Not semantics, not really. We know that time exists (whatever exactly it means for time to exist), and we have some grasp of what it is, which is also reflected in the way we think and speak of it through geometric analogies. Based on this understanding, it seems to me possible, as I argued, that time have a beginning.
Complete with respect to what? With respect to a statement of every premise? (Possible, I will try and probably fail) With respect to the complete elaboration of every notion involved ?(not likely possible and I won’t try) Or to answer every possible objection in advance? (Also won’t try, but I’ll see what I can do about objections folks raise.)
We know it exists as a characteristic of the physical universe, your argument is dealing with what existed or did not before the universe we currently observe existed, so when we use words like beginning it is a type of false equivalence fallacy.
No, we can only evidence a beginning if time exists, and we don’t know what existed before the big bang.
Beginning
noun
- the point in time or space at which something begins.
Can you demonstrate time or space existed before the universe existed? If not then you can’t demonstrate that the universe began, not in the sense we understand the word.
Offer everything you have, rather than offering it piecemeal as you are doing.
I’ll need you to spell this out more to respond to it further than I have.
The discussion of the last few posts has been an attempt to explain what we mean by beginning and why we can coherently say it of the beginning of time, or of the universe even if, which I already conceded, there is no time before the universe.
Actually we don’t know that either, and thus we cannot use the word beginning, as it donates a point in time or space. I already posted the definition of beginning more than once.
Lets try an analogy, if we see a train emerge from a tunnel then the we have a point in time when we began to see the train, but we have reasons to believe it existed before that point in space and time. Now if time is a physical characteristic of the train we currently observe, then we don’t know (in this analogy) what existed before we saw the train, so we cannot demonstrate that the train began to exist at the point we saw it. Let alone that it needed a cause, since all the causes we observe occur within the temporal universe or dependant on us observing this train.
You are claiming the train began to exist at the point we saw it, you are claiming it needed a cause, you are claiming the cause was a deity. All I see is a train, and a point beyond which we cannot observe what did or did not exist.
2 Likes
Have to? This is bizarre. The universe exists but doesn’t ‘have to.’ We are a product of what occurs in the universe but certainly don’t ‘have to’ be a part of that process. There is no "have to’ in anything I can think of.
You would have to demonstrate a cause was "necessary.’ You would need to demonstrate your first necessary cause was not natural. Before you can postulate a god did it, you have to demonstrate god is a possibility., (You are working backward.) We all agree everything is here, you don’t get to simply assert a god did it. Why would you call a naturally occurring universe God?
Well, so far, you are not off to a good start. Would you like to try again? You have no justification for calling the origin of a universe, “God caused.” I can use the same argument to assert “Blue Universe Creating Bunny caused” Where is this god thing you speak of. You must demonstrate it exists and that it is a possible cause., All your work is before you.
From what I have seen so far… You are wrong.
3 Likes
Yes that leaped out at me as well, I did inquire, and got no answer.
To me it seems like an assumption one might make, if one held an a priori belief that there was a reason for existence? Just a thought, since when I questioned the claim I never got an answer.
Exactly what I thought, unless of course one was starting from the assumption or belief there was a cause, and that bias clouded one to assume this, as I have seen happen in religious apologetics many times.
Well there you go, precisely what I told him.
Indeed, falling at the very first premise is not a good sign.
2 Likes
I have no issue at present with saying that the beginning is a point in time. But I am adding that point can be taken as a one side limit, or as end point, in this way, we can speak of a first moment of time. It’s improper, but not incoherent.
Let’s go with your example of the train, without which there is no time, because
Though I suspect this complicates things.
There is a sense in which time is a property of things as observable, but if the property is of the train as currently observed, then it is not a property of the train at all, but of my act of observation of the train. Pure observation does not confer real properties.
But let’s say for a moment that the train actually doesn’t exist until it emerges from the tunnel, then you should say coherently that time (at least for this universe) begins upon the emergence of the train from the tunnel. This emergence is the event at which both time and our hypothetical train universe begins to exist.
Here we perfectly agree.
And this very point is where I where I will begin my argument for God’s existence.
Only after the big bang, we can reduce this to Planck time, but we don’t know what existed or did not before that,
We can’t assume that, only that time as we observe it is a physical characteristic of that train / universe.
You would need to demonstrate this, and it already seems dubious, since we can objectively demonstrate that the universe we currently observe has existed for billions of years before we observed it.
