Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

@Terrapin Station defends the Kalam cosmological argument

I'm an atheist.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within,your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm an atheist.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within,your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

What you're talking about didn't originate in the Kalam cosmological argument.

It would be like saying that someone supports Naziism because they buy the notion of genetics and so do Nazis.

[psyreporter]

What you're talking about didn't originate in the Kalam cosmological argument.

It would be like saying that someone supports Naziism because they buy the notion of genetics and so do Nazis.

The paper specifically addresses claim posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning and it ends with the following:

There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

Your argument concerns the impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’ and thereby it is to be assumed that when you share your argument in this topic, that it is to be considered a defense of the claim posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning.

[gater]

1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement.

[creation]

1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement.

Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not.

[Ensrick]

If I may interject, physics--specifically special relativity, has some bearing on this discussion.

Time is not passing at a constant rate. The only constant is the speed of light. @gater I recommend the basis for your thoughts on the universe be related to some established theories since they have greatly influenced metaphysics.

The universe can have infinite qualities without appealing to time as the primary constant. Time is better known as a continuum, 'The Space-Time Continuum'. The concept of space and time not existing is beyond physics but I understand the difficulty logically reconciling a universe popping into existence without a cause...

To explain in terms that I've come to understand, a singularity is defined as infinite heat, density and mass. If we consider time in more loose terms it is a sequence of events. Heat is loosely defined as molecular motion. Then, Infinite heat = infinite motion and if we have infinite motion, then we have an infinite sequence of events and an infinite sequence of events is a loose definition of infinite time. So, the universe can be described as having always existed in a loose sense. The time-space continuum and time as we know it, did not always exist.

I recommend starting over with the argument for cosmological infinity. For example, consider the view from the nearest window. Ignoring all preconceptions and physics for a moment, the mere observation that things within the view of your window is evidence that they exist. To claim they did not exist at one point is a claim not backed empirical evidence. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that they always existed. Of course, we see from moment to moment things change form, but never cease to exist or pop into existence.

[gater]

If I may interject, physics--specifically special relativity, has some bearing on this discussion.

Time is not passing at a constant rate. The only constant is the speed of light. @gater I recommend the basis for your thoughts on the universe be related to some established theories since they have greatly influenced metaphysics.

The universe can have infinite qualities without appealing to time as the primary constant. Time is better known as a continuum, 'The Space-Time Continuum'. The concept of space and time not existing is beyond physics but I understand the difficulty logically reconciling a universe popping into existence without a cause...

To explain in terms that I've come to understand, a singularity is defined as infinite heat, density and mass. If we consider time in more loose terms it is a sequence of events. Heat is loosely defined as molecular motion. Then, Infinite heat = infinite motion and if we have infinite motion, then we have an infinite sequence of events and an infinite sequence of events is a loose definition of infinite time. So, the universe can be described as having always existed in a loose sense. The time-space continuum and time as we know it, did not always exist.

I recommend starting over with the argument for cosmological infinity. For example, consider the view from the nearest window. Ignoring all preconceptions and physics for a moment, the mere observation that things within the view of your window is evidence that they exist. To claim they did not exist at one point is a claim not backed empirical evidence. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that they always existed. Of course, we see from moment to moment things change form, but never cease to exist or pop into existence.

Time is a constant, the speed of light is not. light can be affected by gravity, so it's not a true Constant. Don't they claim black holes have so much gravity that light can't escape? Nothing in the Universe affects the constant rate of time.
The space/time continuum theory is flawed, time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.
The Universe has always been here, based on that fact alone the Big Bang theory is wrong, written by a guy that didn't understand physics - he was relying on Einsteins theories being accurate - which they arent.
I recommend that you start over, and consider the true nature of time and space.

[gater]

1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement.

Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not.

You aren't trying to learn anything, you just try to catch others making a contradiction.
Without time, there would be no movment - since it's impossible for all matter to stop - we know that time never stops, it can't stop.
4 lines are too long? Coming from the guy that can't post anything without writing a half a page? Im sorry that you had to suffer though that.
People can offer opinions, since no one knows for sure how man started labeling time.
You need to back up your statements - prove that you understand the Universe, since it's so simple.

[Steve3007]

Of course, we see from moment to moment things change form, but never cease to exist or pop into existence.

Hi Ensrick.

Given that we do indeed see what you've described above, what might you conclude about such physical principles as conversation of matter, conservation of mass/energy and conservation of energy? It seems to me that these conservation laws are Inductive: generalizations derived from patterns that we note in things that we see. i.e we make the observation:

"Nobody has ever experienced an object to disappear or to be created ex nihilo."

We conclude:

"Objects never have and never will disappear or be created ex nihilo."

i.e. we go from an observation of a finite number of cases to a proposition about an indefinitely large/potentially infinite number of cases: Induction.

Do you agree?

The reason I ask is that some people disagree with this. Some people think that this principle of conservation, the notion that things can change form but can't cease to exist or pop into existence, is not an Inductively derived law, as I've suggested here, but is a logical principle that it would be self-contradictory to deny. As such, they would say that it's not actually necessary to see what you've described in the quote above. They know that that proposition is true simply by thinking about it. What do you think?

[Terrapin Station]

So say that you're stargazing and you suddenly see a meteor. There's no way for you phenomenally to tell that it didn't suddenly just "pop into existence."

And re all of those things that you lost and never found. Again, phenomenally, there's no way for you to tell that it didn't suddenly just "pop out of existence."

We don't normally believe that anything just pops in or out of existence, but that's a theoretical matter, not a phenomenal matter, not a matter of what we see or experience.

[Steve3007]

So say that you're stargazing and you suddenly see a meteor. There's no way for you phenomenally to tell that it didn't suddenly just "pop into existence."

It depends which phenomena you're referring to. If you're only referring to standing and watching that meteor at that moment, and to no other experiences that you might have, you're right. I just looked out of my window and saw a person walk past. He's gone now. If I only refer to the phenomena I experience while sitting in this chair and not, for example, while opening the door and looking down the street, that person ceased to exist.

We don't normally believe that anything just pops in or out of existence, but that's a theoretical matter, not a phenomenal matter, not a matter of what we see or experience.

On what basis do we hold those theories to be true?

[Terrapin Station]

So say that you're stargazing and you suddenly see a meteor. There's no way for you phenomenally to tell that it didn't suddenly just "pop into existence."

It depends which phenomena you're referring to. If you're only referring to standing and watching that meteor at that moment, and to no other experiences that you might have, you're right. I just looked out of my window and saw a person walk past. He's gone now. If I only refer to the phenomena I experience while sitting in this chair and not, for example, while opening the door and looking down the street, that person ceased to exist.

We don't normally believe that anything just pops in or out of existence, but that's a theoretical matter, not a phenomenal matter, not a matter of what we see or experience.

On what basis do we hold those theories to be true?

Especially your last question might be worth talking about, but I don't want to sidetrack things with that. I think at this point it's just important in the conversation that we understand that per phenomenal experience, we don't actually have a basis for saying that things don't simply pop in and out of existence. (And it's important to understand that because it had been claimed otherwise.)

[Ensrick]

I should've prefaced my example with the conservation of energy or at least some thoughts on direct observation. I would like to avoid the whole, "If a tree falls.." questions on observation but I'll address some thoughts on this below to argue against things not existing prior to, or after being observed.

I would say of the two claims, that things observed can pop in and out of existence and that things observed always existed and only change, that the latter makes fewer assumptions about reality.

If you no longer witness something you have seen, then it's an assumption to say it lost the property of existence when you had direct eye witness evidence to the contrary; likewise, if you see an object in existence it's an assumption to say it gained the property of existence. The claim that makes the fewest assumptions is that if you can observe it, it has always existed in some form or another.

Terrapin Station, you like Bertrand Russel and so do I. Being familiar with Russel's Teapot, you know that the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. In this instance the claim that things can pop in and out of existence requires evidence. Not observing something doesn't count as reasonable evidence that it no longer exists because that would require an unobserved force to be acting upon it in order to change it's metaphysical property of existence. Of course, it's hypothetically possible, but that's a much greater leap than saying it retains the property of existence until we know of an observed force that can alter properties of existence.

[creation]

If I may interject, physics--specifically special relativity, has some bearing on this discussion.

Is 'special relativity' open to be questioned, or is 'it' already settled?

Time is not passing at a constant rate. The only constant is the speed of light. @gater I recommend the basis for your thoughts on the universe be related to some established theories since they have greatly influenced metaphysics.

The universe can have infinite qualities without appealing to time as the primary constant. Time is better known as a continuum, 'The Space-Time Continuum'. The concept of space and time not existing is beyond physics but I understand the difficulty logically reconciling a universe popping into existence without a cause...

To explain in terms that I've come to understand, a singularity is defined as infinite heat, density and mass.

That is but one definition.

If we consider time in more loose terms it is a sequence of events. Heat is loosely defined as molecular motion. Then, Infinite heat = infinite motion and if we have infinite motion, then we have an infinite sequence of events and an infinite sequence of events is a loose definition of infinite time. So, the universe can be described as having always existed in a loose sense. The time-space continuum and time as we know it, did not always exist.

I recommend starting over with the argument for cosmological infinity. For example, consider the view from the nearest window. Ignoring all preconceptions and physics for a moment, the mere observation that things within the view of your window is evidence that they exist. To claim they did not exist at one point is a claim not backed empirical evidence. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that they always existed. Of course, we see from moment to moment things change form, but never cease to exist or pop into existence.

That is right. From the nearest window, when I look out, I observe the Universe infinite and eternal. I can see past the so called "big bang" and past the so called "observable Universe" where the Universe is still existing.

What do you observe when you look out of the nearest window?

[creation]

Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not.

You aren't trying to learn anything, you just try to catch others making a contradiction.

What do you think I am wanting to learn here?

I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew.

If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me.

By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here.

Without time, there would be no movment - since it's impossible for all matter to stop - we know that time never stops, it can't stop.

This is another contradiction, and, just re-repeating the same things over and over does not teach people anything.

People only learn things if what is being said makes sense, does not contradict itself, and/or people are open to it.

Some of what you say does not make sense, does contradict itself, and most people are not at all open to what you say anyway. They, like you, believe that they already know the truth.

4 lines are too long? Coming from the guy that can't post anything without writing a half a page? Im sorry that you had to suffer though that.
People can offer opinions, since no one knows for sure how man started labeling time.
You need to back up your statements - prove that you understand the Universe, since it's so simple.

The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS.

The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works.

Is that simple enough for you? Or, do you need more? Would "half a page" be enough, or is that not enough, or would that be too much, for you?

I can provide as little and as much as you like.