The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Monk Of Reason]

If something is Atemporal then it lacks one of the vital dimensions that is required to exist within this universe. For example what if god was only a 2 dimensional being. Similarly how could he provided "cause and effect" in a temporal universe when he himself is atemporal?

Its like saying something without height would push something "up" when it doesn't have a measurement in that direction.

 

[cottage]

But if the universe (all space, time, energy, matter; STEM) is eternal, then infinities, the same infinites that you agree are impossible/incoherent, would have to be traversed. No way out of that one.

I have never claimed that the universe is eternal! In fact I’ve given arguments on this forum to the very opposite. All matter is contingent and finite.

I find it more than a coincidence that both arguments makes a case for a supernatural/necessary being, they are distinct arguments, yet in the end you wind up at the exact same place...a supernatural and necessary being that does not depend on anything for its own existence. More than a coincidenky.

But if you have the absolute conviction that Plantinger’s tautology demonstrates the actual existence of God (and I don’t believe for a moment that you do, incidentally), then that should suffice as the complete truth for you.

Wait a minute, am I missing something here? If Pegasus cannot be wingless (by nature), and Cyclops cannot be bifocal (by nature), then if you conceive of both doing something contrary to their nature, then you are not actually conceiving them, but something else with their names attached to it. You are doing the same thing with respect to a MGB.

(!) I cannot conceive of a wingless Pegasus or a two-eyed Cyclops, but I can conceive of them not existing.

I can conceive of a scenario at which God, before the universe was created, existed atemporally (timelessly). The only way I can think of this is if God himself was completely motionless/stationary...yet content. Now, if God was in this state for eternity, then there is no concept of time, because there was no moments prior to God in his motionless state, and if there were no moments prior, there can't be any moments after.
Now, when at the very INSTANT that God began to create, it was at that INSTANT that time began, and time continues to go on and and on and on into a potentially infinite future.

What you said would be an excellent refutation, IF the argument was that God continues to exist atemporally (without time) AFTER creation of the universe. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and temporal after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.

That is the most absurd, world-centric argument for God that I’ve ever seen.
And an immutable (and changeless) God changed himself!
And instantaneous causation is an impossible concept. One thing must precede another. The idea, notion or will must logically be antecedent to the action. Think about it. If it were otherwise God and the Universe would be the same thing.
Worst of all, it has already been shown that a supposedly self-sufficient God created the world because he had unfulfilled wishes or desires, and now it is further confirmed that the existence of the world was God’s raison d’être, his very reason for being. He even changed himself incontrovertibly it seems, in order to bring about the world of creatures. I'm sorry but it is plain ridiculous!

And Premise 1 is?

It is claimed that God nust exist in reality, and so:

P1. An entity that exists in experience, (if experience is a part of reality), as well as being logically demonstrable, is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration. This must be true, but it it also leads to a reductio ad absurdum (more on which later).

 

[cottage]

Yes it does, cot. I am not talking about specific things, I am talking about the material universe as a WHOLE. The whole chain of events from past eternity which would include all STEM and causality in general. You can't (logically) say that the material universe in its entirety is contingent. If it is contingent, that would mean that it didn't have to be here, so what can cause the universe to be here that is also excluded/external from the universe...NOTHING..if God is completely out of the equation, that is.

Yes, I am saying that, exactly that. The universe, i.e. everything, doesn’t have to be here. And that is entirely consistent with all that we know (and with every argument I’ve made on this forum). Your argument is founded on a belief that causality (a contingent principle) functions outside of the universe. If it did, according to your reasoning, then it would have to be necessary, and yet it is not! The only thing we know for sure is that the world exists. And that’s more than can be said of God.

And by saying that, you are giving me your standard of what it means to be merciful. So you are entering the discussion with a presupposition, which you have no basis on having whatsoever. First of all, "merciful" is subjective anyway, as is evident because I completely disagree with you with the meaning of the word.

I really don’t mind which term we use, and so we’ll go with 'omnibenevolent', if you like? So, the infant dying from Leukemia, where is the benevolence – never mind omnibenevolence?

And my goodness...call it Divine Intervention...but I would like to share with you a direct quote from one of my fb friend on his status...it says:

"I appreciate the rough days! Who wants everything to be perfect all the time?? Not me!!! The struggles and hardships make you better baby!!!"

Now suppose God inflicted hardships upon him to make him "better"?

There’s the contradiction demonstrated once again!

There has to be evil if you allow individuals to have free will!!! You cannot guarantee that people with the FREEDOM to do whatever they want will do the right thing all of the time, cot. If the goal is for people to have FREE WILL, then evil will come as a result because...newsflash...people do bad things, cot!!!

And do you know how I can tell my rational is on point? Simple, because if a omnibenevolent being existed and he had the power to create human beings, but didn't, then there would be no evil, right? But once he created human beings, there you have it; EVIL!!!

Well, that’s arrant nonsense, to say there has to be evil in order to grant fee will! You are supposing that evil had to already exist as some kind of independent entity and God had no option but to incorporate it as a possible choice, while foreknowing that it would be chosen of course. Evil exists because God caused its existence, and if he didn’t then his power has been usurped by something or somebody else that did! Free will is perfectly possible without evil. And it was within Gods power to enable people to live in a harmonious state without pain and suffering. To say that God couldn’t create a world such as ours without incorporating evil suggests that suffering hasspecial worth or usefulness. That of courseimplies the existence of an even greater evil to be overcome, which simply confirms the presence of great evil.

Yes you are!!! And Christians disagree...God is NOT all merciful, because if he was, there wouldn't be a doctrine of hell, now would it? So your view is just incompatible with traditional Christianity, and it is begging the question anyway.

Thank you! So you now agree with and understand what is meant by ‘All Merciful’, despite your remarks further up the page. And I have no interest in Christian doctrine but am merely observing that there is no omnibenevolent God. But I’m quite happy with your reply, a ‘doctrine of Hell’ etc, as that proves my point nicely.

A being that has necessary existence cannot fail to exist. If you can think of such a being which DOESN'T exist, then you are not thinking of a NECESSARY BEING. You are thinking of a CONTINGENT being.

Omnipresence (ONP) is a concept. Non-omnipresence is also a concept (NOP). Once again, law of excluded middle. You are either ONP, or NOP. There is no grey area. No in-betweens.

Now, to be ONP is to exist in all possible worlds. That is the definition. To be NOP is to be able to exist/not exist some possible words, but NOT all.

Follow me so far?

Now, we are going by the concept, the definition alone...if you say you can conceive of a possible world at which a ONPB (b=being) DOESN'T exist, you've just rendered the ONPB to a NOPB, because that is the definition of a NOPB.

In the very instant that you begin to conceive of a possible world at which a ONPB doesn't exist, you've just changed concepts...it happened that fast...so fast you didn't even know it. The concepts are not the same, and that is what you continue to do.

Well, that’s all rather fanciful, if not absurd: ‘changing concepts’ etc! And you seem to understand the argument as though we must conceptualize an image in our thoughts and then somehow think it into non-existence. I’m not sure if that is even possible. What I’m saying is that any Being that we can distinctly conceive imposes no necessity on our minds (2), and can be conceived not to exist, with just one instance sufficient to prove the contradiction (1). In other words a being that is necessary and ever-present can by definition never be absent, and yet the concept is apparent only when I think of it. And thus there is at least one possible world where no such Being can exist (my mind).

And #3 is based on your misunderstanding of the kalam cosmological argument. If God is timeless before creation, then there is no contingency, because God's act of creation (nor his existence) depends on anything outside of himself. Which is what must happen if your refutation is solid.

