Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Something eternal can create something temporal. There is no contradiction here. Something temporal DEMANDS something eternal, or the temporal thing could not exist. Otherwise it would be infinite, with no beginning. However, something cannot exist that had no beginning. The universe needs a cause.

If something cannot exist that had no beginning, then God cannot exist since God has no beginning according to your definition.

I mean 'exist' in terms of 'eternal existence'
here, talking about God.

Then your definition leads to a situation where there is no such thing as 'eternal'.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Something eternal can create something temporal. There is no contradiction here. Something temporal DEMANDS something eternal, or the temporal thing could not exist. Otherwise it would be infinite, with no beginning. However, something cannot exist that had no beginning. The universe needs a cause.

It is also my pov that something temporal demands something eternal, since if there is no eternal even this illusion of this universe will not be there,but the view that this eternal caused this temporal is where I disagree.

I consider this temporal as unreal, as in it never happened. Only the eternal is, nothing else is. And it is my view also that the eternal cannot be God, since God needs his subjects like a bully needs his whipping boy to be called a bully.

In the eternal, there is no subject-object duality like a devotee-God, etc.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

And since according to me, I never happened, don't take my opinion too seriously.

 

[quatona]

Without going into the scientific proofs (big bang) suffice me to say that if the universe was eternal it would be outside of time. However, time is the measurement of change, hence, to be outside of time is to be outside of change. We know that the universe is changing, so it must be in time (not eternal).

I am confused with your use of the word "time". Once you define things to be "outside of it", next time you picture it as a mere measuring stick.
If your idea is that "being outside time" means "time is not the appropriate measurement", I don´t see how anything you conclude follows.
If it is supposed to mean something different, please define it and keep to this definition.

The only other alternative is to say that the universe is infinite, namely without a beginning. But what exists must have a cause.

I don´t see how this is anything but an axiom.

The series of causes cannot be infinite, for that would not account for the effect, namely, the universe. There must be a cause that does not need a cause. However, this cause must be uncaused, and unchanging, that is, outside, or not subject to time (eternal).

This is the uncaused cause that created the known universe. Being must be grounded in something that does not need to be grounded in something else. The universe cannot be this uncaused cause because it is changing and the ultimate cause must be unchanging, namely, have no potency for change (or anything). This is because it is in/subject to time, and time cannot be infinite. If time had no beginning we would not reach the present moment. In other words, as Aristotle and Aquinas put it, this being must be pure act, pure existence.

That´s all nice and circular and has been said countless times, but I fail to see how it adresses my point.

There is no contradiction with an eternal being decreeing to create something that needs a beginning. In fact it is necessary for the above reasons.

There is a contradiction between picturing a being as being not subject to time and picturing it as acting ("creating").

there is no such thing as a state of the universe not existing. "not existing" is not a state, it is nothing.

But you implicitly use this state for your arguments. It is not a state of the universe itself, but a state of affairs in general. "The universe not existing" is implied by your axiom that the universe is not eternal, so there are two distinct states of affairs. The universe existing and not existing.

I did not ascribe temporal actions to this being that is outside of time. The fact that he created time does not make him subject to it.

It wouldn´t, if "creating" would not be a verb describing an action. This requires time. Else I have no clue what "creating" is supposed to mean, to begin with.

There was no "before" he created. It is a category mistake to say "what existed before time?" nothing temporal existed without the universe.

Yes, exactly. My point being, that it is not me who introduces this category mistake, but you. I am only responding to it.
In the absence of time action and change are impossible, by your own definition.
Yet, you are assuming a being to change the state of affairs in this absence of time.
Greetings
quatona

 

[JBrian]

If something cannot exist that had no beginning, then God cannot exist since God has no beginning according to your definition.

I mean 'exist' in terms of 'eternal existence'
here, talking about God.

Then your definition leads to a situation where there is no such thing as 'eternal'.

I agree with you insorfar as I explained it badly. Something that is changing and is temporal needs a cause. Something eternal would not need a cause; it would be uncaused. However, the universe is changing and is temporal/finite, and it needs a cause.

 

[JBrian]

I am confused with your use of the word "time". Once you define things to be "outside of it", next time you picture it as a mere measuring stick.
If your idea is that "being outside time" means "time is not the appropriate measurement", I don´t see how anything you conclude follows.
If it is supposed to mean something different, please define it and keep to this definition.


I don´t see how this is anything but an axiom.


That´s all nice and circular and has been said countless times, but I fail to see how it adresses my point.





There is a contradiction between picturing a being as being not subject to time and picturing it as acting ("creating").


