09 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHaving been in the All Suite Hotel Business (in CA, OR and WA) "Hilbert's Hotel" fascinates me.
Discuss. 😏
Optimal Occupancy and Total Stay Guest Satisfaction always ranked as a dominant priority:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
Note: Interesting to View Heaven as An Infinite Hotel with An Infinite Number of Rooms:
[] [] [] [] [] >> "Alligator looking to eat the bigger number" [5 Is Significant in the Bible]
.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnything that didn't always exist, wouldn't be God.
I agree that God has always existed, but I do not understand why.
But -- did time have a beginning? If it didn't how did it get to be now, after all, it would take an infinite amount of time to have elapsed before now.
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by JS357A faulty argument I am afraid. See Zeno's paradox for comparison.
But -- did time have a beginning? If it didn't how did it get to be now, after all, it would take an infinite amount of time to have elapsed before now.
What exactly is wrong with an infinite amount of time elapsing before now? Nothing thats what.
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf all four dimensions of spacetime had a beginning (modern cosmology says it did) then you can't have had an infinite amount of time yet. It may be that time is like the natural numbers in having a starting point (1 for natural numbers) but then has infinite extent. But we don't know that and, unlike the natural numbers, its infinite extent cannot be proved.
A faulty argument I am afraid. See Zeno's paradox for comparison.
What exactly is wrong with an infinite amount of time elapsing before now? Nothing thats what.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe conclusion on p 303 of the following link speaks to the infinite time series issue WRT the Kalam first cause argument for the existence of God:
A faulty argument I am afraid. See Zeno's paradox for comparison.
What exactly is wrong with an infinite amount of time elapsing before now? Nothing thats what.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/metaphysical-time.pdf
It concludes that conceivably (without logical contradiction) the universe came about as a result of the nth event in a beginning-less series of causally dependent events, (my words) thus there is no necessity to conclude that there is (or was) a first cause. It is just that the events that preceded the event that directly caused the universe, did not themselves directly cause that universe.
Perhaps one of those previous events (possibly the (n-1)th) directly caused an entity that directly caused the universe.
The roll-up of the preceding beginning-less series of events into God, is covered in Godel, Escher and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter, and referenced at:
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/Summer2009/ABjorndahl/extension.html
and previously discussed in a 2011 thread called "What created God?"
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerEvents occurring independently of the existence of this spatio-temporal universe would by definition not be occurring in any dimension of this universe. It might not make sense, or may be incoherent, to speak of such events as occurring temporally "before" events that occur in this universe.
If all four dimensions of spacetime had a beginning (modern cosmology says it did) then you can't have had an infinite amount of time yet. It may be that time is like the natural numbers in having a starting point (1 for natural numbers) but then has infinite extent. But we don't know that and, unlike the natural numbers, its infinite extent cannot be proved.
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by JS357What if there actually isn't anything outside this universe? We cannot know if that is the case or not.
Events occurring independently of the existence of this spatio-temporal universe would by definition not be occurring in any dimension of this universe. It might not make sense, or may be incoherent, to speak of such events as occurring temporally "before" events that occur in this universe.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerI guess we need to define what it takes for something to exist outside this universe. Not having existence in any of our spatio-temporal dimensions, but having existence in some sort of space-time?
What if there actually isn't anything outside this universe? We cannot know if that is the case or not.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadnice bunch of posts, i doth my cap.
10. Now he suddenly brings up the concept of a timeless, space-less, immaterial entity, but doesn't seem to understand the consequences of such a claim.
11. He claims it is supernatural, but defines that as not subject to the laws of physics, but his argument is based on the assumption that the being created the laws of physics - not something he has pro ...[text shortened]... to this video? You thought that was a good argument? Or did you just like the conclusion?
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by JS357If there isn't anything outside our universe then there aren't any dimensions outside it. This would be it, all that is. If there is something outside our universe it could have the same number of dimensions but be larger (I am 3D and I fit in a sufficiently large 3D box) or it might have more dimensions. Our universe is now thought to have 11 dimensions by some, although that would be tested is another matter.
I guess we need to define what it takes for something to exist outside this universe. Not having existence in any of our spatio-temporal dimensions, but having existence in some sort of space-time?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Mar 13
It concludes that conceivably (without logical contradiction) the universe came about as a result of the nth event in a beginning-less series of causally dependent events, (my words) thus there is no necessity to conclude that there is (or was) a first cause. It is just that the events that preceded the event that directly caused the universe, did not themselves directly cause that universe.
A beginning-less series of causally dependent events is an infinity of events.
It seems you are saying that infinity was traversed and today was arrived at. But if forever had to be traversed it would be forever before today could arrive. Then today would never arrive.
If the series of causal events was not an infinite series but had a start, then today could be arrived at.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerOK, if you start with the assumption that spacetime had a beginning then there is no point to the argument because the argument is trying to prove that spacetime had a beginning.
If all four dimensions of spacetime had a beginning (modern cosmology says it did) then you can't have had an infinite amount of time yet.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipIf that argument held any water, then it could be used to prove that the number zero didn't exist or that the future was finite. The flaw is in that you are assuming the existence of a number 'infinity' then placing a starting point on it.
A beginning-less series of causally dependent events is an [b]infinity of events.
It seems you are saying that infinity was traversed and today was arrived at. But if forever had to be traversed it would be forever before today could arrive. Then today would never arrive.
If the series of causal events was not an infinite series but had a start, then today could be arrived at.[/b]