The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[bahman]

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

Ok, I disagree. Let's say the universe started with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. The only logical view is that time is circular, one possibility is that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same point in time (no eternal return / no cyclic cosmology).

What justification is there for deviating from the above logical picture, as the default assumption?

The cyclic universe is a universe in which the Big Bang and the Big Crush are at the same point in time with the exception of the first Big Bang. The cycle can go into the future endlessly but not into the past.

[Atla]

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

Ok, I disagree. Let's say the universe started with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. The only logical view is that time is circular, one possibility is that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same point in time (no eternal return / no cyclic cosmology).

What justification is there for deviating from the above logical picture, as the default assumption?

The cyclic universe is a universe in which the Big Bang and the Big Crush are at the same point in time with the exception of the first Big Bang. The cycle can go into the future endlessly but not into the past.

Again: no cyclic cosmology.

[bahman]

Ok, I disagree. Let's say the universe started with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. The only logical view is that time is circular, one possibility is that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same point in time (no eternal return / no cyclic cosmology).

What justification is there for deviating from the above logical picture, as the default assumption?

The cyclic universe is a universe in which the Big Bang and the Big Crush are at the same point in time with the exception of the first Big Bang. The cycle can go into the future endlessly but not into the past.

Again: no cyclic cosmology.

The cyclic universe in which there is no beginning in time is wrong for an obvious reason: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

[Atla]

The cyclic universe is a universe in which the Big Bang and the Big Crush are at the same point in time with the exception of the first Big Bang. The cycle can go into the future endlessly but not into the past.

Again: no cyclic cosmology.

The cyclic universe in which there is no beginning in time is wrong for an obvious reason: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Again: no cyclic cosmology. Cyclic cosmology is for kids. Time is not circular in cyclic cosmology but it's the standard linear time.

[bahman]

Again: no cyclic cosmology.

The cyclic universe in which there is no beginning in time is wrong for an obvious reason: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Again: no cyclic cosmology. Cyclic cosmology is for kids. Time is not circular in cyclic cosmology but it's the standard linear time.

Circular or linear time, either way, time has a beginning for an obvious reason as I stated: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

[Atla]

The cyclic universe in which there is no beginning in time is wrong for an obvious reason: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Again: no cyclic cosmology. Cyclic cosmology is for kids. Time is not circular in cyclic cosmology but it's the standard linear time.

Circular or linear time, either way, time has a beginning for an obvious reason as I stated: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Err no, there is no beginning point on a circle (4 dimensional circular structure). And the whole thing is sitting there in eternity. This moment is eternity. And this moment is eternity. In my model your argument is invalid.

[bahman]

Again: no cyclic cosmology. Cyclic cosmology is for kids. Time is not circular in cyclic cosmology but it's the standard linear time.

Circular or linear time, either way, time has a beginning for an obvious reason as I stated: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Err no, there is no beginning point on a circle (4 dimensional circular structure). And the whole thing is sitting there in eternity. This moment is eternity. And this moment is eternity. In my model your argument is invalid.

Can we rewind time into the past from now? How far can you go?

[Atla]

Circular or linear time, either way, time has a beginning for an obvious reason as I stated: You cannot reach from a point in the eternal past to now since infinity by definition is unreachable.

Err no, there is no beginning point on a circle (4 dimensional circular structure). And the whole thing is sitting there in eternity. This moment is eternity. And this moment is eternity. In my model your argument is invalid.

Can we rewind time into the past from now? How far can you go?

Rewinding time and going back is a Newtonian absolute time idea, it was refuted by Einstein.

But let's say we rewind the time anyway. Well you can go back as far as the future and then all the way back to the point in time where you started. But this is all not happening in time, so it's not possible to actually do it. That's the whole point.

[bahman]

Err no, there is no beginning point on a circle (4 dimensional circular structure). And the whole thing is sitting there in eternity. This moment is eternity. And this moment is eternity. In my model your argument is invalid.

Can we rewind time into the past from now? How far can you go?

Rewinding time and going back is a Newtonian absolute time idea, it was refuted by Einstein.