But you implicitly use this state for your arguments. It is not a state of the universe itself, but a state of affairs in general. "The universe not existing" is implied by your axiom that the universe is not eternal, so there are two distinct states of affairs. The universe existing and not existing.




It wouldn´t, if "creating" would not be a verb describing an action. This requires time. Else I have no clue what "creating" is supposed to mean, to begin with.


Yes, exactly. My point being, that it is not me who introduces this category mistake, but you. I am only responding to it.
In the absence of time action and change are impossible, by your own definition.
Yet, you are assuming a being to change the state of affairs in this absence of time.
Greetings
quatona

God does not "act" exactly the way we do. We have to speak of God with analogous terminology. The creation was not in time. There is no "before" regarding the creation. It was the creation of time.

Either you have to admit that the universe has not always existed or it has. If it has not, then it was created. If it has time would be infinite, which is impossible. It is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time. If time had no beginning we should not be at this moment in time, because there is an infinite amount before now. However, this is absurd. An actual infinite series is impossible. You can talk about mathematical equations all day long, however those types of issues are not metaphysically real, they are concepts. A line can be divided up infinitely because you are not using something real to divide it, but merely something conceptual. A real amount of time (and time can only be divided to a certain limit, namely plank time) cannot be infinite.

How can you substantiate your claim (even though you have not come out and said this, it is the only alternative) that the universe is eternal, and that time is infinite?

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

I agree with you insorfar as I explained it badly. Something that is changing and is temporal needs a cause. Something eternal would not need a cause; it would be uncaused. However, the universe is changing and is temporal/finite, and it needs a cause.

I agree with every word in your quote.

But I can't agree that 'since this universe needs a cause, that cause must be uncaused'. If something is put forth as a cause for the universe, again we'll be searching for a cause for this universe. The cause for this universe has not been determined yet, and it is my opinion that such an endeavor is futile.

Also from your own argument, eternal is uncaused and non-causing. Of course, from a philosophical point of view.

 

[quatona]

God does not "act" exactly the way we do. We have to speak of God with analogous terminology. The creation was not in time. There is no "before" regarding the creation. It was the creation of time.

What makes you say "it was" instead of "it is" or "it will be"? This itself already implies a temporal sequence of no time -> time, which can only be claimed "in time".
If "creating" is an act in the absence of time, I have no clue what it is supposed to be. This is a logical impossibility, and so far it seems to be just a substitute for "I have no clue".
Simply introducing an entity with illogical abilities is not a valid means of solving logical problems, and not an explanation of sorts.

Either you have to admit that the universe has not always existed or it has.

For completion´s sake: As a third option it may have always existed, but in a different way.

If it has not, then it was created.

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

If it has time would be infinite, which is impossible. It is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time.

- For whom/what?
- How do you arrive at this conclusion?
- How would showing that traversing an infinite amount of time is impossible also show that an infinite amount of time itself is an impossibility?
On another note "infinity" itself is merely a negatively abstracting concept derived from that which we exclusively know.
On again another note, since you yourself pictured time as being a method of measurement (and I would agree with that), I have no idea what an "infinite amount of a particular measurement" is supposed to mean (as opposed to "an infinite amount of a measurable substance".)

If time had no beginning we should not be at this moment in time, because there is an infinite amount before now.

I don´t understand myself as being at this moment in time from a supposedly absolute pov, I perceive myself as being. Whether this takes place at a certain moment of all time or not would be just a measurement problem, not a problem of existence.

However, this is absurd. An actual infinite series is impossible. You can talk about mathematical equations all day long, however those types of issues are not metaphysically real, they are concepts. A line can be divided up infinitely because you are not using something real to divide it, but merely something conceptual. A real amount of time (and time can only be divided to a certain limit, namely plank time) cannot be infinite.

1. The consideration of something existing infinitely and being dividably an infinite amount of times seems to require different means, methods and approaches. Even if you would succeed to demonstrate that something cannot be divided an infinite amount of times, it doesn´t seem to show that something cannot exist an infinite amount of time.
2. Concerning your distinction between "real" and "conceptual":
I fail to see how your own reasoning is based on anything but conceptual thinking.
3. On another note, I have no idea which concept is meant to be signified by "metaphysically real".

How can you substantiate your claim (even though you have not come out and said this, it is the only alternative) that the universe is eternal, and that time is infinite?

As you fairly have conceded yourself, I haven´t said this, and I don´t say this. In fact I see severe logical problems with both concepts. I am however not willing to follow you in your approach of merely showing the logical problems of one solution, and then accepting the other - equally illogical one by simply introducing realms and entities beyond logic.

