Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.
No, I profess NOT to know.
I looked up why time must have a beginning.
Stephen Hawking said that since the universe has not existed forever, then neither did time.
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
How long do you think there was a time without time?
What is the shape of a triangle with 4 corners?
How do you draw a square with 3 lines?
What is the shape of a triangle with 4 corners?
How do you draw a square with 3 lines?
Just because there was nothing to measure it, doesn't mean there wasn't time.
That's what I'm saying.
An "eternal" gawd is an attribute not uncommon to inventions of gawds other than your gawds.What is the shape of a triangle with 4 corners?
How do you draw a square with 3 lines?
Just because there was nothing to measure it, doesn't mean there wasn't time.
That's what I'm saying.
There wasn't time until time was created. There's no such thing as time before time.
That's the whole point my questions are teaching you.
It's as meaningless as asking what's the shape of a 4 sided triangle.
One attribute of God is God is eternal. E = without ternal = time.
Or simply put, all things that have a beginning was caused.
There wasn't time until time was created. There's no such thing as time before time.
That's the whole point my questions are teaching you. Asking how long (time sense) before time was created is as meaningless as asking what's the shape of a 4 sided triangle.
Simply put, all things that have a beginning are caused to begin. Time has a beginning, therefore time was caused to begin.
One attribute of God is God is eternal. E = without ternal = time.
God is without time. He has no beginning and no end.
There wasn't time until time was created. There's no such thing as time before time.
That's the whole point my questions are teaching you. Asking how long (time sense) before time was created is as meaningless as asking what's the shape of a 4 sided triangle.
Simply put, all things that have a beginning are caused to begin. Time has a beginning, therefore time was caused to begin.
One attribute of God is God is eternal. E = without ternal = time.
God is without time. He has no beginning and no end.
If you want to get technical, time (much like the point of a triangle) is a concept that was created by humans. In that case, time is either eternal, as something that existed even before it could be conceptualized, or it is much younger than the universe.
LoL and gravity is a concept that was created by humans. Whatever the label, time is still what it is.
And then you went on to say:
Time is either without time (violation of the law of noncontradiction) or is much younger than the universe (violation of relativity).
LoL and gravity is a concept that was created by humans. Whatever the label, time is still what it is.
And then you went on to say:
Time is either without time (violation of the law of noncontradiction) or is much younger than the universe (violation of relativity).
No, gravity is a real phenomenon that was discovered by humans.
Time is a concept, a measurement based on how the earth rotates. But does the rotation of the earth cause time? I say no. Nor do I think that time depends upon the existence of the universe.
And there it is. You fall back to logical fallacies. Like I pointed it out in the beginning, your whole argument is fallacious.
Arguments from self-knowing:
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
Also
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
Also, did you read that link you posted? It ends with, "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. . . ."
Why does he make that statement? Because he was forced to accept that time had a beginning by mathematical proofs.
And there it is. You fall back to logical fallacies. Like I pointed it out in the beginning, your whole argument is fallacious.
Arguments from self-knowing:
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
Also
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
How do we know time has passed? One of the ways we know is through change. The sky changes during the day and night, seasons change, for the long term, our bodies change with age. If the universe went from nothing to something, that is a huge change. Even if it was practically instantaneous, the time from nothing to something was a change that involved time.
Also, did you read that link you posted? It ends with, "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. . . ."
Why does he make that statement? Because he was forced to accept that time had a beginning by mathematical proofs.
Not only did I read it, I paraphrased that very same conclusion that you quoted. I had the temerity to disagree.
The whole point of this thread is that at the end of the road atheists fall back to a denial of reality.
You disagree that time exists.
QED.
The whole point of this thread is that at the end of the road atheists fall back to a denial of reality.
You disagree that time exists.
QED.
I'm sorry, it's a complex subject, and I must not be very clear on my views.
I believe that time has always existed. And always will.
Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.
1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.
You follow that so far?
2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.
Still with me?
3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.
Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.
You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.
It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.
But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.
There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.
You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.
So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.
| synonyms: | sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction "a religious cult" |
