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

Soft proof of a higher existence

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/13/08 - 03:52 PM: Subject: Soft proof of a higher existence	#1
In other words, I thought at first I had proof... Yeah, I was just having one of those "Darn I'm good" moments and I got a little bit full of myself. This is not proof, and cannot be proven with words alone, but I find this very convincing, and it's what makes me continue to believe in God. For a short while, I stopped believing, because it seemed like an illogical concept, but after this I almost feel like it was silly to have strayed. This, to me, seems more likely than the other theories of the beginning. (Sorry for anything toward the end that may seem like rambling...the first paragraph is the majority of my point.) I've also added a quick breakdown at the bottom now, which helps people who don't feel like reading, and also clarifies things a bit more... For every action, is an equal and opposite reaction. If this famous law should stay consistent, then everything that happens, happens by cause. In order for time and the universe to have begun, something must have caused it to begin its existence. In order to do so, it would require that that “something” exists outside of time in order to have caused time itself to begin. It would be safe to assume that without time, it would be impossible to begin or end; therefore that “something” must also be eternal. In order for it to cause any initial action, that “something” cannot be inanimate. Supposing that the laws of physics as we know them apply to the universe on a macro scale, this is written proof of at least one eternal and animate transcendent existence. That being said, I cannot prove the said circumstance as true. If this is true, it may not be the Christian God, but it is my personal choice to believe that it is. If it isn’t the Christian god, then it still must be something similar to have caused time and the universe to exist. Some propose that space/time itself is eternal, and had no beginning. Infinity seems impossible though; it is unfathomable that one cannot label anything the “oldest” event in the history of time, because there would always be an older event. Assuming that infinity is indeed impossible, then time must have had an origin. Some may say that there was nothing before time, because motion requires duration, and causality requires motion. However, it is extremely difficult to believe that time and space simply began to exist without a cause. Everything happens by a cause, for without a cause there is no event. Therefore, only an existence unbound by the restrictions of time could have caused it- meaning if time were frozen, there would be no motion, but if time were completely non-existent, its rules wouldn’t apply at all. A house does not build itself, just like the universe didn’t begin to exist uncaused. It has been argued that in quantum physics, subatomic particles have appeared to “pop” in and out of existence, uncaused, violating the rule that something cannot come from nothing. This however is only one theory in my eyes. We have sent particles back in time before; perhaps these particular particles travel back and forth through time on their own, appearing visible to us only for a short period of time. This would appear to us as though they were “popping” in and out of existence, but that is only a matter of speculation. Some may argue that God is omnipresent, yet is also transcendent, (exists outside of space/time), therefore proof that God cannot exist. I cannot prove anything for certain, but perhaps he has a window to see into this setting from where he stands, or perhaps he sends angels as part of time and space to be his eyes. This is not proof against God’s existence- if anything it would only go against omnipresence in the literal sense, which is still not enough to be labeled proof against anything. Who’s to say that a transcendent existence can’t cross over onto our plane of space/time? I may add as a side note to some extremist Christians, that the big bang theory, among others, is not opposing the existence of God. In whatever way the Universe was created, it must have been his intention. The same thing would apply to evolution. Seven days may only be a metaphor, in that one day is as a thousand years according to the bible. Science should not be impeded by Christians, but rather explored, since God put it there for us. We should not take the bible too literally, as it uses a lot of story telling and metaphors to explain morals and events. IN SHORT, (We are assuming that): -Infinity is impossible, therefore time is finite. -Everything finite has a cause, therefore time had a cause. -Cause typically requires time for duration, therefore there must be an exception in this case. -The only way to make sense out of the exception, is if the cause is unbound by the rules of space/time, therefore it must be transcendent. The conclusion: A transcendent existence must have caused the universe. Edited by J.D. on 04/17/08 - 05:11 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

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 04/13/08 - 05:17 PM:	#2
J.D. wrote: For every action, is an equal and opposite reaction. If this famous law should stay consistent, then in order for time and the universe to have begun, something must have caused it to begin its existence. You lost me. Could you explain how the premise 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' leads to the conclusion 'something must have caused it [the universe] to begin its existence'.
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/13/08 - 06:40 PM:	#3
Sophistry wrote: You lost me. Could you explain how the premise 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' leads to the conclusion 'something must have caused it [the universe] to begin its existence'. Well, I was saying that nothing happens without something causing it to happen. The law of physics I used tied in there because if I never chose to throw a ball, then the ball would never have been thrown. My action being throwing the ball, causing the reaction: the ball flying through the air. If there was no initial action then the reaction which caused the universe to exist could never have happened, assuming our basic laws of physics applies in this case.
"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 04/13/08 - 07:05 PM:	#4
J.D. wrote: Well, I was saying that nothing happens without something causing it to happen. The law of physics I used tied in there because if I never chose to throw a ball, then the ball would never have been thrown. My action being throwing the ball, causing the reaction: the ball flying through the air. If there was no initial action then the reaction which caused the universe to exist could never have happened, assuming our basic laws of physics applies in this case. I understand now. Let me see if I can reformulate your argument into something a bit clearer: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2. The Universe began to exist. Therefore: The Universe has a cause. Would that be a fair representation of what you are saying?
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

dogstar21
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2003
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 372

