There was a beginning

[bahman]

Yes. You are confusing belief with proof. Your beliefs are hard held, heartfelt claims.

Could you please tell me what I am trying to say?

One thing you have been trying to say is that time once had a starting point.

And why do you think that my arguments are believes? Do you think that the second law of thermodynamic is false?

[commonsense]

Could you please tell me what I am trying to say?

One thing you have been trying to say is that time once had a starting point.

And why do you think that my arguments are believes? Do you think that the second law of thermodynamic is false?

I need to research that.

[DPMartin]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

sounds like a bunch of jibber jabber, people of any interest in "the beginning" have been trying to prove one way or the other for centuries. you pull the answer out of your hat like a rabbit that's put together like you've been hitting the bong to much and you expect what?

Do you have any problem with my arguments?

without being a physicist I'd have to say heat has nothing to do with the beginning or end if you're including an end. granted all physical substance such as space and matter is made up of energy but what form of energy was at the very beginning, who knows, we weren't there.

science and certain religions, agree there is a beginning of the universe. but to logically eliminate eternity, I don't think so. the reason is, the truth always was. it was always true that there would be a beginning of the universe, cosmos, whatever one prefers. so as I understand it the truth is eternal therefore there is an eternity as in always was, always will be.

[bahman]

sounds like a bunch of jibber jabber, people of any interest in "the beginning" have been trying to prove one way or the other for centuries. you pull the answer out of your hat like a rabbit that's put together like you've been hitting the bong to much and you expect what?

Do you have any problem with my arguments?

without being a physicist I'd have to say heat has nothing to do with the beginning or end if you're including an end. granted all physical substance such as space and matter is made up of energy but what form of energy was at the very beginning, who knows, we weren't there.

science and certain religions, agree there is a beginning of the universe. but to logically eliminate eternity, I don't think so. the reason is, the truth always was. it was always going to be true that there would be a beginning of the universe, cosmos, whatever one prefers. so as I understand it the truth is eternal therefore there is an eternity as in always was, always will be.

You need to have a minimal understanding of what heat death is and how it relates to the increasing of entropy. Anyway, that relates to the first proof. What are your thoughts about the second argument?

[AlexW]

The whole is certainly closed since there is nothing left to interact with externally.

Exactly, there is nothing that is not "the whole".
As such, stating that "the whole" is closed is an attempt at limiting the unlimited - as soon as you award "the whole" any attribute, it is not whole anymore, it becomes a limited thing, which it is not.
Its the same as stating that something is eternal or infinite - it doesn't work to simultaneously refer to a limited thing and then propose that it is infinite. The two simply don't go together - there are either limited things OR infinity/eternity - but never both (believing that both options are possible is not more than a misguided process of thought).

Eternal now is the simultaneous states which cannot be real since the subject exists in different states.

Separate subjects and different states exist in thought only - remove memory and there are no different states anymore.

You have to differentiate between what is actually real - the directly experienced here/now - and what is only thought up (which is everything that is not directly experienced right now).
Of course, whatever is thought up (all our interpretations of what is or was here/now) is still "valuable" (at least in the world of conceptual interpretations) but it is never a perfectly accurate description of reality.
Its like a finger pointing at the moon - the finger is not the moon, yet we seem to often mistake it for it...

[bahman]

The whole is certainly closed since there is nothing left to interact with externally.

Exactly, there is nothing that is not "the whole".
As such, stating that "the whole" is closed is an attempt at limiting the unlimited - as soon as you award "the whole" any attribute, it is not whole anymore, it becomes a limited thing, which it is not.
Its the same as stating that something is eternal or infinite - it doesn't work to simultaneously refer to a limited thing and then propose that it is infinite. The two simply don't go together - there are either limited things OR infinity/eternity - but never both (believing that both options are possible is not more than a misguided process of thought).

The universe is infinite by its infiniteness does not affect my argument.

Eternal now is the simultaneous states which cannot be real since the subject exists in different states.

Separate subjects and different states exist in thought only - remove memory and there are no different states anymore.

You have to differentiate between what is actually real - the directly experienced here/now - and what is only thought up (which is everything that is not directly experienced right now).
Of course, whatever is thought up (all our interpretations of what is or was here/now) is still "valuable" (at least in the world of conceptual interpretations) but it is never a perfectly accurate description of reality.
Its like a finger pointing at the moon - the finger is not the moon, yet we seem to often mistake it for it...

Even your mind experience of state at any point.

[AlexW]

The universe is infinite by its infiniteness does not affect my argument.

It sure does.

Even your mind experience of state at any point.

I don't understand this sentence.

[Scott Mayers]

Begin by asking yourself what reality could mean if it has some apriori 'law'?

As I see it, there is only one way to experience reality: with the senses
All you actually can do is to see, hear, smell, taste and feel/touch "reality" - this is what I would call: direct experience (DE)
Now one can think about this DE, interpret what has been sensed and erect a conceptual structure on top of what actually has been directly experienced.
Reality is this direct experience - there is no other reality that one could know (yes, one can think about a different realty - eg some kind of absolute nothingness - but this doesn't make it real, it still belongs to the world of concepts, which are actually never directly experienced, but only imagined)

Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth. That state, with respect to who YOU are (not merely the atoms that make up your body), came from NOTHING.

The unique property of "Absolute Nothingness" is that it is 'nothing' ANYWHERE. As such, unless you have proof that you lived eternally, you came from 'nothing'.

If you are not religious, as I am not, then how can anything exist without some prior mind to expect laws must be 'obeyed'

I am not religious and I also do not believe that anything exists as some separately existing, independent thing - all that "exists" (and I am only using this term as there seems to be no better one) is what is present here/now as directly experienced reality - all else is simply "thought up".

This is the case for all separate things - eg: apple. You can not directly experience this apple, all you have is a certain visual impression - the field of colors - but this visual impression does not contain separate things/objects, it only contains color, its as simple as that.
That one set/pattern of colors is an apple and another a pear is not part of DE, it is part of the conceptual overlay which we employ to make sense of the world, but this doesn't mean that underlying reality has any meaning at all...

The point is that reality has to be literally based on NOTHING, not even OUR particular bias of experience unless you believe in some 'essence' to Totality that favors you ...such as some 'force' or 'God'. As such, I am expressing that Totality cannot 'favor' SPECIFIC LAWS either, or it reduces to some religious-like essense that demands obedience. It has to require permitting all and no laws at the level of the whole (all possible worlds). Our particular world is 'localized' to consistency but all that I've said is inferrable from the consistency of our logical mind to recognize the point in the last comment above: we cannot bias ourselves as 'objectively' able to deny nothingness as the most basic necessary reality because we can INFER our own 'origin' for lacking an infinite memory.

[Age]

Begin by asking yourself what reality could mean if it has some apriori 'law'?

As I see it, there is only one way to experience reality: with the senses
All you actually can do is to see, hear, smell, taste and feel/touch "reality" - this is what I would call: direct experience (DE)
Now one can think about this DE, interpret what has been sensed and erect a conceptual structure on top of what actually has been directly experienced.
Reality is this direct experience - there is no other reality that one could know (yes, one can think about a different realty - eg some kind of absolute nothingness - but this doesn't make it real, it still belongs to the world of concepts, which are actually never directly experienced, but only imagined)

Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth.

But from 'direct experience', itself, one can INFER that the Universe ('world') MUST OF existed prior to EVERY human birth.

That state, with respect to who YOU are (not merely the atoms that make up your body), came from NOTHING.

And what EXACTLY is this ASSUMPTION based on?

The unique property of "Absolute Nothingness" is that it is 'nothing' ANYWHERE. As such, unless you have proof that you lived eternally, you came from 'nothing'.

This is OBVIOUSLY one of the more outlandish attempts at 'arguing'.

What EVIDENCE is there that 'you' came from 'nothing'. I think, and hope, you can FIND and SEE that the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF backs up and supports the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying here.

If you are not religious, as I am not, then how can anything exist without some prior mind to expect laws must be 'obeyed'

I am not religious and I also do not believe that anything exists as some separately existing, independent thing - all that "exists" (and I am only using this term as there seems to be no better one) is what is present here/now as directly experienced reality - all else is simply "thought up".

This is the case for all separate things - eg: apple. You can not directly experience this apple, all you have is a certain visual impression - the field of colors - but this visual impression does not contain separate things/objects, it only contains color, its as simple as that.
That one set/pattern of colors is an apple and another a pear is not part of DE, it is part of the conceptual overlay which we employ to make sense of the world, but this doesn't mean that underlying reality has any meaning at all...

This also does NOT mean that, so called, "underlying" 'reality' does not have any meaning at all also.

By the way, what 'it' IS, which is 'directly experienced' is NOT necessarily 'reality', itself, either.

The point is that reality has to be literally based on NOTHING, not even OUR particular bias of experience unless you believe in some 'essence' to Totality that favors you ...such as some 'force' or 'God'.

WHY do 'you' BELIEVE, "without ANY shadow of a doubt", as some would say, that 'reality' HAS TO BE, literally, based on NOTHING?

Is it NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL that 'reality' is ACTUALLY based on some OTHER 'thing'?

As such, I am expressing that Totality cannot 'favor' SPECIFIC LAWS either, or it reduces to some religious-like essense that demands obedience. It has to require permitting all and no laws at the level of the whole (all possible worlds).

Yet here 'you' are REVEALING your OWN (religious) 'favor'. And, also proposing it as though 'it' is irrefutably thee One and ONLY Truth.

You even appear to be demanding obedience to your OWN religious-like essence here.

Our particular world is 'localized' to consistency but all that I've said is inferrable from the consistency of our logical mind to recognize the point in the last comment above: we cannot bias ourselves as 'objectively' able to deny nothingness as the most basic necessary reality because we can INFER our own 'origin' for lacking an infinite memory.

Sounds all very convoluted, complex, and completely unnecessary wording here, especially in LIGHT of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

[Age]

This is just so SIMPLE.

If 'every action causes a reaction' and 'cause and effect' is True, Right, and Correct, then there OBVIOUSLY is NO beginning, in relation to thee Universe/Everything.

And, if there is NO beginning, then there was also NO end, by the way.

Now, until a human being comes along who provides irrefutable PROOF or an actual VALID and SOUND argument that NOT 'every action causes a reaction' or that 'cause and effect' does NOT exist, then the FACT remains there was NO beginning.

That a 'you' exists is LIVING PROOF of this FACT.

Now would ANY one like to try to dispute or refute this?

If yes, then PLEASE DO.

[Scott Mayers]

As I see it, there is only one way to experience reality: with the senses
All you actually can do is to see, hear, smell, taste and feel/touch "reality" - this is what I would call: direct experience (DE)
Now one can think about this DE, interpret what has been sensed and erect a conceptual structure on top of what actually has been directly experienced.
Reality is this direct experience - there is no other reality that one could know (yes, one can think about a different realty - eg some kind of absolute nothingness - but this doesn't make it real, it still belongs to the world of concepts, which are actually never directly experienced, but only imagined)

Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth.

But from 'direct experience', itself, one can INFER that the Universe ('world') MUST OF existed prior to EVERY human birth.

No, you INDUCE that 'something' exists before your conscious existence by your present experiences. But you can DEDUCE that you came from a state of yourself as not existing for lacking your OWN memory of existence before you existed, and thus the concept of 'nothingness' is real.

And since Absolute Nothingness is necessary (but that Absolute Something and Absolutely Everything are logically dependent upon Absolute Nothingness to exist), then only Absolutely Nothing can stand ALONE. That the others are ALSO true to us NOW is due to the fact that time and space require dependency upon a 'background'. All 'nothings' are equal to each other. Each point in space and time are 'nothing'; their INTERVALS are what manifest them into being 'real'. That is, it take TWO distinct points to define ANY measure of space.

Given our prior correspondence and your ever confusion on what 'assumptions' are, this will have to suffice. I already know that there is literally NOTHING that I can say that would be satisfactory to you. So why are you bothering?

[Scott Mayers]

This is just so SIMPLE.

