Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv :

Well, SRB put it better than I. I was too lazy to make it into a "real" argument. But here you go.

1. For all x, if x began to exist, then there is some y such that y is a moment of time and x did not exist at y.
2. There was never a time at which the universe did not exist.
3. Therefore, the universe did not begin to exist.

Please give me some reasons to deny 1.

Wiploc

Try this:

1. For all x, if x did *not* begin to exist, then for all times y such that x existed at time y, there is an earlier time at which x also existed.

Either definition can work as long as we're clear about which one we are using, but it seems to me that my way is more congruent with what people normally mean when they say "begin."

There may be some arbitrariness to which definition we choose, but the Cosmological Argument fails either way. If the universe began, then god also began. If god is unbegun, then the universe is unbegun.
crc

SRB

Whether or not (finite) time has a beginning depends on certain technical matters concerning how the word "begin" is defined. I would say that if time is finite then time does have a beginning. That's because I don't think that to say that x begins to exist at time t entails that there any moments of time prior to t. I do, however, think that talk of the universe "popping into existence from nothing" very clearly involves the existence of prior moments of time at which nothing existed, from which the universe "popped." The argument I put forward above bypasses the issue of what it means for something to begin to exist and should be considerably less controversial than Thomas' argument.

SRB

rainbow walking

Hi SRB,
Some points of interest concerning time. Einstein's theory of general relativity posits a definite relationship between space and time and more recent hypothesi have gone as far as to depict time as an inseperable attribute of space. Thus we have consensus leaning towards the space/time continuim as a viable theoretical aspect of any model.

Now, in relation to time as a finite or infinite attribute of the universe, I am of the opinion the resolution revolves around the question of space itself, i.e. is space infinite or finite. Beginning with Hubble's red shift discovery demonstrating the expansion aspect of matter/energy within the universe I have seen nothing definitive profferred about space itself, whether it too is expanding or not. All research thusfar has been made based on the observation of energy emmitted from distant stars and such, thus not from observing space but from observations of matter and energy that appears to be rushing towards filling space.

Therefore it could be reasonably postulated that space is infinite and if time is so closely related to space then time would also bear this characteristic. It's my understanding that models depicting a big bang predict a period in the history of the universe when matter was extremely dense but nothing in these models make any prediction about space itself as to whether it has any properties of density, so again, the behavior of matter and energy do not necessarily have to have any impact on space/time.

fishbulb

I think you are making a mistake here. You are taking an empirical observation: that living things have parents, and attempting to turn it into a universal truth. We have no basis on which to conclude that every living thing must have had a parent. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. Dolly the cloned sheep never, in fact, had a father (unless I've completely misunderstood the concept of cloning); thus we can point to at least one contemporary example of a mammal whose existence proves that one does not need to have had a father in order to exist.

That people have parents is a conclusion drawn from induction, not deduction. Inductive reasoning never provides certain proof, since it is based on inferences made from limited samples and experiences.

Along the same lines, the empirical observation that most things have a beginning and cause does not translate into proof that any one particular thing, such as the Universe itself, has a beginning or a cause.

luvluv

SRB:

I refute it by simply saying that it does not apply to reality, it is a language game. It is consistent within it's own rules, and possibly sound, but it does not apply to reality. It hinges on the linguistic limitation which makes one unable to refer to a state of affairs "before" time. But that we cannot refer to such a state of affairs does not mean that such a state of affairs did not obtain.

Mass, energy, space, and time have not always existed. Absent all these things, if naturalism is correct, there is literally NOTHING.

While it is true that, by definition, when time began to exist matter and space began to exist (since time is a function of matter and space), it is not therefore true that something "always" existed, only that it something has existed"since the begining of time."

There was a state of affairs "before" time existed, even if we have no accurate or independant way of referring to this time. But I implore you, if you are going to be honest, to see this as it is: not an existential reality but merely a limitation of language. That we cannot within the constraints of langauge refer to a state of affairs "before" time, without including the temporal relations of time, does not mean that there was never nothingness.