If this should have been lost or not even mentioned in our conversation so far, my position is "I have no friggin´clue about the origins of ´what´ is." Yet, I am not in a that desperate need of an explanation, that I accept a hypothesis as sufficient, that actually isn´t an explanation at all, but merely a cop out combined with special claims.

Greetings
quatona

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

God does not "act" exactly the way we do.

If we so deem Him to.

We have to speak of God with analogous terminology. The creation was not in time.

If creation was not in time, it didn't happen at all.
And if it was, it is not creation but the same old change, the web of cause and effect indeterminable in both directions.

There is no "before" regarding the creation. It was the creation of time.

There cannot also be an 'after' in the changeless.

Either you have to admit that the universe has not always existed or it has

How can 'always' have a meaning in the absence of time? In fact, the universe has 'always' existed, if you think about it. I don't question the 'always' part of the universe but I question only its reality since it is my view that what is real cannot change.

But, the universe is still perceived to be the same even though it is not the same it used to be a moment ago. The feeling of 'I' remains the same irrespective my youth or old age. These are but some of the hints to me to hold on to the view that changeless reality is not just an abstract hypothetical scenario.

But apparently the flaw with my argument is that whatever I say cannot have any credibility because of this me being unreal (remeber, unreal is change, in my view, of course ), and also the unavoidability of my use of verbs (is, was etc.) to put my point through. Strictly speaking, I should only be negating every definition of what reality is.

But again, credibility, usefulness and the like that are possible only in the unreal and there is no such duality in the real( again, my assumption). So, I would like to posit that the probability of my claims being credible is as good as them being otherwise.

 

[JBrian]

I am sorry I have not responded sooner. To be honest I am slammed right now, but I hope to respond Friday night or Saturday (hopefully).

Thank you both for your dialogue.

Brian

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

I am sorry I have not responded sooner. To be honest I am slammed right now, but I hope to respond Friday night or Saturday (hopefully).

Thank you both for your dialogue.

Brian

You are welcome JBrian.

To tell you the truth, I believe and worship God.

It is just my point of view that only because I(mankind) worship, He is worthy of worship. Only because I am limited in my powers, He is the almighty. Without me He loses all his characteristics. IT is no longer a He or a she or a 'it'.

In the eternal, there are no characteristics. There is no almighty, there is no greatest etc.

I believe there is an eternal, but out of my ignorance, I think it is God, since my mind cannot conceive of the eternal. I can't think beyond God.

 

[freelight]

What is eternal is necessarily outside of time. Whatever is outside of time is also outside of change, since change only occurs within time, that is, there is a before and an after. The universe is changing, therefore the universe is not outside of time (eternal), and is temporal.

Hi JBrian and all,

Perhaps indeed the phenomena of the changing universe (ongoing creation) is taking place within time....as time is merely a perceptual reference of space-matter in motion. Of course since the universe is changing.....all creation/evolution which manifests within the motion of matter and space is a 'temporary phenomena'.

However....I was exploring the concept that the Universe as a contextual body of infinite Space IS actually an eternal constant.

Therefore that which is Infinite/Eternal...can exist in the backdrop as the substrate from which all finite dimensions/creation/time-space-matter fluxations arise and have their temporal existence thru movement.

I would say that Infinite Space is the eternal constant and context within which all temporal phenomenas of finite dimensions transpire. The Universe in this purview IS the totality, context and background in which all passing/temporal phenomena arises and passes - these movements of matter/space of course occur within timal perception. It is the Space wherein these movements/manifestations are taking place that is infinite/eternal...and only the movements themselves of matter/space that are temporal only because they are taking place within timal perception. However...per my definition of the 'Universe' as previously shared.....the Universe Body or substrate of Infinite Space is eternal/infinite. Only the part of the universe which is changing thru the movement of matter/space motions is appearing as a phenomena within time because of the perception of relativity/sequence. The eternal and infinite however ALWAYS remain what they are. The temporal and finite movements of matter/space appear within eternal and infinite Space and are considered 'temporal' only because they are moving thru what appears as the sequence of time - changing, evolving, transforming, re-energizing, etc. Only the manifest universe of space/matter in motion has temporal appearance and these movements noted within their sphere of relativity are transpiring with the sense of time. These movements are temporal in their currency only as a perception during the times of their appearing. The Space within which all these movements of matter are taking place however is infinite.

The Universe as the original, contextual and substantive Ground of Being that is the substrate of Existence is eternally Being. It exists independent of time. Time as a sense-referential only arises within the movements of matter/space/energy within the Greater Body of Infinite Space.

