Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[JBrian]

Mt. 25:46 is one example and there are a plethora of "eternal" references in scripture.

Heaven is the complete and absolute absence of pain.

Why can't God create the eternal since it is..well...God? God is not restricted to our constructs of time/space so what could prevent?

We know from scripture that Lucifer was in heaven w/ God, and we see scripture is quite clear about heaven being eternal and it would fall into my second category of eternal, meaning the simple absence of time. God would fit into the first because it is the forever and ever, which would satisfy your criteria of God being uncreated.

The Greek word also means everlasting. an eternal does not have a beginning. However there is a point at which the person enters into "eternal" life or punishment. A better translation since the Greek can mean eternal or everlasting is everlasting, which means that there is a beginning with no end.

 

[JBrian]

If time has a beginning, the universe could be regarded as eternal. If the universe existed at t=0, then it would be uncreated, since there was no previous instant when it did not exist. The universe will always have been, which fits the concept of "eternal" quite well.

If it is not created then it is eternal. However, if it was created it is not eternal. Just because time had a beginning and there was no "time" before that does not mean that the universe did not have a beginning or was uncreated. It must have been created because it is changing, and change only occurs within time. Therefore the universe is not eternal, that is, outside of time and change.

It may be that -- to reply more directly to the OP -- since time seems to be a property of the universe, the universe has an aspect of its nature that is "outside of time", since the universe is the context in which time has meaning, not the other way around.

The universe (space, matter) exists in time. There is no part of the universe that exists outside of time because time can only exist along with space and matter. However there is no part of the universe that is not made up of space and matter, therefore there is no part of the universe that is outside of time.

 

[JBrian]

Something is eternal if it exists for all real time values. Since time is a feature of the universe, the universe must so exist. Therefore, the universe is eternal.

In other words, or it sounds like you are saying that since the universe has existed for all time it is eternal. However, a definition of eternal is to be outside of time. Therefore while the universe has existed for all time, it is not eternal. The universe had a beginning. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning.

All of you making reference to "outside of time" must first demonstrate the validity of said reference before you can premise an argue upon it. AFAIK, using prepositions like "in" and "outside" to describe time iis nothing more than metaphor at best, and simply nonsensical at worst.

Since time is a characteristic of the universe all outside of time means is that time as we know it in our universe does not apply to something outside of the universe.

Keep in mind that space and time are not two separate things. Prepositions like "in" and "outside" describe relations IN space-time and are meaningless without the presupposed existence of space-time. Therefore speaking about being "outside time" seems about as meaningful as speaking about being "in the corner of the circle."

All that is meant is something that is not subject to or characteristic with time.

 

[JBrian]

But there isn't any such event in evidence. Indeed, to identify such an event as the creation of the universe, we would need to obeserve the state of the universe's non-existence, and then a subsequent state of its existence. We have never observed the universe not existing, however, so we could not have observed its coming into existence.

This is simply not the case. Just because we can't observe something does not mean that it did not happen, or that we cannot infer from science and plain reason that the universe cannot be eternal. If that is the case, macro-evolution would be unverifiable since we did not observe the state of affairs before life occured in spontaneous generation (abiogenesis). We don't need to observe everything in order to deduce or induce conclusions.

Why not? I've seen this asserted many times before, but I've never seen anyone successfully defend it.

As has been pointed out, an infinite has no beginning and no end. However, today is the end of days in the series of days. If the universe was eternal we would not be at the end, nor could be ever reach the end, since more time can always be added to the series.

 

[k]

The Greek word also means everlasting. an eternal does not have a beginning. However there is a point at which the person enters into "eternal" life or punishment. A better translation since the Greek can mean eternal or everlasting is everlasting, which means that there is a beginning with no end.

How can we say the modern concept of "everlasting" is the same as the Greek?

 

[JBrian]

How can we say the modern concept of "everlasting" is the same as the Greek?

Because we know what the Greek concept of the word means.

 

[:æ:]

This is simply not the case.

Yes, it quite certainly is.

Just because we can't observe something does not mean that it did not happen,

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the fact that we don't observe the universe having ever not existed means that we can't say that it did begin to exist. You know you have observed a beginning of something when the thing that you observe did not exist before. We do not observe this prerequisite state of non-existence with regard to the universe.

