Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

Danhalen · Feb 18, 2006

JBrian said:
While space, matter and time must exist together it is impossible that the universe is eternal. By definition the term eternal means outside of time, and therefore what is said to be eternal is not possible to change since the change must take place within time. So the universe is within time.

I think you are confused as to what the definitions of time are. I refer you to JJB's post. Yes, "outside of time" is one of several definitions provided in the entry posted by JJB, but it is surely not the only one. If there is no change outside of the universe - since there is no space or enrgy/matter - then there can be no time outside of the universe. Time is not necessarily contained within the universe, but it does comprise the universe - since the universe is made up of space and energy/matter.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
Premise 3 is not correct. In order for something to change something has to exist in order to change. Nothing (no thing) cannot change. The creation of the universe is therefore not a change, it is a creation. In order for a change to take place something must remain the same, otherwise it would not be a change, but rather something that ceases to exist and the creation of a new thing. There is nothing that remains the same during an ex nihilo creation, it is just that, a creation. So creation ex nihilo is possible. However it is impossible that the universe is eternal, since it is changing and what is eternal is outside of time by definition, and hence immutable.

"In order for a change to take place something must remain the same, otherwise it would not be a change, but rather something that ceases to exist and the creation of a new thing."

I consider both cessation and creation as changes of a state of affairs, sorry.

Avatar · Feb 19, 2006

Lord Emsworth said:
"In order for a change to take place something must remain the same, otherwise it would not be a change, but rather something that ceases to exist and the creation of a new thing."

I consider both cessation and creation as changes of a state of affairs, sorry.

Interesting thought. Change as ongoing creation,

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Lord Emsworth said:
"In order for a change to take place something must remain the same, otherwise it would not be a change, but rather something that ceases to exist and the creation of a new thing."

I consider both cessation and creation as changes of a state of affairs, sorry.

When something ceases to exist it cannot change because it doesn't exist anymore. When something is created it is simply created, there is no change, since nothing exists in order to change. Think of it as a tree. When a tree grows it changes (accidentally-that is, its height, etc.). However, if someone uprooted it and replace it with a bigger tree that is not a change in the tree but simply a new tree. The analogy is not perfect, but in order for a change to take place something must remain the same in the substance. When something is created there is no change since no-thing cannot change, and nothing stays the same. It is simply the creation of a thing.

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Danhalen said:
I think you are confused as to what the definitions of time are. I refer you to JJB's post. Yes, "outside of time" is one of several definitions provided in the entry posted by JJB, but it is surely not the only one. If there is no change outside of the universe - since there is no space or enrgy/matter - then there can be no time outside of the universe. Time is not necessarily contained within the universe, but it does comprise the universe - since the universe is made up of space and energy/matter.

If the universe is changes within time, that is, through successive events (befores and afters) then it cannot be eternal. Again, by definition what is eternal is outside of time and cannot change. However, if the universe is ordered by time, which I believe it is, it cannot be eternal, because an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed; more time can always be added and we would never have come to this moment. However we are at this moment, therefore an infinite amount of time has not elapsed.

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Avatar said:
Interesting thought. Change as ongoing creation,

If something is changed, it is not created. To be created means to come to exist, not change from one state to another.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
When something ceases to exist it cannot change because it doesn't exist anymore. When something is created it is simply created, there is no change, since nothing exists in order to change. Think of it as a tree. When a tree grows it changes (accidentally-that is, its height, etc.). However, if someone uprooted it and replace it with a bigger tree that is not a change in the tree but simply a new tree. The analogy is not perfect, but in order for a change to take place something must remain the same in the substance. When something is created there is no change since no-thing cannot change, and nothing stays the same. It is simply the creation of a thing.

What? Replacing a tree by another tree is definitely a change of the state of affairs. Just as: nothing --> something

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Lord Emsworth said:
What? Replacing a tree by another tree is definitely a change of the state of affairs. Just as: nothing --> something

Like I said it is not a great analogy. However nothing stays the same in ex nihilo creation. Something is created. There is no-thing to change. Nothing cannot change. There is no state of affair in nothingness; it is just that -nothing (no state of affairs). When something is created the nothingness did not change.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
Like I said it is not a great analogy. However nothing stays the same in ex nihilo creation. Something is created. There is no-thing to change. Nothing cannot change. There is no state of affair in nothingness; it is just that -nothing (no state of affairs). When something is created the nothingness did not change.

