Cosmological argument vs. LDS infinite regress

[ERayR]

Perhaps I am being a bit myopic on the view of looking at singular events within the set than looking at the set in total. I must confess I am having a cognitive dilemma on the topic. As I am looking from a perspective of first cause, it pushes me towards looking at events in singularity. I don't know that I can apply your analogy to it.

I think this is what you seem to be saying, but let me toss this at you and see if I am getting closer

P1. Infinity exists

P2. Nothing that is infinite can be caused

P3. Anything that is finite or contingent is caused

P4. (What would you put here to reach C1)

C1. An infinite string of finite or contingent things can exist

For your consideration for P4.

Anything infinite can be broken into finite segments.

[johndoe]

I have to deal with what I perceive to be facts. Evil exists because God created it. God is good. It leads me to the conclusion that evil is necessary in order for God to create more good. I can't say God isn't good because evil exists.... there is no truth in it. I find Christ's work for us sufficient evidence, but apparently not everyone agrees with that.

For two folks like us who are theists, that's probably a practical view to take. However, the PoE is at its core an argument against the existence of God. In fact, it is the reason a coworker of mine is an atheist. From the atheist POV, starting off with the assumption that God exists isn't going to get you very far. It does beg the question.

As always JD, I enjoy the dialogue.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

As do I! I think I don't have much more to say on the PoE though, at least for now.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat;

I may get a little elemantal here but it is only to help me develop my thoughts. To have free will one must have choices. When choices are presented it is understood that in making different choices one both opens doors and closes doors. A choice made opens the opportunity for some new and different choices and it closes the opportunity for others incompatible with the choice made.

So then God has chosen to be perfect(a topic to be explored at a later date, what is perfect)therefore he has shut the doors to any choice that is not perfect. On the other hand he has opened doors to other choices of things pertaining to perfection (wish I had any idea what they are. way above my paygrade but i am confident they are there). So while he has closed the door to imperfect choices ther is still choices available. As stated I have no idea what they would be.

And then there is the possibility (however slim) that he might revisit some of his earlier choices and change them.

Just some rambling thoughts.

Actually much of what you have stated is my present view. Luke 10:13 is an interesting verse.

Luk 10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

Assuming that Christ is being literal, we see a plain awareness of how things would have been different had another choice been made. I am of the mind that God is aware of an infinite amount of "what ifs" or counterfactuals and has chosen that which is most perfect among all of them. The only thing I could see that might contradict the view, would be if it is possible that there are two options that are equally and exactly perfect.

On the underlined bit. I dunno about that. As I see it, God has already seen beyond all this and would have already adjusted for it, plus it seems there is an underlying implication that God might not be perfect.

For your consideration for P4.

Anything infinite can be broken into finite segments.

I need to fix something with this first.

P1. Infinity exists

P2. Nothing that is infinite can be caused

P3. Anything that is finite or contingent is caused

P3A. Anything that is finite or contingent can't cause itself

P4. (What would you put here to reach C1)

C1. An infinite string of finite or contingent things can exist

It's a good suggestion, but runs into problems with P3, IMO. Or at least that is where my cognitive dilemma is.

If something that is finite, is also caused then it doesn't logically follow that there could be an infinite string of finite things. As I see it, what you have is a string of finite causality that can't logically cause it self.

Because the string is infinite, by P2 it doesn't have to be caused.

Because the infinite string subsists of finite things, by P3 each thing must have a cause and P3A can't cause itself.

It still seems like the two are working against the other, but maybe I am just missing something here.

Thanks for your thoughts ERayR

[johndoe]

Perhaps I am being a bit myopic on the view of looking at singular events within the set than looking at the set in total. I must confess I am having a cognitive dilemma on the topic. As I am looking from a perspective of first cause, it pushes me towards looking at events in singularity. I don't know that I can apply your analogy to it.

I think this is what you seem to be saying, but let me toss this at you and see if I am getting closer

P1. Infinity exists

P2. Nothing that is infinite can be caused

P3. Anything that is finite or contingent is caused

P4. (What would you put here to reach C1)

C1. An infinite string of finite or contingent things can exist

I suppose I would include something like:

P4.1 A set can have properties that are not shared by any of its elements.

P4.2 A set that includes an infinite number of finite or contingent (caused) elements can have the property of being uncaused.

I'm not sure how well these fit into the overall structure you created, but these are the points I am trying to make. The set of all real numbers (without bounds) is an example. Every single element (number) is finite, yet the set is infinite. Of course, it doesn't make sense to speak of numbers as being caused or uncaused.

Also, I wanted to get back and readdress something else from your previous post

As I stated in previous post, it seems as though I am introducing some sort of special pleading for God, in that he never had to choose evil. I wanted to explain that a bit further. Though it's my understanding that we are made in the image of God. We are also not made God in the same process. So there is a variance between God and we being made in his image. Recognizing the difference between the two, would it be logical to apply the same properties in regards to free will that God has applied to us.

I bolded that bit, as you were restating something I had submitted in regards to free will earlier. To clarify, it is my position that at least one has to choose evil for it to be a valid choice. Not that we "all" must choose evil at least once.

Why must at least one being have to choose evil for us to be able to freely choose good over evil?

But you pose a serious question. Does God have free will?

Does he really have the power of choice or is he bound by himself to perfection. If God is perfect, then all choices made must be perfect, otherwise God is not perfect. So in that sense, we could say that God doesn't have free will.

However, the choice to be perfect itself would imply that all perfect choices he makes are made by his free will.

Anyways, apologies for a rather cruddy return post last night. I feel I was leaning a bit to heavily on faith instead of trying to provide you a cogent response.

No apologies needed. Hmm, I suppose I did have more to say on this.

On God's free will, I waffle on this. I think it comes down to how free will should properly be defined. I don't think God has free will in a libertarian sense, though some of my LDS friends, like ba81, disagree. I think that, if having free will necessarily entails actually being able to do otherwise (in God's case, to do that which is less than perfect), then God is not free. But that's not the free will that I accept. I personally view free will as being able to express our natures. In this sense, God is free. Then again, I think the type of free will that is theologically relevant does involve a tension between good and evil, and I don't think God feels that tension.

Wishy-washy enough?

I'm not sure coming from a nonLDS background that it would be correct to say that God chose to be perfect. It would seem that His perfection is simply a part of His eternal, uncreated nature. No?

[johndoe]

Because the string is infinite, by P2 it doesn't have to be caused.

