You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Time disproves God
- Thread starter alteredperception
- Start date
My view is completely logical, if you hold an entity-based view of causation. If you trace a causal chain backwards, you might come to a first event that was caused simply by the nature of existence, therefore you would not have an infinite sequence. My view is opposite to that of an event-based view of causation (determinism).
My analysis of time is fact. Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe when you define a standard. The universe itself cannot be measured in temporal terms. It is "eternal" or outside the scope of the concept of time.
My conception of the universe as eternal does not mean that time extends infinitely into the past or future. Rather, it means that even if time is bounded -- that is, even if there was a first measurable time or will be a last measurable time -- one cannot coherently speak of this boundary as marking the "beginning" or "end" of the universe itself. Time-based concepts are not applicable to the universe as a whole. So, for example, to say that the "age of the universe" is 15 billion years (or whatever) is an inaccurate use of the concept of age. It would be more accurate to speak of the earliest known event having occurred 15 billion years ago. Specific events can be placed in time. The universe itself cannot.
My analysis of time is fact. Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe when you define a standard. The universe itself cannot be measured in temporal terms. It is "eternal" or outside the scope of the concept of time.
My conception of the universe as eternal does not mean that time extends infinitely into the past or future. Rather, it means that even if time is bounded -- that is, even if there was a first measurable time or will be a last measurable time -- one cannot coherently speak of this boundary as marking the "beginning" or "end" of the universe itself. Time-based concepts are not applicable to the universe as a whole. So, for example, to say that the "age of the universe" is 15 billion years (or whatever) is an inaccurate use of the concept of age. It would be more accurate to speak of the earliest known event having occurred 15 billion years ago. Specific events can be placed in time. The universe itself cannot.
alteredperception ,
It does seem then that your view is based on your own reinterpretation of physics.
That doesn't make you inherently wrong but it certainly leaves considerable burden upon you to support your claims. So far you assertions are simply hollow comments devoid of any supportable facts.
I have provided a mathematical model supporting my view. Can you do the same?
It does seem then that your view is based on your own reinterpretation of physics.
That doesn't make you inherently wrong but it certainly leaves considerable burden upon you to support your claims. So far you assertions are simply hollow comments devoid of any supportable facts.
I have provided a mathematical model supporting my view. Can you do the same?
MacM,
A mathematical model may add somewhat to the integrity of my theory, but in my mind it would seem unnecessary. I will try to find some numerical support of my theory, because I know some exists already. Of course I am no mathematician, I am strictly a philosopher, but just because the math works doesn't mean the theory is the best account of reality. The String Theory, for instance, looks good on paper, but it probably isn't reality.
As for your theory, I will refute some of the premises when I have time later today.
A mathematical model may add somewhat to the integrity of my theory, but in my mind it would seem unnecessary. I will try to find some numerical support of my theory, because I know some exists already. Of course I am no mathematician, I am strictly a philosopher, but just because the math works doesn't mean the theory is the best account of reality. The String Theory, for instance, looks good on paper, but it probably isn't reality.
As for your theory, I will refute some of the premises when I have time later today.
I don't see why you say there didn't have to be a beginning to things. Most of you are supporting it with mathematical statements, but motion has to be caused by another force in motion. If time is a motion or force, it had to be initiated by another force, what most people would consider to be God.
Yuri- time isn't motion or a force. Time is a measurement of motion.
But if everything has always been in motion (because force can't start from no force), you can trace the reactions back and back until the first reaction and force. I guess there could have been all of this stuff going on for eternity but I find it hard to imagine anything without a beginning. That was my original point but I guess I worded it poorly.
alteredperception said:Specific events can be placed in time. The universe itself cannot.
Perhaps this is a good "time" to introduce a distinction between the idea of universe and the idea of cosmos. Universe might be thought of as the observed universe, which includes space and time. It has size and age. Cosmos might be thought of as the totality that is undivided, which has no size nor age, which includes everything and is nothing.
yuri_sakazaki said:But if everything has always been in motion (because force can't start from no force), you can trace the reactions back and back until the first reaction and force. I guess there could have been all of this stuff going on for eternity but I find it hard to imagine anything without a beginning. That was my original point but I guess I worded it poorly.
Here is where I think my General Theory of Movement comes in handy. Rather than think of everything being in motion, think of movement itself as the substance of which things are made. It's hard to work with - kind of like imagining a wave without water. It is akin to the idea of the "holomovement" that physicist David Bohm came up with.
I like your explanation of time and the cosmos onefinity. I think were on the right track.
Heres a quote from another thread I started, I dont know if youv'e read this but its interesting. It effectively conveys how the universe (existence) doesn't require a cause.
"Is there any need for a first cause?
by Nathaniel Branden:
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."
Heres a quote from another thread I started, I dont know if youv'e read this but its interesting. It effectively conveys how the universe (existence) doesn't require a cause.
"Is there any need for a first cause?
by Nathaniel Branden:
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."
alteredperception said:There is nowhere else to go."
Since you are not advocating a God origin, we are very much in general agreement and I would not debate my view vs yours with any real enthusiasm.
However your closing disregards at least one other reasonable alternative.
The N-->(+s) + (-s) solution where the universe comes into existance without any creation. That is the realization that all there is when recombined equals "Zero".
If existance equals zero then we are merely here on borrowed time of bifurcated Nothing. Nothing (not as an enity) was created it merely changed from nothing into equal and opposite somethings which collectively still equals nothing..
