View Full Version : Law of Beginning and Ending
ShadowWolf1
10-08-2005, 06:53 PM
Law of Beginning and Ending
1. All observable occurances begin and end
2. All observable occurances can be measured in time, for example: our lives begin and end within a set amount of time within time and the beginning and ending of it can be measured
3. If time began with the start of this universe it must end with the end of this universe
4. Time does not exist outside of the universe because it began with it and must end with it
5. If I were in a place that had eternity I could start an activity such as cutting grass in my yard and that activity would start at a certain point and then when I was done I would finish at a certain point
6. If time and the universe began and must end, if every occurance begins and ends within time, and if time cannot exist outside of the universe, then eternity must be outside of the universe for time and the universe to exist
Comment
The implications of this are in favor of a Theistic God as it was proposed to be. Therefore I realize you will fight hard against it regardless of if it's true or not but in fact you will be helping me revise this theory so that it may be presented in a more irrefutable way. I encourage all refutes to this theory and will gladly incorporate your thoughts and logic. Thank you sirs for the support I know you will give me.
Evangelical Statement
If eternal "time" does in fact exist outside of the universe and the universe has a cause like the Law of causality states then there must be a Causer. Who is the "Causer"? In light of the probability that there is eternal "time" then the most probable answer of who the "Causer" is is in the Christian Bible. Why? Because it promises eternal life and eternal life must exist inside of eternal "time". Well wait doesn't Judaism and Islam promise eternal life too? Yes but they all promise it in different ways. What's the right way then? Well all three Theistic religions talk more or less about Jesus. In Christianity He is the center of their faith and in Judaism their Messiah (Jesus) was prophecied to them for a long time and in Islam they recognize Jesus as a prophet. What am I getting at with this? Well Judaism says their Messiah will come and it gives a detailed description of His life but when He came He didn't come with armies of angels to destroy the Romans like they wanted so what did they do? They killed Him and fulfilled the prophecies of His death so Judaism is out of the picture. What about Islam? Well they revere Jesus as a prophet but then they should believe everything He said right? Well they don't because if they did they would be Christians. Why? Because Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one enters unto the Father but by Me”. Islam says you get to heaven by other means. Now we come to Christianity. “Oh no” you say “those hypocrites?”. Well your probably right about a lot of Christians but they are people too and people are imperfect right? Besides the Bible doesn't bless their hypocrisy, it condemns it so its man's fallacy not God's. Moving on to the point, Jesus in the Christian faith is the center and the most important part of Christianity. By Jesus we have what? Eternal life. Which? Requires eternal “time”. Friend if you want this eternal life it isn't promised by Judaism, Islam, evolution, pantheism, humanism, taoism, hinduism (because the universe will end so incarnation must end with it), so why would risk your eternity on all these things? Come to the saving knowledge that Jesus died for your sins and is waiting for you to come to Him. Look past all those “hypocritical” Christians and to Jesus our Lord and Saviour who is waiting paciently with outstrecthed arms for you.
How many leaps of logic is this Christian taking here? Somewhere along the line he jumps from the first cause argument straight to Christianity. Even if we accept the first cause argument, (which we don't, and neither do a few non-Christian religions like Hinduism), its not clear whether this first clause even requires a divine power, yet alone the specific personal god that the Judeo-Christian-Moslem god requires. OK, somewhere he makes the leap of logic that the Christian god is the right one because it carries the promise of eternal life. Where does it follow that eternal life is possible especially since it contradicts #2 in your "laws"?
ShadowWolf1
10-08-2005, 07:13 PM
First let me state that the 5 premises and conclusion and first few lines of the statement are the "Law of the Beginning and Ending" and the rest is an evangelistic way of bringing you to the probable knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Direct your comments to the main part of this post please and not the evangelistic part. But I would like to reply on your reply but please continue in pm or email and not in this post. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you refer to is only known to exist in this universe and this theory tries to prove there is something outside the universe so the 2nd Law isn't appropriate. Thank you for your reply.
Rat Bastard
10-08-2005, 07:31 PM
How many other universes are you aware of? :rolleyes: This is pretty basic stuff. I guess I could ask you for a website where you got this drivel. I could go read it and get the gist. Meanwhile, go here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html and read a little of why GOD IS A FIGMENT. It might be pretty rough going at first, but stick with it for say, 20 minutes, then come back and beg some pardon. The epistlemological aspects are complicated, but if you really want to argue the case, go there. Otherwise, you get no respect here.
Well, even the premises aren't necessarily correct. There's no evidence that our universe has a beginning or an end. We know our universe came from a singularity, but we can't show that the singularity didn't just appear or whether it came from something else. As for an end, theres a consensus among scientists that the universe could expand forever, though life would cease to exist long before. (I never mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics, incidently.)
