25 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNeither. I don't believe that the Universe is without origins and I believe that our free will choices are only possible because of the spiritual dimension to existence (ie God).
You were very unclear at the time about where such choices did originate. It was another one of those cases where you wanted to break the laws of logic in order to keep your faith alive.
Its really quite simple. Either your free will choice is the latest event in an infinite causal chain with no origin, or your argument in this thread is false.
Which is it?
27 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou cant choose neither unless you can show that it was not an either / or question. Also your answer contradicts your argument in the thread - so are you now admitting that you don't believe your own argument?
Neither. I don't believe that the Universe is without origins and I believe that our free will choices are only possible because of the spiritual dimension to existence (ie God).
28 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour argument in the thread was that there are no finite dimensions, that all events are the culmination of infinite causal chains, and that the universe could not have a beginning as that would imply the existence of a nonsensical nothing.
What contradiction do you mean?
You have now denied all the above contradicting your whole argument.
28 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow so?
Your argument in the thread was that there are no finite dimensions, that all events are the culmination of infinite causal chains, and that the universe could not have a beginning as that would imply the existence of a nonsensical nothing.
You have now denied all the above contradicting your whole argument.
29 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat do you mean "how so?" I thought I just spelled it out? Which part do you not understand?
How so?
I notice that you still have not answered any of the difficult questions I have asked you. Is it possible that the "foundations" of your "reason" are so shaky that you fear to discuss them?
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs it possible that the foundations of your reasoning are so shaky that you cannot address his question "How so?"
What do you mean "how so?" I thought I just spelled it out? Which part do you not understand?
I notice that you still have not answered any of the difficult questions I have asked you. Is it possible that the "foundations" of your "reason" are so shaky that you fear to discuss them?
Humor us. Recap briefly, succinctly.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe in the continuity of existence. Either existence has always been around eternally or there is nothing , but I don't believe discontinuity (ie nothing then something). This is the basis of my argument against hammy and yourself.
What do you mean "how so?" I thought I just spelled it out? Which part do you not understand?
I notice that you still have not answered any of the difficult questions I have asked you. Is it possible that the "foundations" of your "reason" are so shaky that you fear to discuss them?
I also believe that free will is possible because of the existence of God. Where's the contradiction?
29 Sep 08
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…but I don't believe discontinuity (ie nothing THEN something).… (my emphasis)
I believe in the continuity of existence. Either existence has always been around eternally or there is nothing , but I don't believe discontinuity (ie nothing then something). This is the basis of my argument against hammy and yourself.
I also believe that free will is possible because of the existence of God. Where's the contradiction?
Neither do I! -because I don’t believe there exists a point in time when “nothing” existed. That is because according to the evidence (the Doppler shift and relativity etc -if you want more detailed evidence, I refer back to my 09 Sep '08 20:22 :: 0 post on page 12 of this thread), time had a beginning but there was no “before” that time (because if there was a “before” then that time wouldn’t be the beginning of time!) and there is no point in time when “nothing” existed.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbecause I don’t believe there exists a point in time when “nothing” existed.=====hammy----
[b]…but I don't believe discontinuity (ie nothing THEN something).… (my emphasis)
Neither do I! -because I don’t believe there exists a point in time when “nothing” existed. That is because according to the evidence (the Doppler shift and relativity etc -if you want more detailed evidence, I refer back to my 09 Sep '08 20:22 :: 0 post on page ...[text shortened]... time wouldn’t be the beginning of time!) and there is no point in time when “nothing” existed.[/b]
...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort? (whether "in time" or not) In short you believe in nothingness , I do not. I do not believe existence had a beginning , you do. Therefore , whether it's "at a point in time" or not is irrelevant , you believe in discontinuity of existence.
Why can't something exist (or not exist) without time? What's the big deal about "time" anyway? I bet you can' t even say what it is made of.
All I'm saying is this- complete nothingness would most likely result in nothingness. If there ever was "nothing" then nothing would be here now. Something is here now , therefore something has always been. If existence has a beginning then it's only meaningful to say it has a beginning if there was nothing "before" it at all.