Because the infinite string subsists of finite things, by P3 each thing must have a cause and P3A can't cause itself.

It still seems like the two are working against the other, but maybe I am just missing something here.

Thanks for your thoughts ERayR

We are very close!

The set has a property that none of its elements have, the property of being infinite and uncaused.

None of the elements of the set have that property.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

[ERayR]

We are very close!

The set has a property that none of its elements have, the property of being infinite and uncaused.

None of the elements of the set have that property.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

We see this is true in a great many finite situations and I have no reason to believe it couldn't extent to the infinite. Given that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole I think that my suggestion for P4 would work.

Me: And then there is the possibility (however slim) that he might revisit some of his earlier choices and change them.

Mudcat: On the underlined bit. I dunno about that. As I see it, God has already seen beyond all this and would have already adjusted for it, plus it seems there is an underlying implication that God might not be perfect.

I can see where the implication is there but since God is bringing order out of chaos I could envision a possible need for a different approach. This could be so if we define perfect as 'always doing the right thing'.

[Mudcat]

Why must at least one being have to choose evil for us to be able to freely choose good over evil?

I may respond to the rest of your post later, but I am walking out the door and thought I would toss this out.

Do you think evil could exist if it was never chosen or must it be manifested to actually be?

[mfbukowski]

Great post Bukowski, I was hoping to get some sort of answer in regards to this and am thankful for the thought you put into it.

You bring up a good point, I suppose causation has been a fairly obvious assumption on my part and if causation doesn't exist then we should chunk my "proof".

Seems you are supportive of the concept that causation doesn't logically exist. I suppose I am trying to understand what you are suggesting a little better. Free will/agency has been thrown into the conversation earlier so I wanted to ask you something that might help get a better grip on where you are coming from.

This is what I think I understand so far... correct me if I am wrong.

P1. All things that exist are infinite and self-existent

P2. Nothing that is infinite is caused

C1. All things that exist are not caused

Now how does causation square with free will. It would seem to me that a choice could to do this or that could create an effect. Which would essentially be causing something.

So if cause doesn't exist, how does free will exist?

How does free agency fit into this.

Edit add - if you are a deranged lunatic, you are in good company here

You sir, are a good guy! And thanks for humoring me All you "little kids" probably haven't heard of the album "We're All Bozos on This Bus", but I remember it well.

On a personal note, it took me a while to get back to this because we are having a bit the real world intruding into our philosophical speculations. In our ward right now we have a 30 year old woman dying of cancer after getting married just 9 months ago, and another older sister also about ready to pass on. 15 funerals in 3 years is enough to definitely put one on notice that now is the time to prepare to meet the Lord and get it as "right" in the best way each of us knows how to do so! It gives you definite perspective, I will say that!

“So if cause doesn't exist, how does free will exist?”

That is an interesting approach because I would suppose most free will advocates would be more likely to think that if we cannot be “caused” to do something by outside forces, we are more likely to have free will. I guess the robot analogy would be a good one-- robots are “caused” to respond to their programming and usually this is seen as a paradigm of determinism.

I am not making an argument here, but just giving a summary of my view of the history of philosophy on the point of causality and determinism.

Let me make it clear-- I don't mean that nothing is “caused”; the argument is that it cannot be shown as a LOGICAL NECESSITY that anything is caused, or more precisely that any given that any particular “a” is the logically necessary “cause” of any given “b”.

Big difference.

That distinction is important because that is precisely what is needed to make the cosmological argument work.

So the world of causation is an empirical one which might be right or wrong.

Causation becomes a scientific question, not a logical or philosophical one. I suppose a wonderful example that actually fits with the way I started this post is the “cause” of cancer. Not easy to figure out where that “cause” is at all, and all the links involved certainly are not “logical necessities”! Our world is a complicated one!

So on that point of view the search for a “first cause” becomes a scientific search for God. Good luck on that one. Send up a rocket and take a picture of him?

So to get back to the philosophy on both causation and free will/determinism, you have this group of philosophers who realize that we can never know what is “really” out there, all we can know is experience.

When we see a red car we are “actually” seeing, or so science tells us, is reflected light of a certain wavelength which our eyes and brain interpret as the “color red” and because those red patches in our perception are in a certain shape, our brain associates it with what we know of “cars” and puts it all together into a “red car experience”.

We never “really” see the red car, we just have a “red car experience”. The only thing we can ever know, on this view is experience. There is no “reality” that we can know, only the way we experience it.

So if “experience” is all we can know, why worry about what is “real”, in the sense of an underlying “reality” which we can never know? Why worry about something that makes absolutely no difference in our lives?

And if we look at science, that is exactly what we do. We stick the gizmo-meter on the gizmo and see that it registers 30.29, and then we tweak the whatchamacallit and the gizmo meter reading changes to 47.395, and suddenly we have “discovered” some earth shattering fact. All we are doing is making sophisticated repeatable sensory observations aided by gizmos that amplify what we cannot see naturally, and then we make up theories to account for the observations.

There is nothing logically necessary about it. It is all just repeating empirical observations of the way humans perceive the world.

So now let's look at free will/determinism. You wake up in the morning, it's your day off. What will I do today? Well I have my “honey-do” list, I have to wash the car, maybe have lunch at my favorite pizza place and then take my wife to a movie. What movie? I don't know, we'll pick something!

Did you ever for one second actually worry about if you had free will?

It's a non-issue.

If you cannot even prove that there is a logically necessary cause and effect relationship in nature, you certainly cannot show within your own mind that there is a logically necessary “cause” for your actions.

You could never observe your own actions being logically necessary effects. Not possible.

But could an outside observer? No, not unless he could show ANY effects to be logically necessary causes. But even if he could show logically necessary causes and effects, it still would not apply to our own perception of our own experience.

So if we don't experience being determined, and experience is all we can know, we cannot know that we are determined, even if we are.

So the whole issue is unprovable either way.

In other words, it is like a religious proposition like “Calvin was right”.

So we get an opinion, but if you are looking for proofs, you are barking up the wrong tree!

So I think my answer and modern philosophy's answer to the OP is that you cannot come up with a cosmological argument for a first cause that holds up, from either a causal pov or a free will pov. Fergetaboutit!

[Mudcat]

For two folks like us who are theists, that's probably a practical view to take. However, the PoE is at its core an argument against the existence of God. In fact, it is the reason a coworker of mine is an atheist. From the atheist POV, starting off with the assumption that God exists isn't going to get you very far. It does beg the question.

