Philosophy Now Forum

To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal, (2) the universe has a beginning, and (3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

(2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

(3): Any act requires time. The act of creation includes the creation of time. This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time. The regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

I agree.

On the other hand, isn't it true that all these something are themselves nothing?

They must necessarily be nothing.

Since first they are not there, after they are there and finally they are gone.
And also to move from here and there, and to change constantly.

They need to be nothing.

This is still best attempt I have come across in grappling with space and time and infinity and nothing and something and everything

It is from Bryan Magee's book Confessions of a Philosopher

"time

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

space

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this" "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.'

Now, there's the part where we note what "here and now" we think about it all. And then there's the part where we go about actually demonstrating it to others.

Or, for that matter, even to ourselves.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:58 pm I agree.

Cool.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:58 pm On the other hand, isn't it true that all these something are themselves nothing?

No.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:58 pm They must necessarily be nothing.

Since first they are not there, after they are there and finally they are gone.
And also to move from here and there, and to change constantly.

They need to be nothing.

You are correct in your observation that nothing is necessary when there is a change. But I differentiate the beginning from other times. Here we are focussing on the beginning. For changes that happen at any other time, things must not be to allow new things. The change at now is however correlated. Therefore there must be a mind that allows change.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:01 pm This is still best attempt I have come across in grappling with space and time and infinity and nothing and something and everything

It is from Bryan Magee's book Confessions of a Philosopher

"time

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

space

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this" "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.'

Now, there's the part where we note what "here and now" we think about it all. And then there's the part where we go about actually demonstrating it to others.

Or, for that matter, even to ourselves.

But he does not conclude anything. There is a beginning and the universe exists. So how could you possibly have a universe if there was a beginning?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:56 pm You are correct in your observation that nothing is necessary when there is a change. But I differentiate the beginning from other times. Here we are focussing on the beginning. .

You are right.

I just wanted to note that there is no contradiction between the something and the nothing.

Regarding the beginning of time, I think the issue should involve ourselves directly.
Because it is time that begins to be! It is not any other thing, but the time!

The realization that time has a beginning questions myself.
If time has a beginning, where am I really if not yet in that instant where it all began?

And this also applies to space. Are we not in the very center of the universe?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal, (2) the universe has a beginning, and (3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal.

But WHY ASSUME ANY thing?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True ONLY?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable.

By WHO'S, or by WHAT, 'definition' is infinity UNREACHABLE?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pmTherefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now.

But the 'NOW', Itself, IS eternal?

So, your CONCLUSION here IS Wrong. Making YOUR so-called "argument" NOT valid and sound, so REALLY rather WORTHLESS and USELESS.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the assumption is wrong.

Or, the CONCLUSION is Wrong, but because of YOUR BELIEFS you are NOT OPEN to SEEING this.

Talk about just saying SOME thing, which aligns with what one ALREADY BELIEVES is true.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Here are three CONCLUSIONS, based solely upon one's OWN ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS, but which are ALL False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm (2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

This, ACTUALLY, does follow, LOGICALLY. However, because the past three CONCLUSIONS were Wrong, False, AND Incorrect this makes 'this' ALSO False Wrong, AND Incorrect.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm (3): Any act requires time.

It could be argued that any act actually CREATES or CAUSES what is said to be 'time'. So, what you just said here could ALSO be just as False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as your other CONCLUSIONS above.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm The act of creation includes the creation of time.

Now this her is a PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning and arguing.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time.

This just leads to ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS in the EXTREME.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm The regress is logically impossible.

Talk about being BEYOND a joke now.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pmNow we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible.

You are, LITERALLY, NOT in a position to show ANY such thing.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

By the way,'you' have NOT shown ANY such thing here.

The above was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how adult human beings used to 'try to' "argue" for their ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEFS, back in the days when this was being written.

Instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, ALWAYS, so as to be ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE what WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE IRREFUTABLY True, they much preferred to just first BELIEVE some thing was true, and then 'try' their HARDEST to LOOK FOR and FIND just about ANY thing, which they could 'try to' use in the hope that it would back up and support their pre-existing ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS.

This forum is a GREAT PLACE to BEAR WITNESS to this Truly DISTORTED way of THINKING and of LOOKING AT things.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:58 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:01 pm This is still best attempt I have come across in grappling with space and time and infinity and nothing and something and everything

It is from Bryan Magee's book Confessions of a Philosopher

"time

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

space

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this" "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.'