If the Universe has always had within it...the motion of matter/space/energy wherein relativity exists...then we might look at creation or relational motion as being an eternally ongoing process or generation within eternity.

These distinctions must be noted/explored - otherwise to posit that the universe is 'temporal' is philosopical patty-cake...because such merely means that the matter-ial universe that is currently moving/changing does so in a sequential manner giving us a sense of time. This is all it means. When we go back to what is eternal and infinite in the Universe or Existence Itself...we see that we have 'Space'. Only when space-matter is in motion do we have the phenemona of time/change. Space-matter movements/fluxations/formations/evolutions all transpire thru timal sense...this only due to the perception of time. Time is only relative to space-matter in motion.

One can say that parts or dimensions of the universe are changing and have 'temporal appearances' by virtue of their movement. Creation/space-matter movements/motion could have been going on eternally however for there is no proof/evidence to show that such could not be the case as far as I know. So..... universal existence could include the 'eternal generation' of space-matter dynamics wherein the perception of time would ever exist within such movements...but because these dynamics are part of and exist within the Eternal and Infinite...they are likewise in some sense co-eternal and co-infinite by co-existing. - this particularly if the motion of space-matter is eternally on-going. IN this case as shared....the Universe is not temporal nor could be...since the Universe has always existed as One with God....or actually as the universal and infinite Body of God. Stillness(static dynamicy/potential) and motion(wherein time 'perceptions' are inevitable) are 2 constants existing thru-out the Universe.





paul

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Hi JBrian and all,

Perhaps indeed the phenomena of the changing universe (ongoing creation) is taking place within time....as time is merely a perceptual reference of space-matter in motion. Of course since the universe is changing.....all creation/evolution which manifests within the motion of matter and space is a 'temporary phenomena'.

However....I was exploring the concept that the Universe as a contextual body of infinite Space IS actually an eternal constant.

Therefore that which is Infinite/Eternal...can exist in the backdrop as the substrate from which all finite dimensions/creation/time-space-matter fluxations arise and have their temporal existence thru movement.

I would say that Infinite Space is the eternal constant and context within which all temporal phenomenas of finite dimensions transpire. The Universe in this purview IS the totality, context and background in which all passing/temporal phenomena arises and passes - these movements of matter/space of course occur within timal perception. It is the Space wherein these movements/manifestations are taking place that is infinite/eternal...and only the movements themselves of matter/space that are temporal only because they are taking place within timal perception. However...per my definition of the 'Universe' as previously shared.....the Universe Body or substrate of Infinite Space is eternal/infinite. Only the part of the universe which is changing thru the movement of matter/space motions is appearing as a phenomena within time because of the perception of relativity/sequence. The eternal and infinite however ALWAYS remain what they are. The temporal and finite movements of matter/space appear within eternal and infinite Space and are considered 'temporal' only because they are moving thru what appears as the sequence of time - changing, evolving, transforming, re-energizing, etc. Only the manifest universe of space/matter in motion has temporal appearance and these movements noted within their sphere of relativity are transpiring with the sense of time. These movements are temporal in their currency only as a perception during the times of their appearing. The Space within which all these movements of matter are taking place however is infinite.

The Universe as the original, contextual and substantive Ground of Being that is the substrate of Existence is eternally Being. It exists independent of time. Time as a sense-referential only arises within the movements of matter/space/energy within the Greater Body of Infinite Space.

If the Universe has always had within it...the motion of matter/space/energy wherein relativity exists...then we might look at creation or relational motion as being an eternally ongoing process or generation within eternity.

These distinctions must be noted/explored - otherwise to posit that the universe is 'temporal' is philosopical patty-cake...because such merely means that the matter-ial universe that is currently moving/changing does so in a sequential manner giving us a sense of time. This is all it means. When we go back to what is eternal and infinite in the Universe or Existence Itself...we see that we have 'Space'. Only when space-matter is in motion do we have the phenemona of time/change. Space-matter movements/fluxations/formations/evolutions all transpire thru timal sense...this only due to the perception of time. Time is only relative to space-matter in motion.

One can say that parts or dimensions of the universe are changing and have 'temporal appearances' by virtue of their movement. Creation/space-matter movements/motion could have been going on eternally however for there is no proof/evidence to show that such could not be the case as far as I know. So..... universal existence could include the 'eternal generation' of space-matter dynamics wherein the perception of time would ever exist within such movements...but because these dynamics are part of and exist within the Eternal and Infinite...they are likewise in some sense co-eternal and co-infinite by co-existing. - this particularly if the motion of space-matter is eternally on-going. IN this case as shared....the Universe is not temporal nor could be...since the Universe has always existed as One with God....or actually as the universal and infinite Body of God. Stillness(static dynamicy/potential) and motion(wherein time 'perceptions' are inevitable) are 2 constants existing thru-out the Universe.





paul

It is my view that change is a superimposition on the unchanging.