'No universe' is a state of affairs ... I don't really see what is not to get about this.

(If it is not, then I guess that only goes to show that ex-nihilo cannot be because nihilo cannot be.)

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Lord Emsworth said:
'No universe' is a state of affairs ... I don't really see what is not to get about this.

(If it is not, then I guess that only goes to show that ex-nihilo cannot be because nihilo cannot be.)

No universe is absolutely nothing. "nihilo cannot be" literally means, "nothing cannot be." Does that make any sense? I think what you are trying to say is that if the universe is not in a state of affairs by not being, then creatio ex nihilo is impossible. That is a non sequitor. It does not follow that simply because the universe is not in a state of affairs in its non existence that God cannot create the universe. All creatio ex nihilo means is that God did not use anything to create the universe (e.g. Himself, creation ex deo, or matter, creatio ex materia).

Once again, nothing can change in a creatio ex nihilo. There is nothing about the universe that actually changes, rather it is simply created. There is nothing that remains the same which would constitute the change.

quatona · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
If something is changed, it is not created. To be created means to come to exist, not change from one state to another.

Yes, and since "creation" can nowhere be observed, it is merely a negating term without any positive conceptual content. Hence - please don´t take it personally - saying that something was created is, as far as I can see, just another expression of "I have no clue what I am talking about".
If, as you do, we can simply assume that creation (making something out of nothing) is possible, we could as well assume that self-creation is possible: The universe created itself.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
No universe is absolutely nothing.

Are you sure? I would be surprised ... No "God"?

JBrian said:
"nihilo cannot be" literally means, "nothing cannot be." Does that make any sense? I think what you are trying to say is that if the universe is not in a state of affairs by not being, then creatio ex nihilo is impossible. That is a non sequitor. It does not follow that simply because the universe is not in a state of affairs in its non existence that God cannot create the universe. All creatio ex nihilo means is that God did not use anything to create the universe (e.g. Himself, creation ex deo, or matter, creatio ex materia).

Once again, nothing can change in a creatio ex nihilo. There is nothing about the universe that actually changes, rather it is simply created. There is nothing that remains the same which would constitute the change.

Whatever. Simply answer these questions, will you?
(0) Could you do me the favor and not think that I am trying to say XY?
(1) Before the universe was created, did the universe exist? Y/N
(2) After the universe was created, did the universe exist? Y/N

Now if you do not answer no to (1) you are denying creation, plain and simple. For example you could say yes, the universe did exist before it was created, but this is of course absurd. Or you could question whether the question actually makes sense. But this is a typical atheist's tactic; in short state that there is no before the universe and deny the coming into existence altogether. And no coming into existence means no creation.

Next question (2). If you answer no, umm, you end up with an absurd statement. To wit: After the universe was created, the universe did not exist. A calling the question into question would probably look like stating that the universe was not created, but I don't think you would do this.

So, the only sensible thing from a theist's POV would be to answer "No" and "Yes." And there you have it. Creation ex nihilo constitutes a change:
State of affairs before creation: "God" and nothing else
State of affairs after creation: "God" and the universe

Danhalen · Feb 19, 2006

JBrian said:
If the universe is changes within time, that is, through successive events (befores and afters) then it cannot be eternal.

True, if we are operating on your accepted definition of "eternal"; outside of time. If, however, we use another definition - all of time - then it is quite possible.

Again, by definition what is eternal is outside of time and cannot change.

Again, this is only one of several accepted definitions. It is also a definition which renders itself meaningless. For something to exist "outside of time" is not possibly demonstrable - since time is an inherent quality (dimension) of all known existents.

However, if the universe is ordered by time, which I believe it is, it cannot be eternal, because an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed; more time can always be added and we would never have come to this moment. However we are at this moment, therefore an infinite amount of time has not elapsed.

