Does everything have a start?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"I just read the first line. I reread it and for that matter, the conception of the Big Bang as the start is false, it is just the farthest point it time that we can go back (actually it is the planck epoch). The initial singularity, if it ever permitted by the laws of physics, could have been eternal, i don't know and that's it. I do not pretend to have the truth.
"God seems to of created time and space".
Again, it could be an intelligent (not necessary sentient) entity, but it not an absolute necessity. Do you realize that if yo have to do a computer simulation, you have to already exist in some sort of space-time?
What if your God itself is in a computer simulation?..."
This one numbered #19
[removed by moderator, read it here]
1. We are in agreement.
2 is being contradicted by 3. How can god act if there is no time, time as we conceive and experience it?
"God and logic in harmony..."
Believing something that is unfalsifiable, and that you can therefore demonstrate no evidence for, is the very definition of irrational.
The proposition 'there is a God' is probably unfalsifiable.
But so is the proposition 'there is no God'.
I have demonstrated a lot of evidence for the 1st, you have demonstrated none for the 2nd
You made the observation that "You do not get to explain a mystery with a greater mystery..." Would you say that this principle should apply to science with equal force as you suggest it should to philosophy?
You are reading the wrong books and/or misreading Wikipedia; it says nothing at all about about the creation of time. Planck time is just a constant; nothing to do with what Im talking about...
Time is fundamental to the universe is implied by special relativity and no serious scientists disagree with special relativity.
The creation of the universe / Big Bang was a Macroscopic phenomenon, and our best Macroscopic theory, General Relativity postulate time was created at the Big Bang.
As @Sheldon said, it is an unfalsifiable premise.
If something cannot come from nothing, then everything must be eternal, with no creator. But that is not falsifiable.
It does not follow that in such a situation that time must be finite. Time itself could be infinite and circular. But that is not falsifiable.
"If something cannot come from nothing, then everything must be eternal, with no creator. But that is not falsifiable."
It is falsifiable:
P1 If everything is eternal then time had no start
P2 If time had no start, then it has no middle/end
P3 If time does not exist then we are not here
C1 Time had a start.
Please explain to me how you would exist without a start (IE without being born).
Circular time would be finite. IE the same time co-ordinates again and again on the circle. IE we'd all live the same lives again and again:
It is not falsifiable as you cannot determine whether everything is eternal or whether time had a start.
I would exist within the laws of nature, as a form of matter.
The edge of a circle is infinite.
"It is not falsifiable as you cannot determine whether everything is eternal or whether time had a start."
Yes I can:
- Assume everything is eternal
- then time has no start
- If time had no start, then it has no middle or end
- hence we don't exist
- Reductio ad absurdum, time had a start, nothing is eternal
"I would exist within the laws of nature, as a form of matter."
- Without your birth you would not exist as a human; how could you if you never your mothers womb
- Everything related to you becomes undefined if we remove your start
"The edge of a circle is infinite."
- its an example of Potential Infinity rather than Actual Infinity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity), in that you can potentially keep going around for ever but can never actually go around for ever
Assuming that everything is eternal is an assumption, not a proof.
Time is merely the measure of how long it takes for processes to take place. We do not need time to have a start in order to exist.
I don't disagree with you in general terms that I have a past, present, and future. As long as there is matter, I will exist in one form or another. I do not necessarily need a start.
Its a proof by contradiction. I assumed the opposite of what I wanted to prove and generated a contradiction...
If you believe in Einstein's stuff you have starts and ends in 4D space-time... Past, present and future all exist and are real.
It isn't a matter of attempting to prove something by contradiction. The two opposing premises are not falsifiable and so can neither be proven true or false.
Either time is infinite or it is finite. I just proved that infinite leads to a contradiction therefore it must be finite.
You proved nothing of the sort.
I did proof it already but I'll give you a different type of proof as well:
- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Answer that and I'll concede that the universe is infinite...
That absolutely proves nothing. You’ve offered a word game, that’s it.
No, its the impossibility of the actually infinite I have proved (by assuming something was infinite and deriving a contradiction).
If you don't like that one, try the Measure problem:
- Assume time is eternal.
- If it can happen it will happen.
- An infinite number of times.
- No matter how unlikely it was in the first place!
- So all things happen an infinite number of times.
- So all things are equally likely.
- Reductio ad absurdum.
- Time is not eternal
So any time you assume time is infinite you get all these paradoxes and paradoxes mean you have a wrong assumption; IE time is finite.
You may think those conclusions about infinity are absurd, but they are nonetheless true.
However, the probability of something happening is determined within a sequence of finite length or a sample of finite size.
Yes, infinity breaks probability as well as reeking logical havoc everywhere else.
Look at it this way:
- There is no evidence from the real world of the infinite (unless you can give a counter example?)
- There is masses of evidence from the real world of the finite
- Hence we can conclude the empirical evidence supports the proposition 'actual infinity does not occur in reality'
The concept of infinity has had great utility. I'm not quite sure why you introduced the qualifier of the "real" world.
No, he is actually being quite rational. The logic of it may escape someone, but that does not make it unreasonable. His point is solid.
If everything is eternal, it is meaningless to ask what stage it is at.
Planck Time is the breaking down of constants. Modern physics breaks down at Planck time. Nothing called time, space or matter can be measured beyond Planck time. You do not get to assert an intelligent Creator. PROVE IT>
EQUIVOCATION FALLACY: Please explain to me how you would exist without a start (IE without being born). You are arguing about the local universe or cosmoses and not an individual. Stay on topic.
"EQUIVOCATION FALLACY: Please explain to me how you would exist without a start (IE without being born). You are arguing about the local universe or cosmoses and not an individual. Stay on topic."
OK: Please explain how the universe would exist without the Big Bang?
IE: Everything has a start in time and space.
P1 Time has a start (see previous argument)
P2 Creating time takes intelligence
P3 The universe is fine tuned for life
C1 Therefore the universe was created by something(s) intelligent
I, for one, do not accept your premises.
You cannot have something greater than the whole. To invoke an intelligence as creating reality is to add a supernatural element.
Being in an universe where you are able to speculate that the universe must be fine-tuned for life does not mean you are in an universe that is fine tuned for life. Rather, it means that you are not in an universe where you are unable to speculate that the universe is fine tuned for life.