01 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…b) Do you think that nothingness/non-existence is possible?.…
[b]…Err…no. It means it is only meaningful for something to exist or not exist at a specific time.
-therefore it means it is only meaningful for “EXISTENCE” to exist or not exist at a specific time! (regardless of how you efine “EXISTENCE” ) -----------------hamilton-------------------------
This would imply that you cannot conceive of (or thin ...[text shortened]... stence is possible?.…
Only in the context of a particular point in time and space.[/b]
Only in the context of a particular point in time and space.
----------hamilton--------------------
But presumably you believe that the Big Bang was the very beginning of time and space itself yes? You believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter , energy , time , space and everything?
There was no "before" , no 3D "space" , no nothing yes?
You say that nothingness can only exist in the context of time/space but you know full well that the nothingness I describe is the ABSENCE of space /time. Logic dictates that without an ABSENCE of something it cannot "begin" . Unless time/space was absent then it makes no sense to say the Big Bang was the "beginning" of time and space.
If you drew a continuous line on a beach and then ask me to find the beginning point I could not. I can only do this if there is point where the line itself is adjacent to an absence of the line. No line - line. That's where the beginning would be.
Existence is either infinite (contimuous ) or finite (discontinuous) . For discontinuous existence you need an absence of existence.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleYes, that would be correct. It is perfectly possible to have an infinite series that has what is known in maths as a "limit". If time is infinitely divisible, then it is perfectly possible to have a selfcontained universe in which all causes have prior causes, yet time is not infinite in extent.
As my field is not the Maths, could you please swiftly comment or at least let me know whether or not your d issue that you mention is similar to the paradox of Zenon?
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou claimed earlier that you accepted that if time was exclusively a property of the universe then to talk of time outside or before the beggining of the universe would be meaningless yet you persist in asking the question that you have admited is meaningless.
But presumably you believe that the Big Bang was the very beginning of time and space itself yes? You believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter , energy , time , space and everything?
There was no "before" , no 3D "space" , no nothing yes?
You say that nothingness can only exist in the context of time/space but you know full well ...[text shortened]... finite (discontinuous) . For discontinuous existence you need an absence of existence.
Do you retract your earlier admission, or are you claiming that it is logically impossible for time to be exclusively a property of the universe?
I would also like to know whether you trully do not understand the concepts involved or simply do not want to understand them.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadrgr that, th dude;
Yes, that would be correct. It is perfectly possible to have an infinite series that has what is known in maths as a "limit". If time is infinitely divisible, then it is perfectly possible to have a selfcontained universe in which all causes have prior causes, yet time is not infinite in extent.
best regards🙂
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…You say that nothingness can only exist in the context of time/space but you know full well that the nothingness I describe is the ABSENCE of space /time.
…b) Do you think that nothingness/non-existence is possible?.…
Only in the context of a particular point in time and space.
----------hamilton--------------------
But presumably you believe that the Big Bang was the very beginning of time and space itself yes? You believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter , energy , time , space and ...[text shortened]... finite (discontinuous) . For discontinuous existence you need an absence of existence.
.….
I am afraid this has just turned into an argument of pure semantics. You may define “nothingness” that way but that is not what I would ever mean by “nothingness”. So we are really talking about different things here.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI define nothingness as the complete absence of all existence (space /time/ energy /matter / God / spirit/ etc etc).
[b]…You say that nothingness can only exist in the context of time/space but you know full well that the nothingness I describe is the ABSENCE of space /time.
.….
I am afraid this has just turned into an argument of pure semantics. You may define “nothingness” that way but that is not what I would ever mean by “nothingness”. So we are really talking about different things here.[/b]
What's your defintion? Do you have one that has less nothing in it than mine? It sounds to me that your nothingness is NEARLY nothing but still contains time somehow. That makes it more than nothing though doesn't it.
I fail to see how nothingness can be anythig else than the complete and catagorical non-existence of anything at all. It's so simple , why can't you grasp it?
How many different types of nothing can there be? Since there is "nothing" to distinguish them (LOL). There can only be one kind of nothing period . The logical reason for this is that two types of nothing would mean that one of them at least would have to have something by which they could be distinguished , which would mean that one of them wasn't nothing but infact an imposter.
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree.
I agree. I would sooner associate with someone who believed in love and compassion but who was an Atheist , than someone who believed in a Father God but used his name to justify killings.
However , Jesus asked that we believe in his Father and behave virtuously too. It's both. Belief in God as an active agent is central to everything Jesus did. ( the same time had no belief in shared ownership you might be inclined to tell me to shut up.