Well, I suppose I am about PoE'd out myself.

In regards to your atheist friend, I feel your pain. I discuss things from time to time on another forum with a group of atheists. At the point that you bring "faith" into any dialogue, you have pretty much lost the audience. As you seem to be quite familiar with PoE, I am sure you are aware that even the best argument will only yield you a draw. But IMO a draw is better than nothing. I think atheists aren't converted through logical argument. They are converted the same way everyone else is, through the Holy Spirit. However, if we can produce cogent logical arguments, maybe this would help to "soften" their heart and make them receptive.

I think man to man evil actions fit into any argument against the PoE well.

Finding a place for natural disaster is quite another situation though.

I suppose I would include something like:

P4.1 A set can have properties that are not shared by any of its elements.

P4.2 A set that includes an infinite number of finite or contingent (caused) elements can have the property of being uncaused.

I'm not sure how well these fit into the overall structure you created, but these are the points I am trying to make. The set of all real numbers (without bounds) is an example. Every single element (number) is finite, yet the set is infinite. Of course, it doesn't make sense to speak of numbers as being caused or uncaused.

Well P4.1 appears to be a non-sequitur, and may simply need a premise you are assuming that I am missing.

However, I am finally tracking with you on the topic. I don't agree with P4.2, mind you, but I am now aware of what you mean. Typically I consider it a win-win, when I can at least identify with an argument that I previously didn't understand.

Why must at least one being have to choose evil for us to be able to freely choose good over evil?

I asked a question to this earlier but I will state my position in full. Evil is not evil until it exists, otherwise it is merely a concept of evil that is being chosen against. Also good does not exist until it is made manifest. So to freely choose evil at least one being must choose evil.

On God's free will, I waffle on this. I think it comes down to how free will should properly be defined. I don't think God has free will in a libertarian sense, though some of my LDS friends, like ba81, disagree. I think that, if having free will necessarily entails actually being able to do otherwise (in God's case, to do that which is less than perfect), then God is not free. But that's not the free will that I accept. I personally view free will as being able to express our natures. In this sense, God is free. Then again, I think the type of free will that is theologically relevant does involve a tension between good and evil, and I don't think God feels that tension.

Underline mine. I agree with your waffling and consider myself a bit of a waffler as well. Now all we need is a bunch of Boy Scouts at six in the morning getting ready for a long hike and we could feel productive in waffles.

Bold mine. Eloquently stated, should you keep a journal or something... you should put that in there.

I'm not sure coming from a nonLDS background that it would be correct to say that God chose to be perfect. It would seem that His perfection is simply a part of His eternal, uncreated nature. No?

It's a good question. I still find myself in the corner that God is who he is because he chooses who he is. I don't think his perfect choice conflicts with his perfect nature though.

[Mudcat]

You sir, are a good guy! And thanks for humoring me All you "little kids" probably haven't heard of the album "We're All Bozos on This Bus", but I remember it well.

No, you sir, are a good guy! I you tubed a bit of the ref. album and plan on checking the rest out a little later. Good stuff so faf.

On a personal note, it took me a while to get back to this because we are having a bit the real world intruding into our philosophical speculations. In our ward right now we have a 30 year old woman dying of cancer after getting married just 9 months ago, and another older sister also about ready to pass on. 15 funerals in 3 years is enough to definitely put one on notice that now is the time to prepare to meet the Lord and get it as "right" in the best way each of us knows how to do so! It gives you definite perspective, I will say that!

Sorry your ward is having a rough go.

“So if cause doesn't exist, how does free will exist?”

That is an interesting approach because I would suppose most free will advocates would be more likely to think that if we cannot be “caused” to do something by outside forces, we are more likely to have free will. I guess the robot analogy would be a good one-- robots are “caused” to respond to their programming and usually this is seen as a paradigm of determinism.

I am not making an argument here, but just giving a summary of my view of the history of philosophy on the point of causality and determinism.

Well I suppose the concept that its beyond the power of an omnipotent God to create beings that do actually have free will is a point of speculation.

In contrast, I find it difficult to understand by what pretense one uncaused and infinite being, could exact judgment on another uncaused and infinite being. Seems some of these infinite beings are good... some are evil. By what pretense would judgment fall into the hands of any over the other?

Let me make it clear-- I don't mean that nothing is “caused”; the argument is that it cannot be shown as a LOGICAL NECESSITY that anything is caused, or more precisely that any given that any particular “a” is the logically necessary “cause” of any given “b”.

Big difference.

Quite.

After reading the rest of your post, I have come to the understanding that you are describing a system of philosophy that ultimately reduces down to Solipsism.. "I think therefore I am".

It isn't a debunkable argument.

Taking on the virtues of it, I can with all certainty say that the claim that.. My Labrador retriever created the entire universe two days ago and implanted all these false memories into every humans head of a past life, is just as viable as anything postulated by Christ, Peter, JS, Calvin, etc...

Since I can't debunk your argument, I would posit this...

Though you have submitted a valid counter, you don't believe a word of what you have submitted. I know what you are saying isn't agreeable with my theology, nor do I believe it is agreeable with yours either.

Do you believe cause does not exist?

[Cold Steel]

I...support the concept that there was a First Cause to all things and that First Cause was God. LDS seem to believe that God was not the First Cause. From my understanding, LDS believe God was caused/organized, and what caused God was caused/organized .. ad infinitum. I disagree with this.

I actually think you might be a tad off on this one. It's not that we believe God was "caused" at some point in eternity as much as we tend to view all things as eternal, God being one of them.

In LDS theology, the universe is composed of two elements: 1) that which acts, and 3) that which is acted upon. All intelligence is eternal, just as all matter is eternal. We can take substance and form it into worlds and such, but there is never a time when just God existed. The main problem with this would be continuum. If God is all that existed at one point, how long did He exist before He created anything? Since time has no beginning, one would have to be willing to concede that for untold trillions of years (or however you wish to reckon time), that God existed without anything else. If you believe that Jesus also is eternal (as is the Holy Spirit), then you've got three intelligent beings existing for unimaginable lengths of time doing nothing. To us that makes no sense.

Any eternal scenario is problematic, but it's really no different to say all intelligence is eternal than to say God, alone, is eternal. Add to that that if we're correct, there are also untold billions of gods (which we term "God") in the universe, each in the process of creation.

