First, the argument had nothing at all to do with imagining myself anywhere. But I do have to say that you need to reign in your imagination. You seem to be imagining that there can be neither existence nor non-existence. That is illogical, irrational.
It would certainly seem that, by definition, either there is nothingness (the absence of existence) or there is existence. What other option is there? Explain to us how there could conceivably be neither existence nor non-existence, neither changing nor non-changing.
Defining one’s terms is only necessary if it becomes apparent that we disagree on meanings, or if you know from the outset that you’re using an unconventional definition. Otherwise, conversations can begin under the assumption that everyone shares common definitions.
I’m not sure why you say “universe” means nothing though. Why would it mean nothing?
No “strawman”. You said it in defense of your argument. Either there is always existence or there is a condition of non-existence that can be the “state”.
If you are now going with “there is only existence”, then we are back to an eternal universe with no beginning.
No, your word games do not supersede your lack of rationality. As easily seen, it is you who cannot stick with logic.
But yes, I lack the imagination that would propose a state of neither existence nor non-existence. That kind of imagination, the world could do without.
Well James, there’s not a lot more I can do to prove my point, which was merely that the difficulty with which we try to imagine a beginning to the universe without a “before” to precede it is an imaginative impossibility, not a logical one, but you seem bent on confounding the two. Oh well, can’t convince everybody. Until next time, James, until next time.
It is entirely a “logical impossibility”. But it takes a logical mind to follow logic. You had to know before your first reply that you were not going to be able to rationally contradict me.
You would have a nearly impossible time trying to prove to me that fundamental logic (if not A, then not-A) is erroneous.
Exactly, it’s you who cannot convince others that the universe has a beginning. You cannot reproduce your hypothesis in a lab. You lack evidence. Science is not on your side, despite “microwave radiation in a galaxy 10000000000 miles and years and whatever away”. Basically, you don’t know. And that’s fine. My contention is more about why and how you believe, what you believe, along with its popularity.
Obviously a majority of humans believe in Creationism/Big Bang Theory one way or another. They, like you, believe “time has a beginning”. Which as James mentioned, is illogical.
If humans form their ideas of the universe only within the confines of consciousness, then it will seem to them (the majority) that time begins and ends relative to consciousness. This is false, however, because physical existence does not depend upon the mind, or consciousness, to exist. Existence > consciousness.
Unlike the majority, like gib offers here, believe consciousness > existence.
That the universe must ask the permission of humans, before existing. And then, after gaining permission from humans, then the universe can “begin”…
If people believe that consciousness (Subjectivity) is greater than, precedes existence (Objectivity), then yes, it will make sense to a majority of people that “time began” and “the universe” began or “God did it”. Because to them, consciousness is the predicate of existence.
The majority: “Nothing can exist before being conscious of it.”
Thus, all that exists, depends on human perspectives. Complete subjectivism.
Before you were born, nothing existed. Then you were born, and existence popped into being ex nihilo. After you die, then existence and the universe will end.
So far, no one is making that argument. Gib’s argument is similar to yours but in reverse. Gib is saying that “before time” is “beyond your imagination” and that is why he is right and we are wrong. Of course that is a non-sequitur argument. But he is not saying that the truth is dependent upon our consciousness, rather that our consciousness is insufficient to realize the truth (a claim of objectivity not subjectivity).
For the past 40 years or so the masses have been infected with the idea that logic is merely a man-made, sometimes erroneous concept, a man-made god. But that is not true. Such deception has been merely a part of the promotion of chaos and irrationality so as to subdue the masses with bewilderment, insecurity, and weakness of mind.
You claim the position that the universe has a beginning. I claim that it does not. Your affirmation is in the positive, therefore the onus is upon you, not me, to convince others that the universe has a beginning. However you are arguing from a position and perspective of the majority (of humanity). So those that disagree with you, doubt you, like myself, require an argument. You have to explain how and why, you believe what you believe. What is your faith? Why do you believe “the universe” has a beginning? What is “the universe” anyway? You have not addressed anything, and you propose to be taken seriously? You’ve started off on all the wrong steps thus far. Remember you are on a philosophy forum. You need to present your case for a positive assertion (that the universe has a beginning).
It actually is. Conscious organisms have no reason to think, at first, that consciousness is common among other thinking organisms. With animals it’s even easier and more obvious. They operate on instinct and don’t do much ‘thinking’ at all. Thought, meditation, contemplation, all these acts occur after a specie establishes comfort, free time, and luxury. Laziness allows for musing.
Now, demonstrate to me your counter-points.
The center moves with the ego. Simple animals don’t even know about “the universe” or any “beginnings” of time. You’re overlooking this part.
Conjectures about “the beginning of everything” appear in humans and history. Do you know why? Do you know how? What part does faith and pop religion play? Is it not an artifice that humans believe “God did it”, and furthermore, use this premise as the basis of all total causality, that all causes begin with their conjectured religion?
You certainly do not present your views as such.
I used to believe that humans had “gone beyond” or “matured past” geocentricism. But, this is a false presumption. Just because people repeat what they are told in school, that everything does not revolve around the earth (humanity), doesn’t mean they actually believe it or understand it. They don’t understand it, because, as I mentioned, average people lack sophistication and the reasoning ability to understand why and how geocentricism, or even heliocentricism, are both false. Again, this is because humanity is taken as the predicate, the basis of ‘relativity’.
Imagine deep space in a ship. What then of speed of light, distance, “years”? Isn’t it obvious that what humans know of light, speed, distance, time, are all relative to earth?! You keep skipping over this point. So I know you haven’t really taken it in yet. You don’t really understand.