It can be thought of as a movie taking place on a screen. The screen is real and unchanging. The reality of the movie is dependent on the screen. The movie does not have any reality of its own.

The universe is real and 'always' in existence from a pragmatic point of view since we can't just deny what we see.


This universe(the changing and the apparently unchanging) is like a rope mistook for a snake in darkness. When the light comes on, only the rope remains. The snake's reality is dependent on the rope. The snake has no reality of its own.

The changeless can be thought of as Space without timal perceptions, but it is still a mental perception. The changeless cannot be perceived in any form, gross or mental. All our approximations come short of it.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Bump

 

[JBrian]

What makes you say "it was" instead of "it is" or "it will be"?

I say it was because it has already happened.

This is a logical impossibility, and so far it seems to be just a substitute for "I have no clue".
Simply introducing an entity with illogical abilities is not a valid means of solving logical problems, and not an explanation of sorts.

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

For completion´s sake: As a third option it may have always existed, but in a different way.

Evidence?

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

Either the universe has always been here, or it has not, i.e. it was made/created (by something else).

- For whom/what?
- How do you arrive at this conclusion?
- How would showing that traversing an infinite amount of time is impossible also show that an infinite amount of time itself is an impossibility?

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.

On again another note, since you yourself pictured time as being a method of measurement (and I would agree with that), I have no idea what an "infinite amount of a particular measurement" is supposed to mean (as opposed to "an infinite amount of a measurable substance".)

An eternal universe is like saying you have an infinitely long chain. There would be nothing holding it up.

I don´t understand myself as being at this moment in time from a supposedly absolute pov, I perceive myself as being. Whether this takes place at a certain moment of all time or not would be just a measurement problem, not a problem of existence.

You exist now, not 10 billion years ago.

1. The consideration of something existing infinitely and being dividably an infinite amount of times seems to require different means, methods and approaches. Even if you would succeed to demonstrate that something cannot be divided an infinite amount of times, it doesn´t seem to show that something cannot exist an infinite amount of time.

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.

An infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. Where would one begin? we would not be here, for now is the END of time; this moment. however an infinite has no end. therefore, we have not traversed an infinite amount of time.


2. Concerning your distinction between "real" and "conceptual":
I fail to see how your own reasoning is based on anything but conceptual thinking.

Real being something that actually exists and a conception being something that only exists in the mind.

3. On another note, I have no idea which concept is meant to be signified by "metaphysically real".

to be metaphysically real is to exsit in the world, as opposed to simply in the mind.

 

[JBrian]

But I can't agree that 'since this universe needs a cause, that cause must be uncaused'. If something is put forth as a cause for the universe, again we'll be searching for a cause for this universe. The cause for this universe has not been determined yet, and it is my opinion that such an endeavor is futile.

There must be a being that does not need a cause, or there would be an infinite regress of efficient causes, which is impossible. Contingent being must be anchored in non-contingent being.

Also from your own argument, eternal is uncaused and non-causing.

I did not say it was non-causing.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

There must be a being that does not need a cause, or there would be an infinite regress of efficient causes, which is impossible. Contingent being must be anchored in non-contingent being.

I agree in an un-caused non-contingent being, but it only appears as though the non-contingent being caused this contingent being. In reality, only the non-contingent being is.

The contingent being is like an illusion, a false appearance.

I did not say it was non-causing.

Then how could it be eternal, changeless etc.?

Again, effect cannot be there in the absence of time.

 

[quatona]

Hi Brian,
thanks for your response.
For the time being I don´t see any way of continuing this discussion other than repeating myself and moving in circles.
Thus, please understand that I´ll bow out of the discussion until substantially new arguments are presented.
Thanks for the conversation.
quatona

 

[JBrian]

Hi Brian,
thanks for your response.
For the time being I don´t see any way of continuing this discussion other than repeating myself and moving in circles.
Thus, please understand that I´ll bow out of the discussion until substantially new arguments are presented.
Thanks for the conversation.
quatona

Thanks for the dialogue. I feel the same way.

Take care,

Brian

 

[happygrl35]

Blah. Eternal means 'all time'. The universe is necessarily eternal since it has existed for all time (time having begun with the universe).

There are two deffinitions for *eternal* it doesn't necessarily mean *all time* it could mean outside of time as well,or without time.