For that matter, about all things having a beginning and an end. You mention a table. It was trees earlier, and it may have become firewood later, changing into energy, soot and gas. At a certain level, nothing really has a beginning or an end. They just change from one state to another.
As I said, I disagree with the premises of 1 and 2, so I don't know what 3 and 4 would indicate. Our perception of time is based on the rate of material processes, namely the processing speed of our brains, so what would determine our perception of time in an immaterial body? Time won't necessarily be eternal, but totally meaningless and useless for immaterial bodies or souls, if you will. For our souls to have any sense of time, they would somehow be able to percieve the immaterial as material. Of course this might suggest that our souls could actually be material after all, so time would exist outside the universe, but if souls were material, there would be evidence of them...
This Christian idea is getting pretty absurd, isn't it?
ShadowWolf1
10-08-2005, 08:21 PM
My mistake sirs, I have come unprepared and have suggested this far to soon. For now please take this theory out of mind and let me state how the universe must have a beginning and therefore an ending. If the universe is eternal everything would have happened already. " That makes no sense". But if the universe is eternal plutonium would have lost it's radiactivity and all the stars would have burned out by now. "Arn't you disporving your own theory now?" no but let's not get to that yet. Let's look at another way the universe can't be eternal. In mathematics there are only theoretical infinites but in reality there are no absolute inifinites therefore time is not eternal. "Adsurd! We cannot know if the universe will end or go on forever". Well if something is infinite it goes to infinity in both directions right? If the universe in fact had a beginning then it cannot continue for eternity toward the future because for it to be eternal it would have to continue forever into the past. The universe had to have a beginning and has to have an end if you follow this reasoning. Mog you have made good points but permit me to comment if you will. You have made an excellent observation on the 2nd premise but you have misinterpreted. When I say everything begins and ends within something else think of it this way, everything observable starts at a certain point in space and ends in another point in space. The tree roots start in the ground and the tree top ends in the air and it is measurable just like most everything else. "Most everything else? He is contradicting himself". No no everything observable can be measured but things such as wind cannot be measured and are not directly observable. Your second point of souls puzzles me somewhat. Can you prove that our perception of time is "the processing speed of our brains"? We measure time by distances certain things travel in reality, not by the immaterial speed of our minds. Moving on, you seem to not know if the soul exist or not. Let me submit this to you as a mere observance, you said "They just change from one state to another" earlier so by that same reasoning is it possible we "change to another state" when we die or some part of us? I appreciate your courteous nature Mog. Thank you for your comments.
Baphomet
10-08-2005, 11:19 PM
Here is some more "eastern" thought to consider:
Every beggining is only an end, and every end is only a beggining.
Every act of creation is really an act of destruction. And every act of destruction is an act of creation.
There is only change, and that is the only constant.
There is only the cycle and flow.
You're thinking too linearly.
"Beggining and End" "Creation and destruction" are human concepts and terms.
ShadowWolf1
10-09-2005, 06:16 AM
Baphomet I respect your thoughts but I am arguing from empircal and mathematical evidence, not philosophy that cannot be verified by empircal and mathematical evidence. Not one of those statements can be verified by science. Your first statement "Every beggining is only an end, and every end is only a beggining." is not true of time. What do I mean? Time goes forward always and cannot go backwards. We cannot say that "time is going forward to the beginning" because that is adsurb in the highest. I have discovered that my 2nd premise does present problems and I will revise it because your first statement is true of objects but not time. Excellent observation and thank you for your input. Now on to your second statement "Every act of creation is really an act of destruction. And every act of destruction is an act of creation." in what context? When matter was created by whatever means, did it destroy? It couldn't have could it? Or when energy was created by whatever means did it cause devastation to something else? No it couldn't have. What about when time was created by whatever means did it bring destruction upon something else? In fact this second statement argues in a circle and is "linear" by all means. I propose it is invalid too. Your third statement "There is only change, and that is the only constant." or is it? Does time change from one form to the other? It changes by our perception of it but it doesn't itself change. Hasn't it gone on since the beginning and has continued the same ever since? Would you show me how it changes in itself? Your fourth statement is a repeat of the third. So in light of this will you reconsider your thoughts? Your final statement that "I think to linearly" is invalid because I am only capable of one thought at a time as everyone else is. I cannot perceive many things at once, it is a limit of the human mind. Ever how many thoughts "meld together" in our conscience mind doesn't mean we think multiple thoughts at once. That would contradict time because time is an event after another. 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4 seconds. Our thoughts are the same, one after another. If we thought one thought per nano second it would still be one thought at a time. Finally I would like to ask you to consider my claims above and comment on them using empircal and mathematical evidence. Thank you again for your comments sir.