Now, there's the part where we note what "here and now" we think about it all. And then there's the part where we go about actually demonstrating it to others.

Or, for that matter, even to ourselves.

But he does not conclude anything. There is a beginning and the universe exists. So how could you possibly have a universe if there was a beginning?

There IS a beginning to MANY "things", BUT this does NOT mean that there was A BEGINNING to the Universe, Itself.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:24 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:56 pm You are correct in your observation that nothing is necessary when there is a change. But I differentiate the beginning from other times. Here we are focussing on the beginning. .

You are right.

I just wanted to note that there is no contradiction between the something and the nothing.

Regarding the beginning of time, I think the issue should involve ourselves directly.
Because it is time that begins to be! It is not any other thing, but the time!

The realization that time has a beginning questions myself.
If time has a beginning, where am I really if not yet in that instant where it all began?

Physicists have an answer for that. According to them the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:24 pm And this also applies to space. Are we not in the very center of the universe?

It depends on whether our universe is finite or not. The whole is however infinte.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal, (2) the universe has a beginning, and (3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal.

But WHY ASSUME ANY thing?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True ONLY?

We assume something and show whether it leads to a contradiction or not. The assumption is true if there is no contradiction, otherwise it is false.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable.

By WHO'S, or by WHAT, 'definition' is infinity UNREACHABLE?

The age of the universe is either finite, has a beginning, or it is infinite and has no beginning. Can you reach the infinite past by watching the evolution of the universe backward? Of course not. So you cannot reach from any point in the infinite past to now too.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pmTherefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now.

But the 'NOW', Itself, IS eternal?

So, your CONCLUSION here IS Wrong. Making YOUR so-called "argument" NOT valid and sound, so REALLY rather WORTHLESS and USELESS.

No. Now is just one point at the time. It is not eternal.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the assumption is wrong.

Or, the CONCLUSION is Wrong, but because of YOUR BELIEFS you are NOT OPEN to SEEING this.

Talk about just saying SOME thing, which aligns with what one ALREADY BELIEVES is true.

You are wrong. The conclusion is correct. I cannot help you if you cannot understand such a simple argument.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Here are three CONCLUSIONS, based solely upon one's OWN ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS, but which are ALL False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

No.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm (2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

This, ACTUALLY, does follow, LOGICALLY. However, because the past three CONCLUSIONS were Wrong, False, AND Incorrect this makes 'this' ALSO False Wrong, AND Incorrect.

It follows.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm (3): Any act requires time.

It could be argued that any act actually CREATES or CAUSES what is said to be 'time'. So, what you just said here could ALSO be just as False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as your other CONCLUSIONS above.

Does any act has a before and after? If yes how you could have an act without time?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm The act of creation includes the creation of time.

Now this her is a PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning and arguing.

No. If there was a point that there was nothing but God.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm
This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time.

This just leads to ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS in the EXTREME.

I know you believe in regress but you are wrong.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm
The regress is logically impossible.

Talk about being BEYOND a joke now.

Please provide an argument.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

I just proved it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible.

You are, LITERALLY, NOT in a position to show ANY such thing.

Yes, I am.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

By the way,'you' have NOT shown ANY such thing here.

The above was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how adult human beings used to 'try to' "argue" for their ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEFS, back in the days when this was being written.

Instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, ALWAYS, so as to be ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE what WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE IRREFUTABLY True, they much preferred to just first BELIEVE some thing was true, and then 'try' their HARDEST to LOOK FOR and FIND just about ANY thing, which they could 'try to' use in the hope that it would back up and support their pre-existing ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS.

This forum is a GREAT PLACE to BEAR WITNESS to this Truly DISTORTED way of THINKING and of LOOKING AT things.

I am familiar with the wall of words from you that explain nothing and provide nothing.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:58 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:01 pm This is still best attempt I have come across in grappling with space and time and infinity and nothing and something and everything

It is from Bryan Magee's book Confessions of a Philosopher

"time

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

space

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this" "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.'

Now, there's the part where we note what "here and now" we think about it all. And then there's the part where we go about actually demonstrating it to others.

Or, for that matter, even to ourselves.

