Miracles

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I note that you failed to answer the question, "Do you disagree with Hawking when he says that time had a beginning at the Big Bang?"

Sorry, I'll answer now. I agree with Hawking that time had a "beginning" in the sense that it had an earliest possible value. This does not imply that it had a "beginning" in the sense that time did not exist, and then subsequently, time existed.

It was an analogy, but if you prefer, we can use the word "example". If we limit Feser's example to just red Lego blocks, will you agree with his point?

No, because I can provide countless counterexamples which illustrate that the properties of composite elements do not apply to the whole composition. Feser is saying:

1. Some things share some properties with their constituent parts.
2. The cosmos is a thing.
3. Therefore, the cosmos shares the property of contingency with its constituent parts.

This is very clearly a bad syllogism. It's not even valid, let alone sound.

[seer]

I mean that an event is a description of a certain point in time. It is not something which exists in the absence of time.

Well no, how can time exist with a single event? Time is a maker between events.

It is, but not for the reason you're thinking. The idea of a "single event" existing in the absence of any other events is nonsensical. If there is no time, what makes it an event?

No more nonsensical than an finite universe with no cause. Have you offered a coherent reason for why something rather than nothing exists?

An event-less state cannot change. A change is an event. If a state is event-less, it cannot "become" event-filled.

Yes, but that is a different question. When it comes to time, I don't think it would be incoherent to say that event-less state would be prior to the event-filled state, then time being the by product of the events.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well no, how can time exist with a single event? Time is a maker between events.

Time is not a "maker between events." There is no such thing as an event in the absence of time.

No more nonsensical than an finite universe with no cause.

It certainly is. There is nothing about finitude which implies causation. However, a description of a point in time-- that is, an event-- necessarily requires the existence of time.

Have you offered a coherent reason for why something rather than nothing exists?

I don't see how that's relevant, so that discussion is best left to the thread which we already have going for it.

Yes, but that is a different question. When it comes to time, I don't think it would be incoherent to say that event-less state would be prior to the event-filled state, then time being the by product of the events.

Then, in what way is the event-less state "prior" to the event-filled state? Obviously, it is not temporally prior. So how is it prior?

[Yttrium]

Time is a distance between distinct events. So you need at least two distinct events to measure time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Time is the distance between distinct events. So you need at least two distinct events to measure time.

Yes, with the slight correction that elapsed time is the distance between distinct events. And events are descriptions of particular points in time. So you need time in order to distinguish something as an event.

This is why Seer's argument essentially becomes "without time, there is no time." It's a meaningless tautology.

[seer]

Time is not a "maker between events." There is no such thing as an event in the absence of time.

Really? So time is not a maker between events? Then what is it?

I don't see how that's relevant, so that discussion is best left to the thread which we already have going for it.

Boxing, I'm not going to wade through 38 pages. Just link the post where you offered a coherent explanation for why something rather than nothing exists.

Then, in what way is the event-less state "prior" to the event-filled state? Obviously, it is not temporally prior. So how is it prior?

Prior as far as causation.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? So time is not a maker between events? Then what is it?

A dimension of measure.

Boxing, I'm not going to wade through 38 pages. Just link the post where you offered a coherent explanation for why something rather than nothing exists.

Again, I don't see how it's relevant to this thread. Rather than starting in on an unrelated issue-- especially one which is already under discussion in another thread-- I'll simply point you to that thread, and invite you to PM me, if you'd prefer.

Prior as far as causation.

That doesn't mean anything. So far as I am aware, causal priority requires temporal priority.

[seer]

A dimension of measure.

Yes, a measurement between events. If you don't have a second event you can't have the measurement. Look at it this way - if the singularity never expanded,and remained static, then how could we have time?

Again, I don't see how it's relevant to this thread. Rather than starting in on an unrelated issue-- especially one which is already under discussion in another thread-- I'll simply point you to that thread, and invite you to PM me, if you'd prefer.

Listen, we have discussing the idea of the cosmos and its beginning, or lack of, for a while now. So it is relevant. And you keep telling me that I hold incoherent views, or hold views with lack of justification. Well perhaps you do too. Just link me to your coherent explanation for why something rather than nothing exists?

That doesn't mean anything. So far as I am aware, causal priority requires temporal priority.

I don't see how that follows from a event-less state where time is not an issue, time of course would be relevant once events (two or more events to be exact) came into being.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, a measurement between events. If you don't have a second event you can't have the measurement.

You're conflating the dimension of time with elapsed time. Elapsed time is the measurement. The dimension of time is that which is being measured. And, once again, as events are descriptions of points in the dimension of time, you cannot have events without time, so what you are saying amounts to a meaningless tautology.

Look at it this way - if the singularity never expanded,and remained static, then how could we have time?

Once again, yes-- if time didn't exist, then time wouldn't exist.

Listen, we have discussing the idea of the cosmos and its beginning, or lack of, for a while now. So it is relevant.

It is entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the question of the cosmos and its beginning. If the cosmos is past-infinite, "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" is still a valid question. If the cosmos is past-finite, the question is valid. If deity exists, the question is valid. If no deity exists the question is valid. As long as there is something, the question "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" remains valid.

I don't see how that follows from a event-less state where time is not an issue, time of course would be relevant once events (two or more events to be exact) came into being.

That doesn't make sense. If a state is event-less, there cannot be any coming into being, as that would be an event. If there is a coming into being, the state is not event-less. An event-less state cannot wait around doing nothing until something occurs-- that necessarily implies time, which in turn implies events.

[seer]

You're conflating the dimension of time with elapsed time. Elapsed time is the measurement. The dimension of time is that which is being measured. And, once again, as events are descriptions of points in the dimension of time, you cannot have events without time, so what you are saying amounts to a meaningless tautology.