As old as our universe is, it's still finite. In my own view, there has to be other universes. Whether they exist in parallel dimensions or are beyond the confines of this universe, or both, is unknown. If the being we call "Father" is the creator of this universe, and if there be other Fathers in other parts of the cosmos, each lord over his own universe, we don't know. In the book of Moses, the Lord says: "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." However many components of "God" exist is open for debate (or I should say speculation), but all things are in a state of organization â?? and the organization doesn't just happen.

If God spoke the universe into being, why would it take Him seven days to create the Earth? He could just speak and the Earth would be organized in an instant. In LDS theology, the Father commanded, and the Son carried out the creation. Worlds without number He created, and the Lord says the numbers of his creations are "innumerable to man," yet He knows them, for they are His.

No one pretends to know how it all started or how it's sustained. Our theology may not suit other Christians, but there's nothing to contradict it in the scriptures; and we maintain it's revealed truth. In conventional Christian theology, no one's quite sure whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were always as they are now (three beings) or whether they initially were one being. The church fathers never could explain it and now that we've learned as much about the cosmos as we do, we still don't know. We LDS have been told, however, that God did not create our intelligence, nor, He added, could intelligence be created. We can mimic intelligence with computers and have something react as though it were intelligence, but it's all artificial. Whatever it is at the core of intelligence, it's eternal. It can be added upon, but never created nor destroyed. If it could, why did not God destroy Lucifer and his angels. They were, after all, flawed creations. And why did He send them to Earth to tempt Adam?

One day we'll know all the answers, but for now, no. I think we agree that the universe didn't create itself, but other than that, we're just seeing God in a different light.

[Mudcat]

I actually think you might be a tad off on this one. It's not that we believe God was "caused" at some point in eternity as much as we tend to view all things as eternal, God being one of them.

In LDS theology, the universe is composed of two elements: 1) that which acts, and 3) that which is acted upon. All intelligence is eternal, just as all matter is eternal. We can take substance and form it into worlds and such, but there is never a time when just God existed. The main problem with this would be continuum. If God is all that existed at one point, how long did He exist before He created anything? Since time has no beginning, one would have to be willing to concede that for untold trillions of years (or however you wish to reckon time), that God existed without anything else. If you believe that Jesus also is eternal (as is the Holy Spirit), then you've got three intelligent beings existing for unimaginable lengths of time doing nothing. To us that makes no sense.

Hey CS,

Let me ask you something. Do you believe both good and evil elements can act upon things?

And do you believe both good and evil elements can be acted upon?

Also, I am curious, can elements that are acted upon act?

In regards to acted and acted upon, its a bit hard to distinguish for me.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Since I can't debunk your argument, I would posit this...

Though you have submitted a valid counter, you don't believe a word of what you have submitted. I know what you are saying isn't agreeable with my theology, nor do I believe it is agreeable with yours either.

Do you believe cause does not exist?

I think we have a misunderstanding because yes I completely do believe what I have submitted, and I think there can be no other statement which makes more sense for both my and your theology.

I told you I was a looney! No, seriously, we have a misunderstanding

The position does not at all entail solipsism. In fact it is a rather commonsensical approach.

I (and many others) think that there are two types of statements which describe experience, one is a "first person proposition" like "I am hungry" or "I believe in X", both of which are statements about what we usually call "mental states". I cannot prove to you that I am hungry, or that in fact I do or do not believe in "X", but nevertheless such statements have truth value (to me). In fact, we have a term for uttering a first person proposition which is false; it is called "lying". Some first person statements are in fact partially verifiable to others and others are not. You could for example test my blood sugar level and say "Hmmm- yes, I imagine you ARE hungry, at least your blood sugar level is low".

Other statements in this category would be "I have felt the Holy Ghost", which I could not verify to others, but which can be as completely "true" as any other first person statement can be.

But then there are third person experiential statements also. The whole epistemological position known as "pragmatism" relies on these. We all have a "personal reality" and a "social reality" in which we rely on experience reports of others. When I read your posts here, I know beyond any possible doubt that you exist and you are a believer, and a whole host of communications of your experiences which you have made to me in the past.

The point is, you are talking about YOUR experiences, and I acknowledge that. There are many types of third person experiential reports, including "Mudcat is an Evangelical Christian", "Antartica exists" (I have never been there, so it is not a first person experience) "Water freezes when the thermometer reads 32 degrees farenheit" (I have never measured it for myself) etc etc. Words like "fact" can be misleading. It is not a "fact" that water freezes at 32 degrees, in the sense that there is an independent world out there where there is some THING like "32 degrees". When we say that "Water freezes at 32 degrees" what we are really saying is that the thermometer tells us it is 32 degrees. Degrees are not "real" they are arbitrary lines on a measuring device.

In fact the truth of all the propositions of science rely on my accepting that others have in fact measured everything correctly and have correctly reported their experiences. No solipsism here at all. I really do believe that science is "true" in the sense that it correctly reports what other people have experienced in systematic measurement of this world and everything in it.

The point is what it is reporting on though is "experience". Another way of putting this all using terminology which would be familiar to a Plato or Aristotle is that "We cannot know what really IS, we can only know the appearances of what is real".

The difference is that Plato and Aristotle thought there was "something else out there" OTHER THAN EXPERIENCES or to use their terms, "appearances" whereas the pragmatists with me included beleive that there IS nothing else, because we can know nothing else.

More precisely they are "agnostics" about a reality outside our experiences, but the main point is that if it is unexperienecable, it is irrelevant in life, and so it is..... well irrelevant!

So no solipsism, what you see is "real" (unless you are mistaken, optical illusion etc) what you believe is "true", other people exist and tell us about their own experiences, science is "true" and there really IS a guy named "Mudcat" who is totally wrong about everything out there somewhere. Causation is a scientific observation, not a logical necessity. That's why I was talking about the cause of cancer in the other post. Causation can be highly complex.

But there is no "first cause" because on this view it is not logical, and you sure can't experience it. I wasn't around and neither was anyone else.

But the strength of this position logically is if you have experienced it, it is undisputably true, as true as any first person experience report can be; and yet it is totally compatible with science, so to me, it makes theology compatible with science. Both study experience; theology is about the meaning of life and which personal experiences and beliefs work to improve our lives, and which do not. Science studies experiences which we can all (in principle) replicate.

The drawback is that pink elephants and spiritual experience are in the same category, yet it is clear to me that there is a qualitative difference which is experienceable, so in another sense they are not in the same category.

Words like "being" and "substance" are not experienceable and so go out the window. "I have felt the holy spirit" or "I know the church is true" in a sense is replicable since if others follow the same steps you do, they SOMETIMES get the same results, and sometimes not. So we need an explanation for that difference, which has been discussed many times.

But that is not the subject of this thread

[LeSellers]

Infinity is beyond our finite minds. Most of us can agree on that.

Trying to cram infinite ideas into finite minds is impossible, and even getting those finite minds to a point where the merest of glimpses of infinity are in view is just as unlikely.

For instance, how many infinities are there? There are an infinite number. We can postulate an infinity of positive integers, another of negative integers. The first one consists of all the whole numbers beginning with "0": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... . This list is endless. Now, there is another list, that of all even positive integers: 0, 2, 4 ,6 ,8 ... . This list is not smaller than the first, they are both infinite. You might complain that it is logical that there are only half as many numbers in the second list as in the first, but the idea of "half of infinity" is a logical impossibility.

There is a list of all integers, positive and negative: ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... .Is it twice as big as the first of our examples? What are the implications of both of the earlier lists including "0"?

The discussion of "first causes" when the subject is God and the universe is pointless. There was no first cause, and there was no "beginning".

By the way, the Bible does not say "In the beginning, God created ...". It says something more like, "When God began to create ...", and "create" does not mean "creatio ex nihil". While that may be a subject for another discussion, it has direct bearing on this one.

Lehi

[johndoe]

I may respond to the rest of your post later, but I am walking out the door and thought I would toss this out.

Do you think evil could exist if it was never chosen or must it be manifested to actually be?

That's an excellent question. To start, I think I'd like to go back to my earlier waffling. Right now, I think that God is free. Even though He cannot choose evil (for He is limited by His perfectly good nature it would seem), He is still able to express that nature. Being bound by one's nature does not lead to a loss of freedom, I think. In a sense, we are just as bound, only our natures are not perfect. Still, I think we are free to choose good or evil, and so is God. Those who are not free to do so are those who either lack the understanding to distinguish between good and evil and/or those who are coerced into acting in a way that goes against their natures. I believe that this freedom exists even when nobody has ever actually chosen evil. Consider God acting before any of His creation has come into being (assuming creation from nothing contra LDS doctrine).

Regarding the existence of evil, evil itself is not a tangible thing. Of course, I must accept the teaching of the BoM that there must needs be opposition in all things. Still, that applies to an entirely different worldview with different assumptions. Moreover, I think the BoM teaching is most applicable to this life. That being said, it doesn't seem correct to me that evil must be expressed to actually exist. All that is required is for evil to be understood (and even if no intelligent being understood evil it would not cease to exist as a concept). Even when evil is expressed, evil itself still remains an abstract concept, not a tangible thing.

Consider the case (again, assuming creation from nothing and God as absolute First Cause) of the first evil act, which we can assume was Satan's rebellion. Prior to this, evil had never been expressed. If we assert that some being must have actually expressed evil as a prerequisite to choices actually being free, then we must conclude that Satan's rebellion, the first evil act, was not a free choice. And if the very first act of evil, which led to all evils throughout history, was not a result of free will, then the entire free will defense against the PoE loses its basis. What's more, this calls into question the justice of Satan's punishment for his rebellion, if said rebellion was not the result of his own free choice.

[Cold Steel]

Do you believe both good and evil elements can act upon things? And do you believe both good and evil elements can be acted upon? Also...can elements that are acted upon act?

The elements that act are intelligence. That which is acted upon is matter (dark or anti). Intelligence certainly can act upon matter. When Jesus turned the water into wine, he simply changed the molecular structure of the water to where it was something else. Satan and his angels, being intelligent, also have power to act. Why matter conforms is something no one understands, but light and intelligence are the same, according to scripture. Matter has within it energy. It can change its molecular structure; it can be obliterated and transformed into raw energy and, using the priesthood, men also exercise influence over the elements as Moses did to the Red Sea. It is by the power of the priesthood that worlds come in and out of existence.

Joseph Smith taught that even the Earth would be redeemed. The flood was a form of baptism and the fire of destruction that will purify it is like the fire of the Holy Spirit, which baptized members receive. When it becomes a celestialized world, it will essentially be resurrected and will radiate pure power and glory.

At any rate, this is my understanding. If someone knows better, I invite them to sound off.

Like I said, every belief concerning eternity has its problems. From a philosophical standpoint, nothing should exist. No God, no matter, no intelligence. Yet here it all is. Atheism stands as helpless as anyone else, having no way to explain where matter came from and where God came from. It's not natural for any being to exist without peers. One ancient document that Hugh Nibley cited once declared that "everything is a system in the midst of like systems." Solar systems make up galaxies, galaxies make up the universe...is our universe simply one in the midst of like systems? It also works in reverse, on a molecular structure. Thus, if there's a God, it's only normal and natural that He should have peers. Isaiah quotes God as saying that if there are other gods, he knows not any. Yet He knew of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, if there are still others, they, too, must be part of the oneness that is part of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit â?? a oneness of unity and purpose.

[johndoe]

Well, I suppose I am about PoE'd out myself.

Then again, I just posted something that keeps the coals alight. Still, I think we're about ready to wrap up. It's been fun.

In regards to your atheist friend, I feel your pain. I discuss things from time to time on another forum with a group of atheists. At the point that you bring "faith" into any dialogue, you have pretty much lost the audience. As you seem to be quite familiar with PoE, I am sure you are aware that even the best argument will only yield you a draw. But IMO a draw is better than nothing. I think atheists aren't converted through logical argument. They are converted the same way everyone else is, through the Holy Spirit. However, if we can produce cogent logical arguments, maybe this would help to "soften" their heart and make them receptive.

I agree.

I think man to man evil actions fit into any argument against the PoE well.

Finding a place for natural disaster is quite another situation though.

Yes, natural evil is a bit stickier.

Well P4.1 appears to be a non-sequitur, and may simply need a premise you are assuming that I am missing.

It doesn't really follow from anything before it. It's more of a basic assumption.

However, I am finally tracking with you on the topic. I don't agree with P4.2, mind you, but I am now aware of what you mean. Typically I consider it a win-win, when I can at least identify with an argument that I previously didn't understand.

Exactly - that's what this board is for, to come to better understanding of folks who don't think the same we do. At least, that's how I see it.

Bold mine. Eloquently stated, should you keep a journal or something... you should put that in there.

Thanks. You're too kind!

It's a good question. I still find myself in the corner that God is who he is because he chooses who he is. I don't think his perfect choice conflicts with his perfect nature though.

