Nothing to something

[AlNg]

“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.

That is why it makes no sense to try to define time by a standard which is used to measure time.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Actually, it’s yours. If you’re asking for info, then it behooves you to describe what you want. That’s not “evasion”; that’s a reasonable response.

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

You missed one – “I can’t respond based on the type of request you made. Please provide more information”. But, let’s look at what you thought you might hear…

1. I have no evidence, it is all faith based.

Incorrect. I do have evidence; you just refuse to accept the eyewitness accounts.

1. This is my evidence: “yadda, yadda”. And then it could be discussed.

Not until you’re more forthcoming with the types of information you’re willing to accept.

1. However, instead of coming clean, you try to play a tennis-match, and try to evade by presenting a “counter-question”

It was a request for clarification. So sorry that confused you.

… No, I am not interested in “helping you”.

You’ve made that patently obvious. So, let’s review: you made a request which cannot be fulfilled without further information; you’re unwilling to provide that information; therefore, your request is null.

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.

We’ve been over this before, and there’s even an open thread discussing it! Requests for physical evidence aren’t reasonable, for a number of reasons. If you refuse to accept the available evidence, and require evidence which is impossible to gather, then your request is unreasonable and in bad faith.

Thanks for making it clear that you have no interest in being reasonable!

 

[Abrosz]

Actually, it’s yours. If you’re asking for info, then it behooves you to describe what you want. That’s not “evasion”; that’s a reasonable response.

To be open to ANY evidence is what I said.

Incorrect. I do have evidence; you just refuse to accept the eyewitness accounts.

Of course that is problematic. Those alleged eye-witnesses are indistinguishable from any garden-variety story-teller, who talks about ghosts, poltergeists and any other imaginary beings. The sooner you realize that, the better.

It was a request for clarification.

A tennis-match disguised as a clarification. Still not my job.

You’ve made that patently obvious. So, let’s review: you made a request which cannot be fulfilled without further information; you’re unwilling to provide that information; therefore, your request is null.

You mean, you are unable to provide the answer, and all of a sudden it is my problem. Cute.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course that is problematic.

For you it is. You’re welcome to your own opinion.

Those alleged eye-witnesses are indistinguishable from any garden-variety story-teller, who talks about ghosts, poltergeists and any other imaginary beings.

Apples and oranges. After all, “ghosts, poltergeists and other imaginary beings” are said to be physically present in the world and therefore, expected to be able to be empirically measured. God and other spirits are not. (The sooner you realize that, the better! )

A tennis-match disguised as a clarification. Still not my job.

Look – you can lob balls over the net and refuse to hit the return volleys all you want. You just can’t claim that you’re playing the game by any stretch of the imagination. At that point, you’re just hitting a ball, folding your arms, and claiming “nope; don’t wanna play anymore.”

You mean, you are unable to provide the answer, and all of a sudden it is my problem. Cute.

No, I mean that you aren’t providing a request to which there’s any answer, and then pretending that the lack of an answer proves your case. Cute.

 

[STT]

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

“Something” in premise 2 is not well defined. “Something” shouldn’t be wet in first place. Now, you ca see that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

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

What do you mean? To me the conclusion clearly follows from the premises.

 

[STT]

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.

Again, your second premise is wrong. Liquid is needed for any wetness provided that the subject of exposure to liquid is dry first.

 

[quaestio45]

Again, your second premise is wrong. Liquid is needed for any wetness provided that the subject of exposure to liquid is dry first.

Nay good sir, I’d say indeed that the premises are air tightly correct, but that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. For liquid obviously does need liquid to be wet (otherwise we’d be saying that wetness is an attribute that can be seperable from liquid, which is just patently false), but there is no need to appeal to any more liquid on the basis that the liquid, on the grounds that it already is liquid, already meets the requirements for wetness in itself.

And thats the objection I’m trying to communicate STT; that you can’t come to the conclusion you came to on time because you don’t know if time can be something whose properties apply to the substance along with the internals. It could be like liquid, whose internal property of wetness applies to the liquid as well.

 

[STT]

Nay good sir, I’d say indeed that the premises are air tightly correct, but that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. For liquid obviously does need liquid to be wet (otherwise we’d be saying that wetness is an attribute that can be seperable from liquid, which is just patently false), but there is no need to appeal to any more liquid on the basis that the liquid, on the grounds that it already is liquid, already meets the requirements for wetness in itself.

And thats the objection I’m trying to communicate STT; that you can’t come to the conclusion you came to on time because you don’t know if time can be something whose properties apply to the substance along with the internals. It could be like liquid, whose internal property of wetness applies to the liquid as well.

