Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[JBrian]

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy the definition of eternity is "The totality of time, conceived of as having no beginning and no end. The central philosophical dispute is whether eternity should be contrasted with time, not to be thought of as an especially long quantity of time, but as instead involving a kind of timelessness . . ."

 

[JBrian]

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.

The concept of lattitude has nothing to do with time. It is a false analogy. Something cannot be lattitudinally outside of time. Just because something may or may not exist north of the north pole does not make it outside of time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The concept of lattitude has nothing to do with time. It is a false analogy.

That does not invalidate the analogy. As an analogy, the concept of latitude does not have to do anything with time. That's why it's an analogy.

 

[JBrian]

That does not invalidate the analogy. As an analogy, the concept of latitude does not have to do anything with time. That's why it's an analogy.

The concept of latitude has nothing to do with eternality,which is what the analogy is supposed to prove.

 

[JBrian]

I know the definition of eternal is disputed. However, I agree with philosophers who say that it cannot be the totality of time, since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. An infinite regress is impossible.

It is not contradictory to talk about something being outside of time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

An infinite regress is impossible.

It is not contradictory to talk about something being outside of time.

Non sequitur. Your premise does not logically lead to the conclusion.

 

[:æ:]

I know the definition of eternal is disputed. However, I agree with philosophers who say that it cannot be the totality of time,

You believe whatever nonsense you like. When it comes to questions about time and space, I'll stick to what the physicists tell me, and what the evidence reveals.

since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. An infinite regress is impossible.

I could have predicted this claim as surely as I could have predicted that the sun would rise tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is as false as your earlier claims. Even more unfortunately, and as politely as I can put this, I have no reason to believe that you will recognize the refutation of your claim if I presented it to you.

Regardless, you're invited to read the discussion on Zeno's paradox available here. Note that there are additional pages that are hyperlinked at the bottom of each page.

It is not contradictory to talk about something being outside of time.

It totally perplexes me that you would continue to assert something that I have shown to be so utterly false.

 

[JBrian]

Non sequitur. Your premise does not logically lead to the conclusion.

What premise? These are two different statements not premeses or a conclusion.

 

[JBrian]

You believe whatever nonsense you like. When it comes to questions about time and space, I'll stick to what the physicists tell me, and what the evidence reveals.


I could have predicted this claim as surely as I could have predicted that the sun would rise tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is as false as your earlier claims. Even more unfortunately, and as politely as I can put this, I have no reason to believe that you will recognize the refutation of your claim if I presented it to you.

Regardless, you're invited to read the discussion on Zeno's paradox available here. Note that there are additional pages that are hyperlinked at the bottom of each page.



It totally perplexes me that you would continue to assert something that I have shown to be so utterly false.

While I have asserted that time is a physical characteristic of the universe I am not sure if that is correct. Thoughts are not physical, but they certainly exist in the universe.

It is also a misunderstanding to say that time has a value. Value is something given in an exchange of some sort. However nothing is given or received in regards to value concerning time, therefore time does not have value.

How do you know we can't talk about something outsided of time? Just because you don't know how doens't mean it can't be done. The term "outside" is an analogical term that does not presuppose a spatio-temporal relation.

You said, " 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."

However, this presupposes that you know everything that exists, which is of course not the case. If you do not know everything then it is safe to say that it is possible that there is something not contained in this universe that you do not know about. In fact quantum physicists are saying that other universes exist outside of ours. The truth of this claim is beside the point. Therefore you cannot pretend to know "everything that exists." It is a logical fallacy to prove a claim by defining it a certain way. You assume that everything that exists must do so in our universe, however you have not shown that.

 

[:æ:]

While I have asserted that time is a physical characteristic of the universe I am not sure if that is correct.

Quote yourself asserting that. Point me to the post in which that assertion appears, because I never saw you make that assertion, and for that reason I believe you are lying.

Apart from that, the assertion that time is physical characteristic is not the one I've refuted. I'll give you a hint: its the assertion I quoted from your previous post and that appears at the very end of my last post. Is that clear enough for you?


<snip>

It is also a misunderstanding to say that time has a value. Value is something given in an exchange of some sort. However nothing is given or received in regards to value concerning time, therefore time does not have value.

Please, oh please, do not tell me this is a serious argument.

How do you know we can't talk about something outsided of time? Just because you don't know how doens't mean it can't be done.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22481132&postcount=157

The term "outside" is an analogical term that does not presuppose a spatio-temporal relation.

Riiiiigggghht... and "square" doesn't mean "has four corners and straight edges." I see. You've decided to invent your own language where "outside" doesn't mean "outside." What DOES it mean then? *THAT* is the question you cannot answer.

You said, " 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."

However, this presupposes that you know everything that exists, which is of course not the case.

How in the world does that follow? I don't need to know every goose in the world to know that a collection of geese is called a gaggle. I don't need to know every fish in the world to know that if you collected them all together, the collection would still be called a school. So, how then does it follow that I must know everything that exists in order to know that the collection of everything that exists is called the universe?

If you do not know everything then it is safe to say that it is possible that there is something not contained in this universe that you do not know about.

I am literally and utterly dumbfounded at what you try to pass for "reason" in your arguments.

In fact quantum physicists are saying that other universes exist outside of ours.

No, they're not. Rather, they are discovering that the structure of the universe is in fact a complex collection of dimensional manifolds that individually we used to call "the universe" when we thought there was only one.

The truth of this claim is beside the point. Therefore you cannot pretend to know "everything that exists." It is a logical fallacy to prove a claim by defining it a certain way.

I'm quite sure the exquisite irony of this statement totally escapes you. Let me remind you that YOUR ARGUMENT is founded on a very particular and uncommon definition of a word -- a definition that I've shown leads to contradictions.

You assume that everything that exists must do so in our universe, however you have not shown that.

It it not an assumption, it is a definition, and one that is the most common and useful.

 

[JBrian]

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.

Is this what you wanted? (I did not say physical, and I did not mean to in my latest post; I simply meant characteristic.)

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Again, something that is eternal is outside of time and therefore outside of change. If the universe is outside of time it can't change. If it is within time, and it is changing, then it can't be eternal, and hence was created. Therefore the pulsating universe theory does not work.

If something is not eternal, does it necessarily mean that it was created?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Because He is outside of time. That is exactly what eternal means. Why does God need time in order to exist?

Don't you think that the action of creation involves time and change.

Even thinking involves change.

If God existed outside of time, he would not have acted, because action is change.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

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.

Uprooting a tree and planting another tree involves a lot of change, as in the spatial coordinates of the trees and the planters arms and instruments in question. Action involves change. Creation is an action.

Just think about this....
God was alone...
God got company(universe).
That is change.

 

[JBrian]

If something is not eternal, does it necessarily mean that it was created?

It necessarily means that it needs a cause.

 

[JBrian]

Don't you think that the action of creation involves time and change.

No, because the creation of the universe was the creation of time, it was not a creation in time.

Even thinking involves change.

An omniscient being doesn't think; he knows from eternity.

If God existed outside of time, he would not have acted, because action is change.

A creation is not a change. It is a creation. God did not change in creating the universe, he eternally decreed to create.

 

[JBrian]

Just think about this....
God was alone...
God got company(universe).
That is change.

In order for something to change it must have an initial stage, the process of change, and a terminal stage. "Before" the universe was created it did not have an initial stage. Therefore it is not a change; it is a creation.

God did not change either.

It is not a change; it is a creation. That's what creation means, that something did not exist and then it did. Something cannot change from nothing; nothing cannot change.

 

[quatona]

That's what creation means, that something did not exist and then it did.

Did not....then did. In the absence of time....

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Hi Brian,

"Just think about this....
God was alone...
God got company(universe).
That is change."

What if the universe (as we know it) is just a dream of God's?

 

[JBrian]

Did not....then did. In the absence of time....

A bad way of putting it I know. However, the creation of the universe was not in time, it was the creation of time.