62 replies to this topic

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

I will just respond to this.

Quote

When you say Indiana is infinite in space, what you are implying is that there is no Missouri, no Oklahoma, no Texas, no New Mexico, no Arizona, no California, right? There is just "infinite in space Indiana" to the west of Ohio and travelling eastward, you have entered Ohio, yes?

I'm only using Indiana and ohio as an example,there is no need to talk about Arizona,etc.

Quote

If yes, you never entered "infinite in space Indiana". You were always within it. Prior to crossing over the border into Ohio, you were always in Indiana.

We aren't talking about entering into Indiana,we are talking about entering into Ohio from Indiana.

Quote

In fact, when you were 50 miles away from Ohio, you were in Indiana and you only had to travel 50 more miles to get to Ohio.

Again this is wrong,if you are in Indiana,and Indiana is infinite in space then you are infinitely away from Ohio,not 50 miles.

Quote

When you were 500 miles away from Ohio, you were in Indiana and you only had to travel 500 more miles to get to Ohio.

Again this is wrong,if you are in Indiana,and Indiana is infinite in space then you are infinitely away from Ohio,not 500 miles.

Quote

When you were 5000000000 miles away from Ohio, you were in Indiana and you only had to travel 5000000000 more miles to get to Ohio, and so on, ad infinitum. I guess you get the picture.

Again this is wrong,if you are in Indiana,and Indiana is infinite in space then you are infinitely away from Ohio,not 5000000000000 miles.


It doesn't seem like you're getting it.


Its extremely simple and it seems that you are rejecting it based upon emotional attachment to your persuasion with all due respect.


Lets use another even more simple argument.

You are in the middle of an infinite stair case,you've traveled eternally and will continue to do so.


I ask you,how many stairs have you traveled,what will your answer be?

If you say infinite,then you have just told me that you have passed an infinite amount of stairs falling into an absurd statement as an infinite cannot be passed.

Just like you cannot pass an infinite amount of miles,you cannot pass an infinite amount of stairs.

If you say a finite number then you haven't been traveling eternally,but we just agreed you were,do you not see the contradiction?


If you don't get this example I don't know what to tell you.

[wundermonk]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 06 August 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Its extremely simple and it seems that you are rejecting it based upon emotional attachment to your persuasion with all due respect.

In case I am in need of psychiatric help, I will surely let you know. Until then...

Quote

Lets use another even more simple argument.

Sure. We can try as many examples/arguments as you like. The basic flavour remains the same. I will demonstrate how.

Quote

You are in the middle of an infinite stair case,you've traveled eternally and will continue to do so.

Hold it right there. An infinite stair case has NO beginning step, NO middle step or NO final/end step. So, you are setting me up with a meaningless premise that arises because you presume that any set of stairs has a starting and ending step. It is only finite stair cases that have a beginning, middle and ending step. Go ahead and tell me the middle element of the following sequence of number 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,...

Quote

I ask you,how many stairs have you traveled,what will your answer be?

I would need to ask - "You want me to answer how many stairs I have travelled, SINCE WHEN? I was always climbing stairs. There was no point in time when I took my first step."

[Quisant]

wundermonk, on 06 August 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Hold it right there. An infinite stair case has NO beginning step, NO middle step or NO final/end step. So, you are setting me up with a meaningless premise that arises because you presume that any set of stairs has a starting and ending step. It is only finite stair cases that have a beginning, middle and ending step. Go ahead and tell me the middle element of the following sequence of number 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,...

I agree with you there,
The other's position is based on the erroneous view that there is a starting point "before" an infinite past.

Infinite regress doesn't need a solution.
Just because we don't emotionally like something, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.

If causality is true, there is only one conclusion that can be made: infinite regress and an eternal universe.

The set of past events is not obtained by successive addition from zero.
It has always been infinite; and there is no obstacle to adding additional elements to an infinite set.

*

Edited by Quisant, 07 August 2012 - 02:24 AM.

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Quote

Hold it right there. An infinite stair case has NO beginning step, NO middle step or NO final/end step. So, you are setting me up with a meaningless premise that arises because you presume that any set of stairs has a starting and ending step. It is only finite stair cases that have a beginning, middle and ending step. Go ahead and tell me the middle element of the following sequence of number 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,...

You are complaining to me that my question is meaningless because there is no beginning,middle,or final step,and then saying beginnings,middles,and ends are illogical which is exactly my point.

There are beginnings,middles,and endings in this model.

How?

Do you agree that this post began to exist? I mean this question in the most obvious sense.

Yes this post did indeed begin to exist.

Hence I can ask before this beginning how many events occurred.

Your answer would be an infinite amount events,I would then say to you how can you pass an infinite amount of events to get to the beginning of my post?


Anyone who is reading this post and understands what I am writing cannot disagree because there is simply nothing to disagree with.

You simply cannot pass an infinite,you keep using word game arguments and it isn't helping you.



we can indeed pick a reference point to ask what was before it because we are dealing with an infinite linear model,even if there is no beginning,middle,or end to an infinite model making it absurd, which is exactly my point.



“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

-David Hilbert

Quote

The set of past events is not obtained by successive addition from zero.
It has always been infinite; and there is no obstacle to adding additional elements to an infinite set.

You are pointing out fallacies in the infinite model,and the arguing for its existence.

Please refer to my post in response to wundermonk to see the clear refutation.

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

1. Did X begin to exist. Yes.
2. Did there exist an infinite amount of events before X. yes
3. Is this pass past? And is this past infinite? Yes.
4. Can you pass an infinite? No



A famous atheist had the same exact objection as you,he said,

"But, in taking infinity seriously, there would be no starting point at all – not even an infinitely distant one. So any point in past time is only finitely far from the present.


WLC responds -  For in this case the past would be like the second version of Zeno’s Dichotomy paradox, in which Achilles to reach a certain point must have traveled across an infinite series of intervals from the beginningless and open end, with this exception: in the case of the past, unlike the case of the stadium, the intervals are actual and equal. The fact that there is no beginning at all, not even an infinitely distant one makes the difficulty worse, not better… For the past to have been ‘traversed’, would be equivalent to saying someone has just succeeded in enumerating all the negative numbers ending at 0. But this seems to be inconceivable; as G. J. Whitrow urges, a collection of order type *ω is simply not constructible.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, 07 August 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[wundermonk]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 07 August 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

You are complaining to me that my question is meaningless because there is no beginning,middle,or final step,and then saying beginnings,middles,and ends are illogical which is exactly my point.

An infinite past has no beginning or no middle but it has an end (now). A forward looking infinite future has a beginning (now), no middle and no end. A bidirectional infinity has no beginning, no middle and no end. So, an infinity of ANY sort has no middle. Now, could you please reformulate your earlier argument without setting me up with a false premise?

Quote

Your answer would be an infinite amount events,I would then say to you how can you pass an infinite amount of events to get to the beginning of my post?

Can you please point/indicate to a time when I said to myself "I need to pass an infinite amount of events to get to the beginning of his post?"

Regarding WLC's arguments. Could you reformulate it in your own words? The reason is, he tends to be dishonest (you being a Muslim, I am sure you would agree with this as he tends to argue that Yahweh is an ontologically superior God than Allah and being a neutral observer I do think that coming from him, the arguments he uses against Allah are rubbish) and equivocates between the usage of terms a LOT and leaves his audience unclear as to what exactly he is arguing for.

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Quote

An infinite past has no beginning or no middle but it has an end (now). A forward looking infinite future has a beginning (now), no middle and no end. A bidirectional infinity has no beginning, no middle and no end. So, an infinity of ANY sort has no middle. Now, could you please reformulate your earlier argument without setting me up with a false premise?

I'm not talking about the actual timeline itself,you keep bringing this up,it is irrelevant to what im saying. The actual timeline itself is linear and eternal (infinite in both directions),this is what is relevant.

I am talking about events and their relation with in the timeline itself,for example with in an infinite linear timeline I can have a beginning X who's duration is 20 minutes exactly,a middle X would be 10 minutes,and its ending at Y which X ceases and the new state Y begins.

For example let the state of the object of non-motion be X and let the new state of motion be Y (notice that the object cannot be both X and Y,moving and not-moving)


The ball is in the state of X for a duration of 12 minutes with in this timeline,thus by logical necessity 12 minutes ago it was moving. The beginning of X is t 0,the middle is t+ 6 minutes,and its ending is  t+12 minutes,after 12 minutes its new state begins to exist (motion) Y.



I'll re post it again the questions again for you to answer. (These questions aren't related to my example above,X is another variable)

1. Did X begin to exist?
2. Did there exist an infinite amount of events before X?
3. Is this pass traversed ?


Note: These questions require no further defining as the questions are clear and straightforward.




Just answer these 3 questions.


Also you didn't answer William lane Craig,yes he uses faulty arguments many times,but that doesn't mean he isn't correct sometimes.

Just answer the 3 questions posted I'm interested to see your response.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, 07 August 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[wundermonk]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 07 August 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I am talking about events and their relation with in the timeline itself,for example with in an infinite linear timeline I can have a beginning X who's duration is 20 minutes exactly,a middle X would be 10 minutes,and its ending at Y which X ceases and the new state Y begins.

For example let the state of the object of non-motion be X and let the new state of motion be Y (notice that the object cannot be both X and Y,moving and not-moving)


The ball is in the state of X for a duration of 12 minutes with in this timeline,thus by logical necessity 12 minutes ago it was moving. The beginning of X is t 0,the middle is t+ 6 minutes,and its ending is  t+12 minutes,after 12 minutes its new state begins to exist (motion) Y.

Sorry, I have no idea what is going on above. X is a point in time?/event?/state?/motion?/non-motion?...completely unclear. Can it be made more clear?

Quote

I'll re post it again the questions again for you to answer. (These questions aren't related to my example above,X is another variable)

Well, if the X below is different from the X above, what are we even talking about below? In any case, I will try.

Quote

1. Did X begin to exist?

We are now back to arguing over "begin to exist". Can you please explain what the term means to you? It is not out of line to ask for a clarification of a term used by you, right?

Quote

2. Did there exist an infinite amount of events before X?

Before ANY event, the past is infinite. This means - THERE IS NO UPPER BOUND ON THE NUMBER OF PAST EVENTS.

Quote

3. Is this pass traversed ?

Again, we need to be clear when we use the word "traversed". Traversal means starting, travelling and ending. Usain Bolt traversed 100 metres in 9.63 seconds. He began at time 0 and traversed/completed the distance in 9.63 seconds. If there was no start to the race, it simply means that Usain Bolt was always running. 9.63 seconds before completing the race, UB was 100 metres from the finish, 20 seconds before completing the race, UB was 200 metres from the finish (approx), 300000000000 seconds before completing the race, UB was 3000000000000 metres from the finish (approx). Because there is no upper bound on the number of past events/past time, 300000000000 seconds or 3000000000000 metres are perfectly well defined. That is all there is to it.

I think we are talking past each other at this stage. I believe we have discussed all there is to be discussed on this issue. I will refrain from posting on this topic further. You have the last word. Thanks for the convo!

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Quote

Sorry, I have no idea what is going on above. X is a point in time?/event?/state?/motion?/non-motion?...completely unclear. Can it be made more clear?

It was clearly explained.

Quote

Well, if the X below is different from the X above, what are we even talking about below? In any case, I will try.

Ok.

Quote

We are now back to arguing over "begin to exist". Can you please explain what the term means to you? It is not out of line to ask for a clarification of a term used by you, right?

Beginning to exist : the point of time or space at which anything begins:beginning of the Christian era; the beginning of the route.
Dictionary.reference.com

Quote

Before ANY event, the past is infinite. This means - THERE IS NO UPPER BOUND ON THE NUMBER OF PAST EVENTS.

This is irrelevant I didn't ask you if there was an upper bound on the number of events in the past.

My question was, is there an infinite number of events in the past?

So according to you,the universe has an infinite past,we both agree.

Quote

Again, we need to be clear when we use the word "traversed".

Traversed simply means the event is past.

Quote

Traversal means starting, travelling and ending. Usain Bolt traversed 100 metres in 9.63 seconds. He began at time 0 and traversed/completed the distance in 9.63 seconds. If there was no start to the race, it simply means that Usain Bolt was always running. 9.63 seconds before completing the race, UB was 100 metres from the finish, 20 seconds before completing the race, UB was 200 metres from the finish (approx), 300000000000 seconds before completing the race, UB was 3000000000000 metres from the finish (approx). Because there is no upper bound on the number of past events/past time, 300000000000 seconds or 3000000000000 metres are perfectly well defined. That is all there is to it.

He says that my usage of the term "traversed" is wrong because the past cannot be traversed due to the fact that it is infinite and without a starting point.


Thank you for proving my point,because the past is indeed traversed,and we did indeed "pass" the past according to your cosmology.


Anyone who says the past exists and at the same time says we didn't "pass" the past is playing word games.

The very essence of the word "past" is something that is passed obviously.

Quote

I think we are talking past each other at this stage. I believe we have discussed all there is to be discussed on this issue. I will refrain from posting on this topic further. You have the last word. Thanks for the convo!

No problem.

But it seems you were nitpicking on clear concise words in every single question.


For example you asked me to define "begin" , "traversed", when these terms are clear in their meaning.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, 08 August 2012 - 04:07 AM.

