17 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipAnd as I have said multiple times, there is no requirement to represent infinity.
I know of no integer which represents infinity.
I know some very large ones.
The reason I give is that you just confessed that it will never be "was infinity".
Out of your own mouth. If it will never be then it cannot be done.
Sorry, but as I said, there is no such requirement, so your objection fails.
I think your objection is ridiculous.
The objection: If time extends back INFINITELY with no beginning, but OF COURSE infinity could be traversed to arrive at today.
That is your objection.
When Hubble showed Einstien what he observed about a logical beginnning to the universe, Einstien said something to the effect that he saw it but he hated it. Not a quote - but something to that effect.
Steady state died effectively. A beginningless eternal universe died effectively.
From all we presently know if the universe is infinitely old then everything should have run DOWN to a cold nothingness by now. It hasn't.
Sorry, but changing the argument won't help you. First admit that your previous argument was wrong, before introducing a new one. As for the new one, I believe I have already addressed it elsewhere.
So because of this traversing past infinite time will lead to time arriving at today ?
What do you actually mean by 'traversing infinite time'? It think that that is the basis of your misunderstanding, so please define it more accurately then I will show what your error is.
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is no way for us to go back in time and see for ourselves what happened long ago. So we either rely on written accounts of those that wrote about it long ago or we try to make an educated guess, like the scientist do today. So here is were our decision rests. In either case, we can not eliminate belief and faith.
And as I have said multiple times, there is no requirement to represent infinity.
[b]The reason I give is that you just confessed that it will never be "was infinity".
Out of your own mouth. If it will never be then it cannot be done.
Sorry, but as I said, there is no such requirement, so your objection fails.
I think your objection is ri ...[text shortened]... misunderstanding, so please define it more accurately then I will show what your error is.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you would agree with me that sonship and J.P. Morland are wrong that there is a valid philosophical argument for finite time and theism. Thank you, your support is noted.
There is no way for us to go back in time and see for ourselves what happened long ago. So we either rely on written accounts of those that wrote about it long ago or we try to make an educated guess, like the scientist do today. So here is were our decision rests. In either case, we can not eliminate belief and faith.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsadding a smug face as an afterthought speaks volumes.
You did not begin your sentence with a capital letter. How dumb is that? And how do you know that my edit was not just to add the smug face? 😏
(ive got a pretty good reason for not using capitals, do you have a pretty good reason for your stupidity?)
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt is called KNOWLEDGE.
adding a smug face as an afterthought speaks volumes.
(ive got a pretty good reason for not using capitals, do you have a pretty good reason for your stupidity?)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
(Proverbs 1:7)
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy comments were in support of faith and belief and against the idea that we have absolute knowledge of all past events. You are welcome for accepting my comments in such an enthusiastic manner.
So you would agree with me that sonship and J.P. Morland are wrong that there is a valid philosophical argument for finite time and theism. Thank you, your support is noted.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 13
1 edit
twhitehead,
[quote]
It seems to me that you have a way of failing to refute an argument and then spending a lot of time trying to point out that someone will not admit he's been refuted.
Now your single biggest and most important post which you think refuted my argument on the beginning of time - provide the link to it please.
Where is this refutation from you which I am suppose to admit was SO effective ??? I don't want to assume which post it is. You direct me to your best reply.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
me:
So because of this traversing past infinite time will lead to time arriving at today ?
tw:
What do you actually mean by 'traversing infinite time'? It think that that is the basis of your misunderstanding, so please define it more accurately then I will show what your error is.
So you do not understand the words "traversing past infinite time"?
You don't know what these words mean, in light of the analogy I gave, so you cannot show me my error ?
That is your problem not mine. You seemed like you understood enough to complain mightily. But when it comes down to showing the error, now you don't understand my phrase "traversing past infinite time".
I thought you understood the words - "traversing past infnite time".
Your knee jerk accusation that Dr. JP Moreland and I didn't understand infinity suggested that you understood my words.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Mar 13
1 edit
No, I never said any such thing. You asked for an example of something that does not owe its existence to something prior to it. I have shown that the claim that everything appears to owe its existence to something prior is blatantly false. No such rule is known, and in fact, quantum mechanics strongly suggests otherwise.
All the particles I know are being smashed together to research what other smaller units comprise their make up.
If you have an exception it is probably due to the fact that they have not yet been able to break that particle up yet.
You know to get smaller and smaller they have to build bigger and bigger atom smashers. My guess is that there are particles the life of which is so short and the size of which are so minute that we cannot yet explore what the components of those particles are.
Are you an expert in Quantum Mechanics ?
Are you proposeing that particles in the field of Quantum Mechanics did not come into existence at the Big Bang ?
False. I already pointed out Hawking radiation from black holes. This Hawking radiation is known to exist and travels across the universe over billions of years.
What is the relationship between radiation from black holes traveling across space and quantum particles seeming to fluxuate back and forth into existence ?
Are the particles in this beam of radiate popping in and out of existence as they travel ?
Extraplating that to an entire universe that popped up in this manner for 15 billion years or so, is a long shot I think.
Think what you like, but can you justify it with anything other than your guess work? I believe some versions of quantum mechanics and string theory allow for such things to happen. Do you have any logical reason to rule them out? If so, you might be due for a Nobel Prize.
Are you an expert on Quantum Physics ?
My response about not comparing quantum fluctuations to the beginning of the universe came from a discussion of quantum fluctuations from "God and the Cosmos" by Phd. in astronomy Hugh Ross.
I read it. It made some sense. Unfortunately the book is packed away in a box as we are moving.
I am fascinated to learn more about "Hawking Radiation". Don't promise it will be any slam dunk for an argument that TIME has no beginnning. That is what my post was about.
And until you can claim to understand these fluctuations, you cannot correctly claim that they are known to not be instances of things coming from nothing and you can not use any such claim in a philosophical argument about the universe as a whole, and you should admit that on this point at least J P Moreland is wrong, (and probably should have known better).
I admit that you believe that J P Moreland is wrong in his presentation of the problem of the infinite past.
I admit that you are one desperate atheist scouring complex sounding science discussions to search for rationales for knee-jerk dissagreement with those of us who accept the current scientific consensus that the universe with time and matter had a beginning.
I don't think your interest in science exceeds mine.
You will never convince some of us that belief in a Creator is somehow not reasonable.
You go ahead and run after Hawking radiation, and black holes, and Quantum Mechanics and anything you think will explain away a beginning and a Beginner of the universe.
18 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYou don't have to traverse any kind of infinite thing in its entirety to be able to get from place to place. You can see that easily by counting. 1 2 3 ... there, you are moving through an infinite set. How that argues for or against an infinite amount of time is beyond me I am afraid. You can prove mathematically that various sets of numbers and other mathematical objects are infinite but time isn't a mathematical object, it is one of the dimensions of our universe.
me:
So because of this traversing past infinite time will lead to time arriving at today ?
tw:
What do you actually mean by 'traversing infinite time'? It think that that is the basis of your misunderstanding, so please define it more accurately then I will show what your error is.
So you do not understand the words JP Moreland and I didn't understand infinity suggested that you understood my words.
Infinite? Finite? Who knows. We have evidence for a start point (the big bang) but other evidence suggests the universe just keeps on expanding at an increasing rate forever which makes time infinite but with a start point. If the steady state guys have it right then the universe always was and the expansion is caused by more "stuff" appearing from nothing. Roger Penrose has an interesting take on that. Of course, if the Ekpyrotic Universe guys have any handle on reality the whole thing is cyclic which suggests finite time but then again the cycles might well go on forever so back to infinite time.
I'd say you pays your money and makes your choice. I'll go with infinite cycles, that appeals to me and is completely untestable at present. Isn't it about time infinite beer was invented?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerSteady State and Cyclic have gone pretty much by the wayside years ago. There may be a few holdouts.
You don't have to traverse any kind of infinite thing in its entirety to be able to get from place to place. You can see that easily by counting. 1 2 3 ... there, you are moving through an infinite set. How that argues for or against an infinite amount of time is beyond me I am afraid. You can prove mathematically that various sets of numbers and other mathem and is completely untestable at present. Isn't it about time infinite beer was invented?
I think you're refering to some alternative theories which the concensus cosmology has put to rest as probably not viable.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipYou simply never gave an argument, but instead tried to change the subject and make a new argument.
It seems to me that you have a way of failing to refute an argument and then spending a lot of time trying to point out that someone will not admit he's been refuted.
Now your single biggest and most important post which you think refuted my argument on the beginning of time - provide the link to it please.
I am not going to re-read the whole thread, but I see nothing wrong with my original response - point 4.