Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[atheist88]

Forgive me if I'm repeating anyone for I found these boards after this thread was created and I didn't read the 22 pages of history.

It is not a logical impossibility for a being outside to create time/the universe.

Evidence?

Non sequitur. Let alone the (so far) lacking definition of "creating". Adding no information whatsoever to "not always existed".

It is not a logical impossibility for a being to exist outside of logic? Huh? Maybe you should explain how you can justify this premise.

It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to be traversed; by anyone. I arrive at this because if the universe is eternal that means time is infinite. If that is the case then there was an infinite amount of time before this moment. That means an infinite amount of time has been traversed, which is impossible.

To exist for an infinite amount of time means that it has no beginnig or end. That is, it would be without limits regarding time. It would not be bound by time since it is limitless. It is atemporal then. However, to not be bound by time eliminates the possibility of change, since change is the measurement of time; a before and an after. However, the universe is changing, so it must be in time.

I think you have a pretty severe misunderstanding of time. Time does not exist. It is a concept that exists only in our minds. Change is most certainly not a measurement of time. We evented time as a measurement for change. Space and time are the same thing. Time is nothing more than a measureing dimension for space just like length, width and depth. It makes no sense to say, the universe obviously has more than 2 dimensions so therefore it exists in length. The same with time.

Another apparent misunderstanding is that time is not absolute. In other words if you were to take a regular occuring event, like a pendulum swinging and run it backwards towards the big bang, the closer it got to the big bang event, the slower and slower it would swing. As mass approaches infinity, change goes to zero. So you are right, there is not infinite time into the past but you are simply stating well known scientific knowledge.

 

[JBrian]

It is not a logical impossibility for a being to exist outside of logic? Huh? Maybe you should explain how you can justify this premise.

Maybe you should read what I actually said. I did not say that it is not logically impossible for a being to exist outside of logic, I said it is not logically impossible for a being to exist outside of time/the universe to create time/the universe.

I think you have a pretty severe misunderstanding of time. Time does not exist. It is a concept that exists only in our minds. Change is most certainly not a measurement of time. We evented time as a measurement for change. Space and time are the same thing. Time is nothing more than a measureing dimension for space just like length, width and depth. It makes no sense to say, the universe obviously has more than 2 dimensions so therefore it exists in length. The same with time.

Time is the measurement of change. It does not exist in the metaphysical sense. However, we did not invent it.

 

[atheist88]

Maybe you should read what I actually said. I did not say that it is not logically impossible for a being to exist outside of logic, I said it is not logically impossible for a being to exist outside of time/the universe to create time/the universe.

Time is the measurement of change. It does not exist in the metaphysical sense. However, we did not invent it.

I read exactly what you said. Saying something can logically exist outside of time and the universe IS saying it exists outside of logic. Some axioms of logic begin with things like A = A, B = B and C = C, if A = B and B = C, then A = C. Something existing outside of time and the universe (this statement in and of itself is absurd, how can something exist outside of space???) would no long follow the very axioms of logic!

Well, at least you got the fact that time measures change and not the other way around. I agree that time does not exist in a metaphysical sense if by metaphysical you mean of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. It only exists as a concept in our minds.

If we didn't invent time, who did? (please don't say god, I'm hoping you have some other form of argument to this question)

 

[JBrian]

I read exactly what you said. Saying something can logically exist outside of time and the universe IS saying it exists outside of logic. Some axioms of logic begin with things like A = A, B = B and C = C, if A = B and B = C, then A = C. Something existing outside of time and the universe (this statement in and of itself is absurd, how can something exist outside of space???) would no long follow the very axioms of logic!

A being can exist that is not part of the universe and still be logical. This is simply a non sequitor. Something physical cannot exist without space, but something that is not physcial can. We have to talk about God's existence analogically. If we talk about it univocally we might run into your problem, but not analogically. A being that created the universe necessarily must exist without the universe.

If we didn't invent time, who did? (please don't say god, I'm hoping you have some other form of argument to this question)

Time is not an invention, just like logic. We only recognize logic (and time), we don't invent it.

 

[atheist88]

A being can exist that is not part of the universe and still be logical. This is simply a non sequitor. Something physical cannot exist without space, but something that is not physcial can. We have to talk about God's existence analogically. If we talk about it univocally we might run into your problem, but not analogically. A being that created the universe necessarily must exist without the universe.

You like throwing around "non sequitor" it seems. I didn't call you on it last time but I am this time. I can not be guilty of commiting a non sequitor fallacy on a non sequitor fallacy, for you are already into meaningless territory.

Non sequitor simply means "it does not follow". Well, just because you say it does not mean that it follows that a being exists outside of the universe at all! If I conceded that a being existed outside the universe and time THEN it would be a non sequitor for me to say he/she/it would be illogical. BUT it would also be a non sequitor for you to say that he/she/it is logical.

Of course we have to talk about an imaginary all powerful god in the sky through analogy only. That is the only way you can talk about him because the whole idea is so absurd.