MacM,
I'm sure your theory probably works out fine on paper, just as the string theory. But when you apply the mathematical variables to terms such as "nothing" and "bifurcated nothing" does it still work? From my understanding, nothing by definition cannot divide into two parts.
I'm sure your theory probably works out fine on paper, just as the string theory. But when you apply the mathematical variables to terms such as "nothing" and "bifurcated nothing" does it still work? From my understanding, nothing by definition cannot divide into two parts.
alteredperception said:MacM,
I'm sure your theory probably works out fine on paper, just as the string theory. But when you apply the mathematical variables to terms such as "nothing" and "bifurcated nothing" does it still work? From my understanding, nothing by definition cannot divide into two parts.
I would admit that the idea of Nothing becoming bifurcated seems superficially strange but that is only because of our preconcieved ideas.
We must either reinterprete certain thoughts about reality or suffer some rather nasty consequences. i.e.
1 - Eternal existance hence never was created. Which I find absolutely ludricrus. Show me anything that exists which never came into existance. :bugeye: As pointed out the appeal to eternity gets into infinity which by definition is impossible and it really is no better answer than God which is totally unacceptable.
2 - Creation ex nihilo. That too doesn't really provide an answer does it.
3 - The idea that we exist with no creation being required via the bifurcated Nothingness concept where our existance comprises no creation having occured since the totality of existance still equals "Zero".
This view is along the lines of QM and the "Uncertainty Principle" except this is long term vs the temporary creation of virtual particles due to uncertainity, etc.
MacM,
Unfortunately, I would say the majority of our ideas are preconceived. I am curious as to how you interpret reality and nothingness so it works with the "bifurcated nothingness concept". This theory seems ludicrous to me, just as eternal existence does to you. Asking "what caused existence?" is a ludicrous question because if something caused existence that something would, by definition, be apart of existence. See my logic?
I think people need to reinterpret certain thoughts about time, infinity, existence, and causality and they will see the logic.
"All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality".
Unfortunately, I would say the majority of our ideas are preconceived. I am curious as to how you interpret reality and nothingness so it works with the "bifurcated nothingness concept". This theory seems ludicrous to me, just as eternal existence does to you. Asking "what caused existence?" is a ludicrous question because if something caused existence that something would, by definition, be apart of existence. See my logic?
I think people need to reinterpret certain thoughts about time, infinity, existence, and causality and they will see the logic.
"All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality".
alteredperception said:MacM,
Unfortunately, I would say the majority of our ideas are preconceived. I am curious as to how you interpret reality and nothingness so it works with the "bifurcated nothingness concept". This theory seems ludicrous to me, just as eternal existence does to you. Asking "what caused existence?" is a ludicrous question because if something caused existence that something would, by definition, be apart of existence. See my logic?
I think people need to reinterpret certain thoughts about time, infinity, existence, and causality and they will see the logic.
"All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality".
Ask yourself this question: "What cause is required to create nothing?"
Jagger said:Come on folks, use some critical thinking here.
If you can locate even one segment of existence without time, it changes the whole question and makes Brandon's argument meaningless.
Look closely at time at the speed of light according to General Relativity.
That would be Special Relativity not General Relativity.
You are correct. Timelessness is not the same as eternity and eternity invokes infinity which is a physical impossability by definition.
MacM,
Were obviously not understanding eachother. I just stated my view about causality. I guess I'll say it again. Causality presupposes existence. Nothing doesn't exist.
I understand that something being infinite by definition is impossible, but that doesn't apply to the totality of existence. There cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But that doesn't mean the universe is not eternal, because causality, by defintion, does NOT apply to existence as a whole. "Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time."
Explain your bifurcated nothingness theory to me in a way similar to how I have explained my eternal existence theory to you. How do you rationalize it and articulate your reasons?
Were obviously not understanding eachother. I just stated my view about causality. I guess I'll say it again. Causality presupposes existence. Nothing doesn't exist.
I understand that something being infinite by definition is impossible, but that doesn't apply to the totality of existence. There cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But that doesn't mean the universe is not eternal, because causality, by defintion, does NOT apply to existence as a whole. "Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time."
Explain your bifurcated nothingness theory to me in a way similar to how I have explained my eternal existence theory to you. How do you rationalize it and articulate your reasons?
Last edited:
alteredperception said:MacM,
Were obviously not understanding eachother. I just stated my view about causality. I guess I'll say it again. Causality presupposes existence. Nothing doesn't exist.
I understand that something being infinite by definition is impossible, but that doesn't apply to the totality of existence. There cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But that doesn't mean the universe is not eternal, because causality, by defintion, does NOT apply to existence as a whole. "Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time."
Explain your bifurcated nothingness theory to me in a way similar to how I have explained my eternal existence theory to you. How do you rationalize it and articulate your reasons?
I do not think that you and I may contribute to this old symatic issue. The following is an excellent balanced collections of philosphers addressing this question.
It would be fool hardy indeed for either one of us to presuppose that we have the ultimate answer but requires us to further consider both views in the search for our own truths.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
Well it sounds like you are in fact skeptical about your bifurcated nothingness concept. But I, on the other hand, believe in an eternal universe. Nevertheless I continually try to find alternative views and arguments because I want to find more evidence in favor or against my view. I am very open-minded and if I learn about a more reasonable view about the universe I will accept it and disregard my current view without even thinking twice.