Does light travel at different speeds through different mediums? Yes, it does! It travels through air, water, a crystal, some materials, faster or slower than others. So even “speed of light” and “light year” especially, are selectively relative. Relative only to specific conditions and prerequisites. Thus they are flawed, and can be (and are) mistaken.
No, because an understanding of objective existence requires reason, not necessarily other people or even the admission of other subjective, conscious perspectives. In other words, objectivity is based on logic and rationality. This is necessarily true to propose the condition that “there exists things and events outside your awareness”. Without suppositions, how can any individual know of what exists “outside” sense-perception? How can an individual be aware of what is beyond his or her experiences?
There is a better method to approaching this point. Physical phenomenon, forces, “natural law”, all have patterns and motions. A tree falls in the woods. It doesn’t require a person there to hear and see it, in order for it to fall down. This is the very solipsistic premise that I’m battling. If you agree with me, a tree doesn’t require permission from humans, to fall down, while unseen and unheard, then perhaps this discussion can move forward.
Qualification requires an honest discussion. Nothing can be qualified when one person or party has premises that they’re unwilling to expose or give up. All cards need to be on the table.
I would very much like to offer that alternative.
But first you need to doubt your Big Bang Theory. And to do this, you need to explain exactly why and how you believe what you do. You need to prove your faith.
But is it not a mere faith in (Abrahamic) god? You believe there is a beginning of the universe, because that is what you were instructed as a child and throughout your life? You had never doubted it, before now? You have never done philosophy, before now? Why do you dabble in philosophy if you cannot doubt anything of real importance or relevance? Have you never questioned all the (human) institutions which led you to believe that there is a “beginning” to the universe, to existence, to time.
Have you ever considered that they’re wrong? Very wrong, not just a little bit wrong, but very very wrong?
No…average people repeat their indoctrination in schools. They say the earth revolves around the sun, or sun around the earth, but this doesn’t necessarily demonstrate their understanding. As mentioned, average people still conceive of existence as solipsistic, such that existence revolves around human consciousness. Specifically…that existence revolves around human “collective” consciousness (they then equate that to “god”).
It’s easy to tear it down. It’s not believable and it’s not realistic. There’s no reason for me to believe that everything in the universe is “expanding away from everything else”. Relativity wouldn’t make sense, if that’s what you believe. Instead some galaxies are moving some directions, and others are moving other directions. There is no “expansion away from everything” because, again, this presumes that humans are using humanity as the ultimate source of everything, which is false.
Can you demonstrate any rational points in the theory that demonstrate how, from relative positions across the universe, your premises remain true?
Obviously not everything in the universe is “expanding” as that would mean there is no source, at all, by which to measure as a standard for expansion. Because then those standards would be expanding too. Therefore it’s illogical.
All of that really seems nothing more than “something out of nothing”, Ex Nihilo (ir)rationale.
From nothing, came something. Very Christian, theologically. That’s really where your thoughts are based. It’s obvious the connection between Big Bang Theory and Creationism, except that one is watered down and re-labeled with the seal of “Science!”
But relabeling doesn’t mean that is what it is.
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, I dispute your claim of a beginning of the universe, is because I know how people think. I know their logic, their rationales, the whys and hows. I know this because I’ve spent decades searching, seeking, challenging. When it comes to the bottom-line, when tested, people mostly boil their values and beliefs down to faith. They believe what they believe, mostly because they are indoctrinated to, passed down knowledge from sources that can be traced, and then they believe what they do based mostly on what they believe will be achieved from their beliefs.
So I ask you, and everybody else, why do you believe the universe has a beginning? Because that is what you were told as a child? Because “all things have a beginning?” (they don’t…) And what are these “beginnings” you claim? That reminds me, of how I came to learn about Teleology. People believe in beginnings and endings because rationality very much requires concise and simplified methods of reducing generalities, and especially to reduce “the universe” to something comprehensive and understandable.
Thus a mere human stands in awe at existence, and because the mind is limited, must therein immediately apply its own limitation, as a projection, upon everything else.
A human limitation upon existence. “Because I begin, so too must existence.” But this is not so. Because consciousness is not a beginning, nor is it an ending. Going to sleep is not a final end. Waking up is not a final beginning. Rather these are processes, and existence does not require consciousness, does not require your or my or anybody else’s permission to exist. Existence is greater than human desire, control, and power.
So here is another point then. The weakling human, standing before the awe of the universe, wants to render, reduce, and wrap his arms around, all of existence. Humans want to build a wall around everything, so that, the mind can begin to understand it.
It is this compulsion, cognition, thought, pathology, that causes you and everybody else, to say “this is a beginning” and “that is an ending”. Because without that notion of beginning and ending, you must be lost, correct? Better to find direction, to grab hold of floating driftwood, when out in the middle of the ocean? Because without that direction, what would humanity be doing then, except drifting aimlessly and without control?
Minds have a compulsion to gain direction in life. Without this (false sense of security) then yes, they can lose all their values, beliefs, faith, that they hold so dear.
You’re on a philosophy forum. Start doubting, what you believe in. Start from the strongest foundation. So what then is your premise, your “beginning” to everything, except what I’ve already laid out?
Did I not say “as a shape approaches infinite sides it becomes a circle?”
Yes I did, logically sound and flawless. Your error was in not seeing subtlety, and admitting that a Chiliagon, for all intents and purposes, is a circle, despite having sides (unseen by human eyes).