Why would we say that when we can’t objectively demonstrate it?
Except you are basing on this on an assertion you cannot demonstrate, again, and again the word begins is misleading for the same reasons already explained.
No, this is the point at which we first observe the train, we cannot say what exited before this.
Your first premise is the universe began to exist, and my objection is that began is misleading here. I think you need to move on to your next premise and the rest of your argument now, as my objections are duly noted.
1 Like
Sorry to butt in so late, and feel free to tell me to piss off, but I couldn’t get past this…
Hmmm, while a constructed timeline, such as might be used to describe the unfolding of an observed event could have end points, the “timeline of all existence” has not been shown to have end points, and neither has the current presentation of our universe, as the Big Bang is generally viewed as an event from which we base our understanding and measurement of the thing we call time, and
since time has not been demonstrated to even be a relevant issue “prior” to B.B., it cannot be declared that “end points” are a relevant concept to project beyond the observable or that which we have constructed for utilitarian purposes.
Unless we are to adopt unique definitions of words such as “beginning”, we are currently prohibited from applying such notions of finite, as it might apply to our accepted concepts of time, to that which may or may not have what we call an existence.
Anyone is free to assign the word “beginning” to an observable or even hypothetical point, but again, beyond the utilitarian establishment of such, it becomes an obvious exercise in an unverifiable assertion. (imo)
4 Likes
Metrologist,
YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE TO EMBARRASSED TO TELL US WHAT PRIMITIVE GOD YOU WORSHIP: “The fish aren’t biting here mr Iconoclast.”
Listen, I can understand that in the 21st century where the earth is known as a sphere, where all 3 Abrahamic gods stated it was flat, there is an embarrassment for you to admit which one of these gods you worship at the expense of more laughter towards you, of which I personally would (TEXT REMOVED BY MOD) on any specific god concept, understood!
Just imagine in what specific Abrahamic god you worship looking down upon you now in not being able to say you worship him because you are to SCARED to be easily made the fool in this Atheist Forum for doing so! Priceless!
NEXT RELIGIONIST LIKE … “METROLOGIST” … THAT IS OBVIOUSLY TO EMBARRASSED TO SAY WHICH GOD THEY WORSHIP, WILL BE …?
.
FYI to all: @21stCenturyIconoclas has been permanently banned. S/he came off a six month suspension recently and re-offended in the post above. Wave bye-bye.
4 Likes
Could we have a citation for this please?
Again then, it is too scared, not to (sic) scared, and he never expressed fear anywhere?
Oh ffs…it’s too not to (sic), and please refrain from this pointless rhetoric, as it is not debate, and is far more embarrassing than anything @TheMetrologist has posted.
2 Likes
Many many thanks…
2 Likes
Lets say we start with 2 identical particle and ten minutes later you find that one has decayed. If we say that decay was caused by X, we have the problem that X caused a difference to appear between two identical objects. It means X can distinguish between two indistinguishable objects: a contradiction.
The distribution isn’t random, but each decay is random. And that is enough to discard the philosopher’s complaint about causes and effects.
3 Likes
No. You are moving the goalposts. Your claim was that existence must be proven before claims about e.g. properties (“relevant claims”) could be made:
(Btw., I take it you mean “prove” as in having strong evidence for, like a strong Popperian sense confirmation, and not actually prove as in the mathematical sense.)
I did a quick net search for “particles predicted before discovery”, and I found this:
Padmanath and Nilmani predicted the quantum numbers of these newly discovered Ωc-0 baryons which were otherwise unknown experimentally. Infact, Padmanath’s thesis work predicted the masses of these particles four year before their discovery.
In other words, your claim has been disproven by counterexample.
3 Likes
| Particle | Theorized | Discovered |
|---|---|---|
| higgs | 1964 | 2011 |
| — | ||
| T quark | 1973 | 1995 |
| B quark | 1973 | 1977 |
| S quark | 1964 | 1968 |
| C quark | 1964 | 1974 |
| U quark | 1964 | 1967 |
| D quark | 1964 | 1968 |
| — | ||
| positron | 1928 | 1932 |
| — | ||
| E neutrino | 1930 | 1956 |
I’m going to stop here, but there are plenty more.
3 Likes
Of course. Just wanted a trivial example to quote that addressed the prediction of properties before actual discovery.
2 Likes
of course! 
1 Like