The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is not so . The whole point about the definition of eternity is that there never was a time (or point of non-existence) when it was not. This applies to an eternal God just as much as it would an eternal universe or bowl of blancmange. Eternal existence means the absence of nothingness altogether. An eternal something exists always and has always ...[text shortened]... the affirmation , continuity and constancy of existence. And what do you know .....we exist!

Go read some Aristotle. He made up the argument that God "must exist forever", because he had the same problem you do. It's a cop out, a "I don't know", and it isn't logically valid, due to issues surrounding time in a singularity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No, it doesn't explain that at all. If anything, your notion of God's being eternal is not compatible with His also being any sort of temporal agent. LEMON

God is both temporal and eternal . He can enter into the temporal world (incarnation of Christ) but maintain eternal existence also. A bit like a sphere can enter into a 2dimensional plane (and ...[text shortened]... a circle as it transects a 2d plane does not prevent it from being a sphere at the same time.

He can enter into the temporal world...but maintain eternal existence also.

This is a pointless discussion. With respect to the problem of action, you just keep begging the question.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hi KJ. Nice to see you around again.

Tks

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]He can enter into the temporal world...but maintain eternal existence also.

This is a pointless discussion. With respect to the problem of action, you just keep begging the question.[/b]

This is a pointless discussion. With respect to the problem of action, you just keep begging the question.
LEMON

What do you mean by "action" ? Which question do I keep begging? You're descriptions are not clear.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?

2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.

1)
1a. Lighting bolt came out of "nowhere"
1b. Yes

2)
2a Yes. There's nothingness+ something and nothingness-everything
2b Yes .. like your lovelife.
2c Yes .. that would fall in the nothingness+anychanceofanything catagory

3)
3a No, it's the possibilty of a thing. That's what it means.
3b No, nothing from nothing makes nothing, you gotta be something if you wanna be with me.
3c Accident
3d Yes

4)
4a Yes
4b Yes
4c Accident
4d Accidents
4e Never
4f No
4g Yes

5) Get laid .. if you can. That'll help ease the pain a little.

6) OK

8) Perfectly
............................

Maybe another bonghit will bring enlightenment .. got "nothing" to lose.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Go read some Aristotle. He made up the argument that God "must exist forever", because he had the same problem you do. It's a cop out, a "I don't know", and it isn't logically valid, due to issues surrounding time in a singularity.

It's a cop out, a "I don't know", and it isn't logically valid SCOTTY

I agree about the logical invalidity of speculating about something that has no beginning and exists forever. However , it is not a cop out due to the fact that the logical alternative (S from N) is equally, if not more, illogical and invalid.

Your charge to me is that saying "I don't know" is a cop out but you have yet to offer any coherent explanation of how nothingness suddenly bursts forth into somethingness for no apparent reason. You also "don't know" but you will defer to people "smarter than you" (which to me is more of a cop out because you are not thinking for yourself any more).

Have you not realised the philosophical/logical paradox here? As soon as you say "I know how something can come from nothing , I can explain it logically!" this would imply you have found a cause for it , but if you have found a cause the implications are immediately that nothingness contains something. You are bound to say that your singularity event just "is" for no reason and that's "just the way it is". When you move away from this you immediately start to infer that nothingness is not nothingness afterall.

Once you reach a full awareness of the fact that finding a solution that makes logical sense (using our 4d logic) is impossible you can then move on to consider which alternative is the least invalid. Because you are still deluding yourself that your ideas about a singularity ( that sort or "creates itself" out of nothing in a non-time dependent space but is kind of in 4d space but also not in it ) actually make some kind of valid sense , you do not see the inherent contradictions of it.

An Uncaused entity of some kind is inevitable but because causality is so fundamental to logic and reason we are unfortunately resigned to a logically invalid solution. However , some solutions are more invalid than others.

The problem is you are still at stage 1 trying desperately to find a non-mystical solution when there isn't one without realising that logic is always going to break down at some point. You depart from logic but try to kid yourself that it's still "rational".

Has the penny dropped yet?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not claim this , I claim that the idea of something occuring from nothing at all is bizarre. I believe that we are resigned to having to believe in something that is uncaused either way it goes (have you got at least that far yet?) . The difference with eternity is that although you have the uncaused bit , you don't have the something from nothing ...[text shortened]... between uncaused existence that has a beginning and uncaused existence that has no beginning.

I think it is you that does not fully understand the concept of time. You insist that if time is finite then S from N. This is simply not true.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am simply saying that an we know only of things that are caused and finite. Therefore something uncaused takes us completely out of this realm of thinking.It's a logical speculation. If something exists outside time it might well exists outside 3d space as well , if something is outside of causality then it might also transcend time and space and thus be infinite.

The key word there is 'might' and yet you keep on insisting 'must' which is unfounded.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I only logically see two scenarios S from N (discontinuous) and eternity (continuous). It's you and scotty that come up with these 3rd option fudges about circular time , circles and non-time dependent events. I have never ever subscribed to them one jot sir!

