SRB

Even if there are some things which the English language cannot describe, none of this constitutes any coherent objection to my argument. You have said that my argument (with numbered steps, stated above) is sound, but that its conclusion is false. But that is simply incoherent. To say that an argument is sound is to say:

(i) If the argument's premises were true, then its conclusion would have to be true; and
(ii) The argument's premises are in fact true.

From (i) and (ii) it follows that the conclusion of the argument is true. So by asserting that my argument is sound and that it has a false conclusion you are contradicting yourself.

To object to an argument is to identify a false premise or an intermediate step which is not validly derived from previous premises. You have done neither of those things so have not mounted any coherent objection at all. You seem to have a weak grasp of what rational argumentation consists.

SRB

luvluv

I don't think I ever said your argument was sound, I said it was possibly sound, but that wouldn't prove that it actually obtained. In point of fact I think it is not sound, it is missing a premise. (Not that this matters, because I think een a succesful argument of this is part of an antimony, as I will get to later).

I think premise 1 & 2 beg the question by assuming that this universe is the only universe which exists. The only thing we know from Big Bang models is that there was no time IN THIS UNIVERSE when nothing existed.

There is no contradiction involved in saying there was a time before which this universe's time did not exist, unless you can establish that time in this universe is the only time that exists.

This gets back to my earlier example of a scientist creating a universe in a laboratory. If this is actually possible, then there was nothingness in the void which this nascent universe occupies BEFORE it came into existence. But this before refers to the time before the scientist created the universe in his laboratory IN HIS TIME. This would of course lead us to an infinite regress of temporal realms casually relating to other temporal realms, or to an eternal realm. But there is no reason to assume that time in this universe is "time" proper.

As far as premise 3 goes, there could indeed have been a time when there was nothing in this universe, so long as it is possible to conjecture that that time could have been in another universe in the multiverse or in an eternal realm with a moveable arrow of time.

The mutliverse hypothesis and the hypothesis of an eternal realm of God both have equal value, as presuppositional conjectures, as the notion that this universe is the only one there is. So it seems to me that you would need additional premises to establish that this universe is the only one that exists before you could make the above argument.

But even so, I would argue that it is possible to formulate a sound argument proving the reverse position, (though it may take me a few tries). I think this is in fact Kant's first antinomy (hope I'm spelling that right), by which he rejected that a priori knowledge about the world is even possible.

1) Big Bang Cosmology tells us that matter and space began to exist.
2) Time in this universe is dependant on matter and space.
3) Therefore time in this universe began to exist.

If this argument is sound, and you can come up with a version of your argument that is sound, then we have ourselves one big old antimony, as Kant predicted. We have sound rational arguments for truths that are contradictory. Therefore, we have reason to assume that purely rational a priori knowledge of the world is not always possible. You cannot move from rational proofs to existential truths with absolute certainty.

So, in the first place, your argument isn't sound as it is presented in my view. And in the second case, an antimony can be produced for it, meaning we have no reason to believe that either of the conjectures obtain.

Well, from what I do grasp I would confess that I am not a rationalist. I think we can believe what cosmology tells us but our ability to make sound arguments out of the premises they provide for us are limited, and this is especially true when we have to talk about things of which we are not capable of perceiving.

I think we are justfied deductively in saying that time in this universe began to exist. Unless we know for certain that this universe is all there is and that this universe is not causally related to any other reality, we cannot say that there was never "a" time when nothing existed, we can only say there was never a time "in this universe" when nothing existed. But this does not negate the potential causal dependance of this universe on the temporal flow of another universe.

rainbow walking

Hi Luvluv,
To my knowledge the cosmological referrants to a big bang say nothing about space itself. How could they, since the observations made to arrive at these models were not based on observing space but matter/energy? If space is a separate entity from matter/energy then all these models can tell us is that there was a time when matter/energy was so dense as to represent a single event called a Singularity.

The fact that these models strive to measure the distance between now and then in relation to time in no way means time, (whatever the hell that is), had a beginning at this point. What it does mean is that we have assigned an artificial arbitrary measurement to a sequence of events we partially know as this universe and count backwards in years, some 13.9 billion being the current consensus. Now, consider that the year is the time it takes our planet to make a complete revolution around our star and couple this with the consideration that 13.9 billion years ago our star was just a collection of energizied dust particles and see if you see any room for discrepancy in these artificial datings.

All of these datings are based on the assumption that events have occurred in a consistent manner back to this singularity, i.e. a manner consistent to the movement of the cosmos as we have observed them today...some 13.9 billion years later.

