MacM said:
This statement is flawed by definition.
To have existed eternally requires that there has been an accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals. Time intervals are physically countable and by definition "Infinity" is greater than any finite number. So eternal existance violates the definition of infinity or in other words the definition of infinity precludes claiming eternal existance.
Conclusion: There is no method of claiming something has existed forever without having had an enception or point of coming into existance.
I would agree with you on this count as far as the universe is concerned. You are, however, wrong about how you have defined eternality. "Eternal" has three proper definition. 1. To have no beginning and end. 2. To be endless (having a beginning, but no end). 3. To be everlasting (without interruption or cessation). For the sake of simplicity I will only concern myself with the first two, since the third is very much like the second. Each of these definitions do include, by necessity, the infinite. In fact, a synonym of 'eternal' is 'infinite.' In the second case, that is, endlessness, we would be speaking about a potential infinite, that which has a starting point, but continues (movement or growth) forever. The first case, without beginning or end (timelessness), is an actual infinite, as opposed to a potential.
Time is a dimension of this universe, a sequential movement from one moment to the next. As you say, time is finite, and as part of the universe, this must be so. Likewise, anything the exists in relegation to the law of time, experiences moments in sequence, and is also finite. Furthermore, anything, as you say, that is relegated to this law, existing in a realm also relegated to this law, is surrounded by that which is relegated to this law, and may be unable to produce evidence of that which is not relegated to this law, and furthermore not relegated to this realm. If there is an eternal existing in this universe, it may only be of the second form, endlessness, and is therefore only potentially infinite.
However, as our own existence teaches us, things may be experienced, understood, or function in either a sequential manner, or a holistic manner. As such, logic dictates that, while our universe experiences TIME (a
sequential movement from one moment to another) there may be an existence which does not experience time, but rather something else which is
holistic (that is, it experiences every moment simultaneously, rather than as a sequential movement). Such an existence would be eternality in the first sense (without beginning or end), and would be defined as an actual infinite, as opposed to a potential infinite.
*The key word there is "believe" so in essense some people "beliefs" of multiple universes are not warranted by evidence, I can "believe" in purple unicorns on the other side of Mars, you may or may not believe in those purple unicors, you will ask for evidence, I assert that I just "believe" that there is!. Without evidence, I have "faith" that purple unicors exist on the other side of Mars, and since no one can refute my assumptions I believe that purple unicorns are in fact on the other side of Mars. This is just how silly it is to assert "belief" in multiple universes, they lack the metaphysical evidence, it's just a belief as silly as a belief in purple unicorns.
Godless, you keep speaking about "metaphysical" laws and evidence. The problem is that, while is it a branch of philosophy that deals with first principles and the origins of what is real, it is usually a very abstract form of reasoning, and is not necessarily dependent upon the "physical," which seems to be where you base much of your "metaphysical" reasoning. To claim the possibility of multiple universes may, in fact, rely upon one's own beliefs about the origins of reality. There are several theories pertaining to the multiple universe, each with their own merit, and while they may not have "physical" evidence for it, metaphysics may actually allow for it. For example, one theory that I have read says that our universe may be the result of two other universes having "colided," which is what caused the Big Bang. This is actually a metaphysical theory, since it is both abstract, and concerns the origins of our universe, and reality. You seem to think that metaphysics is something that is set in stone. Actually, metaphysics relies very much on logic, and as such, is very much subject to fallicy, since logic relies on the truth-values of the premises proposed. Since metaphysics isn't determined by physics, the "first principles" that it seeks to determine, and then use to construct a basis for reality, are most certainly indeterminate, as such. While there are definitely stronger metaphysical theories than others (i.e., Ayn Rand's three axioms), none are known to be absolutely true (the Buddhist would reject the axiom of identity, for example, saying that identity is illusion).
*This is observed by the Hubble space telescope, oscillating universe theory has no quible with this, because the theory of the "big crunch" would not contradict the "big bang" thus in theory when entropy is exhausted, the big crunch begins, gravity will pull the universe to an infinite density again, and explode again.
At the moment, I have no real quibble with the Big Bang theory, except that it isn't really absolute yet, but only a very strong theory. However, what I meant to point out was that in saying the singularity from which the universe originated was infinitely dense suggests to me that entry, therefore, would also be infinite, and, actually, that singularity would still exist, out of which the universe would continue to expand infinitely. To say that our universe is finite, materially, is to say that the its original singularity was not infinitely dense, since otherwise the expansion of that density would also be infinite.
*What the individual was trying to explain, is that nothing existed prior to the big bang, that "something" another existent with a consciousness to create the universe did not exist prior to big bang.
The assumption of the individual is that prior to the big bang there was a motion which caused the big bang. He assumes prior velocity, which, as I see it, is ungrounded. Prior to the universe, there would have been no motion (I think you could agree with this), and if the "existence" prior to that motion was actually infinite, then this would still be true, since there is no motion within an actual infinite.