And here is our basic problem. You refuse to subscribe to an idea but can not explain why it is invalid. By discarding it without a logical reason other than your own failure to understand it, you are making your whole argument illogical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And here is our basic problem. You refuse to subscribe to an idea but can not explain why it is invalid. By discarding it without a logical reason other than your own failure to understand it, you are making your whole argument illogical.

My whole argument is illogical but then so is yours. This is something we are all resigned to, to a certain extent. An Uncaused Cause without a beginning or with a beginning. Either eternity or S from N . I don't claim to understand eternity or comprehend it any more than you can claim to understand any paradoxical alternative.

I agree with you - whatever grounds I say that an uncaused universe is invalid also invalidates uncaused eternity --- BUT-- it is not an uncaused entity per se I object to, it is an uncaused entity with a beginning that I find illogical because it suggests an uncaused "effect" rather than an uncaused cause , and I see no reason why an uncaused entity should need to be an "effect" or have a beginning either. In short , I feel logically that if the universe is capable of existing for no reason or cause in and of it's own power to exist independently of anything else at all then why has it not always existed forever for all eternity? It would have no reason to not exist in the first place!! Do you understand that I have far far less of a problem with an eternal universe? , it's much more logical to me.

I have given a logical reason to discard something from nothing (the "from nothing , nothing can come" argument) and I refuted your idea of circular time because you didn't show any appreciation of how your circle of time could just "appear" without causation.

I invalidate S from N on the basis that I see no reason at all why non-existence would not just continue to non-exist. Eternity in comparison does not present me with this problem . I still have the problem of an uncaused entity but I've got that anyway , so I can choose the one with more problems or less problems, one that negates existence itself and one that affirms existence, and therein lies my logic. The "logic" that says that it's possible for existence itself to non- exist seems more paradoxical and illogical than just saying existence has always existed. Then there is no paradoxical transition from nothing into something.

I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My whole argument is illogical but then so is yours.

I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to accept.
I think the real problem is your failure to understand the concept of finite time. You insist that there is a timescale external to the universe such that if time is finite then there was something before it.
You cant seem to understand that the eternity you talk about can still exist within a finite space/time.

I have given a logical reason to discard something from nothing (the "from nothing , nothing can come" argument) and I refuted your idea of circular time because you didn't show any appreciation of how your circle of time could just "appear" without causation.
So at which point in the circle did it 'appear'? Why do you still insist on a nothing from which everything must appear with causation. If time is circular then it goes round and round without a beginning or end. Why then must it appear from somewhere? Your insistence on 'causation' is simply invalid as no such requirement has been shown to be true.

You must realize that at no point have I said that time must be finite or that infinite time is impossible. All I am saying is that your claim that it is the only possible case or even the most likely or most believable it totally illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

If time is circular then it goes round and round without a beginning or end. Why then must it appear from somewhere? Your insistence on 'causation' is simply invalid as no such requirement has been shown to be true. WHITEY


Your circle of time doesn't have to "appear from somewhere" but since you neither think it appeared from nothing nor do you think it has always been there eternally I am wondering what you actually do think? Are you saying your circle of time just "is" for no reason and no cause with no beginning? Your circle of time has to be uncaused and it is either a circle that has always been there or it hasn't always been there.

In any case , how does this apply to the universe? Are you saying that time didn't start with the universe? Or that the universe has always been here in the form of a circle? Or are you saying that time and the universe created itself? Your circle could be right but I fail to see how by just being a circle of time makes it able to spring from nothing. Is the circle it's own cause?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

So at which point in the circle did it 'appear'? WHITEY

So I ask you how your circle could just appear without causation and......your response is "at which point in the circle did the circle appear?" This implies that your circle is contained within itself . Not only the things that exist in time within your circle but the circle itself exists within the circle . This would be 2 circles not one. Your circle of time + your circle of time that appears within your circle of time!!!

A case of circular reasoning? LOL

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

If time is circular then it goes round and round without a beginning or end. Why then must it appear from somewhere?WHITEY

It wouldn't appear from anywhere if it was eternal but if it was finite and not continuously existing without beginning then it would have to at least appear at some point or other. If it was finite then it would not have always existed and in order to avoid there being zilch something else would have to exist.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If time is circular then it goes round and round without a beginning or end. Why then must it appear from somewhere?WHITEY

It wouldn't appear from anywhere if it was eternal but if it was finite and not continuously existing without beginning then it would have to at least appear at some point or other. If it was finite then it would not have always existed and in order to avoid there being zilch something else would have to exist.

So what , something always existed in an infinite universe, big deal.
Tell me, how many big bangs are there?
What is our big banjs spacial position in the universe?
Don't use science though, science only deals in what we can measure or the effects that it causes on stuff.
Don't be afraid to say you don't know , since nobody else knows those answers either.