Free will, freedom from what?

[Immanuel Can]

Just hot and very dense stuff.

"Stuff"? And it both "existed in the beginning," and "was not eternal."

An example, please. If that's how things happened, it shouldn't have only happened once, one would think.

Am I wasting my time? Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

I already explained to you:

I must have missed your example of something that exists that way.

One could claim that there was not and it then was caused by an agent called God.

What's the alternate explanation? So far, all you've said is that "stuff" was "always there," but "not eternal." Stuff.

That's not only a self-contradiction, because "always there" and "eternal" mean exactly the same thing, but moreover, you can't identify any of this "stuff," or even one example of the phenomenon you say created the universe.

I've understood what you've said very well. But it makes no sense, and I'm longing to see your evidence for it. But you won't even give one example.

Is that because you can't?

[bahman]

"Stuff"? And it both "existed in the beginning," and "was not eternal."

An example, please. If that's how things happened, it shouldn't have only happened once, one would think.

Am I wasting my time? Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

I already explained to you:

I must have missed your example of something that exists that way.

I gave you the actual example! Do you have any problem with it!?

One could claim that there was not and it then was caused by an agent called God.

What's the alternate explanation? So far, all you've said is that "stuff" was "always there," but "not eternal." Stuff.

Another alternative as I mentioned a few times is that the stuff simply exited at the beginning of time! Do you have problem reading and understanding this sentence?

That's not only a self-contradiction, because "always there" and "eternal" mean exactly the same thing, but moreover, you can't identify any of this "stuff," or even one example of the phenomenon you say created the universe.

I didn't say any of these!

I've understood what you've said very well. But it makes no sense, and I'm longing to see your evidence for it. But you won't even give one example.

I gave you a real example.

Is that because you can't?

No, I gave you the real example. It seems you cannot understand it.

[Immanuel Can]

I already explained to you:

I must have missed your example of something that exists that way.

I gave you the actual example!

You didn't.

...the stuff simply exited at the beginning of time! Do you have problem reading and understanding this sentence?

I have no problem understanding the words. But they make no sense at all, when you put them together that way. There was "stuff," you say..."at the beginning of time..." but you also insist "not eternal." The contradiction (and the bluff on "stuff") is obvious enough. So I have to ask which one of us is really seeming to have trouble understanding what words mean.

That's not only a self-contradiction, because "always there" and "eternal" mean exactly the same thing, but moreover, you can't identify any of this "stuff," or even one example of the phenomenon you say created the universe.

I didn't say any of these!

You said all of these.

I see I am wasting my time here. When you come down to ignoring the obvious facts of what you claimed, we can't go forward. You have neither an explanation, nor a single example. I will move on. I simply despair of getting anything sensible out of you at all on this subject.

[phyllo]

Also, funny that the universe isn't allowed to be eternal, but this 'God' bloke is.

That's the great thing about God.

You don't have to explain anything about God ... no how, why, where or when is required. You can just stop thinking entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

Also, funny that the universe isn't allowed to be eternal, but this 'God' bloke is.

That's the great thing about God.

You don't have to explain anything about God ... no how, why, where or when is required. You can just stop thinking entirely.

Actually, Atla's got it wrong.

Nobody claims that nothing can be eternal. We know for certain, in fact, that "something" had to be, and we know by way of the impossibility of infinite causal regress. So that much is quite certain. And we can certainly explain it, because maths can be easily used to demonstrate its truth.

The problem with Bahman's "stuff" is that it's supposed to be "not eternal," and also already there "at the beginning of time." That's a self-contradiction, one which Bahman seems powerless to resolve.

[bahman]

I must have missed your example of something that exists that way.

I gave you the actual example!

You didn't.

I gave you the example of following the real events backward! Think of yourself. You exist now but you didn't exist before your conception. What happened before? Your parents decide to have a kid so they have sexual intercourse. Before that, a long time before, they met and fell in love. What about a long time before, they didn't exist, etc. There was a point that there was no life since Earth was very hot and inhospitable. Before that, there was no Earth... A long time before that we reach the beginning of time! So what existed at the beginning of time? Either nothing or some physical stuff. If it was nothing then something then something was caused by an agent so-called God. If there was something, physical stuff, then there would be a need for an agent to cause it since it simply existed at the beginning of time.

...the stuff simply exited at the beginning of time! Do you have problem reading and understanding this sentence?

I have no problem understanding the words. But they make no sense at all, when you put them together that way. There was "stuff," you say..."at the beginning of time..." but you also insist "not eternal." The contradiction (and the bluff on "stuff") is obvious enough. So I have to ask which one of us is really seeming to have trouble understanding what words mean.

That is the problem and it is your problem. I cannot explain it simpler than that to you! I already explain it in more detail in the first comment.

That's not only a self-contradiction, because "always there" and "eternal" mean exactly the same thing, but moreover, you can't identify any of this "stuff," or even one example of the phenomenon you say created the universe.

I didn't say any of these!

You said all of these.

When I said that the stuff was eternal!? When I said that the stuff created the universe!?

I see I am wasting my time here. When you come down to ignoring the obvious facts of what you claimed, we can't go forward. You have neither an explanation, nor a single example. I will move on. I simply despair of getting anything sensible out of you at all on this subject.

If you don't understand simple things as I explained to you many times then you live in ignorance. That is your right if you wish to live in ignorance though!

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you the actual example!

You didn't.

I gave you the example of following the real events backward!

No. An example of a thing, a specific thing, that you can show came into being spontaneously, while being neither eternal nor having a beginning, because it was just always there.

Just give me that.

You see? It doesn't even make sense. No wonder you can't do it.

[Atla]

Also, funny that the universe isn't allowed to be eternal, but this 'God' bloke is.

That's the great thing about God.

You don't have to explain anything about God ... no how, why, where or when is required. You can just stop thinking entirely.

Actually, Atla's got it wrong.

Nobody claims that nothing can be eternal. We know for certain, in fact, that "something" had to be, and we know by way of the impossibility of infinite causal regress. So that much is quite certain. And we can certainly explain it, because maths can be easily used to demonstrate its truth.

The problem with Bahman's "stuff" is that it's supposed to be "not eternal," and also already there "at the beginning of time." That's a self-contradiction, one which Bahman seems powerless to resolve.

I would also find it self-contradictory if I was from the 18th century like you. Who heard of relative time back then?

[bahman]

You didn't.

I gave you the example of following the real events backward!

No. An example of a thing, a specific thing, that you can show came into being spontaneously, while being neither eternal nor having a beginning, because it was just always there.

Just give me that.

You see? It doesn't even make sense. No wonder you can't do it.

I didn't say that it was always there or it was eternal. I said that it existed at the beginning of time.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the great thing about God.

You don't have to explain anything about God ... no how, why, where or when is required. You can just stop thinking entirely.

Actually, Atla's got it wrong.

Nobody claims that nothing can be eternal. We know for certain, in fact, that "something" had to be, and we know by way of the impossibility of infinite causal regress. So that much is quite certain. And we can certainly explain it, because maths can be easily used to demonstrate its truth.

The problem with Bahman's "stuff" is that it's supposed to be "not eternal," and also already there "at the beginning of time." That's a self-contradiction, one which Bahman seems powerless to resolve.

I would also find it self-contradictory if I was from the 18th century like you. Who heard of relative time back then?

Enlighten me. Let's see exactly what you know about "relative time," as you call it.

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you the example of following the real events backward!

No. An example of a thing, a specific thing, that you can show came into being spontaneously, while being neither eternal nor having a beginning, because it was just always there.

Just give me that.

You see? It doesn't even make sense. No wonder you can't do it.

I didn't say that it was always there or it was eternal. I said that it existed at the beginning of time.

Time begins with matter. Until there was matter, there was no such thing as time. Matter was not eternal, and is not now. Matter is entropic. Therefore, matter had a beginning and a cause. What was that beginning and cause?

[Atla]

Actually, Atla's got it wrong.

Nobody claims that nothing can be eternal. We know for certain, in fact, that "something" had to be, and we know by way of the impossibility of infinite causal regress. So that much is quite certain. And we can certainly explain it, because maths can be easily used to demonstrate its truth.

The problem with Bahman's "stuff" is that it's supposed to be "not eternal," and also already there "at the beginning of time." That's a self-contradiction, one which Bahman seems powerless to resolve.

I would also find it self-contradictory if I was from the 18th century like you. Who heard of relative time back then?

Enlighten me. Let's see exactly what you know about "relative time," as you call it.

Well in about 150 years, there will be a dude called 'EiNsTeeiNn' or something like that, who will show that there really never was such a thing as the Newtonian absolute time. The conception of time you are unable to dissociate from and see as the only logical thing.

If you're a Kant-lover then that will complicate things further.

[Immanuel Can]

I would also find it self-contradictory if I was from the 18th century like you. Who heard of relative time back then?

Enlighten me. Let's see exactly what you know about "relative time," as you call it.

Well in about 150 years, there will be a dude called 'EiNsTeeiNn' or something like that, who will show that there really never was such a thing as the Newtonian absolute time.

Please go on. I'm intrigued. How does this solve the origin problem?

[Atla]

Enlighten me. Let's see exactly what you know about "relative time," as you call it.

Well in about 150 years, there will be a dude called 'EiNsTeeiNn' or something like that, who will show that there really never was such a thing as the Newtonian absolute time.

Please go on. I'm intrigued. How does this solve the origin problem?

What origin problem?

[Immanuel Can]

Well in about 150 years, there will be a dude called 'EiNsTeeiNn' or something like that, who will show that there really never was such a thing as the Newtonian absolute time.

Please go on. I'm intrigued. How does this solve the origin problem?

What origin problem?

The very simple question of how this universe began. Please...