I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?

Oh, yes. Raven. As for an infinite past, you do happen to be right about anything in the past having already happened. But you seem to have not thought enough about the infinite part to see what I was saying. What you were referring to would be specific points in history, which would not be going back forever. However, in my theory, if you were to go back forever, you would be continuously going through the cause and effect process, in which the time itseld would have to keep on generating more and more events in order to keep things going. I have thus far come up with no way that that could be explained, save for time flowing backwards. However, if you could come up with a logical explaination for this that does not require time flowing backwards, feel free to tell me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time could be circular.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm trying.
I honestly am, but I don't understand why you say that if time were infinite that time would have to keep generating more events.
Is it that you think it is impossible for time to not have a beginning - for time to reach back infinitely.
Why is it impossible for everything that has happened to be in the past and done with now?
Why is it impossible for time to infinite in both "directions"?
Why is it impossible that the universe has ALWAYS existed?

By the way, have you ever heard about the "Argument from First Cause" I mentioned?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Raven, tell me why you think what you think concerning this arguement. After all, it is possible for someone to teach the teacher in a discussion.

 

I think that if someone is willing to claim that God is eternal, then the Universe could very well be eternal also.
If the universe is eternal, time had no beginning.

It seems pretty simple to me.

 

It is not that simple, Raven. The universe, in my theory, is inside time, where a beginning for which time to flow from is nessessary. The Supreme Being, however, is outside of time, where time controls nothing, and therefore nothing needs a beginning, because a beginning is only the point where the discussed being or object starts to exist in the discussed dimension (either of the three dimensions in space, which are height, width, and depth, as well as the chronological dimension of time). And by now, I hope you've figured out that I am no longer trying to make you believe me, but rather I am explaining my point of view. Just making sure.

 

While it's unpossible to disprove your idea, it certainly doesn't seem that probable.

 

Sorry to point out the obvious, Spidergoat, but unpossible is not a word.

 

Do you mean it's an unword?

 

Umm... what?

 

Does it exist in an alternate, negative lexicon unseen to the common observer?

 

I suppose it might... but with this discussion, this thread's original topic is being ignored.

 

No, just like unpossible isn't a word, nothing outside of time can exist.

 

I cannot see why not.

 

...You seem to be taking longer than usual to respond, Spidergoat.

 

Using the same words over and over can be boring, so "unpossible" is good.
And a very happy happy unbirthday to everyone... who isn't having a birthday.

Rokkon - my thought for you
there is no "law" of cause and effect as far as I know.


These types of "proof" are funny - as if our frame of reference is "proof" or "disproof" of anything which is either outside of or only partially within our reference.
How can we possibly define the boundaries of our reality from within it?

 

Rokkon

You've avoided dealing with the posts in which members are pointing out the flaws in your argument, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You appear to be ignoring that which you most need to address. You have a serious misunderstanding about a number of topics, hence your theory is complete bunk.

Why do you continue pushing a bunk theory?

 

Rokkon,

Nonsense. There is no logical necessity for time to have a beginning.

You still have an erroneous perception of time and infinity.

 

But it really IS that simple.

WHY is a beginning necessary?

Please see my earlier posts about something existing "outside of time" must necessarily be static, and unable to interract with anything that falls within the restraints of passing time.

Simply making up terms, such as "outside of time", without even defining what that may mean, how it may be possible, what it entails and a reasonable explanation as how it may have come about says nothing.

What you have here, as I pointed out, is an argument about the "First Cause", commonly referred to the "Cosmological Argument". The Cosmological Argument was first introduced by Plato and Aristotle and refined to the "modern" version by Thomas Aquinas (I was mistaken, it wasn't Saint Francis) in the 13th Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

You have said nothing new, but added the argument that "God exists outside of time" and "time had to have a beginning", neither of which you have supported, one of which you haven't even defined.

What you are simply saying is...
The Cosmological Argument is true because God is eternal and the Universe can not be.
First, support your assertion that the universe CAN NOT be eternal - that's the easy one.
THEN we will talk about what it may mean to be "outside of time".

 

Well, for starters, the universe isn't "in" time. Think of it like one woven fabric - space/time.