...or that we cannot infer from science and plain reason that the universe cannot be eternal.

Not only is this a bald assertion of yours, it is quite false on its face for reasons already given.


<snip>

As has been pointed out, an infinite has no beginning and no end.

Expectedly, this is as false as your previous claim. An infinite set could have a greatest element, a least element, neither, or both. You cannot infer anything about the finitude of a set from the fact that it has an "end," as you've put it here.

<snip>

 

[Exist]

"However, if it was created it is not eternal."

I thought that heaven and hell were created.....?

(man, I haven't been on the net in ages)

 

[Exist]

And I just read through the last few pages....

What about what I said? It's still being said that if it changes, it can't be eternal (in both directions).

So I ask again: We would have never got here....from where? The start of the universe? There isn't one. So where?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So I ask again: We would have never got here....from where? The start of the universe? There isn't one. So where?

Not the start of the universe, but the start of time/change.

 

[k]

Because we know what the Greek concept of the word means.

I've studied Greek, as well as the culture in 1st C Judea and the Roman Empire....it's not that easy to simply say, "because we know."

What scholar(s) or persons say this? Is there a link?

 

[JBrian]

I've studied Greek, as well as the culture in 1st C Judea and the Roman Empire....it's not that easy to simply say, "because we know."

What scholar(s) or persons say this? Is there a link?

I don't use the internet for "scholarly" works. Look it up in a lexicon. And yes it is that easy, because we know from the literature what the word means. Any lexicon will tell you what the word means.

 

[k]

I don't use the internet for "scholarly" works. Look it up in a lexicon. And yes it is that easy, because we know from the literature what the word means. Any lexicon will tell you what the word means.

So it's being posited here that "everlasting" is not the same as eternal because the former has a distinguished starting point?

 

[JBrian]

So it's being posited here that "everlasting" is not the same as eternal because the former has a distinguished starting point?

Yes. The term in philosophy and theology is aeveternity.

In order for heaven, or hell, or any place for that matter to be eternal, it would have to be uncreated, and self-existing, not needing God for its existence. No Christian would want to say that something exists without God, that is, that something can exist and not need God. However, that is what we have if we say that hell/heaven are eternal.

 

[:æ:]

However, a definition of eternal is to be outside of time.

No, it isn't. You haven't yet made sense of the reference "outside of time." The most rigorous definition is the one that I supplied.

Therefore while the universe has existed for all time, it is not eternal. The universe had a beginning. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning.

You also have yet to demonstrate the existence of a beginning to the universe.

Since time is a characteristic of the universe all outside of time means is that time as we know it in our universe does not apply to something outside of the universe.

Please show that "outside the universe" is meaningful.

All that is meant is something that is not subject to or characteristic with time.

You might as well have meant "married bachelor."

 

[JBrian]

No, it isn't. You haven't yet made sense of the reference "outside of time." The most rigorous definition is the one that I supplied.

Outside of time is something that is not bound to the concept of time, something that is not part of the universe, something that is not made of matter and space.

You also have yet to demonstrate the existence of a beginning to the universe.

To be eternal is to be outside of time and therefore outside of change. The universe is changing, therefore the universe is not outside of change and time. Therefore the universe has not always existed. It had to be created since it is changing. Whatever is changing is in time, therefore the universe is in time.

Please show that "outside the universe" is meaningful.

It is self-defeating to say "outside of the universe" is not meaningful since you just said it and know what it means, namely that something not subject to the univers. Otherwise, you would have had no idea of what I was talking about. However you did, and you used it in a sentence.

You might as well have meant "married bachelor."

That would be a contradiction. There is nothing contradictory about saying that something exists that is not part of our universe.

 

[:æ:]

Outside of time is something that is not bound to the concept of time, something that is not part of the universe, something that is not made of matter and space.

Like something that doesn't exist.

To be eternal is to be outside of time and therefore outside of change.

First, this is your rather uncommon usage of the word, and one that totally lacks rigor. Until you can show that "outside of time" is a meaningful reference (i.e. something exists "there"), it is no different than you describing something that doesn't exist.