You also obviously believe that nothing can exist outside of time (although how you know this is beyond me) and that time is a pre-requisite for anything to exist. Which begs the question how did time itself come to exist?
If time is needed in order for existence then time itself could not begin until time was there. Unless time itself has some property which enables itself to begin from nothing , otherwise your theory is flawed. But the paradox is there anyway because time cannot pre-exist itself anymore than a non-existent universe can create itself. At the first point of existence time must have somehow come into existence without any time in which to do it , which means that even in your model timeless existence must be possible (otherwise time itself would never have got going).
29 Sep 08
6 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort?.…
because I don’t believe there exists a point in time when “nothing” existed.=====hammy----
...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort? (whether "in time" or not) In short you believe in nothingness , I do not. I do not believe existence had a beginning , you do. Therefore , whether it's "at a point in existence must be possible (otherwise time itself would never have got going).
No.
…(whether "in time" or not)…
Neither!; there is no point in time where “nothing” exists AND there is no point in time when something once existed or is currently existing which is “outside” time -I hope that you can see how this is logically self-evident!
…In short you believe in nothingness. …
Nop.
…Therefore , whether it's "at a point in time" or not is irrelevant , you believe in discontinuity of existence..…
Nop.
…Why can't something exist (or not exist) without time? …
Can you give me an example of this?
When I say X exists, what I mean is there is a certain point in time and in a place which can make certain observations (no matter how indirect or hypothetical) associated with that place and time that are collectively described as X -what else could I mean? -have you got an alternative way of describing what is meant by “X exists”?
…What's the big deal about "time" anyway? I bet you can' t even say what it is made of. …
Can you?
Does the question “what is time made of” make sense?
…You also obviously believe that nothing can exist outside of time …
Nop. I believe the exact opposite.
…and that time is a pre-requisite for anything to exist. Which begs the question HOW DID time itself come to exist? …(my emphasis)
Is the meaning of the “HOW DID” in the above question the same as “what caused”?
…If time is needed in order for existence then time itself could not begin until time was there.…
No. Space and time are exceptions to the rule that for something to exist it must exist at at least a point in time -time does not exist in time itself!
….Unless time itself has some property which enables itself to begin from nothing…
It didn’t begin from “nothing”.
….But the paradox is there anyway because time cannot pre-exist itself anymore than a non-existent universe can create itself.…
Time had a beginning but there is no point in time when the universe did not exist therefore the universe was not “created” -it just existed at that beginning of time.
….At the first point of existence time must have somehow come into existence without any time in which to do it …
Are you implying here that time had a “cause”?
….which means that even in your model timeless existence must be possible (otherwise time itself would never have got going).…
I don’t understand your argument here. Are you suggesting that some sort of mysterious “timeless existence” “caused” time? -if so, then what is the premise for you belief that the beginning of time must have a “cause”?
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by jaywill1. a. Knightmeister has argued that any event is necessarily the effect of a prior event in infinite cause-event chains.
Is it possible that the foundations of your reasoning are so shaky that you cannot address his question [b]"How so?"
Humor us. Recap briefly, succinctly.[/b]
b. I asked him if this applied to free will choices and his answer was in the negative.
He contradicted his own claim.
2. a. Knightmeister has argued that the time dimension is necessarily infinite.
b. He later said "I don't believe that the Universe is without origins".
He contradicted his own claim.
I know what comes next as he has used it before in previous threads. His argument is as follows:
1. The universe follows certain rules which necessarily point to the existence of God.
2. The rules in question cannot be applied to God as he is 'different', illogical and impossible to understand.
3. The above doesn't have to make any sense as God is illogical.
30 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks.
1. a. Knightmeister has argued that any event is necessarily the effect of a prior event in infinite cause-event chains.
b. I asked him if this applied to free will choices and his answer was in the negative.
He contradicted his own claim.
2. a. Knightmeister has argued that the time dimension is necessarily infinite.
b. He later said "I don't belie mpossible to understand.
3. The above doesn't have to make any sense as God is illogical.
Where is your reply to the initial argument on page one of this discussion posed by Knightmeister?
Which post of yours best represents your answer to his opening remarks about the foundations of reason for a supposed randomly governed universe ?