No, that is not precise. You can have a watch sitting in one point of space and watch how it changes. Different observers see the passage of time differently but for the sake of argument let's assume that we are talking about an observer who lives in the same reference frame as the watch. This observer sees the passage of time as the watch shows it.

But let's say we rewind the time anyway. Well you can go back as far as the future and then all the way back to the point in time where you started. But this is all not happening in time, so it's not possible to actually do it. That's the whole point.

Yes, you would return to the same point in time in your cyclic spacetime manifold but you cannot get rid of the passage of time, what the watch shows you.

[Atla]

Can we rewind time into the past from now? How far can you go?

Rewinding time and going back is a Newtonian absolute time idea, it was refuted by Einstein.

No, that is not precise. You can have a watch sitting in one point of space and watch how it changes. Different observers see the passage of time differently but for the sake of argument let's assume that we are talking about an observer who lives in the same reference frame as the watch. This observer sees the passage of time as the watch shows it.

But let's say we rewind the time anyway. Well you can go back as far as the future and then all the way back to the point in time where you started. But this is all not happening in time, so it's not possible to actually do it. That's the whole point.

Yes, you would return to the same point in time in your cyclic spacetime manifold but you cannot get rid of the passage of time, what the watch shows you.

It's not cyclic. That's the whole point. I said that 3 times before.

Never mind. Western philosophy missed circular time, Eastern philosophy missed circular time, science missed circular time and I couldn't explain it to anyone on philosophy forums either. You don't get it either even though you were a physicist once.

Most people just aren't good at thinking outside the box.

[bahman]

Rewinding time and going back is a Newtonian absolute time idea, it was refuted by Einstein.

No, that is not precise. You can have a watch sitting in one point of space and watch how it changes. Different observers see the passage of time differently but for the sake of argument let's assume that we are talking about an observer who lives in the same reference frame as the watch. This observer sees the passage of time as the watch shows it.

But let's say we rewind the time anyway. Well you can go back as far as the future and then all the way back to the point in time where you started. But this is all not happening in time, so it's not possible to actually do it. That's the whole point.

Yes, you would return to the same point in time in your cyclic spacetime manifold but you cannot get rid of the passage of time, what the watch shows you.

It's not cyclic. That's the whole point. I said that 3 times before.

Never mind. Western philosophy missed circular time, Eastern philosophy missed circular time, science missed circular time and I couldn't explain it to anyone on philosophy forums either. You don't get it either even though you were a physicist once.

Most people just aren't good at thinking outside the box.

Why do you evade my question? Does the watch that is attached to you show the passage of time?

[Atla]

Why do you evade my question? Does the watch that is attached to you show the passage of time?

Sure it does, but you and your watch will eventually disintegrate too close to the Big Bang / Big Crunch / whatever.

[bahman]

Why do you evade my question? Does the watch that is attached to you show the passage of time?

Sure it does, but you and your watch will eventually disintegrate too close to the Big Bang / Big Crunch / whatever.

Yes, a physical watch will eventually disintegrate too at the singularity but you cannot get rid of the passage of time. Time still passes since otherwise there cannot be any change in the stuff at a point close to singularity.

[Atla]

Why do you evade my question? Does the watch that is attached to you show the passage of time?

Sure it does, but you and your watch will eventually disintegrate too close to the Big Bang / Big Crunch / whatever.

Yes, a physical watch will eventually disintegrate too at the singularity but you cannot get rid of the passage of time. Time still passes since otherwise there cannot be any change in the stuff at a point close to singularity.

Well times "passes" but it's circular. In other words, past present and future all exist all at once. And though it's our everyday human experience that things are changing, fundamentally change doesn't exist.

[bahman]

Sure it does, but you and your watch will eventually disintegrate too close to the Big Bang / Big Crunch / whatever.

Yes, a physical watch will eventually disintegrate too at the singularity but you cannot get rid of the passage of time. Time still passes since otherwise there cannot be any change in the stuff at a point close to singularity.

Well times "passes" but it's circular. In other words, past present and future all exist all at once.

Now, you are not making any sense. We are not talking about simultaneous events. Are we?

And though it's our everyday human experience that things are changing, fundamentally change doesn't exist.

If events are simultaneous then it cannot be any change.