No Boxing, this is where I do not agree. There is no "in time" since time is merely a by product of events. If there is no elapsing, there is no time, since time is dependent on successive events.

Once again, yes-- if time didn't exist, then time wouldn't exist.

No, I'm asking you - if the singularity never expanded how could time exist? Or are you suggesting that the singularity had to expand - but why?

It is entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the question of the cosmos and its beginning. If the cosmos is past-infinite, "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" is still a valid question. If the cosmos is past-finite, the question is valid. If deity exists, the question is valid. If no deity exists the question is valid. As long as there is something, the question "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" remains valid.

Ok, so you are not going to offer a coherent reason. Noted...

That doesn't make sense. If a state is event-less, there cannot be any coming into being, as that would be an event. If there is a coming into being, the state is not event-less. An event-less state cannot wait around doing nothing until something occurs-- that necessarily implies time, which in turn implies events.

Boxing we are musing here. Whether an event-less state can actually become a event-filled state is not the point. Whether an Eternal Mind can decide to create is not the point. And no it does not imply time, it only implies that time only necessarily comes into existence with actual events.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No Boxing, this is where I do not agree. There is no "in time" since time is merely a by product of events. If there is no elapsing, there is no time, since time is dependent on successive events.

What is an event, on your definition, since you clearly reject mine?

No, I'm asking you - if the singularity never expanded how could time exist? Or are you suggesting that the singularity had to expand - but why?

Once again, because you don't understand what a singularity is, you don't understand what it means for spacetime to expand from the singularity, or what the implications of that expansion are. In order for spacetime to expand, it must first exist.

Ok, so you are not going to offer a coherent reason. Noted...

Good. Now that you've successfully knocked down that Straw Man, perhaps we can leave irrelevant discussions to other threads.

Boxing we are musing here. Whether an event-less state can actually become a event-filled state is not the point.

You explicitly asked me, "why would it be incoherent to suggest that [an] event-less state became event-filled?" As such, whether an event-less state can actually become an event-filled state is precisely the point.

Whether an Eternal Mind can decide to create is not the point.

Here, I agree, since no one in the thread was discussing an "Eternal Mind," whatever that is supposed to mean, until just now.

[seer]

What is an event, on your definition, since you clearly reject mine?

Reject what definition? Did you offer a definition of an event? I would say that events are physical occurrences.

In order for spacetime to expand, it must first exist.

Why, how do you know this? Why couldn't time just come into being with successive events. I mean you are acting like time is a thing rather than a convenient measuring convention.

Good. Now that you've successfully knocked down that Straw Man, perhaps we can leave irrelevant discussions to other threads.

Thank you I try...

You explicitly asked me, "why would it be incoherent to suggest that [an] event-less state became event-filled?" As such, whether an event-less state can actually become an event-filled state is precisely the point.

But I was not asking if this was physically possible, it may not be though there are models of creation that suggest just this. The non-cyclical cosmic egg model being one. But when we apply this reasoning, finally, to time, I don't see how it is incoherent.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Reject what definition? Did you offer a definition of an event?

Several times. I defined "event" as a description of a particular point in time.

I would say that events are physical occurrences.

...and what is an occurrence? Can something occur without time?

Why, how do you know this? Why couldn't time just come into being with successive events.

How can spacetime expand if spacetime doesn't exist? Can non-existent things perform any actions?

I mean you are acting like time is a thing rather than a convenient measuring convention.

Yes. That has rather been my point, the entire time.

But I was not asking if this was physically possible, it may not be though there are models of creation that suggest just this.

If it's not possible, then no models can suggest it.

The non-cyclical cosmic egg model being one.

The cosmic egg model is a past-infinite temporal model, so I'm not sure what relevance you think it has, here.

But when we apply this reasoning, finally, to time, I don't see how it is incoherent.

What reasoning?

[seer]

Several times. I defined "event" as a description of a particular point in time.

Yes, but I have no idea what that means apart from physical occurrences.

...and what is an occurrence? Can something occur without time?

Certainly, since time is merely a convention to measure between events the first event, no matter what is was, was not subjected to time.

How can spacetime expand if spacetime doesn't exist? Can non-existent things perform any actions?

But physical events are not non-existent things. Space and time would be the by products of physical events, not a necessary cause. Though "space" is a little more tricky - whatever space is.

Yes. That has rather been my point, the entire time.

Yes, but why? Why assume that time is any more than a convention for measuring? If the dimension of time is something different or more that a measurement between events then what exactly would that be? What does that look like?

If it's not possible, then no models can suggest it.

Well I don't that that our finite understanding is the judge for what is possible or not.

The cosmic egg model is a past-infinite temporal model, so I'm not sure what relevance you think it has, here.

I don't know where you got the temporal in this. The "egg" was eternal into the past, static, therefore there was no movement or events, therefore no time, then the egg "cracked" and at that point time begins.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, but I have no idea what that means apart from physical occurrences. Certainly, since time is merely a convention to measure between events the first event, no matter what is was, was not subjected to time.

But physical events are not non-existent things. Space and time would be the by products of physical events, not a necessary cause. Though "space" is a little more tricky - whatever space is.

None of this answers the question. What is an event? What is an occurrence? What do you mean by "between" events? In what manner is something "between" events?

Yes, but why? Why assume that time is any more than a convention for measuring? If the dimension of time is something different or more that a measurement between events then what exactly would that be? What does that look like?

Why should it "look like" anything? A dimension can be measured, but the measurement is not the dimension. Time is the dimension which we measure by use of clocks.

Well I don't that that our finite understanding is the judge for what is possible or not.

So, you don't believe it is possible to judge that things are possible? How did you come to that judgement?

I don't know where you got the temporal in this. The "egg" was eternal into the past

"Eternal into the past" is exactly equivalent to saying "temporally past-infinite."