Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:32 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Pax, you are still treating time as a physical object.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:00 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Pelagius wrote:
pax wrote:
Here is how you get from the infinite past unto the present:

Infinite Past - 1 Unit of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinity x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Hmm......no matter what I do I cannot get out of the infinite past


You're making the assumption that we have to start from a first moment in time and traverse through all the moments in time one by one in order for the present moment to exist. Obviously, if you assume that's how time works, there cannot be an infinite past because you're assuming from the beginning that there's a first moment! If the past is infinite, there can't be a first moment. On the other hand, if you pick any actual moment in time from an infinite past, there is only a finite amount of time to span to the present as Aquinas points out.

Since time is created by a God who exists in eternity, it does not seem like any moment in time needs to be dependent on the preceding moments of time for its existence.


That is what I said he said, and I demonstrated why it cannot be so. And, yes, time does go from past to future with us always occupying the present, which is always in motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:08 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29150
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
So time is in motion? Time goes, time moves?

Funny I though I moved, the sun moves, the earth moves...I thought time was the numbering of that motion, not an object in motion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:26 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Stomachosus wrote:
So time is in motion? Time goes, time moves?

Funny I though I moved, the sun moves, the earth moves...I thought time was the numbering of that motion, not an object in motion


Can you remember a place you have never been to? No. Can you remember the future? No. Ergo, we move through time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:44 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29150
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
pax wrote:
Stomachosus wrote:
So time is in motion? Time goes, time moves?

Funny I though I moved, the sun moves, the earth moves...I thought time was the numbering of that motion, not an object in motion


Can you remember a place you have never been to? No. Can you remember the future? No. Ergo, we move through time.

pax, stop acting like a stupid moron. I remember my dog, but he doesn't exist.

You want to be taken seriously or is your agenda to be as ridiculous as possible, even at times bringing the Faith into ridicule? (which, btw, was one of St. Thomas' concern in this very question...)

I know you are not stupid enough that you think you have an actual argument there. So what is your agenda?

FWIW Augustine's musings on time was that only the now existed, and time existed in the mind, because by the past we could recall former nows, and by the future anticipate future ones. Time itself is not some substance


ETA: I apologize for losing patience. But I know you know that you didn't present a real argument. I am just not sure why...or you simply throwing things off the cuff without thinking them over? I am not asserting that you must hold the view of Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle and virtually every Catholic thinker before modernism about what time is...I just wonder why you so flippantly reject it with obviously sophistical arguments....


Last edited by Pro Ecclesia Dei on Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:55 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
St. Augustine wrote:
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Granted, pax is not talking about the Scriptures here. Nevertheless, mutatis mutandis, the passage still applies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:59 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5127
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Banned for talking sense in a senseless thread

ohwaitrongthred


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:07 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
I agree that only now does exist. But the past is full of nows that once did exist. There cannot be an infinite number of nows that once did exist because there is no such thing as an infinite number. It is really that simple despite what all them high fallutin' arguments may say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:12 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5127
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Banned for senseless speak

oopsididitagin :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:49 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
TheJack wrote:
Banned for senseless speak

oopsididitagin :oops:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImIa_5awDFg

You deserve this, Jack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:56 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
pax wrote:
It is really that simple despite what all them high fallutin' arguments may say.

"Don't bother me with the facts. I like my theory better."

There are reputable people who like the Kalaam argument. They have to respond to objections like St. Thomas's. They do. I don't know that they get it right (though I'm not 100% in St. Thomas's corner). But they have to make a response, not just brush it aside.

IOW: You can't on the one hand present a philosophical argument for the existence of God and on the other hand dismiss objections to it simply as "high falutin' arguments." If you want to get in the philosophical ring, you have to do it consistently or not at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:58 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29150
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
pax wrote:
I agree that only now does exist. But the past is full of nows that once did exist. There cannot be an infinite number of nows that once did exist because there is no such thing as an infinite number. It is really that simple despite what all them high fallutin' arguments may say.

There wouldn't be an infinite precisely because they do not exist.

And pax, you in your determination to refuse to think just denied that reality exists, that length exist. You have agreed with Zeno and asserted it is physically impossible for my finger to move from the letter e to the letter t, because motion is impossible.

This is rank sophistry. You refuse to just realize that maybe you are acting the sophist in such arguments...from small streams and creeks do we reach the ocean of knowledge, but obstinate denials of reality.