If 'every action causes a reaction' and 'cause and effect' is True, Right, and Correct, then there OBVIOUSLY is NO beginning, in relation to thee Universe/Everything.

And, if there is NO beginning, then there was also NO end, by the way.

Now, until a human being comes along who provides irrefutable PROOF or an actual VALID and SOUND argument that NOT 'every action causes a reaction' or that 'cause and effect' does NOT exist, then the FACT remains there was NO beginning.

That a 'you' exists is LIVING PROOF of this FACT.

Now would ANY one like to try to dispute or refute this?

If yes, then PLEASE DO.

You need to understand 'boundary' with respect to mathematical measure of real space. Between ANY two points, there exists an 'infinite' number of points. So it is ALRIGHT for us to have BOTH the ability to reason infinite space and time FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE....AND....to have boundaries that themselves are NEVER able to be reached. If there is Absolutely NOTHING beyond that point, then the point, as a singularity, is an 'assymptote' (any set of points or lines that something approaches infinitely but never reaches.

Why you ignore that I am one who argues against the Big Bang's singularity should logically tell you that I agree with us not being able to argue 'scientifically' that an 'origin' in time and space for our universe exists, and that it is due to the logic of BOUNDARIES (I used the term, 'walls' when I first discussed with you this concept).

This still does not mean that you can logically infer that NO 'beginning' can exist. All you can say is that we cannot use our senses to infer origins because the senses are trapped IN the space and time being used to measure it. That is, it is automatic to NOT be able to determine 'origins' OF times or spaces prior to our own existence. But we KNOW local origins exist EVERYWHERE. AT this moment, you are always 'beginning' the next moment.

[Age]

Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth.

But from 'direct experience', itself, one can INFER that the Universe ('world') MUST OF existed prior to EVERY human birth.

No, you INDUCE that 'something' exists before your conscious existence by your present experiences.

If that is what 'you' do, then that is okay, with 'me'.

But NEVER tell 'me' what I do, or do NOT do.

LOOK, 'you' and 'I' are VERY DIFFERENT and 'we' also LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY here.

From ALL of my past experiences I INFER that some 'thing' MUST OF existed BEFORE 'i' did. So, this is what I ACTUALLY do do, understood?

If 'you' do NOT do this or can NOT do this, then okay, but NEVER ASSUME what I do based solely upon what 'you' do, as you will be absolutely TOTALLY WRONG, some times.

But you can DEDUCE that you came from a state of yourself as not existing for lacking your OWN memory of existence before you existed, and thus the concept of 'nothingness' is real.

I COULD DEDUCE this. But I do NOT want to, and so I do NOT DEDUCE such a 'thing' as this. And, at the current moment of writing this I do NOT envision I EVER WOULD DEDUCE such a 'thing' as this.

And since Absolute Nothingness is necessary

Is 'necessary' for 'what', EXACTLY?

(but that Absolute Something and Absolutely Everything are logically dependent upon Absolute Nothingness to exist), then only Absolutely Nothing can stand ALONE. That the others are ALSO true to us NOW is due to the fact that time and space require dependency upon a 'background'. All 'nothings' are equal to each other. Each point in space and time are 'nothing'; their INTERVALS are what manifest them into being 'real'. That is, it take TWO distinct points to define ANY measure of space.

If this is what 'you' want to BELIEVE is absolutely TRUE, then so be it.

But I have previously 'tried to' get 'you' to question what you say here, by asking 'you' some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, so that you could SEE 'things' differently, and from a different perspective, if you answered the questions Honestly, but you BELIEVE what you say here so I will just leave you in peace with your BELIEFS here.

By the way, what you say here does NOT prove ANY thing, so it has any REAL bearing on ANY 'thing' here.

Given our prior correspondence and your ever confusion on what 'assumptions' are, this will have to suffice. I already know that there is literally NOTHING that I can say that would be satisfactory to you. So why are you bothering?

I ALSO KNOW that there is literally NOTHING. But, you seem completely BLIND to this FACT.

WHY I am bothering is to REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. 'you', after all, are LOOKING FOR 'It', correct? Or, do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that 'you' ALREADY KNOW the Truth?

