Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:48 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
Closet Catholic wrote:
Pax, you used the phrase ‘a moment ago.’ How, long, exactly, is a ‘moment’? And how long is it between two of these?


The shortest moment we know of is the Plank Time, that is, how long it takes a photon of light to traverse the distance of an atomic nucleus. You can tell me that time is an illusion, but the re-positioning of the universe is not an illusion. You can tell me that time is the measurement of events, and I can accept that as a good enough definition, but the re-positioning of the universe cannot be without beginning as each new position is utterly dependant on the position before it, and, so logic tells us, that there must indeed be some first position of the universe, otherwise the universe we know right now cannot be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:02 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
The Planck time is 10^-20 the time it takes light to travel the diameter of a proton, but that's not where it comes from. It is the time it takes light to cover the theoretically (under current models) shortest measurable distance. But just because we can't measure shorter distances doesn't mean they don't exist.

Nor is it correct to say that Planck is the smallest moment we know of because photons can begin their journey from here to there at any time.

Restating your argument in terms of repositioning of the universe doesn't make it more correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:41 pm 
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)
pax wrote:
the re-positioning of the universe cannot be without beginning as each new position is utterly dependant on the position before it, and, so logic tells us, that there must indeed be some first position of the universe, otherwise the universe we know right now cannot be.

Interesting, I would think that the position of the universe would depend on God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:37 pm 
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 wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
Pax, you used the phrase ‘a moment ago.’ How, long, exactly, is a ‘moment’? And how long is it between two of these?


The shortest moment we know of is the Plank Time, that is, how long it takes a photon of light to traverse the distance of an atomic nucleus.
So when a photon of light has traversed the distance of half an atomic nucleus, it has taken ‘half a moment’?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:45 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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68AkJtjdPs NAR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:28 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
Closet Catholic wrote:
pax wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
Pax, you used the phrase ‘a moment ago.’ How, long, exactly, is a ‘moment’? And how long is it between two of these?


The shortest moment we know of is the Plank Time, that is, how long it takes a photon of light to traverse the distance of an atomic nucleus.
So when a photon of light has traversed the distance of half an atomic nucleus, it has taken ‘half a moment’?


The paradox does not work. The universe is in constant motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:31 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
What paradox? "The universe is in constant motion" doesn't address either what I said or what Bagheera said. We agree it's in constant motion. The problem is that, on your account, it is logically impossible for it to be in motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:30 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
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
What paradox? "The universe is in constant motion" doesn't address either what I said or what Bagheera said. We agree it's in constant motion. The problem is that, on your account, it is logically impossible for it to be in motion.


It is logically impossible for the motion to not have a beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:53 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
You can't assert your conclusion as a premise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:21 pm 
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)
pax wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
What paradox? "The universe is in constant motion" doesn't address either what I said or what Bagheera said. We agree it's in constant motion. The problem is that, on your account, it is logically impossible for it to be in motion.


It is logically impossible for the motion to not have a beginning.


Does it have to have a beginning in time?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:30 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, you may not realize it yet, but you have just ran afoul of the Church.

A "now" is that which has no part, just like the point on a line has no part. We might speak of a shortest possible length, whether this is or isn't the same as a plank length is irrelevant. Take the smallest...it has a left and a right side, no? So it is still divisible . Let line AB be the shortest possible length. Let BC also be the same length, so that line AC is twice the minimum length. Now construct DE equal to AB and position it so that a line drawn perpendicular to AB from D bisects AB, and a line perpendicular from E bisects BC....would you assert this is impossible? Of course not...whether or not a material being could be such a length, you can still speak of a middle point. And you could still conceptualize DE traveling from A to C, so that at some point the construction would be true

But as I said, time is not composed of a finite number of now. Not only is this absurd, both logically and physically (for tie would not be continuous, but would be like a move, which flashes images at 30 frames a second, such that it only appears continuous), it is condemned by the Church.