[AsadullahHamza]

No soul has authority over another. Guidance and straying is a matter between God and you.

aakwr-Allah-wb-Hu

Quote

We never observe something coming out of nothing. The creation of the universe need not be any different unless one wishes to engage in special pleading.

Hey there, wundermonk. What case do you plead regarding the universe's creation?

Alhamdu lillahi Rabbil aalameen.

la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Al-'Atheemu Al-Haleemu, la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbul 'arshil-‘atheemi,
la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbus-samaawaati wa Rabbul-ardhi wa Rabbul-'arshil-kareemi
there is no god except Allah, the All-Mighty, the Forbearing; there is no god except Allah, the Lord of the Mighty Throne;
there is no god except Allah, Lord of the heavens, Lord of the earth and Lord of the noble Throne.

[Quisant]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 07 August 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

WLC responds -  For in this case the past would be like the second version of Zeno’s Dichotomy paradox, in which Achilles to reach a certain point must have traveled across an infinite series of intervals from the beginningless and open end, with this exception: in the case of the past, unlike the case of the stadium, the intervals are actual and equal. The fact that there is no beginning at all, not even an infinitely distant one makes the difficulty worse, not better… For the past to have been ‘traversed’, would be equivalent to saying someone has just succeeded in enumerating all the negative numbers ending at 0. But this seems to be inconceivable; as G. J. Whitrow urges, a collection of order type *ω is simply not constructible.

Imaginary time is the undeveloped time in which the laws of physics, of gravitation, electricity and magnetism, nuclear interaction and beta-decay operate.
In this undeveloped time, the most basic particles of the universe---the atoms, molecules and quarks that compose all mass---behave as if there were no tomorrow or yesterday. The wave/particles of the universe are indifferent to time, for in their duality, no pole is privileged.
Mass mutates into energy and energy into mass within a whole that remains constant---zero energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. In post-quantum physics, the timelessness of imaginary time both co-exists with and supersedes the temporality recorded in human experience.
In quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy from particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to spend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together.
Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

From a holistic perspective, oppositional thinking (positive/negative, presence/absence) cancels out in the total zero of the whole. However, even as one says it, one cannot fathom this zero. In its quantum state, the universe has no beginning or end, which means that it has no edges or boundaries in space-time.

In this state, the universe is finite, yet without an outside. The universe is totality.
From the perspective of matter-energy, however, the universe maintains its boundaries in that it has a beginning and end at the big bang and big crunch.
From the conceptual vantage point of humanity, one may conceive of the universe as beginning and ending, as having edges and boundaries, and a creator.
But in imaginary time, the universe is eternity and eternity is the constant always of the universe. (Stephen Hawking)

Wslm.
*

[Logical Islam]

wundermonk, on 13 June 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Is creation an act of God? Every act/action needs time. If you disagree please provide a counter-example that both sides can agree upon.

Absent time/space, creation cannot occur.

Per Islam, when did creation happen? I am not necessarily looking for support for your answer from scripture. I am ok if you do not bring scriptural statements in support of your answer. But in a philosophical sense, when did creation happen?

To answer your point simply, God describes how he creates in the Quran:

"..he merely says' be and it is"

God WILLS what he wants. He exists outside of time and space - as he created the notion of time and space itself. He is not made out of any matter, otherwise time would effect him. God says in the Quran "and he is incomparable to anything".

Creation can occur when the creator is the one who creates the concept of time and space. Creates matter.

Remember, i am going to quote you on this : "absent time and space.creation can not occur".

Matter can not just exist. It must originate from somewhere , similar to the big bang.

You have two choices:

> believe it originated itself, which you have just said it can not! because without the existance of time and space, you can not create anything.

> You have a creator who creates the notion of time and space, and merely wills(not in the sense we will...but perhaps an example to help us understand).

I have thought of the question you have posed during the last portion of your question. '  if God has always existed, when did he start creating.

Firstly, we live in a realm of time and space. God is not bound by time and space - he created these concepts. Time must have matter to exist of some sort, or space. God created both.

Therefore the secrets of what God has made, when he made them, what else he has made is known only to him. We can not comprehend the notion of no time, since we live in a universe by which time is the crux of our existance.

These are my ideas.

[wundermonk]

Logical Islam, on 19 August 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Matter can not just exist.

This is precisely the point of contention. This has been sufficiently discussed in this thread and other threads in this subforum.

Quote

It must originate from somewhere , similar to the big bang.

It can simply be eternal. Also, the Big Bang makes no claims whatsoever as to what came before the big bang. The Big Bang does not say that the universe came out of nothing. It simply describes how the universe evolved from 13.7 billion years - Planck Time onwards.