I suppose I wonder on what basis He would have chosen to have a perfect nature then. IOW, what drove this choice? His will? If so, then His will was already perfect. I can't think of another candidate offhand.

[Mudcat]

I think we have a misunderstanding because yes I completely do believe what I have submitted, and I think there can be no other statement which makes more sense for both my and your theology.

I told you I was a looney! No, seriously, we have a misunderstanding

The position does not at all entail solipsism. In fact it is a rather commonsensical approach.

I (and many others) think that there are two types of statements which describe experience, one is a "first person proposition" like "I am hungry" or "I believe in X", both of which are statements about what we usually call "mental states". I cannot prove to you that I am hungry, or that in fact I do or do not believe in "X", but nevertheless such statements have truth value (to me). In fact, we have a term for uttering a first person proposition which is false; it is called "lying". Some first person statements are in fact partially verifiable to others and others are not. You could for example test my blood sugar level and say "Hmmm- yes, I imagine you ARE hungry, at least your blood sugar level is low".

Other statements in this category would be "I have felt the Holy Ghost", which I could not verify to others, but which can be as completely "true" as any other first person statement can be.

But then there are third person experiential statements also. The whole epistemological position known as "pragmatism" relies on these. We all have a "personal reality" and a "social reality" in which we rely on experience reports of others. When I read your posts here, I know beyond any possible doubt that you exist and you are a believer, and a whole host of communications of your experiences which you have made to me in the past.

The point is, you are talking about YOUR experiences, and I acknowledge that. There are many types of third person experiential reports, including "Mudcat is an Evangelical Christian", "Antartica exists" (I have never been there, so it is not a first person experience) "Water freezes when the thermometer reads 32 degrees farenheit" (I have never measured it for myself) etc etc. Words like "fact" can be misleading. It is not a "fact" that water freezes at 32 degrees, in the sense that there is an independent world out there where there is some THING like "32 degrees". When we say that "Water freezes at 32 degrees" what we are really saying is that the thermometer tells us it is 32 degrees. Degrees are not "real" they are arbitrary lines on a measuring device.

Emphasis mine. Thanks for clearing that up, if your view can't stand up without a "social reality", then I can rule out solipsism. Sorry for the confusion.

But there is no "first cause" because on this view it is not logical, and you sure can't experience it. I wasn't around and neither was anyone else.

Ok, I am following you here now. But let me ask you this...

I understand that LDS believe that there are likely other universes, now we don't really have anything that supports the notion other whatever third party information is available on such a potentiality. For the record, I don't know that I would disagree with the concept myself, but haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it either.

Looking at this universe in singularity, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for The Big Bang. No one was around for it, but seems we've been able to measure this, that and the other thing and come up with the conclusion that it did happen. I am going to make an assumption that you agree with what I have said so far and even though no one observed it, this at least fits in your social reality. Right?

If so do you believe at least this universe had something that caused it to be what it is, and if so would you agree that at least in regards to this universe a first cause of sorts would exist?

But the strength of this position logically is if you have experienced it, it is undisputably true, as true as any first person experience report can be; and yet it is totally compatible with science, so to me, it makes theology compatible with science. Both study experience; theology is about the meaning of life and which personal experiences and beliefs work to improve our lives, and which do not. Science studies experiences which we can all (in principle) replicate.

The drawback is that pink elephants and spiritual experience are in the same category, yet it is clear to me that there is a qualitative difference which is experienceable, so in another sense they are not in the same category.

Well, I think there will likely always be enough of a gap, at least in this state we are in, to distance science and theology from being completely compatible. Seems you have studied quite a bit about philosophy, I think it is fairly apparent I have not. However, do you feel there is a distinction between pragmatism and relativism? What you are describing, seems very similar.

But that is not the subject of this thread

I guess what I am trying to understand at this point is if it is possible for a pragmatist to believe in the absolute, it would seem to me that such a situation could conflict with what you are describing as a social reality... especially in a theological arena.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that Bukowski,

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Looking at this universe in singularity, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for The Big Bang. No one was around for it, but seems we've been able to measure this, that and the other thing and come up with the conclusion that it did happen. I am going to make an assumption that you agree with what I have said so far and even though no one observed it, this at least fits in your social reality. Right?

Absolutely!

If so do you believe at least this universe had something that caused it to be what it is, and if so would you agree that at least in regards to this universe a first cause of sorts would exist?

The purpose of language is communication and when we are discussing things imprecisely sometimes it is easier to "communicate" if we don't let the words get in the way. But having the words get in the way is a major barrier to communication. Husbands and wives can communicate with a glance but two guys on the internet who don't know eachother who are discussing abstract ideas-- well, it's a totally different deal. So I guess I have two answers to this question.

First the more precise answer. I would take a totally scientific pov here. A first cause is a logical impossibility to me for the reasons we have discussed as well as others. For a first cause to exist prior to the existence of space-time, another logical contradiction happens. We have the causality contradiction we already discussed, but for anything to exist to BE a first cause, there would have to be a state of time "before" time existed, which is a contradiction. I discussed this in detail on my first or second post on this thread. So yes, I believe that there is some scientific evidence for the big bang, about which I am anything but an expert-- I know very little about it. But what I do know, I would place in the area of "social experience" because some scientists have done whatever they have done and their measurements show whatever they show, and I don't think they are making it up.

Now to speak imprecisely, we can imagine, a "time" "before" the big bang about which we can in principle know absolutely nothing, and we can read Genesis and other creation accounts which were "revealed" unscientifically, intuitively to unknown people thousands of years ago. And I know that we can directly experience (subjectively- I can know it for myself- only for myself, but with a great deal of certainty)the presence of an intelligence I call God, who somehow knows me and can somehow "tell me" that these principles are "true", and that the scriptures are full of the most profound spiritual truths known to mankind, and that Jesus Christ is a real person who came to earth to heal us from the effects of sin and evil. I can know these things by subjective experience because somehow God has "told" me that they are true.

Well, I think there will likely always be enough of a gap, at least in this state we are in, to distance science and theology from being completely compatible. Seems you have studied quite a bit about philosophy, I think it is fairly apparent I have not. However, do you feel there is a distinction between pragmatism and relativism? What you are describing, seems very similar.