Further pax, you keep begging the question. You are being a sophist and are so stubborn that it would be a mortal sin for me to hold your position because you have talked yourself into error condemned by the Church


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:03 am 
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
To be clear, I am not saying you have sinned, you have just shown rank ignorance. Any line may be further divided, any duration divided. Points and nows have no breadth or duration. If a point had length it would be a line not a point. But a line, if finite, must be defined by two points. So what, would they be contigious points? Then there could be a smaller line, namely the line composed of a single point, which is actually a line, but if a line you can distinguish different sides, hence points.



And I take it back....last time we hashed this out the exact same points were made, and I directly quoted the Council of Constance which condemned, as an error regarding God's power, precisely the view you claim about time. And this happened on more than one thread. Therefore, presented with Church teaching you obstinately ignore it. Just as you ignore any evidence that does not fit with, what I can best describe, as your "traditionalist modernistic" view. Yes pax, you are in many ways a modernist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:06 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76279
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
You can't assert your conclusion as a premise.



Why not? That is exactly what he is doing in his thread about the crucifixion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:14 am 
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, should we hold you to the same standards as those you demand answers from? Quote the board rules about assertions (if you want to look up my assertion that is the Council of Constance, proposition 51 of those condemned from Wycliffe) and all that jazz? Do you think you would fair well?

Here and other places you simply refuse to engaPge the real argument...you blindly assert your views, even when condemned by the Church. While not a matter of heresy here (though it logically leads to a heresy), this is the sort of attitude that leads to heresy y way of intellectual and wilful disposition.


In fact, a Google site search shows that on this topic and the topic of the crucifixion and a few others, you regurgitate the same canards. It reminds me a lot of torn, who will from time to time post a thread asking the same question all over again. And like torn, it is like we have never even said anything to you. You aren't affected by what is said, because in stubborn pride you simply do not listen. And for three years have reasserted an error about time that is condemned by the Church, without even giving any indication that you bothered reading it.

The Church says it is impossible for time to be composed of 2, 3, 4 or any finite number of instances. That this is an error with regard to God's power. While the question of whether the universe can be proved by reason to have had a beginning is open for debate, and in what sense a proof may be had, you are not entitled to hold the view of time you do. It leads, actually, to denying some pretty weighty dogmas....even if it did not, why are you dissenting from the Church? Did the 51st condemned proposition cease its relevance because history changed or because of your poor attempt at present physics?

Heck, you keep talking about a "stem universe" That is not a thing. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It is a term covering four related academic disciplines. It is not a name of some scientific model of the universe. So seriously, seeing as you are willing to spit at the magisterium of the Church here, and refuse to engage the arguments presented, and don't grasp the material you cite, why should we take you seriously?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:13 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:
You can't assert your conclusion as a premise.


I'm not. At least, I am not intentionally doing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:16 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, should we hold you to the same standards as those you demand answers from? Quote the board rules about assertions (if you want to look up my assertion that is the Council of Constance, proposition 51 of those condemned from Wycliffe) and all that jazz? Do you think you would fair well?

Here and other places you simply refuse to engaPge the real argument...you blindly assert your views, even when condemned by the Church. While not a matter of heresy here (though it logically leads to a heresy), this is the sort of attitude that leads to heresy y way of intellectual and wilful disposition.


In fact, a Google site search shows that on this topic and the topic of the crucifixion and a few others, you regurgitate the same canards. It reminds me a lot of torn, who will from time to time post a thread asking the same question all over again. And like torn, it is like we have never even said anything to you. You aren't affected by what is said, because in stubborn pride you simply do not listen. And for three years have reasserted an error about time that is condemned by the Church, without even giving any indication that you bothered reading it.

The Church says it is impossible for time to be composed of 2, 3, 4 or any finite number of instances. That this is an error with regard to God's power. While the question of whether the universe can be proved by reason to have had a beginning is open for debate, and in what sense a proof may be had, you are not entitled to hold the view of time you do. It leads, actually, to denying some pretty weighty dogmas....even if it did not, why are you dissenting from the Church? Did the 51st condemned proposition cease its relevance because history changed or because of your poor attempt at present physics?

