Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sculptor1]

Please state your premises.
Please explain, without induction, how such claims can be true (without empirical evidence).

My first premise is that any act requires time.

You are assuming that creation was an "act".

No, I am assuming that the universe is caused by an act.

But you are assuming that the inverse is caused by an act.

And that the conditions of the universe have always been the same.

When did I say that?

That is entailed from the simple fact that you are using what you find acceptable NOW, and demanding that those conditions cannot apply to the beginning of the universe.
If you do not think that. In other words if you prefer to reject uniformitarianism then you have no argument at all.
If you accept that conditions are not always the same then you have no scope to deny the possibility of the universe coming into being.
QED Creation was possible because the conditions of the universe allowed it, but would not now as conditions can change.
The fact remains that there is a universe so we have to assume that it come into being or is eternal.
Take your pick.

This is not a valid assumption since the moment of "creation" was a unique event.

What is not valid?

OMG.

To elaborate, any act has a before and an after since it deals with a change. Therefore, any act requires time.
My second premise is that the act of creating everything out of nothing includes the creation of time.

This undermines your own objection since you realise that "creation" is a unique event in which your first premise may not apply.

What is my first premise?

Man, if you don't know that then maybe you should look back at your own posts.

It is easy to show that following these two premises one faces an infinite regress since time is needed for the creation of time.

You can try to do that, but your premises may not be valid.

My premises are valid.

Prove it!

[GE Morton]

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

Infinite regresses are problems for arguments, not for the universe. There is nothing either theoretically or logically impossible about an eternal universe, or an eternal series of universes.

[Bahman]

My first premise is that any act requires time.

You are assuming that creation was an "act".

No, I am assuming that the universe is caused by an act.

But you are assuming that the inverse is caused by an act.

What do you mean by inverse? Is it a typo?

And that the conditions of the universe have always been the same.

When did I say that?

That is entailed from the simple fact that you are using what you find acceptable NOW, and demanding that those conditions cannot apply to the beginning of the universe.

The act of creation of everything from nothing as I showed is logically impossible. The universe however has a beginning. Therefore, time is acausal.

If you do not think that. In other words if you prefer to reject uniformitarianism then you have no argument at all.

What do you mean by uniformitarianism in this context?

If you accept that conditions are not always the same then you have no scope to deny the possibility of the universe coming into being.

Yes, the universe came to be.

QED Creation was possible because the conditions of the universe allowed it, but would not now as conditions can change.

No.

The fact remains that there is a universe so we have to assume that it come into being or is eternal.
Take your pick.

The universe came to be.

This is not a valid assumption since the moment of "creation" was a unique event.

What is not valid?

OMG.

Could you please be more specific? OMG does not help.

To elaborate, any act has a before and an after since it deals with a change. Therefore, any act requires time.
My second premise is that the act of creating everything out of nothing includes the creation of time.

This undermines your own objection since you realise that "creation" is a unique event in which your first premise may not apply.

What is my first premise?

Man, if you don't know that then maybe you should look back at your own posts.

I know what is my first premise. Any act requires time. I just wanted to make sure that you understood and accepted it. Do you agree with my first premise? Yes or no?

It is easy to show that following these two premises one faces an infinite regress since time is needed for the creation of time.

You can try to do that, but your premises may not be valid.

My premises are valid.

Prove it!

My first premise is evident: Any act requires time. That means that God needs time in order to create. There was no time before the act of creation though. That means that God needed time for the creation of time. This obviously leads to an infinite regress.

[Bahman]

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

Infinite regresses are problems for arguments, not for the universe. There is nothing either theoretically or logically impossible about an eternal universe, or an eternal series of universes.

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

[GE Morton]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

An infinite amount of time is implicit in an eternal universe. They go together. So there is no problem.

[Bahman]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

An infinite amount of time is implicit in an eternal universe. They go together. So there is no problem.

Can you reach the infinite future given the chance you could live forever?

[Sculptor1]

Yes, the universe came to be.

How do you account for that?

[Bahman]

Yes, the universe came to be.

How do you account for that?

Because otherwise the universe has no beginning or in other words, it has existed eternally. That means that it takes an infinite amount of time to reach from an arbitrary point in the eternal past to now. This is logically impossible therefore the universe has a beginning.

[GrayArea]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

So I say this: The only reason why there is "creation" is because that what "creation" means. That is to say the sole cause of existence lies in its own definition.

I cannot follow you here.

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

[Sculptor1]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

So I say this: The only reason why there is "creation" is because that what "creation" means. That is to say the sole cause of existence lies in its own definition.

I cannot follow you here.

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

That's easy to say. In fact it is easy for anyone to say. But it does not really mean anything. prove anything or answer any questions.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, the universe came to be.

How do you account for that?

Because otherwise the universe has no beginning or in other words, it has existed eternally. That means that it takes an infinite amount of time to reach from an arbitrary point in the eternal past to now. This is logically impossible therefore the universe has a beginning.

Classic arguing from adverse effects.

I asked HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT for the existence of the universe.
I did not ask you how bad it is that you don't know how it exists.
You have not even demonstrated a logical impossibility, since the existence of the universe is a unique event.

[GE Morton]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

An infinite amount of time is implicit in an eternal universe. They go together. So there is no problem.

Can you reach the infinite future given the chance you could live forever?

The "infinite future" is not a particular place or time one might "reach." Someone who lived forever would reach every point on an infinite timeline eventually (of which there are infinitely many).

[Bahman]

Yes, the universe came to be.

How do you account for that?

Because otherwise the universe has no beginning or in other words, it has existed eternally. That means that it takes an infinite amount of time to reach from an arbitrary point in the eternal past to now. This is logically impossible therefore the universe has a beginning.

Classic arguing from adverse effects.

I asked HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT for the existence of the universe.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I said the universe came to be. I thought that you meant the beginning of the universe when you asked how do you account for that? How do I account for the existence of the universe? Well, that is unrelated to the topic of this thread. In this thread, I am discussing that accepting that the universe exists, it cannot be created.

I did not ask you how bad it is that you don't know how it exists.
You have not even demonstrated a logical impossibility, since the existence of the universe is a unique event.

In which way it is unique? And, I of course demonstrate a logical impossibility.

[Bahman]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

An infinite amount of time is implicit in an eternal universe. They go together. So there is no problem.

Can you reach the infinite future given the chance you could live forever?

The "infinite future" is not a particular place or time one might "reach." Someone who lived forever would reach every point on an infinite timeline eventually (of which there are infinitely many).

I am afraid that that is not true given the definition of infinity.

[GrayArea]

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

So I say this: The only reason why there is "creation" is because that what "creation" means. That is to say the sole cause of existence lies in its own definition.

I cannot follow you here.

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

That's easy to say. In fact it is easy for anyone to say. But it does not really mean anything. prove anything or answer any questions.

It does mean something. In fact, it means everything. But as beings who exist by the virtue of existence, existence is so obvious to us that we confuse it as something that doesn't mean anything.

This is not just me stating "X is X" or else the sentence would not mean anything. This is different. This is me stating "X is X" because the very definition of X is it being able to create the fact that "X is X".