I have studied a bit about philosophy, I almost finished my masters 35 years ago when I decided that I didn't want to teach and I quit before I finished by thesis. Kinda dumb in retrospect, but those were different times. I have kept up on some issues and haven't on others. I really see no "gap" per se between theology and science which can be bridged; I think that they are separate disciplines and that what theology explores is "subjective first person truth" while science goes after third person experience. The only way they could intersect is if we can learn to measure spiritual energy, which won't be for a while.

I guess what I am trying to understand at this point is if it is possible for a pragmatist to believe in the absolute, it would seem to me that such a situation could conflict with what you are describing as a social reality... especially in a theological arena.

A pragmatist "can" believe in anything that he has experienced "works" and makes his life more worthwile; I look at such things as unproven hypotheses. Believing in the absolute, depending on what it is you mean by that, is something that I probably do myself. But you have to know where the limits are. It is a belief taken on faith, because it works for you. But how can you prove the absolute anyway? The mere way you asked the question indicates that it is a "belief" that you acknowledge is not provable.

I have found that pragmatism has given me a highly precise framework for describing what I see and know and believe which is highly compatible both with a scientific and theological perspective.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that Bukowski,

Are you kiddin' me? I love a chance to spout off and actually think someone might read it!

Edited typos and grammar

[Honorentheos]

A first cause is a logical impossibility to me for the reasons we have discussed as well as others. For a first cause to exist prior to the existence of space-time, another logical contradiction happens. We have the causality contradiction we already discussed, but for anything to exist to BE a first cause, there would have to be a state of time "before" time existed, which is a contradiction. I discussed this in detail on my first or second post on this thread. So yes, I believe that there is some scientific evidence for the big bang, about which I am anything but an expert-- I know very little about it. But what I do know, I would place in the area of "social experience" because some scientists have done whatever they have done and their measurements show whatever they show, and I don't think they are making it up.

Now to speak imprecisely, we can imagine, a "time" "before" the big bang about which we can in principle know absolutely nothing, and we can read Genesis and other creation accounts which were "revealed" unscientifically, intuitively to unknown people thousands of years ago. And I know that we can directly experience (subjectively- I can know it for myself- only for myself, but with a great deal of certainty)the presence of an intelligence I call God, who somehow knows me and can somehow "tell me" that these principles are "true", and that the scriptures are full of the most profound spiritual truths known to mankind, and that Jesus Christ is a real person who came to earth to heal us from the effects of sin and evil. I can know these things by subjective experience because somehow God has "told" me that they are true.

mfbokowski -

I always enjoy your POV on philosophical threads. Now knowing you were working on a masters may explain why.

I read most of the first four pages of this thread then jumped so I may have missed this, but I think that there is room to discuss the nature of "time" because I feel it is critical to this discussion.

Under Newtonian physics time was considered a separate entity within equations the existed independent of matter, energy, etc. and had a linear nature. i.e. - it marched on.

Our current understanding is that time does not exist independent of matter but is instead a way of conveying the relationship between two or more forms of matter. For example, the way we tell time is based on the relationship of the sun and the earth, and much of our understanding of time as people is reflected in this type of description. For example, most of us would describe what "yesterday" means to us by painting a picture of our relationships to various things or interactions (where we were, what we did, what we ate, who was there, etc.) In space-time, we are describing matter in terms of changing relationships. The space describes the coordinate location of the things in 3D and the time tells us where within that system everything was in relation to each other.

What this means is 1 - time and matter are inseparably connected and 2 - the idea of eternity seems to apply to something outside of the realm of matter or 3 - means that material relationships continue to exist in some state beyond the indefinite in both directions (forward and reverse of these changes in the relationships) with infinite possibilities of relationships happening between infinite units of matter. And this becomes mind-boggling. I feel that point 1 combined with the big bang (a singularity of matter/energy that requires the relationships we know today to all be one thing - or not changing in their relationship which is something to think about) requires point 2 to be the preference over 3.

Consider what 3 must mean - in order for there to be eternity and matter it requires an infinite number of relationships. Again - an infinite number of relationships. This means an infinite number of multi-verses beyond our imagination. Of that infinity, we must assume that there is a smaller set of infinite universes where one unit of matter has a concept of self (or identity) that is honorentheos. But there are so many (an infinite number!) of relationships between honorentheos and all other matter that it boggles the mind to consider all of the possibilities that this implies.

So one aspect of this discussion that I think is frequently missed is the notion of personal identity - or your and my sense of self. It seems even within a given human life the thing that is "I" changes significantly to the point that there is little to say this is eternal. And in the blink of an eye that identity can change significantly to the point that many people would not say it is the same person occupying the same material form. (i.e. - with certain kinds of brain damage or more slowly with Alzheimer's for example). I believe that Sandra Day O'Connor came to this conclusion int eh sad case of her husband with Alzheimer's.

Anyway, beyond this the idea of a God or gods with material bodies stands in contradiction with our current understanding of the universe. The idea of free will combined with personal, eternal identities seems problematic as well, and the notion that individual identity tied to a material form (even resurrected) can be eternal is in contradiction to our current model of how the universe works.

Now we may have it wrong, and in fact we must have some things wrong since the model isn't perfect. But one can not ignore the evidence for the current model by just saying it's incomplete. I've often heard the appeal to multiple dimensions as being the solution, though this does significant damage to the idea of matter and personal identity as conveyed in most western religions. I think if any religion has anything remotely right, it is the eastern esoteric who seem to believe in a singularity from which we came (the 10,000 things we are part of) and to which we will some "day" return.

[mfbukowski]

Our current understanding is that time does not exist independent of matter but is instead a way of conveying the relationship between two or more forms of matter. For example, the way we tell time is based on the relationship of the sun and the earth, and much of our understanding of time as people is reflected in this type of description. For example, most of us would describe what "yesterday" means to us by painting a picture of our relationships to various things or interactions (where we were, what we did, what we ate, who was there, etc.) In space-time, we are describing matter in terms of changing relationships. The space describes the coordinate location of the things in 3D and the time tells us where within that system everything was in relation to each other.

I agree. I have always thought there was also an "informational" element to time on a personal experiential level as well that I would like to explore further one of these days. It is a little vague in my mind but maybe a thread on time would be a good place to look at it.

What this means is 1 - time and matter are inseparably connected.....

I absolutely agree.

and 2 - the idea of eternity seems to apply to something outside of the realm of matter

I think I disagree. I really don't know what "eternity" means if not "an infinitely long time"- I think the idea of eternity is inseperable from "time" and therefore space

...or 3 - means that material relationships continue to exist in some state beyond the indefinite in both directions (forward and reverse of these changes in the relationships) with infinite possibilities of relationships happening between infinite units of matter.