You already accepted that time is needed for the creation of time which is horizontal regress. This can be formulated as following:

1. Time is an element of creation
2. Time is needed for all sort of creations
3. Therefore, time is needed for the creation of time

Now we are dealing with different regress which is vertical. This can be formulated as:

1. Time is subjected to change
2. Time is needed for all sort of changes
3. Therefore, time is needed for the change of time

Now, as you can see, the only difference between the two arguments is that in one we are discussing the creation and in another one change.

 

[STT]

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.

Let me to change your argument in order to see the source of problem:

1. Liquid is wet
2. Liquid is needed to make something wet
3. Therefore, liquid is needed for liquid

As you can see the conclusion doesn’t follow from premises since liquid as I mentioned is already wet so the second premise does not apply to it.

 

[Freddy]

Won’t somebody please end this…

 

[STT]

Won’t somebody please end this…

End will comes when people reach to common conclusion. Aren’t you interested?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Won’t somebody please end this…

End will comes when people reach to common conclusion. Aren’t you interested?

In whether water is wet? I really have better things to do.

 

[STT]

In whether water is wet? I really have better things to do.

He is not trying to prove that water is wet. He is trying to make another argument.

 

[quaestio45]

You already accepted that time is needed for the creation of time which is horizontal regress. This can be formulated as following:

1. Time is an element of creation
2. Time is needed for all sort of creations
3. Therefore, time is needed for the creation of time

Yes, and this I can agree with on the basis of necessity. For to say that change can be created from nothing is to presuppose time in the first place to allow for the change.

Now we are dealing with different regress which is vertical. This can be formulated as:

1. Time is subjected to change
2. Time is needed for all sort of changes
3. Therefore, time is needed for the change of time

And so the basis of my rejection of this argument is on the nature of the change. For creation, yes, I agree as stated before that time must be presupposed. However, I don’t think that once time is already created that there is anymore need to appeal to another entity (such as another time) in order to explain why time can change. For it seems to me that there is no reason to believe that time cannot simply, through its own principles, allow for itself to change, in the same way that there is no need to appeal to another source of liquid to explain the wetness of water because the internal qualities of water apply to the water itself. In that case, I’d have to ask you what justification there is for you to believe that time need an external time to explain its change rather than time simply having its intrinsic qualities dually apply to itself.

 

[STT]

And so the basis of my rejection of this argument is on the nature of the change. For creation, yes, I agree as stated before that time must be presupposed. However, I don’t think that once time is already created that there is anymore need to appeal to another entity (such as another time) in order to explain why time can change. For it seems to me that there is no reason to believe that time cannot simply, through its own principles, allow for itself to change, in the same way that there is no need to appeal to another source of liquid to explain the wetness of water because the internal qualities of water apply to the water itself. In that case, I’d have to ask you what justification there is for you to believe that time need an external time to explain its change rather than time simply having its intrinsic qualities dually apply to itself.

Well, I can buy this, that time does change without any sustainer, for sake of argument but then it follows that universe changes due to existence of time, therefore God is not needed.

 

[Dan123]

Freddy:

In whether water is wet? I really have better things to do.

He is not trying to prove that water is wet. He is trying to make another argument.

A taco is a sandwich.

 

[nicholasG]

A taco is a sandwich.

I thought a taco was wet and water was a sandwich.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

[quaestio45]

Well, I can buy this, that time does change without any sustainer, for sake of argument but then it follows that universe changes due to existence of time, therefore God is not needed.

I’m in full agreement, we don’t need God to explain why time changes; in the same way we don’t need to invoke God to explain why a cake batter turns into cake when heat is applied. The mechanisms of nature can explain its own functionalities fairly well.

What I will appeal to God for, however, is explanations of why there is time at all when it is contingent, and the ultimate question of why is there something rather than nothing. These question, I don’t believe, can be sufficiently answered by anything such as another contingent creature, including time.

 

[Gorgias]

Dan123:

A taco is a sandwich.

I thought a taco was wet and water was a sandwich.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.

A Møøse once bit my sister…

 

[STT]

I’m in full agreement, we don’t need God to explain why time changes; in the same way we don’t need to invoke God to explain why a cake batter turns into cake when heat is applied. The mechanisms of nature can explain its own functionalities fairly well.

Great.

What I will appeal to God for, however, is explanations of why there is time at all when it is contingent,

I think we agreed that once time exist then it doesn’t need a sustainer. Moreover, we agreed that time cannot be created. So the conclusion is time is not contingent.

Moreover, even if we accept that time is contingent then it follows that its sustainer cannot be changeless since the sustainer has to follow change in time and sustains something dynamic.

and the ultimate question of why is there something rather than nothing. These question, I don’t believe, can be sufficiently answered by anything such as another contingent creature, including time.

There was either nothing or something at the beginning of time. You have something in the second case so the ultimate question does not apply. Nothing to something is either possible or not. In first case, you will get something out of nothing so you again have something. In second case, we know that universe exist therefore nothing to something is not impossible.