The Void of nothing

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Neither.

Eternity is time dependant. Time is a property of the universe, not something external to it.

You have stated that the universe has a beginning. Would you care to give me one example from reality of something that has a beginning, which has NOT been brought into being by something else?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Either
1.The universe has existed for all eternity, has no beginning, and was not brought into being.
Or
2.The universe has not existed for all eternity, has a beginning, and was brought into being.
Which one is it?

3. The universe might have a beginning, yet still have not been 'brought into being.'
I cant answer the eternity bit without the definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
3. The universe might have a beginning, yet still have not been 'brought into being.'
I cant answer the eternity bit without the definition.

So in other words you are just speculating?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You have stated that the universe has a beginning. Would you care to give me one example from reality of something that has a beginning, which has NOT been brought into being by something else?

All things within the universe at the non-quantum level are subject to cause and effect, because of the presence of time. This is not true of the universe itself, since time is a property of the universe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So in other words you are just speculating?

There are these wonderful things called books - I think you'd enjoy reading them, and would benefit greatly from the experience.

You can get quite a lot of them from this website www.amazon.com

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All things within the universe at the non-quantum level are subject to cause and effect, because of the presence of time. This is not true of the universe itself, since time is a property of the universe.

You are just arguing in cricles.

Let me lay out the premises clearly:

1.Everything in reality which has a begninning is caused.
2.The universe is part of reality and has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe is caused.

Which premise do you reject, and why?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are just arguing in cricles.

Let me lay out the premises clearly:

1.Everything in reality which has a begninning is caused.
2.The universe is part of reality and has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe is caused.

Which premise do you reject, and why?

2 and 3

The universe is not a part of reality - it is the totality of reality.

The universe cannot logically be caused. For something to be caused, it requires causality. Causality requires things to happen one after the other, which requires time. Time is a dimension of the universe, not something outside the universe. For the universe to be caused would require time to be external to the universe, which it isn't.

Go wiki "Minkowski space".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
2 and 3

The universe is not a part of reality - it is the totality of reality.

The universe cannot logically be caused. For something to be caused, it requires causality. Causality requires things to happen one after the other, which requires time. Time is a dimension of the universe, not something outside the universe. For the u ...[text shortened]... ld require time to be external to the universe, which it isn't.

Go wiki "Minkowski space".

The universe is not a part of reality - it is the totality of reality.

So how do you know for sure that nothing exists apart from the universe?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me lay out the premises clearly:

1.Everything in reality which has a begninning is caused.
2.The universe is part of reality and has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe is caused.

Which premise do you reject, and why?

I reject both of them and have already done so in previous posts. I therefore reject the conclusion 3. (which is not a premise by the way.)

[edit]
I reject 1. because I have no evidence for it. Physics at the quantum level appears to act randomly and outcomes are based on statistical chance. This implies no specific cause.
More importantly if you include in your definition of reality, things external to the universe then no such claims can be made as no information is available.

I reject 2 because I do not know if there is more to reality than the universe (I do not think so) therefore it may not be part of reality but rather the whole, and I do not know if it has a beginning.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So in other words you are just speculating?

I am speculating that time may be finite, yes. I have said as much throughout this thread. What I am not speculating about is the fact that no one in this thread has yet shown that it is not finite.

There is nothing wrong with speculating and it is better than making claims with nothing to back them up like you and knightmeister have been doing.

I have no problem with you or knightmeister holding the belief that time is infinite or that the universe is 'caused' or any other such beliefs, but when you say it is a logical conclusion based on something else then you should either present the evidence or withdraw the claim.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me lay out the premises clearly:
1.Everything in reality which has a begninning is caused.
2.The universe is part of reality and has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe is caused.
Which premise do you reject, and why?

To demonstrate the flaw in your logic:
Would you agree that everything you know of in reality has a beginning?
Do you therefore conclude that everything in reality has a beginning?
You believe that God exists.
Therefore God has a beginning and was caused.
So what caused God?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I reject both of them and have already done so in previous posts. I therefore reject the conclusion 3. (which is not a premise by the way.)

[edit]
I reject 1. because I have no evidence for it. Physics at the quantum level appears to act randomly and outcomes are based on statistical chance. This implies no specific cause.
More importantly if you inc ...[text shortened]... ore it may not be part of reality but rather the whole, and I do not know if it has a beginning.

You have yet to provide an example of anything within reality that can be demonstrated to have a begining but no cause.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To demonstrate the flaw in your logic:
Would you agree that everything you know of in reality has a beginning?
Do you therefore conclude that everything in reality has a beginning?
You believe that God exists.
Therefore God has a beginning and was caused.
So what caused God?

When did I say that God has a begining?

1. Everything that can be demonstrated to have beginning has a cause.
2. The universe can be demonstrated to have a begnning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

God on the other hand by definition is eternal. Therefore God has no beginning and no end, thus God needs no cause.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You have yet to provide an example of anything within reality that can be demonstrated to have a begining but no cause.

I do not need to. But I have provided an example of things that are not known to have a cause which includes all activity of matter and energy at a quantum level. The apparent 'cause' observed at greater scales is merely a result of statistics and probability.

Originally posted by dj2becker
When did I say that God has a begining?

1. Everything that can be demonstrated to have beginning has a cause.
2. The universe can be demonstrated to have a begnning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

God on the other hand by definition is eternal. Therefore God has no beginning and no end, thus God needs no cause.

Did you just miss the point or intentionally avoid it?
Please re-read my post and answer the questions.

You still have not defined eternal.