

The teaching of Christ.
Scripture.
The unbroken witness of the Church over the past 2000 years.

 

[quaestio45]

Your answer has two paragraphs. In first you argue about bringing something out of nothing.

I’m not sure how you got that from my explanation as to why a noncontingent must be infinite, but, let it be so.

• Time changes
• Time is needed for any change
• Therefore, time is needed for time

• liquid is wet
• liquid is needed for anything to be wet
• therefore, liquid is needed for liquid

If this argument is a valid parallel, then that means your formulation is simply nonsensical (or, at least it seems so). For it does not necessarily follow that liquid needs more liquid in order for it to be wet, and neither does it seem that time would need more time in order for it to change. That be so, no, I don’t find myself agreeing with your conclusion at the moment.

 

[STT]

• liquid is wet
• liquid is needed for anything to be wet
• therefore, liquid is needed for liquid

If this argument is a valid parallel, then that means your formulation is simply nonsensical (or, at least it seems so). For it does not necessarily follow that liquid needs more liquid in order for it to be wet, and neither does it seem that time would need more time in order for it to change. That be so, no, I don’t find myself agreeing with your conclusion at the moment.

Your error in your argument is in premise 2. Liquid is not needed for liquid to make liquid wet.

 

[Pattylt]

The teaching of Christ.
Scripture.
The unbroken witness of the Church over the past 2000 years.

Aren’t these physical?

 

[quaestio45]

Your error in your argument is in premise 2. Liquid is not needed for liquid to make liquid wet.

liquid is needed for anything to be wet

So you deny that liquid is needed for something to be wet, yes?

 

[STT]

So you deny that liquid is needed for something to be wet, yes?

Yes, since liquid is wet itself. So “anything” makes your premise incorrect since you need to exclude liquid.

 

[AlNg]

But an irrelevant digression is .

i think it is quite odd for someone to assert that time is irrelevant to a discussion about how nothing can go to something. I would guess that perhaps the person who is claiming such does not really understand the implications of the question at hand.

 

[quaestio45]

Yes, since liquid is wet itself. So anything makes your premise incorrect since you need to exclude liquid.

I’d say instead that the premises are true, its just that the conclusion is false because it does not take into account that liquid, in being liquid, need not any more liquid to make it wet, because in being liquid itself it fulfills the requirements of being wet.

 

[STT]

I’d say instead that the premises are true, its just that the conclusion is false because it does not take into account that liquid, in being liquid, need not any more liquid to make it wet, because in being liquid itself it fulfills the requirements of being wet.

As I mentioned using “anything” in premise 2 makes the premise false. By the way, what do you think of my argument now:

1. Time changes
2. Time is needed for any change
3. Therefore, time is needed for time

 

[quaestio45]

As I mentioned using “anything” in premise 2 makes the premise false.

Okay, well fine then, what if I adjusted it to “something” rather than “anything”?

• liquid is wet
• liquid is needed for something to be wet
• therefore, liquid is needed for liquid

By the way, what do you think of my argument now:

1. Time changes
2. Time is needed for any change
3. Therefore, time is needed for time

I would say “all” instead of “any”, but ultimately I don’t think it makes too much of a difference.

 

[quaestio45]

Hmmm… on second thought, were I attempting to make my parallel argument as close in form to yours as possible, it would go like

• Liquid is wet
• Liquid is needed for any wetness
• Therefore, liquid is needed for liquid

If this be the case, it seems sufficient to show that the formulation leads to absurd conclusions and thus must be cast away.

 

[AlNg]

You don’t have change if you are dealing with a atemporal thing.

I kindof agree with you, but do you read Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.? He has a novel called Sirens of Titan and in that novel there are creatures called Tralfamadorians who live outside of time. There is also a spaceship from outerspace which when it enters a region called the chrono-synclastic infundibulum, the riders on that space ship become quantum mechanical waves. However as the ship nears the earth, the riders, who are now waves, suddenly materialize on the earth as beings who can experience the past, the present and the future.

 

[Gorgias]

Aren’t these physical?

Not as such. They’re eyewitness accounts, even if the media on which they exist is “physical.” The account and its representation aren’t the same thing.

(Which, BTW, is why materialists disregard these sources. They’re not “physical” enough for them.)

i think it is quite odd for someone to assert that time is irrelevant to a discussion about how nothing can go to something.

That’s not what I’m asserting. “Everyone will live longer” and “a day on earth would be longer” are illogical conclusions from the proposition that an arbitrary standard might be changed. It’s akin to someone inferring that the 24-hour-day is longer on the summer solstice, and misunderstanding that “daylight” and not “day” is what’s longer.

I would guess that perhaps the person who is claiming such does not really understand the implications of the question at hand.

Or, perhaps, he does, and recognizes that it’s nonsensical.