If you do not, in a moment's reflection, understand why you have just denied the possibility of any motion, time or dimension, then you have essentially confirmed my opinion of your intellect. If you see what I am getting at, and wish to escape being a new Zeno then maybe you might surprise me.

Now in the infinite number of nows from now to two hours from now (or indeed there is an infinite number of nows between any two nows) I bid you to think for once


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:28 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Stomachosus wrote:
pax wrote:
I agree that only now does exist. But the past is full of nows that once did exist. There cannot be an infinite number of nows that once did exist because there is no such thing as an infinite number. It is really that simple despite what all them high fallutin' arguments may say.

There wouldn't be an infinite precisely because they do not exist.

And pax, you in your determination to refuse to think just denied that reality exists, that length exist. You have agreed with Zeno and asserted it is physically impossible for my finger to move from the letter e to the letter t, because motion is impossible.

This is rank sophistry. You refuse to just realize that maybe you are acting the sophist in such arguments...from small streams and creeks do we reach the ocean of knowledge, but obstinate denials of reality.

If you do not, in a moment's reflection, understand why you have just denied the possibility of any motion, time or dimension, then you have essentially confirmed my opinion of your intellect. If you see what I am getting at, and wish to escape being a new Zeno then maybe you might surprise me.

Now in the infinite number of nows from now to two hours from now (or indeed there is an infinite number of nows between any two nows) I bid you to think for once


I am thinking. Those moments in time did exist. It is the same as the generation argument. Your ancestors no longer exist, but they did exist, and here you are. The same applies to moments in time. The configuration of STEM did exist in different form than it exists now. If it did not exist in its past configurations, then the now that we experience would not exist either. Now, you can say that time is an illusion, and I can disagree with you on this point: two objects cannot occupy the same space simultaneously. A moment ago different objects did indeed occupy the same space at the letter t that is now being occupied by your finger. That is no illusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:56 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Once upon a time, a hare challenged a tortoise to a race. The tortoise accepted the challenge. The hare, being overconfident, decided to take a quick nap. When he awoke, he set out to catch the tortoise.

Now, when the hare awoke, the tortoise was at point A. In order to catch him, the hare had to reach point A. But by the time he reached point A, the tortoise had moved on to point B. And by the time the hare reached B, the tortoise was at C. And by the time the hare reached C, the tortoise was at D. And so on, and so we can see that the hare never caught the tortoise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:29 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Once upon a time, a hare challenged a tortoise to a race. The tortoise accepted the challenge. The hare, being overconfident, decided to take a quick nap. When he awoke, he set out to catch the tortoise.

Now, when the hare awoke, the tortoise was at point A. In order to catch him, the hare had to reach point A. But by the time he reached point A, the tortoise had moved on to point B. And by the time the hare reached B, the tortoise was at C. And by the time the hare reached C, the tortoise was at D. And so on, and so we can see that the hare never caught the tortoise.


Of course he did because he did not occupy the same space as the tortoise in order to pass him. If the limitation to the paradox was that the hare had to always occupy the space previously occupied by the tortoise then he would have never been able to overtake him, but as the hare could occupy different space he could easily overtake the tortoise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:42 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The point has nothing to do with space. It is a question of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:52 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Replace "point" with "line" in the original so that the tortoise and hare can run parallel to each other.

Code:
----------------------------
     |     |   |  |
     A     B   C  D
     |     |   |  |
----------------------------


By the time the hare reaches line A, the tortoise has reached line B. By the time the hare reaches line B, the tortoise has reached line C. By the time the hare is at line C, the tortoise is at D. For the hare ever to be on the same line as the tortoise, there must be a completed infinity of these moments--yet you argue that such a thing can't exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:17 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 40158
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
I throw a ball at a tree. At time A, the ball is 1/2 of the way there (point X). At time B, the ball is 1/2 of the way between point X and the tree (point Y). At time C, the ball is 1/2 of the way between point Y and the tree (point Z). At time D, the ball is 1/2 of the way between point Z and the tree. Etc. Whenever the position of the ball is measured, it is 1/2 of the way between the tree and the previous point at which it was measured. Therefore the ball can never reach the tree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82370
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Underlying both of these examples is the fact that between any two points (in space or in time), there is an uncountably infinite number of other points. Yet somehow we do manage to move through time and space anyhow. So having to traverse an infinite number of points in time is not itself impossible, or none of us would ever do anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:24 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Pax, you used the phrase ‘a moment ago.’ How, long, exactly, is a ‘moment’? And how long is it between two of these?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: