Soft proof of a higher existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Soft proof of a higher existence » Soft proof of a higher existence

Soft proof of a higher existence
A likely conclusion drawn from assumptions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Soft proof of a higher existence

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/14/08 - 02:09 PM:	#11
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Why do you imagine that this is the case? Why is it unlikely, and why is any other alternative more likely? Well I went on to explain that in my next statement but you didn't quote that far. I said that it seems unlikely because if something exists within space/time, then it seems like it should have an origin. If you arise the possibility that the Universe could be eternal again, I will be forced to ask you to defend your position. Saying "it's just a theory" doesn't absolve you from being responsible for your theory (justifying your statements). If it is important enough for you to say, then it should be important enough to stand up to some criticism. I think I am doing a decent job of standing up to the criticism, but at the points of which I cannot be sure of, I will admit that I am possibly wrong. I cannot stand up for everything if no human can be one hundred percent sure, so please do not expect it of me. I'm proposing this as a philosophy and a theory, so take it as such.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 04/14/08 - 02:13 PM:	#12
J.D. wrote: Well I went on to explain that in my next statement but you didn't quote that far. I said that it seems unlikely because if something exists within space/time, then it seems like it should have an origin. But the Universe is not within space-time, it is space-time. And even if something is within space-time, the only reason to suppose that it must have begun to exist would be the assumption that time had a beginning. And I see no reason to support such an assumption.
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 69
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 04/14/08 - 02:19 PM:	#13
J.D. wrote: Well I went on to explain that in my next statement but you didn't quote that far. I said that it seems unlikely because if something exists within space/time, then it seems like it should have an origin. If you arise the possibility that the Universe could be eternal again, I will be forced to ask you to defend your position. The universe doesn't exist within space/time, the universe is space/time. At least that's what I mean when I talk about the universe. So there is nothing before time (or spacetime, or the universe) existed, because before is a temporal concept. It is only meaningfull if time exists. So if you want to call that eternal, that's fine by me. I think I am doing a decent job of standing up to the criticism, but at the points of which I cannot be sure of, I will admit that I am possibly wrong. I cannot stand up for everything if no human can be one hundred percent sure, so please do not expect it of me. I'm proposing this as a philosophy and a theory, so take it as such. Of course it's just a theory. All we ever have is theories. It just seemed to me that you were saying "it's just a theory" in order to repel criticism.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/14/08 - 03:35 PM:	#14
Reformed Nihilist wrote: The universe doesn't exist within space/time, the universe is space/time. At least that's what I mean when I talk about the universe. So there is nothing before time (or spacetime, or the universe) existed, because before is a temporal concept. It is only meaningfull if time exists. So if you want to call that eternal, that's fine by me. Granted "before" may not have been my best choice of words there, but something causing the universe to begin was my main point, irregardless of when. Still, perhaps it's possible that time has always been, but it is unfathomable by my mind. This means that endless events have occurred during that "time" which existed before even the start of the universe as we know it. The fact that we can't call anything the "oldest" thing in the universe is baffling. There is literally always something older. As I said, it is possible that we just can't grasp this concept with our minds, but why let it go at that? I thought I would try to turn to something that made more sense to me.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:00 PM:	#15
J.D. wrote: Granted "before" may not have been my best choice of words there, but something causing the universe to begin was my main point, irregardless of when. Still, perhaps it's possible that time has always been, but it is unfathomable by my mind. This means that endless events have occurred during that "time" which existed before even the start of the universe as we know it. The fact that we can't call anything the "oldest" thing in the universe is baffling. There is literally always something older. As I said, it is possible that we just can't grasp this concept with our minds, but why let it go at that? I thought I would try to turn to something that made more sense to me. We don't know when the universe began, or if it began. We don't know what became before the universe, or if anything came before the universe. We don't know what came before the big bang. If there is something outside the universe we don't know what it is. We don't even know yet the full extent of what is in the universe or whether the 3 spacial and single temporal dimensions constitute all that there is. So why can't we just say 'I don't know', rather than pretending that we have some kind of special access to knowledge about the nature of what is beyond our everyday existence. Why do we have to pretend that bronze age myths and ancient holy texts give us any kind of insight into anything? I don't know whether there is anything beyond the universe. I don't know if there are fairies in orbit around Proxima Centauri. Therefore I do not believe that there is anything beyond the universe, and I do not believe that there are fairies in orbit around Proxima Centauri. Give me any kind of reason to think otherwise. Ask yourself why you think otherwise.
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 584