BTW, how do you know he must exist outside the universe? Perhaps the universe is a part of him. Perhaps he created it around himself so that he is part of the universe. Perhaps he IS the universe. Or perhaps the universe is the universe and we are just talking about another version of santa clause here.

Time is not an invention, just like logic. We only recognize logic (and time), we don't invent it.

Maybe I can be more clear. Physics, logic, math, time, length, width, depth, et al, are all made up concepts in the human mind. One day mankind woke up and decided that he would like to understand the world around him a little better. He had to start somewhere so he came up with some axioms such as the definition of 1. Then he decided that if you put two 1's together you get 2 and we will call that addition. We use them to describe the things we see around us. We come up with rules that nature apears to obey and we accept them as truth until someone comes up with a SINGLE way to break the rule. Then we do some research and correct the rule. All the rules we have made up about nature are only accepted as long as not a SINGLE event breaks the rules. And that includes evolution. You don't like evolution? Simple, find one thing that breaks it.

 

[JBrian]

You like throwing around "non sequitor" it seems. I didn't call you on it last time but I am this time. I can not be guilty of commiting a non sequitor fallacy on a non sequitor fallacy, for you are already into meaningless territory.

If I am throwing around non-sequitor a lot, it might be because there is a lot of non-sequitors. For example, you assert that if a being exists outside of the universe, or is not confined by the universe, then it exists outside of logic. I call this a non-sequitor simply because it is. It does not follow that if a being exists "outside" of the universe that it necessarily is outside of logic, which is what you are saying. Why must a being be outside of the realm of logic if it is not part of the universe? It is possible that a logical being created the universe, is it not? If if that is the case, then your argument is a non sequitor.

Non sequitor simply means "it does not follow". Well, just because you say it does not mean that it follows that a being exists outside of the universe at all! If I conceded that a being existed outside the universe and time THEN it would be a non sequitor for me to say he/she/it would be illogical. BUT it would also be a non sequitor for you to say that he/she/it is logical.

There is nothing non sequitor to say that a being can exist that is not part of the universe.

Of course we have to talk about an imaginary all powerful god in the sky through analogy only. That is the only way you can talk about him because the whole idea is so absurd.

It is the only way we can talk about Him because He is infinite and we are finite. We use univocal definitions (that is, we mean the same about love when we talk about love) but we use analogical predication (that is we predicate love infinitely to him and finitely to us).

BTW, how do you know he must exist outside the universe? Perhaps the universe is a part of him. Perhaps he created it around himself so that he is part of the universe. Perhaps he IS the universe. Or perhaps the universe is the universe and we are just talking about another version of santa clause here.

Because the universe is not and cannot be self existent. It is in motion (changes, becomes in act what it was in potency) and either it would have to be in motion (change) infinitely (in which case it would never start) or something else that is not changing created it. The universe needs a cause because it is changing, finite, and is contingent being. Contingent being requires non-contingent (necessary, unlimited, infinite, pure act, immutable) being. Santa Clause is hardly that.

Maybe I can be more clear. Physics, logic, math, time, length, width, depth, et al, are all made up concepts in the human mind.

Logic is not made up. It is recognized. In order to make up logic requires that logic already exist. One would have to use the law of identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction (in other words . . . logic!!!) to make logic. We don't make up these things. Physics is also not made up. It is simply a way to describe reality.

One day mankind woke up and decided that he would like to understand the world around him a little better.

If this was the case he would have had to do so logically or illogically. If logically then logic was not made up. If illogically he would never have come to logical conclusions.

He had to start somewhere so he came up with some axioms such as the definition of 1.

Axioms are truisms, not something "made up." They are undeniable.

Then he decided that if you put two 1's together you get 2 and we will call that addition. We use them to describe the things we see around us.

In order to see something (some-thing) requires the law of identity, etc.

We come up with rules that nature apears to obey and we accept them as truth until someone comes up with a SINGLE way to break the rule.

We use sciences such as physics to describe what we see (which also requires logic). Later on someone may discover that the previous view was not correct (which requires logic) and forms a more accurate view.

Then we do some research and correct the rule. All the rules we have made up about nature are only accepted as long as not a SINGLE event breaks the rules.

The laws of nature are observed, not made up. A la the scientific method.

And that includes evolution. You don't like evolution? Simple, find one thing that breaks it.

The fossil record.

 

[atheist88]

If I am throwing around non-sequitor a lot, it might be because there is a lot of non-sequitors. For example, you assert that if a being exists outside of the universe, or is not confined by the universe, then it exists outside of logic. I call this a non-sequitor simply because it is. It does not follow that if a being exists "outside" of the universe that it necessarily is outside of logic, which is what you are saying. Why must a being be outside of the realm of logic if it is not part of the universe? It is possible that a logical being created the universe, is it not? If if that is the case, then your argument is a non sequitor.



There is nothing non sequitor to say that a being can exist that is not part of the universe.

Ahh, I see now. If you say there is a being that exists outside the universe that created the universe and he is logical, that is not a fallacy. If I say that if there is a being outside the universe that created the universe, he is not logical, that IS a fallacy. If we are going to nit pick fallacies, I believe they call that special pleading.

Like I said before, if I were to concede that such a being exists, which I'm not, then it would be a non sequitor fallacy to assume he is either logical or illogical!

So it follows from what evidence or premise that a being exists outside the universe??????

Why do you say the universe had to have a cause? Why do you think the universe is finite? Do you think that if we got in a space ship and took off that at some point we would hit a big wall with a sign on it that says "End of the Universe, Nothing beyond this point"?

Physics and everything else is man-made. If physics were to suddenly disappear nature would not collapse.

The fossil record demonstrates a problem with evolution how? Every evolution textbook and website I've ever read shows complete agreement with the fossil record. See http://www.talkorigins.org.

The rest of your post is just the "Confusing Cause and Effect" fallacy.

 

[JBrian]

Ahh, I see now. If you say there is a being that exists outside the universe that created the universe and he is logical, that is not a fallacy. If I say that if there is a being outside the universe that created the universe, he is not logical, that IS a fallacy. If we are going to nit pick fallacies, I believe they call that special pleading.

I said it is possible for a being to exist that is not part of the universe, and that he could be logical. You asserted that if a being exists outside of the universe it ipso facto must be illogical. I said possible, you said necessary. That's why yours is a non-sequitor.

Like I said before, if I were to concede that such a being exists, which I'm not, then it would be a non sequitor fallacy to assume he is either logical or illogical!

Ok.

So it follows from what evidence or premise that a being exists outside the universe??????

Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Why do you say the universe had to have a cause?

The leading theory today is the big bang theory, which postulates, or leads to the conclusion (for an honest scientist) that the universe is not eternal. Also, the universe is changing, which cannot happen eternally. I believe eternity to be the absence of time, not the sum of time. If the universe were eternal we would not have reache this moment because there are an infinite amount of moments before now. The universe is in time, however, because it is changing. This can't be an infinite series, so it must me finite.

Why do you think the universe is finite?

The universe is expanding. Something that is expanding is finite. The second law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is running down, and will one day reach a state of equilibrium, which hasn't happened (which shows it is not eternal). The red shift shows that after the universe exploded and expanded the galaxies are moving away from us; expanding. This could not have gone on forever or we would not be able to see them. etc. etc.

Do you think that if we got in a space ship and took off that at some point we would hit a big wall with a sign on it that says "End of the Universe, Nothing beyond this point"?

No, space is curved. We would come right back to where we started.

Physics and everything else is man-made. If physics were to suddenly disappear nature would not collapse.

We don't make up reality, therefore we don't make up our descriptions of reality. We simply measure reality and make statements about it (physics, math, etc.).

The fossil record demonstrates a problem with evolution how? Every evolution textbook and website I've ever read shows complete agreement with the fossil record. See http://www.talkorigins.org.

If evolution is true we shoult see transitional fossils, and a lot of them. However, the fossil record shows fossils fully formed. I will not say more about this, since it is off topic.

 

[atheist88]

First, as you go back towards the big bang, mass increases and therefore gravity and therefore time slows down. So practically speaking, the universe could have been in the state that it was in when the big bang occured for an infinite amount of time. Time is not an absolute measurement that would move backward through the big bang without being affected.

Neither does every event that begins and ends have a cause. For example, radiation is causeless. It is a completely random occurance that just happens at some unpredictable time for no reason at all.

Perhaps you should read up on Zeno's paradoxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

Specifically:

Conceptual approaches

A final approach is to deny that time and space are ontological entities. That is, maybe we should give up on our Platonic view of reality, and say that time and space are simply conceptual constructs humans use to measure change, that the terms (space and time), though nouns, do not refer to any entities nor containers for entities, and that no thing is being divided up when one talks about "segments" of space or "points" in time. Thus, compatible with the last two approaches, one denies that our conceptual account of motion as point-by-point movement through continuous space-time needs to match exactly with anything in the real world.

Something that is exanding is finite? What is your basis for this? What is your basis for saying that space is curved? Physicists by no means believe this to be the case. It is true that there is a small segment of scientists that argue for this but it is far from being proven and recent evidence shows it most likely is wrong.
Edit: And I'm speaking of the entirety of space here. It is a well known fact that gravity curves space but it doesn't curve it so that it wraps around on itself.


Finally, the biggest problem in your post is the use of the second law of thermodynamics. This has nothing to do with the expanding universe. The second law only applies to closed systems and it looks as though the universe is gaining energy from somewhere yet to be shown, most likely dark matter.



We will NEVER reach an equilibrium. You must have missed it but in 1998, new information was discovered that graced the cover of "Science" that they called the breakthrough of the year. It was shown that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077857/



We in fact have a lot of transitional fossils unless I misunderstand what you mean by "fully formed". See our most recent transitional fossil here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php