Posted 04/13/08 - 07:10 PM:	#5
Generally, when we refer to "time and space", we are referring to the "time/space" of our universe, as it is the only time/space that we perceive from our perception. In the first cause "proof" you offer, you posit an entity which created this universe (i.e. space/time), as it could not have simply "began" on it's own. First, in proposing a god as the "first cause" which created the universe, you simply have pushed the first event one step further back, because it is equally impossible based on the axiom "For every action, is an equal and opposite reaction" for a god to be created without something acting upon it. To get around this problem, we give this god the property of being eternal. Now, it seems that you are proposing an eternal god - that is to say, a God that always was, and didn't have a beginning. If an eternal god is a logically acceptable concept, then why isn't eternal existence a logically acceptable concept. Yes, we can place a rough estimate as to when this universe began, but this isn't to say that there was nothing prior to this universe. Other logical possibilities other than being created ex nihilo could be: 1) this universe was created within a larger framework. Our universe could be but a part of a larger, eternal existence (i.e. multiverse). The beginning of our universe could be just an event within existence. 2) this universe could be an eternal, cyclic universe. Each universe (i.e. cycle) would begin with a "big bang", expand, and reach a point when forces of gravity overpower the forces of expansion, and then collapse upon itself, only to have a rebirth. I may be mistaken, but I believe recent discoveries have diminished this theory, as the expansion was shown to be increasing, rather than decreasing. Certainly, they origin of existence (or, at least the universe) is a topic of great speculation, and an interesting question. However, the necessity of a first cause to our existence doesn't logically result in a necessary creator.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/13/08 - 08:08 PM:	#6
Well I was basing things on the assumption that it would be impossible to be eternal, but if you exist outside of time, then time's rules must not apply. That is hard to wrap your head around, and is only another theory, but given my current choice of theories, this one just seems most likely to me. That of course is just me though... @Sophistry: Yeah, you could say that...I always was terrible at phrasing things. ^^;;
"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: 8
Total Posts: 7863

Posted 04/13/08 - 09:44 PM:	#7
J.D. wrote: Well I was basing things on the assumption that it would be impossible to be eternal, but if you exist outside of time, then time's rules must not apply. That is hard to wrap your head around, and is only another theory, but given my current choice of theories, this one just seems most likely to me. That of course is just me though... @Sophistry: Yeah, you could say that...I always was terrible at phrasing things. ^^;; If time and space are neccessarily intertwined (as Einstein suggests), then I think that when you boil it right down, you will find that the notion of "existing outside of time" (and thus space) means "imaginary" or "fictional" or at best "metaphorically" or "poetically" or "conceptually". If you would like to suggest the God exists fictionally, conceptually or metaphorically, I doubt that there is a person on the planet who disagrees. Giving what is known about space and time, the notion of something occuring before the beginning of the universe (as in all time/space) simply doesn't make sense. "Before" is part of a sequence in time, which allegedly had not begun yet. The notion is intrinsically contradictory. I suggest taking a look at the some basic theories that underly the science of cosmology if you are truly interested in such things as the beginnings of the universe. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it is fascinating stuff. http://exploringtime.org http://www.universeadventure.org
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 04/14/08 - 06:53 AM:	#8
J.D. wrote: Well I was basing things on the assumption that it would be impossible to be eternal, but if you exist outside of time, then time's rules must not apply. That is hard to wrap your head around, and is only another theory, but given my current choice of theories, this one just seems most likely to me. That of course is just me though... @Sophistry: Yeah, you could say that...I always was terrible at phrasing things. ^^;; OK, well you're basically laying out the cosmological argument, which has taken a number of forms. @dogstar21 identifies one of the most common responses, which is basically to refute the second premise of the argument I set out. It is not necessary to suppose that the universe ever began, and since it might not have begun it would not need a cause. If your 'cause' can be eternal then there's certainly no reason the universe cannot also be eternal. There is no need to posit an extra entity beyond the universe; it is simply superfluous. Even if you were to accept the extra entity as necessary, there is absolutely no way to get from this to any of the common mythologies of today's religions. To argue that there must be cause is one thing (although wrong), but to argue that we somehow know that this thing is person, and that he knows about us, and cares who we sleep with, what we eat, what crops we sow, and what parts of our genitalia we saw off is really quite absurd.
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/14/08 - 12:30 PM:	#9
I admit that this theory is based on a lot of assumptions, and yes, it is just another theory. As I continuously state, time's rules would not apply outside time, therefore it would become possible to be eternal. I understand that it may not be possible to be transcendent in the first place, but once again, this is a theory. Anyway, with that in mind, I stand by my point that it seems unlikely to me that the universe is eternal. It would be hard to imagine, being that it exists within time and thus plays by it's rules. Leading back to the original point: everything within space/time must have a cause. Also, for the record, I never said it was to be assumed that my "something" was God, I said that's what I choose to believe. For all we know, that something could be some crazy animate object as opposed to an all knowing being.
"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: 8
Total Posts: 7863

Posted 04/14/08 - 01:53 PM:	#10
J.D. wrote: Anyway, with that in mind, I stand by my point that it seems unlikely to me that the universe is eternal. Why do you imagine that this is the case? Why is it unlikely, and why is any other alternative more likely? 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.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 8
Total Posts: 7863

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.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 24
Total Posts: 559

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: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 4
Total Posts: 72

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

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: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 8
Total Posts: 7863

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).
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

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: 7
Total Posts: 279

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.