In my opinion, all this quibbling over beginnings based on empirical interpretations, is like fleas fighting over ownership of the dog.

Using the same logic applied to matter/energy I can logically demonstrate that if matter/energy can be condensed and expanded then so too can space/time. What is space? What is time?

At the moment they are our methods of measuring between events. The question remains, how can we establish that the succession of events we can measure today, based on the speed of light, the decay of cessium and the marks on a platinum bar have always been consistently thus?

I maintain that the universe, defined as space/time is infinite and is capable of an infinite quantity of events, thus it has no beginning and no end. This does not mean that individual events within it, like the rise of humans on this planet, have no beginning or end.

SRB

SRB's argument:

(1) According to Big Bang models, time itself is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.
(2) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, there was no moment of time when nothing existed. [from (1)]
(3) For the universe to pop into existence from nothing, there would have to have been a moment of time when nothing existed.
(4) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. [from (2) and (3)]

Above, you wrote "...your argument is indeed sound..." Apparently you have now changed your mind.

Step (2) is inferred from premise (1). In considering (2), a proper assessment of the soundness of the argument should not consider the truthvalue of (2), only whether (2) validly follows from (1) (i.e. whether (2) would have to be true if (1) were true). Do you deny that (2) follows from (1)? If not, there is nothing more to say about (2).

The truthvalue of premise (1) does not turn on the issue of whether the universe is all that exists. In fact (1) would still be true even if there were a time before the Big Bang when nothing existed, or even if there were no Big Bang at all! Premise (1) is an observation about what the Big Bang theories (typically) entail. Premise (1) is compatible with the falsity of those Big Bang theories. So your current objection to (1) is clearly based on a misunderstanding.

Suppose you are right that there could have been a time when there was nothing in this universe. That does not entail the falsity of (3). Premise (3) would still be a (necessary) truth nonetheless. So you have provided no reason to doubt (3).

[quote]
But even so, I would argue that it is possible to formulate a sound argument proving the reverse position, (though it may take me a few tries). I think this is in fact Kant's first antinomy (hope I'm spelling that right), by which he rejected that a priori knowledge about the world is even possible.

1) Big Bang Cosmology tells us that matter and space began to exist.
2) Time in this universe is dependant on matter and space.
3) Therefore time in this universe began to exist.

If this argument is sound, and you can come up with a version of your argument that is sound, then we have ourselves one big old antimony, as Kant predicted. We have sound rational arguments for truths that are contradictory. Concerning your final sentence what you say is not so, for there is no contradiction between the conclusion of your argument and the conclusion of mine. The universe might have begun to exist even if Big Bang models do not entail that the universe popped into existence from a prior state of nothingness. So again, "misunderstanding" is my verdict.

SRB

Wiploc

Luvluv posited that there is a god outside of time. Then when you tried to refute that, he said you don't get to go there because human language can't comprehend out-of-time phenomena.

It seems to me that your point should be that he brought it up. You are using the same language he is; if you don't get to talk about something, he doesn't get to talk about it either. If your refutation is invalid, inherently nonsensical, then so is the claim that you were refuting.
crc

Clutch

Couldn't have said it better myself!

SRB

I have nowhere in this thread tried to refute the claim that there is a god outside time. I have not even discussed the matter! So your second sentence is just plain false.

I am defending my argument (1)-(4) at the moment, nothing more. The only way to object to my argument (or in fact, any argument) that makes the least bit of sense is to either identify a false premise or an invalid inference. In his last post Luvluv returned to the realm of rational argumentation by trying to do that. The other stuff need not concern us.

SRB

luvluv

SRB:

This is getting bizzare, because I for the life of me cannot fathom that this is your actual belief. It seems like a broken metaphyiscal prounouncement precariously duck-taped together as a last ditch effort to avoid any theistic implications. That having been said.

I would have to ask you to define "time" in your first premise, in order to avoid equivocation. Do the Big Bang Models mean "time in this universe" or "all time"?

It seems to me that you have no right to posit the latter, and if you posit the former your argument can be restated thusly:

(1) According to Big Bang models, time in this universe is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.
(2) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, there was no moment of time in this universe when nothing existed. [from (1)]
(3) For the universe to pop into existence from nothing, there would have to have been a moment of time in this universe when nothing existed.
(4) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. [from (2) and (3)]

In which case, I would say that premise 3 was false. There need not be a time IN THIS UNIVERSE when nothing existed. There could have been a time before which IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, perhaps the universe which caused this one (whether that be eternality or multiverse). Relative to THAT REALM, we could say that there was "a" time when nothing existed.

