Miracles

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The concept is only non-cogent if you assume that time is necessarily a property of existence.

I'm perfectly open to discussing a definition of 'existence' which does not involve time, if you have one.

[seer]

If one believes that time was created at the Big Bang (as the Big Bang theory seems to indicate), then God must have existed causally prior to the existence of time, thus, timeless.

Yes, I guess I agree. Since time would not exist until God created. Time would not exist, as Craig suggests, until "events" came into being.

[seer]

I'm perfectly open to discussing a definition of 'existence' which does not involve time, if you have one.

Do you think that time is past eternal?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Do you think that time is past eternal?

I do not. I prefer past-finite models, though I acknowledge that the work of cosmology in this area is far from conclusive.

[Adrift]

I'm perfectly open to discussing a definition of 'existence' which does not involve time, if you have one.

This is not really an area of expertise for me, but I don't know of any definition of 'existence' that requires time.

[seer]

I do not. I prefer past-finite models, though I acknowledge that the work of cosmology in this area is far from conclusive.

So you would have no problem with the idea of time coming into existence?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So you would have no problem with the idea of time coming into existence?

With the idea of the cosmos coming into existence? I tend to dislike the phrase "coming into existence" for the cosmos, as it implies that there was a time during which the cosmos did not exist, and that is incoherent.

[seer]

With the idea of the cosmos coming into existence? I tend to dislike the phrase "coming into existence" for the cosmos, as it implies that there was a time during which the cosmos did not exist, and that is incoherent.

But if the past is finite then there was state or condition where time did not exist.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But if the past is finite then there was state or condition where time did not exist.

No, that is incoherent. There cannot have been a time before the first moment of time. That's nonsensical. Time obviously exists in the first moment of time. There cannot be a state or condition before that.

[seer]

There cannot be a state or condition before that.

It seems to me that this is more a limitation of language than anything else. I mean if you believe in a finite past then there must have been some kind of condition or state before the first moment of time, even if that condition was nothingness.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It seems to me that this is more a limitation of language than anything else. I mean if you believe in a finite past then there must have been some kind of condition or state before the first moment of time, even if that condition was nothingness.

Once again, that is completely incoherent. It doesn't make any sense. If there was something before time t, then time t cannot be the first moment of time.

There doesn't need to be a condition or state before the first moment of time any more than there needs to be a condition or state north of the North Pole.

[seer]

Once again, that is completely incoherent. It doesn't make any sense. If there was something before time t, then time t cannot be the first moment of time.

Why does everything have to be time dependent? Why would nothingness be time dependent?

There doesn't need to be a condition or state before the first moment of time any more than there needs to be a condition or state north of the North Pole.

If that is the case then what caused the finite universe? Is there a coherent answer?

[Adrift]

It seems to me that this is more a limitation of language than anything else. I mean if you believe in a finite past then there must have been some kind of condition or state before the first moment of time, even if that condition was nothingness.

I don't think its really a matter of language. I think the issue is that he has an entirely different perspective on these matters than you do. He believes certain propositions that I don't think you necessarily have to accept. That actual infinities can exist. That the concept of nothingness is incoherent. That existence requires time. There's plenty of philosophers and scientists that hold varying and contradicting views on all of these topics. When we talk about these sort of existential things that can't (as far as I can tell) really be tested and proven, I don't know if we can actually say such-and-such is wrong. I think the best we can do is argue the strengths and limitations of each view, and then go from there. And what may be incoherent to him may not be incoherent to you, and vice versa.

But I don't know. Maybe not.

[seer]

I don't think its really a matter of language. I think the issue is that he has an entirely different perspective on these matters than you do. He believes certain propositions that I don't think you necessarily have to accept. That actual infinities can exist. That the concept of nothingness is incoherent. That existence requires time. There's plenty of philosophers and scientists that hold varying and contradicting views on all of these topics. When we talk about these sort of existential things that can't (as far as I can tell) really be tested and proven, I don't know if we can actually say such-and-such is wrong. I think the best we can do is argue the strengths and limitations of each view, and then go from there. And what may be incoherent to him may not be incoherent to you, and vice versa.

But I don't know. Maybe not.

Yes, I think there is a lot of room for disagreement. For instance, I don't see how this would be incoherent in the B-Theory of time since there time is not a real thing - it is an illusion. And the B-Theory seems to be gaining ground with Philosophers and Physicists alike. And the idea of God existing before creation and time does not seem incoherent to me.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't think its really a matter of language. I think the issue is that he has an entirely different perspective on these matters than you do. He believes certain propositions that I don't think you necessarily have to accept. That actual infinities can exist. That the concept of nothingness is incoherent. That existence requires time.

None of these has anything to do with whether it is coherent to claim that there could have been a state of affairs prior to the first state of affairs.

There's plenty of philosophers and scientists that hold varying and contradicting views on all of these topics. When we talk about these sort of existential things that can't (as far as I can tell) really be tested and proven, I don't know if we can actually say such-and-such is wrong. I think the best we can do is argue the strengths and limitations of each view, and then go from there. And what may be incoherent to him may not be incoherent to you, and vice versa.

Coherence is not a matter of subjectivity. A proposition is coherent only if it does not contradict its own implications. The idea that something could be before the first moment of time contradicts its own implications. If there is something before it, it is not the first moment of time.

Yes, I think there is a lot of room for disagreement. For instance, I don't see how this would be incoherent in the B-Theory of time since there time is not a real thing - it is an illusion.

Once again, this is not true. On the B-Theory, time is a real thing. The idea that time passes or flows is what is illusory.

And the B-Theory seems to be gaining ground with Philosophers and Physicists alike.

As I understand it, it is the majority position of physicists and philosophers of science. Philosophers of religion tend to be more split on the issue.

And the idea of God existing before creation and time does not seem incoherent to me.

What does it mean to exist before time? If there is a time in which a thing exists, then it does not exist before time. If there is no time in which a thing exists, then what does it mean to say it exists?