Not being able to be defined at a true place on an infinite timeline doesn't mean the infinite timeline is illogical. True doesn't exist, but relativity does.

There is no need for an explanation of a supreme entity.


It seems as if a non believer is doing exactly what the average believer would do. Filling out their lack of knowledge of hope within science containing an answer. But if they say there was no 'starting point', than they are saying that nothing has ever existed.


I am concluding that nothing ever existed because having a universe 'be there' is stating an action, that action had to have had a cause, and if there is infinite time that is saying there are infinite causes. But there cannot have been infinite causes because causes have to be started with an action. Which is only stating more infinite causes, therefore there must have been a starting action from a divinity.

nonbelievers and in one case believers (like me) use logic as a base to science, how can they not be defeated by their own base? if you had an upside-down pyramid and you pull the bottom piece, it crumbles.


That is the most accurate way of determining how the universe started.


I have never mentioned a 'sentient' being' as being the supreme entity. Anyone who does is a fundamentalist.

Causes aren't started with actions, they're started by other causes in which the former becomes the action. You just have infinite "events" which lead to one another.

Another major thing is that we're assuming that everything must have a cause. I believe quantum physics has something to say against that.

Either way, answering that question with a divine being is just as meaningless, because then what caused that being? If it was uncaused, why can't things in an infinite timeline be uncaused as well.

Yea, I never said you mentioned that, I was just bringing it up . It's not just fundamentalists though, it's all Christians and most other religions.

Holy fuck. This is where you fail.
You prove relativity to me. Especially since it's even labeled as a theory.
And then you say "prove god" or "prove relativity doesn't exist".
And I'll say touché, but I'm not the one saying "you are wrong, all your beliefs are based on faith and faith only (which isn't necessarily true)".

Prove relativity, okay.

I woke up, ate, and slept in that order. I don't know where along the infinite timeline they "are", but I know they occurred in that order relative to each other. And if I'm using the manmade concept of the measurement of time I can assign a definite time between the two.

Assuming an infinite timeline the only thing there can be is relativity, at least if you want to describe anything.

elaborate?


Sorry, but with a little thinking, aren't all causes also actions?.
i.e. the universe was created (in some way or another, action and also a cause) this started the big bang (action and also the cause) this and this, etc.

edit: oh and i edited my big post.

"Assuming"... you take it as fact when you say the universe has always existed.

And your proof is an over simplification. And not really proving the theory either.

This will lead into a discussion on "faith" I bet. In short, even though I am not a quantum physicist, I have "faith" that they are able to demonstrate this through reason. This "faith" is not the same as faith in a divine being/god, rather it is more like the same "faith" I have in the existence of you behind your computer, or anything outside my immediate field of view. But still one could be a solipsist or whatever and pose the question do we really "know" anything? But then at that point you shouldn't bother discussing this specific question.

I also edited my post to refer to them as events. I first chose to refer to them as causes, but you only chose to refer to them as actions. I was just demonstrating that the cause to a cause is not just an action, but a cause, which I then followed with the cause being caused "becoming" an action.


Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2008, 11:28 pm by devilesk.

No, I stated "assuming" so you wouldn't bring in a finite timeline. It's to avoid misunderstandings in the discussion, because that is the only thing I am looking at, an infinite timeline. If I didn't assume it true for that specific moment as I was posting, then there wouldn't be a point in posting.

In short, remove the "assuming" if it bothers you, it means absolutely nothing if you're going to make a big deal out of it and ignore point.

How is it oversimplifying. No, the problem is you. You don't accept relativity on an infinite timeline because you don't assume the infinite timeline in the first place, period. That's why one must assume if we're going to discuss. This is the process of logic.

And I'm not referring to all science by any means.

...

That's why the scientific method comes in handy. Those quantum physicists are always being criticized by you and their own scientific community, therefore whatever has been stated has already been through rigorous analysis.

Now you're just arguing the validity of science. Please stop your strawman attempts and get back to showing your "logic" as to why an infinite timeline is illogical.

That's why I had my reservations about even mentioning that whole thread of discussion in the first place, which is why I had further explanation, which you have left out. My post was directed at the original poster.

Then why is there need of an explanation for the universe? If I've read correctly, you're saying that everything is caused by something before it, so what do you offer as the cause to your God?

Furthermore, why can't the existence of an infinite universe which was uncaused be what you define as the actual "supreme entity".

It seems you don't even understand science. There is a need for an explanation of the universe because SCIENCE supports it. A God does not require an explanation because it is not based on logic. Hell, God, or a supreme entity i like to call it, could even be a major quantum fluctuation that started the universe.

He was using 'cause' as if it wasn't an action. But I understand what he means now.

Oh I'm not trying to prove the illogical time line at this point. See, just because this post comes after the last post, it doesn't mean they are directly related.
So don't accuse me of bullshit without cause. Isn't that a fallacy / shit debate tactic?

Which isn't used in all science, ironically (ie: your primary beliefs in our existence).

Nice reading, not. Your first line is EXACTLY my point. You are not attempting to prove the illogical time line. That's my problem, you should be doing it and not addressing what SiN posted.

Therefore, the following two sentences can be ignored.

Do you even know what my beliefs in our existence are?

Change his first sentence to "Then why is there need of a cause for the universe?" (as I believe that is what he meant) and then apply your reponse.

You're both using "explanation" differently, and SiN's explanation in the context of science doesn't relate to Killer_Kow's explanation as synonym for cause.

I actually thought the first quote was addressed to me.

Alright, clearly a misunderstanding between the both of us. Now can you get back to providing a logical explanation for an infinite timeline being illogical?