RJG wrote: ↑March 11th, 2019, 7:22 am
So then do you agree with me that space and matter was "not created" (had "no start point")? ...Yes/No?
I think it was most likely that there was some pre-existing matter and more matter was created during the Big Bang / Eternal inflation. The pre-existing matter is timeless so it needs no start point in time; it does not exist in time (it has a start point in all of its spacial dimensions).
RJG wrote: ↑March 11th, 2019, 7:22 am
Devans99 wrote:If you think of a 1-dimensional world (a finite line), it could be embedded in another 1-dimensional world (a longer finite line). So what is time in the first world could map to what is space in the second world. So time could have a start.
This is just "turtles-all-the-way-down" (a form of infinite regress). Claiming that another God created our God is not an explanation for the creation of our God (nor is claiming another time created our time). This only avoids the question by "kicking-the-can-down-the-road".
No it is not an infinite regress; it is a solution to the infinite regress problem:
Something outside time is beyond cause and effect so it can be an uncaused cause (it does not need to be created itself). Hence no infinite regress required.
Your model requires an infinite regress in time, which is impossible, proof:
1. The number of items in a infinite regress is greater than any possible number
2. Contradiction, can’t be a number and greater than any number
My model does not require an infinite regress.
RJG wrote: ↑March 11th, 2019, 7:22 am
Devans99 wrote:1. Stuff does not have start (call that t=0)
2. Implies Stuff does not have a next to start (t=1)
3. etc for t=2, t=3 ...
4. Implies Stuff does not have middle (t=k)
5. etc...
6. Implies Stuff does not have end (t=n)
7. Implies Stuff does not exist
Devans, no offense, but this is not a proper syllogism. Your logic needs to logically connect the "absence of a starting point" (and middle, and end point if you want) to the conclusion, the "impossibility of its existence", which it currently does not. You are essentially making the blanket statement
"stuff that doesn't have a start, can't exist", but not showing the logic that connects the "no starting point" --> to it's "non-existence".
It’s perfectly valid reasoning:
1. Stuff does not have start
2. If stuff does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start and [1] says that stuff does not have a start)
3. So stuff does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on 1 and 2).
4. (And so on for the rest of the proof)
RJG wrote: ↑March 11th, 2019, 7:22 am
Devans99 wrote:I guess not everyone will accept this argument though, hence all the others I gave in the OP. For example, you must agree that an infinite being is impossible? So that would make infinite existence impossible too, for example:
A. ‘Infinite Being’ is impossible
B. ‘Being’ is possible
C. Is there something about ‘Being’ that makes ‘Infinite Being’ impossible? No
D. So it must be that infinite is not possible
Again, this is not logically coherent (valid or sound).
In essence, you are saying:
"Red bananas are impossible, therefore the color red is impossible."
Not a very good example you have chosen:
A. ‘Red bananas’ are impossible
B. ‘Banana’ is possible (you missed this bit)
C. Is there something about ‘Banana’ that makes ‘red’ impossible? No
D So it must be that ‘red’ is impossible
Again this is perfectly valid logic (red bananas are in fact deductively possible so its not a good example). A better example:
A. Iced lollies below absolute zero are impossible
B. Iced lollies are possible
C. Is there something about ‘Iced lollies’ that makes ‘below absolute zero’ impossible? No
D. So below absolute zero is impossible