Baphomet
10-09-2005, 10:52 AM
Sigh.
You do not understand the riddle.
Let me explain:
"Every beggining is only an end, and every end is only a beggining"
When one second in time begins, another one ends. And when every second in time ends, another one has begun. You cannot say where one begins and one ends. Each second is both an ending and a beggining. This means nothing about going backwards in time.
"Every act of creation is really an act of destruction. And every act of destruction is an act of creation."
Create a house, and you had to destroy trees in the process.
Create matter, and you have destroyed the nothingness that once was. Make sense?
"There is only change, that is the only constant" Is refering to matter and energy as a whole. Nothing stands still.
When I said you are thinking too linearly, I wasn't refereing to you as a person, but the basis of your arguments, they imply that everything has a first cause and ultimate end (beggining and end riddle) and that everything came from somewhere (Though what you call creation is merely a form of destruction and vice versa)
You have some good arguments, but they are very "western" so to speak. I said nothing about "time flowing backwards" It continues in a process and is defined by change. If nothing changes, then can time be constant? If the seconds do not continuously "change" by moving forward at the exact rate, can time be constant? This is the answer to the riddle of change being the only constant.
All observable things "Begin and end" but only in the human mind. Say you roll a marble across a table. The "cause" for it rolling was all of the events of eternity past that led up to you pusing it across the table, and the effects of it will echo throughout eternity. Immediate effects are observable, yes, but truly speaking everything influences everything else, and every action is determined by infiinitely past cuase and with has effects infinitely into the future. Kinda like the butterfly effect.
Baphomet
10-09-2005, 10:55 AM
Back to the marble example. When I say "All events eternity past" I mean, every cause that made the marble roll. I could say it was you pushing it, but in order to do so, I would have to say the cause was your arm moving. But before it moved, I would have to say it was your brain moving it. But in order to do that, your brain would have to be developed. In order for it to exists, your parents would have to meet. I could say, that indirectly, your parents meeting is what caused the marble to move. However, it goes back farther than that. It goes back infinitely.
Try not to think of things as cause and effect, but rather change, and the need for god will vanish.
clambake
10-09-2005, 07:31 PM
Try not to think of things as cause and effect, but rather change, and the need for god will vanish.
i.e. chaos. Read "Chaos" by James Gleick
ShadowWolf1
10-09-2005, 08:29 PM
Baphomet with respect you are arguing in circles. If "Every act of creation is really an act of destruction" then how can everything simple "change" into something else? You just stated creation destroys something but then you say nothing is destroyed, it just "changes". Would you please explain? Regarding your first statement, seconds are human concepts and don't respresent true time flow. What do I mean? Well we measure time in sections but it is not in many sections but one. Time flow began and will end in one constant stream but we measure it by sections so to us each second can be a beginning and ending. Here is a picture to demonstrate.
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/328/timeflow7ba.jpg
So you see time isn't a succession of beginnings and endings. Your third statement is invalid because of the mathematical infinity and the non existent absolute infinity. Everything had to begin and has to end according to the infinity argument. The "cause" for that marble moving is in the context of the moment. You can't do science by going back to the "first cause" of all things everytime something happens. Good day to you sir.
ShadowWolf1
10-09-2005, 08:37 PM
St. Teabag character assasination isn't a productive part of debating. You haven't even attempted to refute my evidence above. Please state your claims and present evidence or this debate will just be a philosophical stand off. But if you would like for me to present my best point for debate then I would have to make another thread since it doesn't fit here. I would however like to do that but I must think about it for awhile. Also there must be set rules for the debate, such as "only make claims that can be supported by scientific evidence" so it won't become a pholosophy war. But I am getting off topic, if you would like such a debate then contact me through email. Good day to you gentlemen and please continue replies on the main topic of this thread. Thank you.
kmisho
10-09-2005, 11:57 PM
See how much damage numerology does?
Baphomet
10-10-2005, 05:41 PM
Baphomet with respect you are arguing in circles. If "Every act of creation is really an act of destruction" then how can everything simple "change" into something else? You just stated creation destroys something but then you say nothing is destroyed, it just "changes". Would you please explain? Regarding your first statement, seconds are human concepts and don't respresent true time flow. What do I mean? Well we measure time in sections but it is not in many sections but one. Time flow began and will end in one constant stream but we measure it by sections so to us each second can be a beginning and ending. Here is a picture to demonstrate.
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/328/timeflow7ba.jpg
So you see time isn't a succession of beginnings and endings. Your third statement is invalid because of the mathematical infinity and the non existent absolute infinity. Everything had to begin and has to end according to the infinity argument. The "cause" for that marble moving is in the context of the moment. You can't do science by going back to the "first cause" of all things everytime something happens. Good day to you sir
Like I said, things just change. Nothing is ever still. If you think it is, you obviously don't know the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no thing as creation or destruction. I am pointing out that they are the same thing, the same process, which is change.
Time is just change. No change= no time.
There is no first cause, because that would mean that it needed a firts cause. If you say it doesn't need a first cause, you are defeating yourself.
Tenspace
10-10-2005, 06:49 PM
Law of Beginning and Ending
1. All observable occurances begin and end
2. All observable ocurances can be measured in time, for example: our lives begin and end within a set amount of time within time and the beginning and ending of it can be measured
3. If time began with the start of this universe it must end with the end of this universe
4. Time does not exist outside of the universe because it began with it and must end with it
5. If I were in a place that had eternal "time" I could start an activity such as cutting grass in my yard and that activity would start at a certain point and then when I was done I would finish at a certain point
6. If time and the universe began and must end and every occurance begins and ends within time and time cannot exist outside of the universe then eternal "time" must be outside of the universe for time and the universe to exist
<SNIP>
Point number 5 is a misunderstanding of "eternal time" (more aptly called "external time"). Point number 6 is a continuation of the misunderstanding. I'm not knocking you, just pointing out a new learning opportunity.
I suggest you try "The End of Time", by Julian Barbour. Time does not exist. He explains why.
ShadowWolf1
10-10-2005, 07:40 PM
Baphomet I would like to direct my comments to you. Everything had a cause in this universe where the natural laws, laws of Thermodynamics included, apply but outside of the universe, which is what this theory is trying to reveal, the natural laws do not apply. I will repeat the computer game metaphor I used in another post "A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him." but please don't take this literally or take it that the universe is just like a video game. I hope you have seen the point I was trying to make. You may ask "What has this got to do with my last comments?". Well before you ask that please permit me to ask you a question first. You have mentioned that I think very westernly. Do you think with either eastern logic or western logic? Or perhaps you will say both? Thank you for your time sir. Tenspace thank you for your comments. They are insightful and I will consider them. However I believe simple reason tells us there is time. Explain to me a world without time if you can. Thank you sir. Good day.
ghoulslime
10-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Baphomet I would like to direct my comments to you. Everything had a cause in this universe where the natural laws, laws of Thermodynamics included, apply but outside of the universe, which is what this theory is trying to reveal, the natural laws do not apply. I will repeat the computer game metaphor I used in another post "A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him." but please don't take this literally or take it that the universe is just like a video game. I hope you have seen the point I was trying to make. You may ask "What has this got to do with my last comments?". Well before you ask that please permit me to ask you a question first. You have mentioned that I think very westernly. Do you think with either eastern logic or western logic? Or perhaps you will say both? Thank you for your time sir. Tenspace thank you for your comments. They are insightful and I will consider them. However I believe simple reason tells us there is time. Explain to me a world without time if you can. Thank you sir. Good day.
The thread ShadowWolf1 refers to is here:
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2136&p=3
I am still awaiting his further enlightenment. :D
Choobus
10-10-2005, 08:20 PM
I think Shadowdork is full of shit, but this is merely my opinion. I cannot prove it definitively, but I believe it in my heart.
Amen
Baphomet
10-10-2005, 08:55 PM
Baphomet I would like to direct my comments to you. Everything had a cause in this universe where the natural laws, laws of Thermodynamics included, apply but outside of the universe, which is what this theory is trying to reveal, the natural laws do not apply. I will repeat the computer game metaphor I used in another post "A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him." but please don't take this literally or take it that the universe is just like a video game. I hope you have seen the point I was trying to make. You may ask "What has this got to do with my last comments?". Well before you ask that please permit me to ask you a question first. You have mentioned that I think very westernly. Do you think with either eastern logic or western logic? Or perhaps you will say both? Thank you for your time sir. Tenspace thank you for your comments. They are insightful and I will consider them. However I believe simple reason tells us there is time. Explain to me a world without time if you can. Thank you sir. Good day.
I see the point you are trying to make, however, you are mistaking the point that I am trying to make. Let me attempt to clarify:
1) Everything has a cause
2) Therefore, everything has a first cause
3) There cannot be an infinite regression of causes
4) Therefore, the first cause must be god (who is outside of the causes)
What I am arguing is this:
What we think of as "cause and effect" is incorrect. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. We think of things in terms of this came first, and then this, and then this. What I am arguing is that there is no inital cause, because there is no final effect.
Baphomet
10-10-2005, 08:56 PM
I was also trying explain some other things, but aparently you didn't understand where I was going, so feel free to ask any questions.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.