I'm voting for 3 so far

And this becomes mind-boggling. I feel that point 1 combined with the big bang (a singularity of matter/energy that requires the relationships we know today to all be one thing - or not changing in their relationship which is something to think about) requires point 2 to be the preference over 3.

I'm not seeing this at all. Let me paraphrase my understanding of what you are saying so you can see where I go wrong. You are combining the idea that time and matter are connected, with the big bang and then having that require that the relationships don't change? I am definitely missing something here.

Consider what 3 must mean - in order for there to be eternity and matter it requires an infinite number of relationships. Again - an infinite number of relationships. This means an infinite number of multi-verses beyond our imagination. Of that infinity, we must assume that there is a smaller set of infinite universes where one unit of matter has a concept of self (or identity) that is honorentheos. But there are so many (an infinite number!) of relationships between honorentheos and all other matter that it boggles the mind to consider all of the possibilities that this implies.

OK following so far I think....

So one aspect of this discussion that I think is frequently missed is the notion of personal identity - or your and my sense of self. It seems even within a given human life the thing that is "I" changes significantly to the point that there is little to say this is eternal. And in the blink of an eye that identity can change significantly to the point that many people would not say it is the same person occupying the same material form. (i.e. - with certain kinds of brain damage or more slowly with Alzheimer's for example). I believe that Sandra Day O'Connor came to this conclusion int eh sad case of her husband with Alzheimer's.

Ok now it is here I know for sure we disagree. I think you are begging the question of the old neo-platonic notion of the "self" as "unchanging" and then saying that it couldn't be the same "self" because it has changed. The LDS concept of God is a God of eternal progression-- ie: he changes and is in a dynamic relationship with his children. I know we speak figuratively about people "not being themselves" but all that really means is that they have changed. We don't have any real doubt that a person with Alzheimers is someone "other" than our parent, when they are dead, we bury them with a headstone with their name on it etc. They are the same person, they have just changed. Heck if you knew me 40 years ago, you would say I am not the same person. I mean radical hippie student of Angela Davis at UCLA, atheist philosophy student to TBM Mormon bishop? High school and college buddies find me on facebook and are stunned, but I AM the same person! Have you read Heraclitus, the Greek predecessor of Plato and Aristotle? He believed that reality was like a river - always changing but in a sense always the same. Think of the Mississippi. One might almost believe it was "eternal" (poetically) but it changes from nanosecond to nanosecond. It is unchanging in the constancy of its change. That is the way I view God and experience, and the worlds, again, in a poetic sense.

Anyway, beyond this the idea of a God or gods with material bodies stands in contradiction with our current understanding of the universe. The idea of free will combined with personal, eternal identities seems problematic as well, and the notion that individual identity tied to a material form (even resurrected) can be eternal is in contradiction to our current model of how the universe works.

An interesting idea if true, but I suspect strongly that it is not. Is this a logical point or a scientific one? And it all hinges on several definitions of words like "eternal". I suspect there must be a logical problem here related to your idea of time, because the universe itself is a changing system which is "eternal" AND changing, and is identified as the "same universe" which "started" with the big bang.

Now we may have it wrong, and in fact we must have some things wrong since the model isn't perfect. But one can not ignore the evidence for the current model by just saying it's incomplete. I've often heard the appeal to multiple dimensions as being the solution, though this does significant damage to the idea of matter and personal identity as conveyed in most western religions. I think if any religion has anything remotely right, it is the eastern esoteric who seem to believe in a singularity from which we came (the 10,000 things we are part of) and to which we will some "day" return.

I think my position is in many ways quite similar to eastern philosophy. All is change and "illusion" ie: experience etc. Of course eastern religions are just as metaphysical as searching for the "first cause" in the west and neither position has a superior scientific position imo.

[Honorentheos]

I I have always thought there was also an "informational" element to time on a personal experiential level as well that I would like to explore further one of these days. It is a little vague in my mind but maybe a thread on time would be a good place to look at it...I really don't know what "eternity" means if not "an infinitely long time"- I think the idea of eternity is inseperable from "time"

Thanks, mfbukowski. I think before we can have a discussion on identity we have to find some resolution on time.

I did a little google search and found this paper that I think does a reasonable job in explaining what is currently understood by time in the relativistic sense - On Time This wasn't where I was first introduced to this concept, but as the paper says a proper understanding of time is critical to understanding relativity. Until one accepts this conception of time, most discussions that deal with the big bang and other singularities are basically pointless.

So I think our problem is that I do not believe in eternity in any real sense because, as you say above, it IS inseparable from time - and time as we know it is not infinite. It is as finite as the universe which we can not assume anything about beyond the big bang. The event horizon that we call the big bang puts an end to all change as we can define it, and thus time.

Anyway, we'll see if we can agree somewhere on time.

Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, mfbukowski. I think before we can have a discussion on identity we have to find some resolution on time.

I did a little google search and found this paper that I think does a reasonable job in explaining what is currently understood by time in the relativistic sense - On Time This wasn't where I was first introduced to this concept, but as the paper says a proper understanding of time is critical to understanding relativity. Until one accepts this conception of time, most discussions that deal with the big bang and other singularities are basically pointless.

So I think our problem is that I do not believe in eternity in any real sense because, as you say above, it IS inseparable from time - and time as we know it is not infinite. It is as finite as the universe which we can not assume anything about beyond the big bang. The event horizon that we call the big bang puts an end to all change as we can define it, and thus time.

Anyway, we'll see if we can agree somewhere on time.

Thanks!

Thanks, interesting stuff, but I can't get to it until at least Monday!

[Honorentheos]

Thanks, interesting stuff, but I can't get to it until at least Monday!

No hurry. I think I will try and find another source or two that make it more clear. The introduction of the link I provided does a good job of describing the matter, but the experiment that follows can be a bit opaque. I'll see what I can dig up. I think being on the same page on this matter is of supreme importance to the discussion. Otherwise, we're just discussing whether or not chocolate is better than vanilla.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, interesting stuff, but I can't get to it until at least Monday!

The truth value of the first person proposition I made above is "false"

In other words I lied.

You tempted me, you evil person, to read the article instead of doing what I should have been doing. I think it is a great one and I agree with its premise.

Now I won't be able to get to any other posts til monday. Really. Honestly. I think.

EDIT: PS- Here is a link to another thread where we were discussing similar issues.