[Age]

This is just so SIMPLE.

If 'every action causes a reaction' and 'cause and effect' is True, Right, and Correct, then there OBVIOUSLY is NO beginning, in relation to thee Universe/Everything.

And, if there is NO beginning, then there was also NO end, by the way.

Now, until a human being comes along who provides irrefutable PROOF or an actual VALID and SOUND argument that NOT 'every action causes a reaction' or that 'cause and effect' does NOT exist, then the FACT remains there was NO beginning.

That a 'you' exists is LIVING PROOF of this FACT.

Now would ANY one like to try to dispute or refute this?

If yes, then PLEASE DO.

You need to understand 'boundary' with respect to mathematical measure of real space.

Do NOT TELL ME what I NEED to 'understand', especially when you OBVIOUSLY do NOT YET KNOW what I ACTUALLY DO UNDERSTAND.

Also, what is, so called, "real space", to 'you'?

Between ANY two points, there exists an 'infinite' number of points.

Who cares, and so what?

This has NO bearing what is ACTUALLY True, in relation to whether there was a beginning or NOT.

If you want to continue to BELIEVE that Everything came from NOTHING, then go right on ahead BELIEVING 'this'. You KNOW you have absolutely NO evidence NOR proof for such a BELIEF and CLAIM, and that you could NEVER prove this CLAIM empirically NOR even logically.

So it is ALRIGHT for us to have BOTH the ability to reason infinite space and time FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE

But YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of what the words 'time' AND 'space' refer to and mean is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DIFFERENT than MINE IS.

....AND....to have boundaries that themselves are NEVER able to be reached. If there is Absolutely NOTHING beyond that point, then the point, as a singularity, is an 'assymptote' (any set of points or lines that something approaches infinitely but never reaches.

"IF there is ...", is just a COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY ASSUMPTION. Especially in light of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Why you ignore that I am one who argues against the Big Bang's singularity should logically tell you that I agree with us not being able to argue 'scientifically' that an 'origin' in time and space for our universe exists, and that it is due to the logic of BOUNDARIES (I used the term, 'walls' when I first discussed with you this concept).

But I do NOT 'ignore' this.

Also, there is NO "in time and space". Neither is there an "our universe". So, I suggest when 'you' want to use words like " agree with 'us' ", then it would be better if 'you' come to KNOW, exactly, what 'it' is that I ACTUALLY 'agree' with.

This still does not mean that you can logically infer that NO 'beginning' can exist.

LOL But I HAVE, ALREADY.

As I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED EXACTLY HOW I have.

All you can say is that we cannot use our senses to infer origins because the senses are trapped IN the space and time being used to measure it.

'you' REALLY do have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL about who and what 'I' am, EXACTLY, do 'you'?

I CAN and DO say FAR MORE than what you CLAIM here is "All I CAN say".

Also, because 'you' are TRAPPED or STUCK in and with your "IN" word here, and STUCK AND TRAPPED with complete MISUNDERSTANDING of 'space' and of 'time' themselves, then this is WHY you make the CLAIM here that 'you' can NOT infer ANY 'thing' beyond what say 'you' can.

That is, it is automatic to NOT be able to determine 'origins' OF times or spaces prior to our own existence.

This is SO FAR OFF TRACK from what I have been saying, and meaning, that I am not sure that I could bring 'you' back ON TRACK, in the near future.

By the way I have ALREADY DETERMINED EXACTLY the 'origins' OF 'time' AND 'space' prior to 'your', human beings, existence.

Which, by the way, WAS, and is, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to do.

But we KNOW local origins exist EVERYWHERE. AT this moment, you are always 'beginning' the next moment.

Okay. But are you SURE that 'you' do NOT want to respond to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which 'you' quoted 'me' here of what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE'?

[bahman]

The universe is infinite by its infiniteness does not affect my argument.

It sure does.

The whole wheter is finit or infinite is close since there is nothing left to interact to.

Even your mind experience of state at any point.

I don't understand this sentence.

Even your mind experiences one state of affair at any point.