But he does not conclude anything. There is a beginning and the universe exists. So how could you possibly have a universe if there was a beginning?

Again, my point revolves not around what any of us conclude about the origins of the universe "in our heads" but what we are able to demonstrate to others that, as rational human beings, they are obligated to conclude as well.

The more you contemplate the universe as "somehow" embedded in a complete understanding of existence itself, the more your head starts to swim.

Or, okay, the more mine does.

But if anyone here has a more definitive conclusion to offer us, sure, note the evidence and we'll consider it.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:58 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:01 pm This is still best attempt I have come across in grappling with space and time and infinity and nothing and something and everything

It is from Bryan Magee's book Confessions of a Philosopher

"time

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

space

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this" "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.'

Now, there's the part where we note what "here and now" we think about it all. And then there's the part where we go about actually demonstrating it to others.

Or, for that matter, even to ourselves.

But he does not conclude anything. There is a beginning and the universe exists. So how could you possibly have a universe if there was a beginning?

Again, my point revolves not around what any of us conclude about the origins of the universe "in our heads" but what we are able to demonstrate to others that, as rational human beings, they are obligated to conclude as well.

The more you contemplate the universe as "somehow" embedded in a complete understanding of existence itself, the more your head starts to swim.

Or, okay, the more mine does.

But if anyone here has a more definitive conclusion to offer us, sure, note the evidence and we'll consider it.

Which part of my argument is problematic for you. (1), (2), or (3)?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 11:04 pm
Which part of my argument is problematic for you. (1), (2), or (3)?

Which part of your argument are you able to back up with hard evidence?

Instead, it is sheer conjecture. A world of words in which the words themselves define and defend the meaning of yet more words still.

But, sure, when push comes to shove, what else is there that far out on the metaphysical limb.

That's what is so maddening about discussions like this. At least for those of us who are not actual astrophysicists with the education and background necessary to make the assumptions that we accumulate in our argument more compelling.

The existence of something seems indisputable. But whether something was always around or did indeed "pop" into existence out of nothing at all...while fascinating to speculate about, it seems far, far, far beyond mere mortals here on planet Earth ever actually grasping.

It's just that for some of us, when we die we tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. So the staggering mystery of existence itself will never be within our reach. And that exasperates some more than others.

What if human existence really is just essentially meaningless and purposeless? No teleological foundation at all.

And isn't the need to obviate that one of the main reasons that Gods are invented?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal, (2) the universe has a beginning, and (3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal.

But WHY ASSUME ANY thing?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True ONLY?

We assume something and show whether it leads to a contradiction or not.

I KNOW you DO. That I ASKED you WHY you DO 'that' SHOWS and PROVES this.

Now, WHY do you NOT just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED you?

The assumption is true if there is no contradiction, otherwise it is false.[/quote]

And, of the MANY CONTRADICTIONS you make and say some of I SHOW and REVEAL.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable.

By WHO'S, or by WHAT, 'definition' is infinity UNREACHABLE?

The age of the universe is either finite, has a beginning, or it is infinite and has no beginning.

REALLY?

WHY were you under some sort of an ASSUMPTION "others" here were NOT AWARE of this Fact and that you NEEDED to SAY and WRITE this here?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm Can you reach the infinite past by watching the evolution of the universe backward? Of course not. So you cannot reach from any point in the infinite past to now too.

But, as I have EXPLAINED to you BEFORE, just because a human being can NOT do some thing, then this by itself does Not mean that a 'thing' does not exist, OBVIOUSLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

But the 'NOW', Itself, IS eternal?

So, your CONCLUSION here IS Wrong. Making YOUR so-called "argument" NOT valid and sound, so REALLY rather WORTHLESS and USELESS.

No. Now is just one point at the time. It is not eternal.

"Now is just one point at the time" does NOT make sense in english.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

Or, the CONCLUSION is Wrong, but because of YOUR BELIEFS you are NOT OPEN to SEEING this.

Talk about just saying SOME thing, which aligns with what one ALREADY BELIEVES is true.

You are wrong. The conclusion is correct. I cannot help you if you cannot understand such a simple argument.

What you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be VERY EASILY UNDERSTOOD. But what you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be PROVED False AND Wrong. You are just NOT YET OPEN enough to UNDERSTANDING and SEEING this Fact.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

Here are three CONCLUSIONS, based solely upon one's OWN ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS, but which are ALL False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

No.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

This, ACTUALLY, does follow, LOGICALLY. However, because the past three CONCLUSIONS were Wrong, False, AND Incorrect this makes 'this' ALSO False Wrong, AND Incorrect.

It follows.

OF COURSE 'it' follows. 'it' even follows LOGICALLY, as I just SAID. However, if the Universe' did NOT begin from ANY moment, then It is infinite, ALSO 'follows', and even LOGICALLY, but does this make 'it' TRUE and RIGHT?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

It could be argued that any act actually CREATES or CAUSES what is said to be 'time'. So, what you just said here could ALSO be just as False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as your other CONCLUSIONS above.

Does any act has a before and after? If yes how you could have an act without time?

BUT what you, Wrongly, refer to as 'rime' IS eternal, along WITH the Universe. The two go 'hand-in-hand', as some might say.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

Now this her is a PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning and arguing.

No. If there was a point that there was nothing but God.

Your response here, ONCE MORE, is MORE ABSURD than your original CLAIM IS and WAS.

A fair amount of what you say MIGHT make sense in your original language but it truly does NOT in english.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

This just leads to ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS in the EXTREME.

I know you believe in regress but you are wrong.

But what you SUPPOSEDLY :know' here is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY Wrong AND Absurd.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

Talk about being BEYOND a joke now.

Please provide an argument.

'what' some of you human beinga refer to as 'time', like the Universe, can NOT begin. BECAUSE it is BOTH logically AND empirically IMPOSSIBLE to create some thing from NO thing. So, what some of you human beings refer to as 'time' is NOT some thing that was 'created' but is some 'thing' that exists ALWAYS, with the ALWAYS CHANGING Universe.

'Regress' is just some IMAGINED up thing, which has absolutely NO bearing in a discussion about whether the Universe began or not.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

I just proved it.

Is it STILL IMPOSSIBLE for you to just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

You are, LITERALLY, NOT in a position to show ANY such thing.

Yes, I am.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:43 pm

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

By the way,'you' have NOT shown ANY such thing here.

The above was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how adult human beings used to 'try to' "argue" for their ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEFS, back in the days when this was being written.

Instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, ALWAYS, so as to be ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE what WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE IRREFUTABLY True, they much preferred to just first BELIEVE some thing was true, and then 'try' their HARDEST to LOOK FOR and FIND just about ANY thing, which they could 'try to' use in the hope that it would back up and support their pre-existing ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS.

This forum is a GREAT PLACE to BEAR WITNESS to this Truly DISTORTED way of THINKING and of LOOKING AT things.

I am familiar with the wall of words from you that explain nothing and provide nothing.

If this is what you SEE, then this is what you "UNDERSTAND".

Are you AWARE that 'others" SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY from you here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 11:04 pm
Which part of my argument is problematic for you. (1), (2), or (3)?

Which part of your argument are you able to back up with hard evidence?

I don't need evidence since this is purely a metaphysical discussion. But I have evidence for the fact that there is a beginning: If the universe was eternal we should be at heat death state now. We are not at heat death. Therefore there is a beginning.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 am Instead, it is sheer conjecture. A world of words in which the words themselves define and defend the meaning of yet more words still.

I am not conjecturing. I am just excluding all possible scenarios showing that they are not valid. The only scenario which we are left with is that nothing to something is possible.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 am But, sure, when push comes to shove, what else is there that far out on the metaphysical limb.

That's what is so maddening about discussions like this. At least for those of us who are not actual astrophysicists with the education and background necessary to make the assumptions that we accumulate in our argument more compelling.

I already provided an argument from physics.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 am The existence of something seems indisputable. But whether something was always around or did indeed "pop" into existence out of nothing at all...while fascinating to speculate about, it seems far, far, far beyond mere mortals here on planet Earth ever actually grasping.

That is not true. The truth as I mentioned is simple.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 am It's just that for some of us, when we die we tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. So the staggering mystery of existence itself will never be within our reach. And that exasperates some more than others.

What if human existence really is just essentially meaningless and purposeless? No teleological foundation at all.

And isn't the need to obviate that one of the main reasons that Gods are invented?

We are not talking about meaning. I already provided an argument against the existence of God.