Indeed, in simply stating that time began to exist you are effectively saying that time did not always exist.

I am saying, with Wittgenstein and others, that your argument is indeed sound but that it has no relation to the real world, only to the internal word game of philosophy.

Philosophy used in the manner in which you are using it is not a means to truth, it is simply a game with words. Just as, with the game of checkers, moving one of your pieces to your opponents back-line does not make you a king in the real world, the fact that we cannot linguistically refer to a time before time does not mean that time "always" existed, or that there was never nothingness.

No matter + no space = no time. If matter, space, and time BEGAN to exist, there was nothingness "prior" to their existence. That I cannot refer to this nothingness without using the word "before" or "prior" in no way prevents the obvious conclusion.

Dr. Retard

That's a funny move from the falsehood of "X exists" to the existence of some absence of X, some X-void. In this case, it's from the falsehood of "Something, anything exists" to "nothingness exists". I don't think the falsehood of positive existential statements licenses a derivation of the existence of any 'negative entities'.

SRB

To refute an argument is to show that the argument is not sound. It is nonsense to say that you have refuted my argument, but that my argument is sound. To refute an argument, one must show that the argument has at least one false premise or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. You have not done either of those things, nor even attempted to do them. So you cannot possibly have refuted my argument!

If we can't say "There was a time before all time began" without contradicting ourselves, then that shows that the proposition mentioned is necessarily false. The same goes for the proposition "There is a square circle."

According to the Big Bang model, mass, energy, space, and time HAVE always existed, since there was never a time that they did not exist. At every second of time, they were in existence. That's not to say, of course, that they have existed for an infinite duration. According to Big Bang models, there was NEVER a time when there was nothing in existence. If this is confusing to you, then that is probably because you are used to thinking of time as having an infinite past duation.

This is a misconstrual of Wittgenstein. He did not believe that there are some true propositions and sound arguments that have "no relation to the real world." Such a view is patently absurd!

SRB

luvluv

a) I don't believe I ever said that.

b) Why can we not posit "a state of affairs lacking time."? Or an "eternal nothingness"?

This is what I mean, the contradictions you are intending to show are simply word games, you articulate the same state of affairs in linguistic terms that show a contradiction between the WORDS CHOSEN not the actual state of affairs.

A square cannot be a circle. The actual properties of a square actually cannot be the actual properties of a circle.

However, there is no contradiction involved in a state of affairs without space or matter. That there is no time in this state of affairs simply follows.

If you can show me that there is a contradiction involved in a state of affairs without space or matter, I will concede the argument.

But he, and Kant I believe, did say that we cannot go outside the boundaries of language and experience and make existential claims. It just so happens that we have no language to describe what occurs outside of time. That's all these arguments are based on, word games. You cannot word game reality into or out of existence. Either time can exist without matter and space or it can't. If it can't, and there was no matter or space, there "was" no time. The fact that I cannot communicate that reality to you without using the word "was" is a limitation of language, not a proof of an existential reality.

Philsophical arguments are limited by language, and they simply cannot deal with realities that language cannot encapsulate. All you have proven is that we have no way to refer to a state of affairs before time, not that there was not a state of affairs before time.

Your argument cannot establish anything, because the realities it deals with are outside of language. You cannot use a syllogism to ascertain the existence of things outside our experience or outside the limits of language. Your argument was therefore baseless from the outset, as it depends on nothing more than linguistic limitations imposed on us by our inability to conceive atemporally. That we cannot conceive of, or have words for, non-time, does not mean that non-time never obtained.

"What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence."

Clutch

This passage is almost universally quoted by those who performatively contradict it. You're no exception here. Because you are, and consistently have been, talking about that which you say we cannot talk about. For example:Now, either your phrase "the realities it deals with" is meaningful or not. If meaningful, then it's as meaningful for others to talk about these realities as it is for you. If not, then your very attempt to explain the defect of your interlocutors' claims is meaningless.

The fact is, your move to this "We just can't talk about it" line seems rather transparently a way of trying to gloss your lack of a reply.