Originally posted by twhitehead Your mind reading is way off the mark.
I at no point try to prove my hypothesis and do not make them in order to 'dismiss nothingness'.
I am trying to show that the first cause claims are based on assumptions that have not been proven. In other words, unless you can disprove my hypotheses, the first cause claims are not proven.
Another thing I am tryin ...[text shortened]... erses etc, there is no reason to assume that it is 'nothing' or that it is God.
even if the universe is finite, closed etc there is absolutely no reason to think that there is anything 'outside' it or that 'outside' exists or even holds meaning.WHITEY
....so there would be nothingness then , ie - a nothingness so nothing that even say that there's nothing outside the universe is meaningless because "outside" would be something. However , it would still be true to say (if this were true) that if the universe had a beginning then it would have begun out of zilch without causation. But then again a universe without beginning to me would be eternal.
Originally posted by twhitehead Your mind reading is way off the mark.
I at no point try to prove my hypothesis and do not make them in order to 'dismiss nothingness'.
I am trying to show that the first cause claims are based on assumptions that have not been proven. In other words, unless you can disprove my hypotheses, the first cause claims are not proven.
Another thing I am tryin erses etc, there is no reason to assume that it is 'nothing' or that it is God.
and you don't even have the necessary education to even understand the concepts involved. WHITEY
I'm tired of this - Do you want me to react ? If you mean that I don't have a maths degree in abstract BS then I will admit it. Few if any of your educated concepts seem to bear relationship to reality as far as I can see.
I have not claimed to have proved anything. You should know from Goedles incompleteness theorem that this is impossible for this kind of thing anyway. However , it does seem self evident to me that some kind of break with causality is inevitable in any argument about existence since causal chains do not start by themselves and do have beginnings and even if they don't then the causal chain itself must be uncaused. In short I don't think the argument of an uncaused cause can be proven but I DO think that it can be argued as self evident.
In my view you allow complex mathematics to obscure simple philosophy , ie you see a huige wood but you miss the tree you are standing next to.
Originally posted by knightmeister However , it would still be true to say (if this were true) that if the universe had a beginning then it would have begun out of zilch without causation.
No it would not be true because the phrase 'out of' implies a movement through time which is not the case at all. You seem to be incapable of conceptualizing a situation where time just begins without having prior time.
Originally posted by twhitehead No it would not be true because the phrase 'out of' implies a movement through time which is not the case at all. You seem to be incapable of conceptualizing a situation where time just begins without having prior time.
You seem to be incapable of conceptualizing a situation where time just begins without having prior time. WHITEY
Nope , it's where time just "begins" without any prior ANYTHING .
By your view this would be a random , uncaused, meaningless event would it not ?
Originally posted by twhitehead But without time, it is not 'prior'. You have trouble understanding the concept of time.
[b]By your view this would be a random , uncaused, meaningless event would it not ? No. It would not be an event at all.[/b]
But without time, it is not 'prior'. You have trouble understanding the concept of time. WHITEY
....this is a bit hypocritical isn't it? I was simply reflecting your original terminology. If I am stating nonsense by talking about "without prior anything" then you must also be gibbering when using the exact same phrase "without prior time".
Originally posted by twhitehead But without time, it is not 'prior'. You have trouble understanding the concept of time.
[b]By your view this would be a random , uncaused, meaningless event would it not ? No. It would not be an event at all.[/b]
By your view this would be a random , uncaused, meaningless event would it not ?
No. It would not be an event at all. WHITEY
So let's just nail this one then ....the beginning of time was/is not an event. Did it "happen" then? So time kind of has a beginning but it's not a proper beginning but then again maybe it doesn't ...oh but don't forget that even if time didn't have a beginning it wouldn't be eternal or permanent (because that's getting too close to all those religious ideas we hate so much) it would be kind of .....umm infinite/finite ..kind of with boundaries but no edges.. On top of this if time did begin then it was not an event ....oh but it definitely did happen...um sort of....and it wasn't random or caused...and it all has nothing to do with the big bang...or does it?...or did that really happen anyway?
...as long as that's settled then.....I'm absolutely clear now.
Originally posted by knightmeister So let's just nail this one then ....the beginning of time was/is not an event. Did it "happen" then? So time kind of has a beginning but it's not a proper beginning but then again maybe it doesn't ...oh but don't forget that even if time didn't have a beginning it wouldn't be eternal or permanent (because that's getting too close to all those religio ...[text shortened]... happen anyway?
...as long as that's settled then.....I'm absolutely clear now.
DOOR 17
20 Aug '07 14:56
Back to Top