Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know. What's the difference between granite, vs sandstone, vs limestone?What characteristics do these two things possess such that we might differentiate between them?
What characteristic does one possess that the other doesn't?
Are they spatially separated?
My point is that the term, 'self-existing', or 'self-existent' implies, or at least allows for, present tense as well as past tense. @Moral Orel said it only implies past tense, i.e. they never came into being; I agree by definition they never came into being, but by definition also they are not dependent on anything but themselves for their continued/continuing existence.I wouldn't go that far, I think it is also possible for multiple things to have always existed, each interacting with each other eternally.
My point being that if we can differentiate between them, such as we can with sandstone and limestone, then they must be made up of more fundamental parts. Therefore they're not self-existent, their existence is dependent upon the existence of those parts. We could get rid of these things by breaking them down into their constituent parts without eliminating existence itself. So they're not self-existent, they're composed of things.I don't know. What's the difference between granite, vs sandstone, vs limestone?
Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestoneMy point being that if we can differentiate between them, such as we can with sandstone and limestone, then they must be made up of more fundamental parts. Therefore they're not self-existent, their existence is dependent upon the existence of those parts. We could get rid of these things by breaking them down into their constituent parts without eliminating existence itself. So they're not self-existent, they're composed of things.
.
No, I didn't. I said that "uncaused" only implies no beginning. I have nothing to do with your woo terms like "self-existent".My point is that the term, 'self-existing', or 'self-existent' implies, or at least allows for, present tense as well as past tense. @Moral Orel said it only implies past tense, i.e. they never came into being
But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestone
My bad. I see I have fallen into the same error I assign to others, to conclude something that I think logically followed what you did say, and conclude that you said what I thought logically follows. I am sorry.No, I didn't. I said that "uncaused" only implies no beginning. I have nothing to do with your woo terms like "self-existent".
Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestone
But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.
The singularity consisted of energy and particles. The particles eventually grouped together to form atoms.But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.
It is almost a figure of speech to say the singularity consisted of particles. We hardly even know what particles are even now —nevermind to say what they were 'then'.The singularity consisted of energy and particles. The particles eventually grouped together to form atoms.
What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Well; particles, energy, and light.It is almost a figure of speech to say the singularity consisted of particles.
Is it necessary to know what those particles were, in order to say atoms originated from them?We hardly even know what particles are even now —nevermind to say what they were 'then'.
Well; particles, energy, and light.
Is it necessary to know what those particles were, in order to say atoms originated from them?
Okay. So getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is possible for the particles and energy to have had an eternal existence, eventually becoming atoms and energy, then material and energy.I will admit to a large amount of ignorance as to what comprised the 'singularity', but the truth is, nobody knows. It seems to me a bit premature to characterize any of it as what we refer to when we say 'particles', 'energy' or 'light'.
No, of course not. It is not even mistaken to say that atoms originated from whatever those particles are/were comprised of, and if we ever find an irreducible component of particles, it remains a component of particles and therefore also a component of atoms, from which they originated.
If so, can you say that rules out first cause?Okay. So getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is possible for the particles and energy to have had an eternal existence, eventually becoming atoms and energy, then material and energy.
No! First cause is the particles, light, and energy that made up the singularity.If so, can you say that rules out first cause?
After all, we don't know what that irreducible component is, yet.
Yet something made thing expand. It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence? They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws. At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.No! First cause is the particles, light, and energy that made up the singularity.
How do you know something made it expand? How do you know it didn’t do it on it’s own?Yet something made thing expand.
If it was always in existence, nothing.It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence?
We don’t know that they are.They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws.
I never claimed any laws governing them.At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.
I think nobody knows and we are just making up guesses.Do you think that what we have reduced matter and energy and light to, at this point, is irreducible?
How do you know something made it expand? How do you know it didn’t do it on it’s own?
If it was always in existence, nothing.
We don’t know that they are.
I never claimed any laws governing them.
I think nobody knows and we are just making up guesses.
I think it was a mistake for you to claim something brought it into existence
Mark Quayle said: ↑
They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws.
I think it is a mistake for you to claim the existence of external laws that governMark Quayle said: ↑
At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.
If anything exist (even God); time exists. When Einstein and others speak of before time existed, this has to be before God existed. If you believe God has always existed, you are disagreeing with Einstein and others.Since, according to Einstein and others, time and space began then, or there (which there was none of 'until' then, or there, but how else do we say it?), do you think cause-and-effect did not apply 'before' that? How about reality?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?