Excellent.
Now, have you given more thought to clarifying just what sorts of beliefs you think are defeated for the atheist just in virtue of his atheism (or is it just in virtue of naturalism, or some such?)?
02 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…What's your definition? .….
I define nothingness as the complete absence of all existence (space /time/ energy /matter / God / spirit/ etc etc).
What's your defintion? Do you have one that has less nothing in it than mine? It sounds to me that your nothingness is NEARLY nothing but still contains time somehow. That makes it more than nothing though doesn't it.
I fail to s distinguished , which would mean that one of them wasn't nothing but infact an imposter.
The absence of any definable event or physical structure or behavioural property at a specified time and space.
…Do you have one that has less nothing in it than mine?…
To me what you call “nothing” is a concept that makes no sense and cannot correspond to reality.
…It sounds to me that your nothingness is NEARLY nothing but still contains time somehow. …
You have got that back-to-front: “Nothing” cannot “contain” time but a point in time and space can “contain nothing”.
…. I fail to see how nothingness can be anything else than the complete and categorical non-existence of anything at all. It's so simple , why can't you grasp it?..…
I understand that you trying to say “nothingness” also means “no time” and that “time” itself “did not exist” back THEN and, therefore, the universe came from "nothing" (according to your erroneous interpretation of the big bang) -but exactly at what point in time was this “THEN” when time didn’t exist? Was it at the start of the big bang? -no! because that was the beginning of time! Was it “before” the big bang? Remember, it makes no sense to say: “before the big bang time didn’t exist” because if there was no time existing then then there is no “before”. Therefore, time cannot be “nonexistent” at any time -it doesn’t even make sense to say “there existed a time when time didn’t exist”! so although the big bang was the start of time, at no point in time was there some kind of mysterious “nothingness” when not even time existed which is why I think your concept of “nothingness” is a confused one that cannot correspond to reality.
“nothingness” cannot also mean “no time existing” and make sense -“no time existing” when? Therefore, the universe didn’t COME FROM this “nothingness” you speak of or any other kind of “nothingness” -it didn’t “COME FROM” but it just existed then and there was no “before”.
…How many different types of nothing can there be? ..…
Just one that makes sense -any other “nothings” are just confused concepts and cannot correspond to reality.
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Before when
and outside of where
only nothing
of course is “there”...
(Oh, the nothings that we make
and speak of “them”
as if some kind of somethings:
’tis enough to cause a nihil-quake!)
This wonderful nothing
that is never there
it seems
can have no end—
So who was where
before that when,
and for how long?
And are they there again?
If only these nothings
would go away,
maybe something
would have someplace to stay!
Let’s let that god
who was neverwhere
always
before anywhen
play in these nothings
that no one can ken,
while we just stay here
where some things at least
seem clear.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEverything you say makes sense. I also do not believe in this nothingness I define either but I believe the definition is the only honest one to make. The definition of nothing leads one to consdier that such a state or non-existence is an impossibility. So , please consider the logical implications of what you have posted.
[b]…What's your definition? .….
The absence of any definable event or physical structure or behavioural property at a specified time and space.
…Do you have one that has less nothing in it than mine?…
To me what you call “nothing” is a concept that makes no sense and cannot correspond to reality.
…It sounds to me that yo ...[text shortened]... es sense -any other “nothings” are just confused concepts and cannot correspond to reality.
You are saying that it's impossible for there to be or ever have been "nothing" and you are also saying that it's impossible for time to not exist.
Now think man , and think really, really , really ,really, really hard about this. What logical alternative do you have left? ..........answer below.
(Y*T*I*N*R*E*T*E)
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBecause you repeatedly try to treat it as an object that you can place at a point in space time. If it is so abscent of anything then you cannot say that it 'existed' before spacetime. Such a claim implies the existence of time. Once you remove dimentions, you have no context in which to place your nothingness and thus it is both nowhere and everywhere throughout spacetime simultaneously. It has no connection whatsoever with spacetime.
I fail to see how nothingness can be anythig else than the complete and catagorical non-existence of anything at all. It's so simple , why can't you grasp it?
The problem is that you do not infact want to talk about the nothingness you define. You rather want to talk about a hypothetical nothingness that lies beyond what you percieve as a boundary to spacetime (ie the big bang) ie you do infact want to continue at least one dimention in a direction and place your nothingness there.
You simply are incapable of concieving a self contained finite universe. I have tried to point out in the past that the surface of a sphere is finite and boundless and that there is nothing beyond the south pole (in the southerly direction along a line of longitude). In fact, I have found your nothingness! There it is at 90.2 degrees south! Just treck to the south pole and when you see an old rusted post just continue on a few miles in a southerly direction! Maybe thats how Santa hides his workshop?
02 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…. I also do not believe in this nothingness I define either but I believe the definition is the only honest one to make...…
Everything you say makes sense. I also do not believe in this nothingness I define either but I believe the definition is the only honest one to make. The definition of nothing leads one to consdier that such a state or non-existence is an impossibility. So , please consider the logical implications of what you have posted.
You are saying that it's al alternative do you have left? ..........answer below.
(Y*T*I*N*R*E*T*E)
How can it be the “only honest one to make” when you don’t believe in it! ?
…The definition of nothing leads one to consider that such a state or non-existence is an impossibility...…
-specifically, the non-existence of time before time began (because there was no “before&ldquo😉 -actually, even this isn’t quite logically correct because, to be more precise, such a thing is neither “possible” or “impossible” but it is literally meaningless to talk about “time before time” (even if you think there is meaning there!). It is a bit like talking about “the end of the circumference of a circle”.
…You are saying that it's impossible for there to be or ever have been "nothing"...
I am saying it makes no sense to even think there is “nothing” outside time.
…and you are also saying that it's impossible for time to not exist. ...
Impossible for time to not exist when?
…What logical alternative do you have left? ..........answer below … ~eternity. …
I have no rational reason I can think of to doubt that time has no end (although I cannot scientifically totally rule out the possibility!), -so, in that sense, I do think time is “eternal“!
But, how does it logically follow from what you have said that time cannot have a beginning? Are you saying that because “it's impossible for time to not exist” that it cannot have a beginning? If so, exactly at which point in time is it impossible for time to not exist? -the answer is at no point in time can time not exist -but that doesn’t rule out a beginning of time because, IF we assume time DID have a beginning, there are no “points of time” before time existed for that time to not exist in and, the reason for that is because there was no “before” time existed.
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow can it be the “only honest one to make” when you don’t believe in it! ?
[b]…. I also do not believe in this nothingness I define either but I believe the definition is the only honest one to make...…
How can it be the “only honest one to make” when you don’t believe in it! ?
…The definition of nothing leads one to consider that such a state or non-existence is an impossibility...…
-specifically, the ime to not exist in and, the reason for that is because there was no “before” time existed.[/b]
---------------hamilton------------
Duh? I can define nothingness without believing it exists. Just the same as you have a clear definition of God which you also don't believe exists.
My definition of nothingness is very simple......it's ....erhem....nothing! No time , no space , no nuffink.....easy! Why are you complicating it?
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut, how does it logically follow from what you have said that time cannot have a beginning? Are you saying that because “it's impossible for time to not exist” that it cannot have a beginning? If so, exactly at which point in time is it impossible for time to not exist? -the answer is at no point in time can time not exist -but that doesn’t rule out a beginning of time because, IF we assume time DID have a beginning, there are no “points of time” before time existed for that time to not exist in and, the reason for that is because there was no “before” time existed.---------hamilton------------------
[b]…. I also do not believe in this nothingness I define either but I believe the definition is the only honest one to make...…
How can it be the “only honest one to make” when you don’t believe in it! ?
…The definition of nothing leads one to consider that such a state or non-existence is an impossibility...…
-specifically, the ...[text shortened]... ime to not exist in and, the reason for that is because there was no “before” time existed.[/b]
This is hilarious and great stuff as well. I am not mocking you here because I see what you are saying.
I think where you are going wrong is the idea that in order for time to not exist it needs to have "a point in time" to not exist in. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent.
In order for something to "need" time to exist or not exist in it needs to actually be something . But since nothingness ISN'T anything how can it rely on anything else. It has no need of time because "it" actually isn't an "it" at all. To say that no time needs time to exist in is paradoxical and meaningless.
The idea that everything must have "a point in time" in order to exist is obviously paradoxical because how does time then begin in and of itself? Time must itself logically be an exception to the rule because it can begin where there is no time and no before.
What I am saying is this - time can have a beginning but it can only have a beginning if the state which we might call "nothingness" or "no time" is a reality. If time has a beginning then time is not continuous and time began "from" no time.
You and I both find this idea illogical and paradoxical. My point is that the only alternative is then that time is eternal and has no beginning or end. It must be infinite in both "directions". This is a long way from a theistic God but it supports the idea that existence is logically eternal (without beginning or end)