Heck, you keep talking about a "stem universe" That is not a thing. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It is a term covering four related academic disciplines. It is not a name of some scientific model of the universe. So seriously, seeing as you are willing to spit at the magisterium of the Church here, and refuse to engage the arguments presented, and don't grasp the material you cite, why should we take you seriously?



STEM stands for Space Time Matter and Energy.

And you must have taken a severe blow to the head and are in a state of delirium if you think the Church has condemned the proposition that past time cannot be indefinite.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:31 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:
The Church says it is impossible for time to be composed of 2, 3, 4 or any finite number of instances. That this is an error with regard to God's power. While the question of whether the universe can be proved by reason to have had a beginning is open for debate, and in what sense a proof may be had, you are not entitled to hold the view of time you do. It leads, actually, to denying some pretty weighty dogmas....even if it did not, why are you dissenting from the Church? Did the 51st condemned proposition cease its relevance because history changed or because of your poor attempt at present physics?


Council of Constance wrote:
51. Any continuous mathematical line is composed of two, three or four contiguous points, or of only a simply finite number of points; and time is, was and will be composed of contiguous instants. It is not possible that time and a line, if they exist, are composed of in this way. (The first part is a philosophical error, the last part is an error with regard to God's power.)


I humbly and respectfully withdraw that from my argument.

Nonetheless, my conclusion still stands based upon motion, and the fact that infinitesimals do not exist in the physical universe because they have no dimensions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:12 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
No one denies the fact of motion; the Council of Constance tells that time is not a succession of finite points. Kalaam in the way you are presenting it doesn't work. Your defense of the second premise just doesn't work. I am not saying that no effective defense of the second premise is possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:02 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 wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
pax wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
Pax, you used the phrase ‘a moment ago.’ How, long, exactly, is a ‘moment’? And how long is it between two of these?


The shortest moment we know of is the Plank Time, that is, how long it takes a photon of light to traverse the distance of an atomic nucleus.
So when a photon of light has traversed the distance of half an atomic nucleus, it has taken ‘half a moment’?


The paradox does not work. The universe is in constant motion.
??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:31 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
The fact is between now and now there are an infinite number of nows. From 1 second to the next, time is infinitely divisible.

You are now asserting the opposite of what you did. You asserted before that there was an infinitesimal, namely planck time. Now you are asserting that there cannot be such a thing. Ok, agreed. Time is infinitely divisible.

I don't know why you don' t understand basic words or even acronyms (again STEM does not stand for what you think it does. You just sound stupid using it your own idiosyncratic way).

There are arguments that can be given against an " infinite past" you given none, but simply run amok, denied the very existence of time and motion, then turned around and asserted literal nonsense.

The fact is pax you are acting the fool and are an embarrassment.

Once again, from the top.
Time is the numbering of motion according to before and after. From any instant to another any number whatsoever may be given. I may count an hour as 60 minutes or 3600 seconds or 2,160,000 thirds, ad nauseam. There is not least unit, no infinitesimal as you said (that is no limit to the divisibility of time). A now, like a point on a line, is not the result of continuously dividing time up. It has no part, has no duration, just as a point is that which has no part. Between any two nows, just as between any two points, any number of nows or points can be taken. If this were not true, then there would be a least part.

The argument that something with dimension/without duration cannot exist, well that is just you sound like Richard Dawkins or one of the other ignorant fools. A point has no dimension, but is the principle of a line. Just as the line is the principle of a plane, and so on. You cannot say that length, breadth and depth exist, but points do not. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of geometry (though note, in what way lines and points, as taken in say Euclid, actually exist is another issue, not actually relevant here). The now, you might call it the moving now, is the principle of time.

Time is the numbering of motion before and after. Numbering, as in something produced by an intelligent mind, such as man. Time, as such, does not exist apart from a mind that numbers motion. And it numbers it the same way one measures a line segment, by taking two points, or nows, as principles to define a unit.

We must look at the fundmentum of time, then to argue about the universe. Now motion is the act of the potential qua potential. Now go back and read the link from that mind so praised by the Church, Aquinas. There are arguments against him. But what I want you to do is try and understand the actual questions involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to:  
cron