Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Originally posted by sonship
So you do not understand the words [b]"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 ...[text shortened]... r. JP Moreland and I didn't understand infinity suggested that you understood my words.[/b]

OK, so you won't define it.
You and J.P. Morland claim that in order to get to the present day, one must have passed through an infinite amount of time, and you call this 'traversing infinity'. You claim that if an entity existed throughout that time it would have to be able to count to infinity (and possibly beyond, that is not clear, hence my request for a definition).
But this is not true. Infinite sets do not contain the number infinity.

Originally posted by sonship
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.

Now you are either confused, or playing your 'change the argument' game. Sorry, but we were not discussing whether or not particles were made up of smaller particles.

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.
Guess all you like, but as long as it remains a guess, you cannot base philosophical arguments on your conclusion and claim they are valid proof of something.

Are you an expert in Quantum Mechanics ?
No.

Are you proposeing that particles in the field of Quantum Mechanics did not come into existence at the Big Bang ?
No, I am not proposing, I am telling you the known results of quantum mechanics. I do not need to be an expert to do so, I only need to read a few Wikipedia pages.

What is the relationship between radiation from black holes traveling across space and quantum particles seeming to fluxuate back and forth into existence ?
Radiation from black holes are particles that have 'fluxated' into existence and remained in existence contrary to your claim that they do not last for long.

Are you an expert on Quantum Physics ?
No.

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.
Nevertheless, he is yet to win the Nobel prize for disproving the multi verse theory. Until he does better than making money writing books for the general public, you cannot base your argument on his conclusion (if it really is as you say, which I doubt).

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.
It is a slam dunk as a refutation of your claim (and that of J P Moreland) that everything is known to owe its existence to something prior.

I admit that you believe that J P Moreland is wrong in his presentation of the problem of the infinite past.
You are dishonest. You cant even admit when you are wrong.

I [b]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. [/b]
There is nothing knee jerk about it. I have proven without a doubt that your claim that everything is known to owe its existence to something prior is not a fact of science. Do you still deny this? If not, why cant you admit it?

I don't think your interest in science exceeds mine.
I never claimed it did. And if you are so interested in science, why are you backing out of a discussion of it? We might both learn something.

You will never convince some of us that belief in a Creator is somehow not reasonable. /b]
Was I trying to prove that your believe in a creator was somehow not reasonable? No. I know perfectly well that your belief in a creator is not based on J P Morgans argument.

[b]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.
I never tried to explain away a beginning and a Beginner of the universe. I was merely pointing out some errors in J P Morelands argument that such a beginning and Beginner could be proven philosophically. I am not attacking your precious Bible, I am not attacking your religion, yet you are acting like I am. You can't admit when you got something wrong, its as if you think you are infallible.

Originally posted by sonship
Steady State and Cyclic have gone pretty much by the wayside years ago. There may be a few holdouts.

I think you're refering to some alternative theories which the concensus cosmology has put to rest as probably not viable.

The ekpyrotic universe is a hypothesis from M theory. It is probably cyclic but M theory, and the string theory it is based on, is currently untestable. According to some of the proponents of string theory the mathematics is too beautiful to be false which sounds just like religion to me.

Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology as outlined in his book Cycles of Time is, in effect, a cyclic steady state universe. He even has a get around for the entropy issue. Narlikar, who collaberated with Hoyle until his death, still fights the good fight for the more traditional steady state universe.

Penrose and Narlikar might be described as a few holdouts but M theory is modern, whizzy, cutting edge stuff. Not good science in my opinion, but cutting edge nonetheless.

Originally posted by sonship
Steady State and Cyclic have gone pretty much by the wayside years ago. There may be a few holdouts.

I think you're refering to some alternative theories which the concensus cosmology has put to rest as probably not viable.

But until you can change that 'probably not viable' to 'definitely not viable' you have to concede that you cannot claim to have a sound philosophical argument for finite time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But until you can change that 'probably not viable' to 'definitely not viable' you have to concede that you cannot claim to have a sound philosophical argument for finite time.

That "probably not viable" is physics not philosophy. He doesn't need a philosophical argument for or against finite time. What he (and you) need is evidence for or against finite time. There are many philosophical arguments for an earth that does not move and is the centre of the universe but reality does not agree!

Originally posted by Kepler
That "probably not viable" is physics not philosophy. He doesn't need a philosophical argument for or against finite time. What he (and you) need is evidence for or against finite time. There are many philosophical arguments for an earth that does not move and is the centre of the universe but reality does not agree!

A sound philosophical argument would not be contradicted by reality.
I don't need evidence for or against finite time because I make no claim that it is a specific one. I claim it is as yet unknown which it is. The burden of proof rests entirely on sonship and J P Moreland who claim that time is finite and that they have arguments to prove it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
fear is the beginning of knowledge.


wouldnt love be a better?

One does not begin with the love of God, that always comes later. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
One does not begin with the love of God, that always comes later. 😏

a life in fear with the promise of better times ahead. tragic.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
a life in fear with the promise of better times ahead. tragic.

I said nothing about a life in fear. Understanding brings freedom from fear of man so that we will be able to stand boldly before the throne of God. But to gain right knowledge and understanding we must begin with a fear of the Lord.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, so you won't define it.
You and J.P. Morland claim that in order to get to the present day, one must have passed through an infinite amount of time, and you call this 'traversing infinity'. You claim that if an entity existed throughout that time it would have to be able to count to infinity (and possibly beyond, that is not clear, hence my request for a definition).
But this is not true. Infinite sets do not contain the number infinity.

Concerning admitting error that an actual infinite number of things could exists. I don't admit error.

In the conceptual realm of mathematics an infinity could be conceived.

One could use certain conventions and axioms to speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers. You cannot jump from this to claim that an actually infinite number of things is really possible.

A logical infinite number of things may be conceived. But an actual infinite number of things, not just logically possible, but actually infinite in reality, does not exist.

Furthermore I think one school of mathematicians would even say that the number line is only potentially infinite. The school of intuitivism would maintain your example of { ... -3,-2,-1} is not actually infinite but only potentially infinite.

Some have argued that the infinite past events is also a potential infinity like the potentially infinite future. The counter argument was made that while the future has not yet taken place, it is a potential infinity. But this is not so of the past which already has existed. So a beginningless universe of infinite past time would not be a potential infinite but an actual infinite number of past events.

If the universe did not arrive at the beginning of time, then prior to the present event there have existed an actually infinite number of past events. Hence, a beginningless series of events in time implies the existence of an actually infinite number of things. Those things being past events.

Concerning admitting an error that the universe is not infinitely old (if that was requested), I admit no error or dishonesty.

The current concensus of cosmology is that time came into existence with the coming into existence of the universe. The universe consists of all events of time and is not distinct from the series of events. I believe that the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time go hand in hand. I admit other opinions exist. That is not admitting error.

Originally posted by sonship
Concerning admitting error that an actual infinite number of things could exists. I don't admit error.

In the conceptual realm of mathematics an infinity could be conceived.

One could use certain conventions and axioms to speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers. You cannot jump from this to claim that an [b]actually infinite number o ...[text shortened]... e beginning of time go hand in hand. I admit other opinions exist. That is not admitting error.[/b]

My opinion is there is a physical time and space that goes with the physical universe that we can understand and a spiritual time and space which we can not understand that goes with the spiritual universe or world that came before the physical.

Originally posted by sonship
Concerning admitting error that an actual infinite number of things could exists. I don't admit error.

In the conceptual realm of mathematics an infinity could be conceived.

One could use certain conventions and axioms to speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers. You cannot jump from this to claim that an [b]actually infinite number o ...[text shortened]... mber of things, not just logically possible, but actually infinite in reality, does not exist. [/b]

You've said it many times, but you haven't proved it. You are free to believe it all you like, but you are in error if you claim that you have proved it, or that it is a known fact, or that it is a logical necessity.

Furthermore I think one school of mathematicians would even say that the number line is only potentially infinite. The school of [b]intuitivism would maintain your example of { ... -3,-2,-1} is not actually infinite but only potentially infinite. [/b]
Sounds like you are slowly starting to understand infinity.

Concerning admitting an error that the universe is not infinitely old (if that was requested), I admit no error or dishonesty.
No it was not requested.
So why can't you admit error on things that you are in error on? Are you infalible?

The current concensus of cosmology is that time came into existence with the coming into existence of the universe.
What exactly do you mean by 'consensus'? Can you give a rough estimate as to how many cosmology scientists believe in finite time? Can you give a rough estimate as to how many think it is proven (rather than they simply think it is a 'nice' answer).

The universe consists of all events of time and is not distinct from the series of events. I believe that the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time go hand in hand. I admit other opinions exist. That is not admitting error.
It is however admitting that J P Moreland was in error as he claimed no other options exist. Good to know that at least you don't think J P Moreland is infallible.
Now why won't you admit to the cases where you were in error?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said nothing about a life in fear. Understanding brings freedom from fear of man so that we will be able to stand boldly before the throne of God. But to gain right knowledge and understanding we must begin with a fear of the Lord.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

do you fear the lord?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you fear the lord?

I fear the Lord like a child should fear a parent, who he knows loves him.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by twhitehead
You've said it many times, but you haven't proved it. You are free to believe it all you like, but you are in error if you claim that you have proved it, or that it is a known fact, or that it is a logical necessity.

[b]Furthermore I think one school of mathematicians would even say that the number line is only potentially infinite. The school o Moreland is infallible.
Now why won't you admit to the cases where you were in error?

[/b] As to me being infallible or Dr. Moreland. Of course neither of us is.
And you are not either.

I am not admitting any error until I detect an error.
Right now I only admit that other opinions exist. I don't demand that you admit error simply because other arguments in the debate do exist.

Off the top of my head I think I recall you demanding an admission of error because I said something like all things are derived from previous things.

I think you pressed the word "previous" in order to object that sub-atomic particles made up of other smaller particles does not match that axiom.

I admit that maybe the word "previous" is not the best word for what I mean.
I am not sure.

Now I have one question for you. Who is your most enfluential thinker leading you to believe that quantum fluctuations prove matter can arise into existence from nothing?

If you do not give me a name for some reason then I can only go to sources I am aware of where such a theory has been put forth and perhaps some counter arguments to them (if they exist).

And if I do that you probably will raise an objection of a strawman argument.

So give me a name or two.
Who is the most authoritative for you in declaring that matter can pop into existence from absolutely nothing ?