This is an outdated argument. Units of time are finite. Finite distances can be traversed. If what you say were true, we would not be able to walk any distance - since all distances are infinitely divisible (re: Zeno's paradox).

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

quatona said:
Yes, and since "creation" can nowhere be observed, it is merely a negating term without any positive conceptual content. Hence - please don´t take it personally - saying that something was created is, as far as I can see, just another expression of "I have no clue what I am talking about".
If, as you do, we can simply assume that creation (making something out of nothing) is possible, we could as well assume that self-creation is possible: The universe created itself.

In other words, if it can't be conceptualized or be observed it can't be true. That is the failure of modern science and empiricism. Just because we can't observe something (creation) that doesn't negate the possibility. We can't observe spontaneous regeneration either, I guess there goes evolution. We can't observe much of quantam physics, etc.

To say that the universe can't be eternal and that it was created is a far cry from saying I have no clue what I am talking about.

As far as the idea of self-creation, well that's absurd. Have an infinite, eternal being create out of nothing is hardly a self-causing universe. In order for the universe to create itself it would have to exist prior to its existence.

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

Are you sure? I would be surprised ... No "God"?

Click to expand...

"No God" is not the same as "no universe," since I am not a pantheist.

Whatever. Simply answer these questions, will you?
(0) Could you do me the favor and not think that I am trying to say XY?
(1) Before the universe was created, did the universe exist? Y/N

Click to expand...

It is a category mistake to use time to say "before the universe," since time cannot be applied to eternity. There was no time before the universe. However, time can be created. Which is what happened.

(2) After the universe was created, did the universe exist? Y/N

Click to expand...

After creation the universe existed.

Now if you do not answer no to (1) you are denying creation, plain and simple. For example you could say yes, the universe did exist before it was created, but this is of course absurd. Or you could question whether the question actually makes sense. But this is a typical atheist's tactic; in short state that there is no before the universe and deny the coming into existence altogether. And no coming into existence means no creation.

Click to expand...

There is no "before" the universe in the sense of time, that is not to say that God has not existed in eternity however. The universe "coming into existence" was the creation of time, not a creation in time.

Next question (2). If you answer no, umm, you end up with an absurd statement. To wit: After the universe was created, the universe did not exist. A calling the question into question would probably look like stating that the universe was not created, but I don't think you would do this.

So, the only sensible thing from a theist's POV would be to answer "No" and "Yes." And there you have it. Creation ex nihilo constitutes a change:
State of affairs before creation: "God" and nothing else
State of affairs after creation: "God" and the universe

Click to expand...

The "state of affairs" "before" (used loosley, for a lack of a better way of putting it) was God. "After" the creation of the universe God existed as did the universe. However, there is no change, since nothing remained the same in relation to the universe; it was simply added, not changed. There was no "state of affairs," there was only an eternal being. Then the eternal being created (no change, simply something added) something. The thing that was created did not undergo change, since nothing remained the same from "before" it was created and "after" it was created. It simply did not exist, and then did exist.

JBrian · Feb 19, 2006

True, if we are operating on your accepted definition of "eternal"; outside of time. If, however, we use another definition - all of time - then it is quite possible.

eternal: (from websters) without beginning or end in relation to time; everlasting; timeless, immortal, imperishable. eternity: the infinity of time; the future state after death.

The definition of eternity is troublesome in the philosophical sense because we cannot have an actual infinite amount of real things (Zeno notwithstanding, since the divisions you are talking about are only conceptual not actual, that is, metaphysical, or really existing.

Again, this is only one of several accepted definitions. It is also a definition which renders itself meaningless. For something to exist "outside of time" is not possibly demonstrable - since time is an inherent quality (dimension) of all known existents.
This is an outdated argument. Units of time are finite. Finite distances can be traversed. If what you say were true, we would not be able to walk any distance - since all distances are infinitely divisible (re: Zeno's paradox

Units of time are indeed finite, and no matter how many finite units you add you will never get an infinite. You can't walk an infinite distance, at least, you would never reach the end. And where would you begin, since an infinite distance would have no beginning?

Danhalen · Feb 19, 2006

Merriam Webster Online said:
eternal
2 entries found for eternal.
To select an entry, click on it.
eternal[1,adjective]eternal[2,noun]
Main Entry: 1eter·nal
Pronunciation: i-'t&r-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity -- more at AYE
1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? -- Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission : PERPETUAL b : seemingly endless
3 archaic : INFERNAL <some eternal villain ... devised this slander -- Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS <eternal verities>
- eter·nal·ize /-n&l-"Iz/ transitive verb
- eter·nal·ly /-n&l-E/ adverb
- eter·nal·ness noun

JBrian said:
eternal: (from websters) without beginning or end in relation to time; everlasting; timeless, immortal, imperishable. eternity: the infinity of time; the future state after death.

You sure you got it all?

The definition of eternity is troublesome in the philosophical sense because we cannot have an actual infinite amount of real things (Zeno notwithstanding, since the divisions you are talking about are only conceptual not actual, that is, metaphysical, or really existing.

Are you sure the divisions are merely conceptual? Have you ever heard of Planck-time - the smallest (indivisible) lengths of time?

Units of time are indeed finite, and no matter how many finite units you add you will never get an infinite.

You just said units of time were conceptual, not actual. Therefore they are not - according to you - confined to a finite unit. Now you are saying they are finite and therefore it is impossible to have an infinite amount of them. What is your stance?

You can't walk an infinite distance, at least, you would never reach the end. And where would you begin, since an infinite distance would have no beginning?

If length is conceptual, and therfore not constricted to reality, then you are correct. Since length is a measurement of space - and distance is a coordinate of length - it is actual. Therefore it is real and made up of finite units. I can traverse a finite length of space in an infinite amount of space. Where do I begin? In the middle.

quatona · Feb 20, 2006

JBrian said:
In other words, if it can't be conceptualized or be observed it can't be true. That is the failure of modern science and empiricism. Just because we can't observe something (creation) that doesn't negate the possibility.
We can't observe spontaneous regeneration either, I guess there goes evolution.

We can explain it without assuming illogical realms. And you left out the "conceptualized" in your response. I pesonally cannot have concepts concerning the "unconceptualized", seems to be a contradiction to me. Don´t know about you.

We can't observe much of quantam physics, etc.

Sorry, I am completely illiterate in this field, and hence I can´t and don´t make any statements about Quantum Physics and its accuracy.

To say that the universe can't be eternal and that it was created is a far cry from saying I have no clue what I am talking about.

Ok, let me reword it: When you say things like "existing outside/beyond space" and "existing before/outside/beyond time" I have no clue what you are talking about, other than that you simply negate that which is. If you know what these words mean, I admire you.
As far as the idea of self-creation, well that's absurd. Have an infinite, eternal being create out of nothing is hardly a self-causing universe. In order for the universe to create itself it would have to exist prior to its existence.[/quote]
Yeah, right, it is as absurd as the idea of something existing outside/before/beyond time and space, forever, uncaused. You are running into illogicalities any way you turn it.
But since you said this shouldn´t cause us to exclude the possibility, you do not really have an argument against it.

JBrian · Feb 20, 2006

You just said units of time were conceptual, not actual.

Can you point out where I said that?

I can traverse a finite length of space in an infinite amount of space. Where do I begin? In the middle

Space can only be finite in the material realm, while infinite in the mathematical realm (euclidian [sp] point). However, infinite space does not actually exist. Space can be divided infinitely according to mathematical concepts; but that is conceptual not actual. There is no such thing as an infinite amount of space.

JBrian · Feb 20, 2006

Yeah, right, it is as absurd as the idea of something existing outside/before/beyond time and space, forever, uncaused. You are running into illogicalities any way you turn it.
But since you said this shouldn´t cause us to exclude the possibility, you do not really have an argument against it.

What is illogical about a being that is uncaused, infinite, eternal, etc.? To be illogical means that it is contrary to logic, however there is nothing illogical about a being that doesn't exist in our spacio-temoral universe. Just because it can't be conceived does not negate its possibility.

Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

Healing

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Well-Known Member

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Healing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Healing

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency