<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />meta,
the point is of course that a universe starting out in nothing is a ludicious idea in and for itself,
<font color="red">ANS:Only for those that favor infinity as their crutch to circumvent the search for understanding Creation ex nihilo from a purely mechanical sscientific view point. I will be starting a new thread on the subject of "Nothingness" which is the root of the problem for most.</font id="red">
and therefore raisis evenly insane thoughts on some eternal creator.
<font color="red">Ans: We agree the concept of a God creator is insane. Further it adds and can add nothing to the understanding of the origin of existance.</font id="red">
These ideas form a whole, which you can not seperate. You are tying to convince people that you can have one without the other, but in reality one can't.
<font color="red">ANS: This statement is false based on wrong assumptions.</font id="red">
Your whole argumentation is that infinity does not and can not exist. And from that you try to deduce that THEREFORE time needed to have a beginning.
<font color="red">ANS: That is correct.</font id="red">
As I have shown, this is an invalid argument.
<font color="red">ANS: Only if one accepts your assumptions and arguements. Which I do not.</font id="red">
Even when all values we can measure signify finite measurements (the infinite we can not by definition ever measure) such does not mean that they have a limited boundary.
Now this has not been proved. And thus, it hasn't been proved that for instance time did have a begin at all. Your argument is therefore simply invalid.
<font color="red">AS: Another incorrect statement. The correct statment is that it remains unproven, just like your assumptions.</font id="red">
The argument you have established against time without a begin, is based on ill logic. Every material thing we know about, did have some sort of begin, but not a begin in or from nothing.
<font color="red">ANS: Again based on unproven and false assumptions.</font id="red">
This already invalidates your idea. Measurements begin finite always, neither dictate that therefore time should have a begin. Again, the logic is wrong.
<font color="red">ANS: Again only in your unproven and unprovable view based on unsupported assumptions. </font id="red">
To be short, your whole idea of the infinite is wrong, you try to concieve of the infinite without contradiction. Such is absurd.
<font color="red">ANS: The only thing absurd is your insistance that you know and are correct.</font id="red">
The infinite is full of contradictions, and every attempt to remove these contradictions from infinity, is to remove infinity itself.
It is a contradiction that the infinite exists only in finite forms and measurements, and yet that is the case.
<font color="red">ANS:Regardless of attribute you want to give infinity it does not apply to physical reality. Your effort to remove eternal time from being an accumulation of an infinite number of finite time intervals is without any basis or logic and is physically impossible. therefore nothing has existed for an eterinity.</font id="red">
If you read this paragraph from F. Engels in the Anti-Duhring, you know exactly where your concept of infinity goes wrong.
<font color="red">ANS: The other more logical alternative is that he is wrong. </font id="red">
"Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity.
<font color="red">ANS: That would actually most likely be a good thing. Mathematically we coul use an exagerated number, i.e. 1E1,000 in lieu of infinity and our mathematics would work just fine.</font id="red">
Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction."
<font color="red">ANS:The world is full of fools. Time may one day yield an answer as to which group of us are the fools. Until then there is no merit what-so-ever to debate an unresolvable issue. Making our views know and seeing alternative ideas is a good thing but advocating ones own correctness on the conclusion is fool hearty.</font id="red">
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The idea of time without a begin, which is what I assume is correct, has not and can not be "proven" on hard facts, yet it follows from the fact that natural world is in motion and changing in every detail and in every part of the universe, and this motion and change can not be said to have begun in any way out of motionlesness.
The argumentation I gave therefore supports that idea, and is a valid argumentationn against the logic that would dispermit a beginless world, and would dictate that time, all motion and all matte had some sort of begin, which can not be anything else then a begin in or from nothing. In respect of known physical laws, this idea is ridiculous.
Motion, energy and/or matter do not appear from total nothing, even if some phenomena seem to indicate that (as in virtual particles, who come out of a vacuum, but a vacuum is not "nothing", but filled with some or other sort of energy or fields).
The argumentation you gave against the infinite, is that an infinite can not be counted or measured, and in that way, never becomes part of physical reality.
I showed you that despite the fact that the real world contains finite values only, this does not dictate that it can't be infinite.
The infinite exists only in finite forms.
The example I gave you of a line extending in both ways to infinity, shows that all measurements we take, result in finite measures. And yet, this does not mean that the line itself must be finite.
To proof that the line is finite, means to proof that there is a finite measure that is an upper bound to the measurement betweeen any two points. Since on a line that realy extends both ways to infinite, means that such an upper bound does not exist (since iot can always be prove that a higher measurement can be taken) this disproofs the assumption that it was finite.
In the real physical world, this is however not that easy.
To assume that time did not have a begin, even if the reasoning on which this assumption is made is still correct, is not possible in a direct way (since the infinite is unmeasurable).
Even so, all the arguments that plead against a beginingless time, can be show to be false.
Another argument put forward, is that everything that exists has a begin. With the restriction that we mean here finite forms, this again can be admitted, but even so, this does not provide any valid argument against a beginningless time, since it should be admitted also that all such beginning of all such finite existence forms, did not start out or begin in or from nothing, but from previous existing forms.
In summary, this would mean that the assumption, that time didn't have a beginning, still holds, despite your argumentation.
The alternative assumption, the assumption that before there was a universe there was nothing, and that from nothing the whole universe appeared and all that a finite time ago, however suffers a great deal, since no principle of nature could ever explai
]
]