I really don’t understand what it is you’re saying (the second sentence), and I think you’ve misread my argument. I’ve made the argument clearer for you:

3) If the Being exists in reality, and if experience is part of reality, then the Being must also exist in experience. But this is impossible since everything in experience can be denied since it is contingent; therefore nothing in experience it is necessary, ever-present and eternal. Therefore there is a possible world, the actual world of experience, in which no Being necessarily exists. So that is another possible world in which God fails to exist. (And I believe that is also in agreement with those theists that say God cannot be both transcendent and immanent.)

See above.

I’ve addressed the ‘above’. Cause is contingent; God is not

So there is no contradiction in something popping into existence completely uncaused out of nothing?

That’s not my argument. You’re implying, absurdly, that nothing can cause or produce something. My argument is that a thing can exist uncaused where before there was nothing (no contradiction).

I will tell you like I tell anyone else...hit me up on messenger.

'Messenger'? That excludes other people from seeing or contributing to the debate. Now why would you want to do that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If something is Atemporal then it lacks one of the vital dimensions that is required to exist within this universe. For example what if god was only a 2 dimensional being. Similarly how could he provided "cause and effect" in a temporal universe when he himself is atemporal?

Its like saying something without height would push something "up" when it doesn't have a measurement in that direction.

No one is saying that God is temporal, Monk. The argument is; God was ATEMPORAL before creation, and TEMPORAL after creation. I thought I made that point very clear.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have never claimed that the universe is eternal! In fact I’ve given arguments on this forum to the very opposite. All matter is contingent and finite.

It really doesn't matter...because whether you think our universe had a beginning as a result of a natural Pre-Big Bang factor, or if you think the universe as a whole is eternal, the problem of infinity still has its ugly face in there.

But if you have the absolute conviction that Plantinger’s tautology demonstrates the actual existence of God (and I don’t believe for a moment that you do, incidentally), then that should suffice as the complete truth for you.

Once you find out what it means to be necessarily true, then the conclusion of the argument is inescapable.

(!) I cannot conceive of a wingless Pegasus or a two-eyed Cyclops, but I can conceive of them not existing.

Then you are thinking of a contingent version of them, but not them.

That is the most absurd, world-centric argument for God that I’ve ever seen.
And an immutable (and changeless) God changed himself!

First off, God was never immutable. He was timeless and changeless before the universe, but that does not mean that he was incapable of change...and the change that he is capable of has absolutely NOTHING to do with his attributes. The attributes that make God a God didn't change at all. He was TIMELESS before the universe, and temporal after the universe...but he is still the same God.

And instantaneous causation is an impossible concept. One thing must precede another. The idea, notion or will must logically be antecedent to the action. Think about it. If it were otherwise God and the Universe would be the same thing.

In order to say "one thing must precede another"...in terms of temporality...then you will have to assume that time is infinite and the past is eternal, which you already agreed with me is an incoherent concept. There is just no way out of it. If we live in a universe where every effect is preceded by a cause, and there was no "first cause", then the past is infinite, so you are right back at the infinity problem, cot

Not to mention the fact that you are just flat out wrong. There is a thing called simultaneous causation. If a bowling ball rested on a cushion for ETERNITY and never moved, the ball is the cause of the pressure on the cushion, despite never preceding the cushion or vice versa. In the same way, when the creation of the first cause (the universe) and time was created, this happened simultaneously. One did not precede the other, but it happened at the same time, and this could only happen if there was a causal agent which did not itself exist in time.

Worst of all, it has already been shown that a supposedly self-sufficient God created the world because he had unfulfilled wishes or desires, and now it is further confirmed that the existence of the world was God’s raison d’être, his very reason for being. He even changed himself incontrovertibly it seems, in order to bring about the world of creatures. I'm sorry but it is plain ridiculous!

I don't get it.

It is claimed that God nust exist in reality, and so:

P1. An entity that exists in experience, (if experience is a part of reality), as well as being logically demonstrable, is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration. This must be true, but it it also leads to a reductio ad absurdum (more on which later).

That is similar to St. Anslem version...he made the case that a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only exists in the mind. But anyhow, cot...Christians believe that God does exist in experience...but you wouldn't accept people's personal experiences...and also, people DID claim that they experienced God...as Jesus is God in the flesh and made his dwelling on earth (John 1:1-14).

So, keep on blocking. :beach:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No one is saying that God is temporal, Monk. The argument is; God was ATEMPORAL before creation, and TEMPORAL after creation. I thought I made that point very clear.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make any sense. Atemporal means not standing in any temporal relations. Being "before" is a temporal relation. Thus, being atemporal before something is contradictory and incoherent. Not only that, but an atemporal being is a being that cannot act, cannot cause anything- such as the creation of a universe- because action/causation entails standing in temporal relations. Also, if God is temporal "after creation", then God is not transcendent, in at least one sense (being subject to temporality), which contradicts many conceptions of God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, I am saying that, exactly that. The universe, i.e. everything, doesn’t have to be here. And that is entirely consistent with all that we know (and with every argument I’ve made on this forum). Your argument is founded on a belief that causality (a contingent principle) functions outside of the universe. If it did, according to your reasoning, then it would have to be necessary, and yet it is not! The only thing we know for sure is that the world exists. And that’s more than can be said of God.

Cot...if the universe didn't have to be here as you admit, then there has to be a reason why it is here, correct? So if you take God out of the equation, you are only left with natural reasons why the universe is here...but to be natural is to be in time...and now you are right back at INFINITY. If the universe is here by a natural cause, then what caused that...and that...and that...and that??? Allll the way back to infinity. But you already admitted that infinity is an absurd concept. There is just no way out of it.

I really don’t mind which term we use, and so we’ll go with 'omnibenevolent', if you like? So, the infant dying from Leukemia, where is the benevolence – never mind omnibenevolence?

I don't know why God allows certain things to occur, but it does not follow that just because we don't know why it happens, that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons to allow it to happen.

Well, that’s arrant nonsense, to say there has to be evil in order to grant fee will! You are supposing that evil had to already exist as some kind of independent entity and God had no option but to incorporate it as a possible choice, while foreknowing that it would be chosen of course. Evil exists because God caused its existence, and if he didn’t then his power has been usurped by something or somebody else that did!

But that doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. If God existed by his lonesome, and he is omnibenevolent...where is the evil? Do you see any evil around here? Second, as I asked before; are you saying it would have been better for God to program people to only commit acts of goodness?? If would have better for God to do that than to create people with free will? Which is it?

Free will is perfectly possible without evil.[/FONT][/COLOR] And it was within Gods power to enable people to live in a harmonious state without pain and suffering. To say that God couldn’t create a world such as ours without incorporating evil suggests that suffering hasspecial worth or usefulness. That of courseimplies the existence of an even greater evil to be overcome, which simply confirms the presence of great evil.

You do realize you are digging a bigger hole for yourself, right? I got one for you; So if you were God, how would you create human beings with FREE WILL and also guarantee that no human being will commit an act of evil based on this free will?

Pleaseeee enlighten me on how you will do it?

Well, that’s all rather fanciful, if not absurd: ‘changing concepts’ etc! And you seem to understand the argument as though we must conceptualize an image in our thoughts and then somehow think it into non-existence. I’m not sure if that is even possible. What I’m saying is that any Being that we can distinctly conceive imposes no necessity on our minds (2), and can be conceived not to exist, with just one instance sufficient to prove the contradiction (1). In other words a being that is necessary and ever-present can by definition never be absent, and yet the concept is apparent only when I think of it. And thus there is at least one possible world where no such Being can exist (my mind).

But based on the definition of necessity in the world of philosophy, to be necessary is to be necessary in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. You were given a scenario...one of which a specific being has a necessary existence in all possible worlds. Once this scenario plays out in your mind, "I can conceive of this being not existing in this world"......but the based on the scenario, the being cannot NOT exist in this world!!! You are taking a scenario that started off with necessity and rendering it to contingency.

If you can conceive of this being NOT existing, then this being would not have been necessary in the first place....but the scenario is for the being TO BE NECESSARY.

I really don’t understand what it is you’re saying (the second sentence), and I think you’ve misread my argument. I’ve made the argument clearer for you:

3) If the Being exists in reality, and if experience is part of reality, then the Being must also exist in experience. But this is impossible since everything in experience can be denied since it is contingent; therefore nothing in experience it is necessary, ever-present and eternal. Therefore there is a possible world, the actual world of experience, in which no Being necessarily exists. So that is another possible world in which God fails to exist. (And I believe that is also in agreement with those theists that say God cannot be both transcendent and immanent.)

My goodness!!! To be contingent is to be in TIME and if God doesn't exist thing the whole causal chain is CONTINGENT...so you are right back at infinite regression.

Or to put it even more bluntly...if you negate the existence of God, then regardless how you look at it, you are stuck with the problem of infinity. It isn't going anywhere.

In order go negate this, you have to begin the chain with something that is necessary...something which itself is NOT or WAS not dependent upon anything for its existence.

No way out of this, cot.

That’s not my argument. You’re implying, absurdly, that nothing can cause or produce something. My argument is that a thing can exist uncaused where before there was nothing (no contradiction).

Give me an example of this "thing".

'Messenger'? That excludes other people from seeing or contributing to the debate. Now why would you want to do that?

So things can get addressed in real time, point by point.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Unfortunately, that doesn't make any sense. Atemporal means not standing in any temporal relations.

And unfortunately for you, to not stand in temporal relations means you are timeless.

Being "before" is a temporal relation. Thus, being atemporal before something is contradictory and incoherent. Not only that, but an atemporal being is a being that cannot act, cannot cause anything- such as the creation of a universe- because action/causation entails standing in temporal relations. Also, if God is temporal "after creation", then God is not transcendent, in at least one sense (being subject to temporality), which contradicts many conceptions of God.

I've already addressed this time and time again. First off, I am not using "before" in a temporal sense. I am using it in the sense of THERE WAS A CASUAL AGENT THAT PRECEDED THE EFFECT IN EXISTENCE...but not existence in TIME. That is key point that needs to be distinguished.

For example..my sister is older than me...she preceded me in existence (in time).

But if I had been sitting in a chair for all eternity and never moved a muscle, just perfectly still..and my sister popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, then my existence preceded her existence (without time).

And I already know that you will try your best offer some refutation that will include temporal relations of some sort, but that will fail...because..

There were no MOMENTS leading to her popping in to existence. So time is just not a factor, but I am still BEFORE her in the sense that my existence preceded hers, just not in time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And unfortunately for you, to not stand in temporal relations means you are timeless.

a·tem·po·ral
āˈtemp(&#601rəl
adjective
1.existing or considered without relation to time.

I've already addressed this time and time again. First off, I am not using "before" in a temporal sense.

The only way to not use "before" in a temporal sense is to not use the word "before" at all.

I am using it in the sense of THERE WAS A CASUAL AGENT THAT PRECEDED THE EFFECT IN EXISTENCE...but not existence in TIME. That is key point that needs to be distinguished.

Ok, tell me how "preceeding the effect" is different from being "before the effect". How is preceeding NOT a temporal relation (meaning before)?

pre·cede
priˈsēd
verb
1.come before (something) in time.

For example..my sister is older than me...she preceded me in existence (in time).

Um, ok, so preceeding IS a temporal relation- no surprise there.

There were no MOMENTS leading to her popping in to existence. So time is just not a factor, but I am still BEFORE her in the sense that my existence preceded hers, just not in time.

That's like saying "I'm taller than my sister, but just not in height". If your "existence preceded hers", but not in time, then your existence did NOT precede hers. This is plainly contradictory.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

a·tem·po·ral
āˈtemp(&#601rəl
adjective
1.existing or considered without relation to time.

If you are not in time, then you are without relation to time.

The only way to not use "before" in a temporal sense is to not use the word "before" at all.

Or you can give the word "before" another definition...and this is not special pleading just for this particular word, since the vast majority of all words in the dictionary has two or more definitions, so we can just add this word to the rest of them with at least two definitions, either way, I don't care, as long as the concept remains solid.

And as I think about it, I don't know any other word that can describe the concept...so you can slap my hand and say "no, you can't use that word" all you want...but the concept is solid, regardless of what word fits best in the scenario.

Ok, tell me how "preceeding the effect" is different from being "before the effect". How is preceeding NOT a temporal relation (meaning before)?

pre·cede
priˈsēd
verb
1.come before (something) in time.

I already explained it...I specifically said "WITHOUT TIME" and I gave an example of how something can be "before" something without being in temporal relations.

Um, ok, so preceeding IS a temporal relation- no surprise there.

That was obviously the temporal example.

That's like saying "I'm taller than my sister, but just not in height". If your "existence preceded hers", but not in time, then your existence did NOT precede hers. This is plainly contradictory.

Dude, you are deliberately NOT focusing on the complete context of the analogy, which is ridiculously apparent. Not only did I give an example at which something can be "before" something, but not in a temporal sense, but I predicted that you would find a way to refute what I said by countering with concepts of temporality.

Now this is the last time I will say it, and if you do not DIRECTLY respond to what I say, then I won't bother with any more exchanges.

If I was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY motionless for all eternity, and I never moved...there were no moments leading to me sitting, nor are there moments AFTER I sat. So time does not exist whatsoever. There is no temporal reality. Ok? Now that is just plain and simple, and if you deny that then you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now, based on the above scenario, I am in an atemporal state. If something (anything) POPS in to being uncaused out of nothing right next to me...Then I PRECEDED this thing in existence, though not in time, because time did NOT exist. My existence preceded this "thing" not in time (because there are no prior moments), but in EXISTENCE. You got that?

The ONLY way you can even BEGIN to refute this is for you to do exactly what you just did, is to somehow change the scenario to mold me (in the example) into a realm of temporality.

But that is just not the scenario, lukal. So attack the scenario...which you absolutely CAN'T do because you can't rebuttal the truth.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I
Or you can give the word "before" another definition...

Well sure, you could stipulate that "before" means "preceding but not in time"- but that wouldn't make the definition any less word salad, and we would have no reason to accept this ad hoc redefinition anyways.

either way, I don't care, as long as the concept remains solid.

What concept? Being before something but not before it in time? It is just as solid a concept as being taller than something but not taller in height.

And as I think about it, I don't know any other word that can describe the concept...so you can slap my hand and say "no, you can't use that word" all you want...but the concept is solid, regardless of what word fits best in the scenario.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The concept is incoherent and unintelligible. Not what I would call "solid", in other words.

Dude, you are deliberately NOT focusing on the complete context of the analogy, which is ridiculously apparent. Not only did I give an example at which something can be "before" something, but not in a temporal sense, but I predicted that you would find a way to refute what I said by countering with concepts of temporality.

Your example was a mess. But since you insist-

If I was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY motionless for all eternity, and I never moved...there were no moments leading to me sitting, nor are there moments AFTER I sat. So time does not exist whatsoever. There is no temporal reality.

That doesn't follow. If you are sitting motionless for all eternity, this could simply mean that you are sitting motionless for an indefinite temporal duration- not that you are somehow atemporal. But we'll leave that be since your example still doesn't work even ignoring this.

Now, based on the above scenario, I am in an atemporal state. If something (anything) POPS in to being uncaused out of nothing right next to me...Then I PRECEDED this thing in existence, though not in time

Yes, because for something to "pop in to being" would require time- any change or event requires time. But then, you stand in a temporal relation to this event; because your sister popping into existence requires the existence of time, your existence was temporally prior to that.

The ONLY way you can even BEGIN to refute this is for you to do exactly what you just did, is to somehow change the scenario to mold me (in the example) into a realm of temporality.