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:08 PM:	#16
Is JD proposing that there can be causality without time? I would love to play with the idea that causality doesn't exist here, cause that seems like a fun thing to consider, but I'm not sure that it is possible to adhere to causality absent time. From what I remember from Astronomy class, our entire knowledge of the universe is based on observations of light. The reason we see black....or that there is no light, is that 10 billion years ago, no light was emitted, and that is when we say the universe began. But this assumes a universe in which stuff happens. Presumably, all the matter of the universe was condensed then it exploded (big bang) into what we know the universe to be today. So we aren't necessarily claiming to know the time of the beginning of the universe, but more the beginning of light (as light is our inductive jumping point from which we derive all of these conclusions). Even so, it is vastly interesting to think of "time" as the sort of thing that begins. It seems there are two main ideas of time going on. One version is much like the way we see a clock; the universe and space/time are constantly changing and ticking; so someone must have started that clock.....if nothing in the universe changes then no time passes. Then there is the idea that time exists independant of space; so we could travel infinitely backwards in time, just as we could travel infinitely forward. (NB when i say "travel through time" I am not meaning that we literally could travel there, but rather that time is the sort of thing that simply always exists/existed/will exist).

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:41 PM:	#17
Sophistry wrote: We don't know when the universe began, or if it began. We don't know what became before the universe, or if anything came before the universe. We don't know what came before the big bang. If there is something outside the universe we don't know what it is. We don't even know yet the full extent of what is in the universe or whether the 3 spacial and single temporal dimensions constitute all that there is. So why can't we just say 'I don't know', rather than pretending that we have some kind of special access to knowledge about the nature of what is beyond our everyday existence. Why do we have to pretend that bronze age myths and ancient holy texts give us any kind of insight into anything? I don't know whether there is anything beyond the universe. I don't know if there are fairies in orbit around Proxima Centauri. Therefore I do not believe that there is anything beyond the universe, and I do not believe that there are fairies in orbit around Proxima Centauri. Give me any kind of reason to think otherwise. Ask yourself why you think otherwise. Now don't act like I feel like I have a good grasp on how the universe began. I couldn't possibly make it any clearer that I'm not one hundred percent sure. I DON'T know, but that doesn't mean we should drop it and stop exploring this. It intrigues me, therefore I brainstorm possibilities. If it didn't interest me in the least, then yeah, I'd say "I don't know." Why do I think there's a God? Well this thread stretches as deeply into that subject as it can go. I've already explained my reasons. Based on the fact that something can't come from nothing, I choose to believe that there was an initial mover. Why should you think there's a God? Well I don't know, I mean that's your choice. I can't come up with reasons for you. Don't think that I'm trying to convince you of this as fact, I'm simply proposing my theory.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:47 PM:	#18
J.D. wrote: Based on the fact that something can't come from nothing, I choose to believe that there was an initial mover. This sentence really says: 'Based on the fact that something can't come from nothing, I choose to believe that there was something that came from nothing.' Is that not the case?
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:56 PM:	#19
Buddahchuck wrote: Is JD proposing that there can be causality without time? I would love to play with the idea that causality doesn't exist here, cause that seems like a fun thing to consider, but I'm not sure that it is possible to adhere to causality absent time. It is an odd concept to consider, I know. This is a very good point, but you're still considering time's rules when we talk about the absence of time. When time stops, causality is impossible, but when there is no time anymore, the rules completely change. Even so, it is vastly interesting to think of "time" as the sort of thing that begins. It seems there are two main ideas of time going on. One version is much like the way we see a clock; the universe and space/time are constantly changing and ticking; so someone must have started that clock.....if nothing in the universe changes then no time passes. Then there is the idea that time exists independant of space; so we could travel infinitely backwards in time, just as we could travel infinitely forward. This is probably better phrased than my statements, haha. This is basically what I was trying to say. Traveling infinitely backward seems impossible, because you'd constantly see events happening. No event could be considered the "oldest"...
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:58 PM:	#20
Sophistry wrote: This sentence really says: 'Based on the fact that something can't come from nothing, I choose to believe that there was something that came from nothing.' Is that not the case? Once again I'm drawn back to my point...Let me rephrase then. Based on the fact that something can't come from nothing within space/time, I choose to believe that there was something that has always been BECAUSE it exists outside of time.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.