So I could perhaps reword my argument to say that instead of saying the universe popped into existence from nothing (which is not what I actually believe, at any rate) I could say that there is nothing inherently contradictory about saying there was a time when this universe did not exist.

wiploc:

I could be wrong, but I don't think I have done that in this thread. All I said was that for anyone to say that all time began with the big bang is to beg the question for the assumption that the universe is all there is. I gave POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES (a multiverse or an eternal realm) to that assumption and argued that a person would have to establish that these did not obtain before he could justifiably make the statement that all time began with this universe.

What SRB did, on the other hand, was try to use a syllogism to prove that a timeless state could not occur. I would argue we can conceive and use language to describe a multiverse and an eternal realm (NOT where there is no time but where there is an adjustable arrow of time, the only conjecture I put forth on this thread). We cannot, however, conceive of "timelessness", the total absence of any time, forward moving, static, or backwards moving. That is simply inconceivable on any grounds, and cannot be established using a syllogism. Much less can it be legitimately argued that such a state of affairs either functions as a barrier to causation (though, as I have argued, the absence of ANY thing [matter/energy/space] would be a barrier of causation, the simple absence of time would not necessarily be. I guess it doesnt' even make any sense to speak of the absence of time in isolation anyway, but I digress) or as a state of affairs which removes the necessity of causation.

SRB

SRB's argument:

(1) According to Big Bang models, time itself is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.
(2) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, there was no moment of time when nothing existed. [from (1)]
(3) For the universe to pop into existence from nothing, there would have to have been a moment of time when nothing existed.
(4) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. [from (2) and (3)]

SRB:
Premise (1) says this:

(1) According to Big Bang models, time itself is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.

This is equivalent to:

(1') If Big Bang models are true then time itself is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.

You can't fathom how (1) or (1') could be true if Big Bang models are false? I recommend undertaking the study of elementary logic. A conditional statement can be true even if its antecedent is false. Maybe another example will help. The statement "If the earth is flat then it is not round" is TRUE even though its antecedent ("the earth is flat") is FALSE.

Typically "all time."
Why not? I am merely observing what proponents of the Big Bang theory say. Proponents of the Big Bang typically include that idea in their theories. Even if they are totally mistaken, premise (1) would still be true.
As you suggest, you are completely wrong about what you claimed you said! You are contradicting yourself and are watering down what you said. Read your own posts! To pick just two examples, you said (emphasis mine):

"...I think that any alternative to the universe popping into an ordered existence out of nothingness with no cause makes more sense, and I get aggravated when people try to blithely explain it away as if it's not a big issue. It seems to me an insurmountable obstacle to naturalism."

"[On the assumption of atheism]...the universe did indeed pop into existence out of nothing. The argument you are using is a philosophical linguistic one, not a cosmological one. Cosmologists seem to be very aware what the implications are, which is why they resisted the theory for so long, and why they consistently attempt so many end-runs around the obvious conclusion. Einstein, Hawkings [sic] Hoyle, all have tried their dead level best at one point or another to overturn Big Bang Cosmology because they know precisely what the implications of it are, clever atheologians and anti-theists notwithstanding."
Utterly wrong yet again! I never did anything of the sort. The conclusion of my four-step argument is this:

(4) According to Big Bang models, the universe did not pop into existence from nothing.

That does NOT imply that "a timeless state could not occur."

SRB

wizwoz

Hello, a fascinating debate with such interesting points of view. Please may I interject. Should I offend please understand it is not my intention. In any event I have mitigation: 1. I am a newy. 2. I am an Englishman.

SRB, I have a query.....you say
(1) According to Big Bang models, time itself is of finite duration, and at every moment of that time something existed.
(2) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, there was no moment of time when nothing existed. [from (1)]
(3) For the universe to pop into existence from nothing, there would have to have been a moment of time when nothing existed

Note: I see you have left out the phrase " according to Big Bang models" before your statement (3).
Nevertheless according to these Big Bang models and because of your arguments (1) & (2) is it not necessary therefore to argue
(3) For the universe to pop into existence from nothing,....' There would have to have been No Time and Nothing existing' ..
As your BBms require Time to be extant or coetaneous to something popping up as it were, am I correct that your argument (3) as it stands is a false premise or an invalid inference to (1) & (2)

If in (3) you are purposely not referring to BBms then (3) is I think an invalid inference anyway as it seems to be relying upon (1) & (2) indeed in (4) you confirm it relies from (2).

Which would leave....
(4) Therefore, according to Big Bang models, the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. [from (2) and (3)]
Nowhere... other than false and or invalid.?

Thanks
wizwoz