Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, I don't have to argue that seer, I can believe it, which i do, but I can't use it as a premise as if it were a fact because I don't know that to be the case.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI prefer the Grim Reaper Paradox, though it can be solved by assuming discretized time.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostLike we really know what the Grim Reaper Paradox is or what the heck discretized time is! Show off...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI just wanted to offer up something else, there's a lot of arguments about the finitude of the past. I might post this one tomorrow, its fun. I think your argument has some warrant seer, not sure what to add in the discussion though.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJim, this is a philosophy board. And my point is, with an infinite past there is enough time (for lack of a better word) for all possibilities to become actual. And in my OP, I did say that premise two was the questionable one. You still have to assert that it would not be possible for matter and energy to go out of existence, because if that was possible nothing would exist today. Just something to muse over...Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-10-2014, 05:06 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJim, this is a philosophy board. And my point is, with an infinite past there is enough time (for lack of a better word) for all possibilities to become actual. And in my OP, I did say that premise two was the questionable one. You still have to assert that it would not be possible for matter and energy to go out of existence, because if that was possible nothing would exist today. Just something to muse over...
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat you are assuming in your argument is that "all possibilities" is equivalent to "Anything is possible", which is why it can't be used as a premise.
Seer is simple listing Aquinas short argument for why its plausible that the past is finite. Actually its interesting to note that Aquinas himself didn't believe that it could be proved, but only rendered likely. That the past had a beginning he considered part of revealed truth.
This was one of the few mistakes I think he made, and as usual its fairly innocent and unimportant to his arguments. None of his five ways involve a finite past as a premise.
Actually now that I think of it Aquinas would hold premise 2 to be certain because of his first way. As a corollary it has that its possible for all beings not to exist and they have a cause that sustains them in existence.
In his metaphysics anything which shows both actuality (what it currently is - say an unlit match on the table) and potentiality (what it could be - say a lit match in your hand) have a cause for that enables them to be. That's because all possibilities are actualized by something else. So if the ultimate cause of the match ceased to keep it in being the match would wink out before our eyes.
We need to have this distinction of actuality and potentiality to solve some otherwise unsolvable mysteries about motion. I might make a thread on this.
Its premise 1 which is tricky, because its kinda hard to prove that in all eternity all possibilities would obtain. In a naturalistic universe this is certain, however its conceivably false in some other worldview and therefore only probably true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.
An uncaused self-existent whatever can't be contingent or dependent for it's existence in any way on anything else. It can't be something that can come into or go out of existence....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, I don't have to argue that seer, I can believe it, which i do, but I can't use it as a premise as if it were a fact because I don't know that to be the case.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.
{Amen}...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.Last edited by Paprika; 04-11-2014, 06:29 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostYou'll need to define your terms (e.g. what precisely do you mean by 'the cosmos' ?), but at face value I think your claim is wrong.
An uncaused self-existent whatever can't be contingent or dependent for it's existence in any way on anything else. It can't be something that can come into or go out of existence.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
507 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment