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 13 Last

Soft proof of a higher existence

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:03 PM:	#21
J.D. wrote: 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. Since you are repeating, let me repeat. The Universe is not an object within the Universe. It is not within space-time, it is space-time.
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 - 05:07 PM:	#22
Sophistry wrote: Since you are repeating, let me repeat. The Universe is not an object within the Universe. It is not within space-time, it is space-time. But that is not enough to make its being eternal any more plausible than it already is...and yes, I admit it's plausible. To me, this just seems to make sense. Edited by J.D. on 04/14/08 - 05:17 PM
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:08 PM:	#23
J.D. wrote: 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"... Given current scientific theory on cosmology, we needn't travel backward infinitely to reach the first moment of space/time. We only need to travel back some 14 billion years. The beginning or space/time can certainly be considered the oldest event. Given what is currently known, I consider it to be. I would also ask what you mean by "always" if not "for all time" (which has existed for about 14 billion years. Yes, all time is a finite amount).
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 - 05:15 PM:	#24
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Given current scientific theory on cosmology, we needn't travel backward infinitely to reach the first moment of space/time. We only need to travel back some 14 billion years. The beginning or space/time can certainly be considered the oldest event. Given what is currently known, I consider it to be. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Being that time being eternal seems impossible, then it must have had a beginning, and in order to begin, it would seem that it must have a cause. I would also ask what you mean by "always" if not "for all time" (which has existed for about 14 billion years. Yes, all time is a finite amount). I'm not sure which post you're referring to...could you point out where I said always?
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Techeth
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 290

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:20 PM:	#25
I'm curious if its reasonable to assume the universe is eternal, is it not reasonable to assume other things, either within this universe or other multiverses are also?
Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy THINK QUICK! Your future just became your past.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:24 PM:	#26
J.D. wrote: Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Being that time being eternal seems impossible, then it must have had a beginning, and in order to begin, it would seem that it must have a cause. Why must it have a cause? What brings you to this conclusion? A cause is usually an event that precedesin time another event. How could something precede time in time? I'm not sure which post you're referring to...could you point out where I said always? 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.*
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:27 PM:	#27
Techeth wrote: I'm curious if its reasonable to assume the universe is eternal, is it not reasonable to assume other things, either within this universe or other multiverses are also? It's possible for other eternal things to exist, of course. But are there any reasons to think that such things actually exist?
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:31 PM:	#28
Our space/time manafold was caused by the big bang. Causality, however is not a fundemental nature of things, it is violated on the subatomic scale. That aside, even if we didn't know that, saying "everything must have a cause" is logically impossible, or it would create an infinite regress. You don't think this is the case, you are merely demanding that the universe had a cause, yet what caused it does not. It takes an unnecessary step, if you do not contest that some unevident, unknown event that caused the big bang had no cause, then why not just say that the big bang was the uncaused event? We know that the big bang happened. Supposing something that was uncaused did cause the universe, why must it be an intelligent super-being? Isn't it far more likely and parasimonious, that if the big bang did have a cause, it would be extremely simple, like a quantum flux or something? It is clear that your conclusion long preceded the formulation of your argument to overlook such obvious obsticles. Ja-ne.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:34 PM:	#29
J.D. wrote: But that is not enough to make its being eternal any more plausible than it already is...and yes, I admit it's plausible. I'm slightly confused by this. Are you now saying that it is possible that the Universe might be eternal?
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 - 05:36 PM:	#30
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Why must it have a cause? What brings you to this conclusion? A cause is usually an event that precedes in time another event. How could something precede time in time? Usually...but there's no written rule that says it must. 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.* Hmm, I have to credit you guys for making me think. This stuff fascinates me. Anyways, I didn't really mean anything literally by that specific word, but humans only know how to measure things with time, my choice of words makes it kind of difficult to describe. Let's just say that I meant it has no beginning or end; it is eternal because of it's lack of relation to 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 13 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.