But that is just not the scenario, lukal. So attack the scenario...which you absolutely CAN'T do because you can't rebuttal the truth.

There isn't anything to refute; you gave an example that did NOT necessarily involve an atemporal state in the first place, and the end result was that you still stood in temporal relations to this event- you could only exist "before" your sister by existing before (the time) your sister did.

Before, but not before in time, remains undefined.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY motionless for all eternity, and I never moved...there were no moments leading to me sitting, nor are there moments AFTER I sat. So time does not exist whatsoever. There is no temporal reality. Ok? Now that is just plain and simple, and if you deny that then you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now, based on the above scenario, I am in an atemporal state. If something (anything) POPS in to being uncaused out of nothing right next to me...Then I PRECEDED this thing in existence, though not in time, because time did NOT exist. My existence preceded this "thing" not in time (because there are no prior moments), but in EXISTENCE. You got that?

I'm not sure this analogy makes any kind of sense whatsoever. For starters, existing in an atemporal state is not the same as existing eternally, as something that can exist for an infinite amount of time (regardless of whether it's conceivable or not) is still existing in time. An eternity is still a measure of time; it is merely an endless sequence - but it is still a sequence. Time must exist, at least in some form, for the very concept of "eternity" to be applied to it. To say that your existence "preceded" something but "not in time" is still a total contradiction.

At least, this is my understanding.

 

[Parsimony]

If I was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY motionless for all eternity, and I never moved...there were no moments leading to me sitting, nor are there moments AFTER I sat. So time does not exist whatsoever. There is no temporal reality. Ok? Now that is just plain and simple, and if you deny that then you are just intellectually dishonest.

You'd still have to breathe and metabolise, things which require motion and time. If every little part of you was perfectly still down to the subatomic level, then you wouldn't be able to think or be conscious (nerve signals cannot travel and neurons cannot fire). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would prevent a particle from being perfectly still anyway.

 

[shawn001]

Call of the Wild needs to learn about Spacetime, matter, energy and reality.

Both you and the chair are made of of matter. Bad anaology.

Where did you come from before you sat in the chair? What are you, not any kind of energy?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Very true, shawn, Kryptid and immortalflame; but the especially damning part is that, even if we ignore all these problems, the example still does not furnish us with a case of "before but not before in time". Even if we grant that he is somehow atemporal sitting in the chair, the coming into existence of any other object is, of necessity, a temporal event, the occurrence of which establishes temporal relations to anything else considered with respect to it.

 

[shawn001]

agreed.

 

[adi2d]

Can someone help out a former C student?

If we have a chair don't we have to have space?

Can there be space without time?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yeah... Clearly there is some serious suspension of the intellect that is required to even entertain the example at all.

 

[shawn001]

Can someone help out a former C student?

If we have a chair don't we have to have space?

Can there be space without time?

"If we have a chair don't we have to have space?"

Yes, because its made of matter and has mass and takes up space.

"Can there be space without time?"

Not in this universe.

But its important to understand what they know about both space and time. You should really check these out.

Fabric of the Cosmos "the illusion of time"

[youtube]Kbyjjw_oLFk[/youtube]
Nova Fabric of the cosmos The illusion of time full video - YouTube


Fabric of the Cosmos "what is space"

"Space. It separates you from me, one galaxy from the next, and atoms from one another. It is everywhere in the universe. But to most of us, space is nothing, an empty void. Well, it turns out space is not what it seems. From the passenger seat of a New York cab driving near the speed of light, to a pool hall where billiard tables do fantastical things, Brian Greene reveals space as a dynamic fabric that can stretch, twist, warp, and ripple under the influence of gravity."

[youtube]5iZ1-csQFUA[/youtube]
1. What is Space? - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

Yeah... Clearly there is some serious suspension of the intellect that is required to even entertain the example at all.

Well there has been a big problem for him to understand it seems the difference between the terms species and "Kind" he uses based on his personal beliefs.