In physical language (and time is a physical characteristic), eternal describes something that exists for all values of time. We don't know how to refer to something "outside of space-time" because the very relation proposed by the preposition "outside" presupposes a spatio-temporal context. It's like trying to say that Montana exists somewhere outside Montana. It doesn't make any sense. I've explained all of this before in this very thread, but you either can not or will not understand it. Regardless, this is the last and only time I will repeat myself. Until you can acknowledge this point, any further argumentation premised upon your meaningless reference will be met with a link to this post.

The universe is changing, therefore the universe is not outside of change and time.Therefore the universe has not always existed.

You may think that your words are quite eloquent, but you have yet to give them real meaning. Fanciful ideas are useless if they cannot be shown to accurately describe reality.

It had to be created since it is changing. Whatever is changing is in time, therefore the universe is in time.

Really, we don't talk about things being "in" time, either, let alone "outside" of it. There is nothing there to be inside or outside of. Such language is metaphorical at best. Time is not a thing that you can meaningfully relate to other things with such prepositions. If I am "in" time, where is "outside" it? If the "outside" doesn't exist, how can you say I'm "inside"?

It is self-defeating to say "outside of the universe" is not meaningful since you just said it and know what it means, namely that something not subject to the univers.

You can't be serious. I asked for you to supply the meaning to a particular term -- a term that I have been insisting that you meaningfully define since my entrance into this thread -- and you claim that since I referred to the term in my request, it must mean that I already know what it means. According to that logic, if I asked, "Please demonstrate that "acuoahwefe" is meaningful," one could safely conclude that I already know what "acuoahwefe" means.

Please tell me that you don't really believe that.

Otherwise, you would have had no idea of what I was talking about.

I did, and still do, have no idea what you're talking about. More than that, until you can show me that your terms have real meaning, I have no reason to believe you have any idea what you're talking about, either.

However you did, and you used it in a sentence.

I'm just going to let this speak for itself.

That would be a contradiction. There is nothing contradictory about saying that something exists that is not part of our universe.

When I speak about "the universe," I speak about the collection of everything that exists. I think that is most common usage of the term, and under that usage your proposition does not make any sense. Anything not part of the collection of everything that exists, does not exist. If it existed, it would be part of the collection of everything that exists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The universe is changing, therefore the universe is not outside of change and time. Therefore the universe has not always existed. It had to be created since it is changing. Whatever is changing is in time, therefore the universe is in time.

This does not logically follow as neatly as you might think.

If the universe existed at t=0, there is no prior instant in which it did not exist. It is impossible to conclude that "the universe has not always existed", because if it has existed for all of time (for all values of t), then in fact the universe has always existed. It is only time that has not always existed (i.e. no infinite past).

There is no logical principle that demands that something that changes must have been created.

 

[Exist]

There is no logical principle that demands that something that changes must have been created.

Agreed.

I'm still saying, "We would have never got here from when?" What's the starting point in the journey? The start of time? Doesn't exist. Of course it wouldn't make sense. So, AGAIN, we would have never got here.....from where?

Oh, and what everyone else says.

 

[:æ:]

Perhaps a simple analogy will help.

1.) The earth is mapped with lattitudinal coordinates.
2.) Something is lattitudinally-eternal if it exists north of the north pole.
3.) The earth is not lattitudinally-eternal.

Your claim is similar to #2, but instead of "the universe" I've used "the earth," and instead of "outside of time," I've used "north of the north pole."

It should be obvious that the reference, "north of the north pole," doesn't make any sense. If you're speaking about something that exists "north of the north pole," you're speaking about something that doesn't exist, for there is no "north of the north pole" at which it could exist. Therefore, we can safely conclude that anything purported to be "lattitudinally-eternal" must not exist according to the meaning assigned to it in this analagous argument.

Moreover, it should be apparent that the real problem here is the definition of "eternal" being used. When it is put under scrutiny, it is shown to be in conflict with our rigorous definitions for time and space. That's why I've been insisting on my more harmonious definition: Eternal - the quality of existing for all time values. By this definition, the universe is certainly eternal, but then I can understand your resistance to accepting it. It quite demolishes your argument.