@KingTut
Excuse me, but I don't know what physics books you've been reading, however our current understanding is, that when our universe came into being that is the point from where we measure time it is a frame of reference that is all it is.
So... does that mean that time can in fact be extended backwards indefinitely, even before the 'beginning' of the universe, and that we only measure its beginning from the time the universe came into being as a matter of convenience? And indeed, if time is not an existential entity, something that actually exists, but rather is just a 'frame of reference,' then how can it be impossible for something to exist outside of it? Can something that is merely conceptual preclude the existence of things in the real world?
But if you're saying that time is in fact something that actually exists, and it seems like you're saying here that it does indeed exist and that it extends into the 'time' before the beginning of the universe, then you would surely have an infinite period of time before the beginning, thereby necessitating the problem of a quantitative infinite. Either that, or it did begin at some point, inexplicably.
As for your quotation:
Whichever definition of eternity is understood, it is an understatement to say that humans cannot fully understand eternity, since it is either an infinite amount of time as we know it or something other than the time and space we know. For the infinite definition, there are parallels that give some notion of an infinity—of at least a potential infinity, or a series that begins and has not ended. A series of moments that has begun and not ended is, however, not potentially eternal by that definition. A series of moments that has begun and not ended cannot be eternal, because even if it were to continue for the rest of (infinite) time, there would still be time prior to the initial moment in the series. The series of moments could not ever exist for all eternity because no matter what happened during the series of moments, nothing would ever cause the series of moments to have existed since the beginning of "eternity", and thus could never achieve the status of eternal or even potentially eternal.
I have no problem with that. Why do you think I would? Is it because you think when I talk about a 'necessary being,' I talk about something that has existed for an infinitely long period of time? If so, you should know that that's not what I mean.
So, God splitting the sea, creating the universe, raising Jesus up to heaven, taking Muhammad on a space walk, and having talking rocks is what? When where these actions performed? they could not have been preformed in 'no time' those actions would have had to have taken space in space-time, for them to have any observable consequence.
Yes. The entirely timeless entity interacting with a temporal entity, like the universe, does seem problematic.
Two points which should debunk the above: 1.) Kant showed existence is not a real predicate it is not an attribute but of a condition of having real attributes. 2.) Kant also showed that it is not necessary that every event has a cause. This belief is merely based on habit not on reason the universe does not need a cause. So, there goes your Islamic Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I don't think he did. He may have contended that existence is not a predicate, but I think it's highly questionable as to whether he demonstrated this definitively. It's also interesting how you use the words 'real predicate' and 'real attribute,' but I'll assume you just meant 'predicate' and 'attribute,' to keep it simple. But I'd say that existence is, in fact, a predicate, although a unique one, but let's see the definition:
b. a property, characteristic, or attribute that may be affirmed or denied of something. The categorial statement all men are mortal relates two predicates, is a man and is mortal -- World English Dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predicateTo take an example, we might distinguish something like a unicorn from a horse by saying that the horse does in fact exist, whereas the unicorn does not. You can do this with many examples; some things do not exist in real life and some do, and the primary distinguishing feature is the predicate of existence, where one object possesses it and the other does not. So, I believe that existence is in fact a predicate.
As for every event or contingent entity not requiting a cause, I'd like to see an example to substantiate that claim. Even the subatomic phenomena that randomly come into being and cease to be do so as fluctuations and parts of an existing entity, the universe, therefore it may be somewhat inaccurate to classify them as being fully non-contingent and causeless.
A completed infinity is impossible, that is a fact.
That is exactly what I meant in the quote you wrote this as a response to.
You're using a logical fallacy here, of the God of the gaps argument.
Nope. Rather, you are (intentionally or unintentionally) making a strawman. Here's the context:
it is impossible to even imagine a completed infinite
Well yes. A 'completed infinite' is an intrinsically incoherent concept. That and, infinity may be unimaginable, but that doesn't, of course, mean that it's impossible. There are things that human minds cannot grasp, though their existence is pretty much certain, like particular subatomic particles.
You see, at no point did I say anything about using a god as an explanatory hypothesis here. I merely took issue with your saying that a 'completed infinite' was 'impossible to imagine,' as I took that to be an implication that because something is impossible to imagine it is therefore impossible absolutely. That is perfectly evident from the very next sentence that I wrote:
But then, I don't mean to say that I think that an actual quantitative infinite can exist, I just took issue with your seeming to imply that because it's 'impossible to imagine' that it is, therefore, impossible in the absolute sense.
I have to say, I found it strange when you wrote this in reply to my above statement:
Wrong, it is impossible it simply cannot exist, not as a thought and neither in some being form.
At no point did I say that a completed infinite could exist.
You seem to be saying that, we don't have the intellect to understand god, that argument is so silly. Since one can equally say flying unicorns exist, but we as humans just lack it intellect to understand how they work, which in essence is a god of the gaps fallacy.
Not at all. I simply questioned the usefulness of Occam's Razor in a question as complicated and at the edge of human understanding as this. At no point did I say or imply unintentionally or otherwise that we should just try to explain the issue by invoking God, even though we can't understand it. I simply intended to say what I stated about the application of Occam's Razor, and that is all. Occam's Razor can't even ensure that we arrive at the best explanation in mundane questions, nevermind ones like this. Again, a strawman.
This is all I wrote in this connection:
I know. But you're surely aware that Occam's Razor does have its limitations. There are some scenarios in which what we believe to be the most parsimonious explanation will be entirely contingent upon our limited knowledge. This seems to be one of those scenarios.
Nothing to do with invoking God to explain things despite the fact we can't understand God's existence.
You may use it against the conceptions of the theistic God however, in that it itself is not a particularly parsimonious explanation.
I'd write more, but now, I need to sleep. Until next time.
That does not make any sense.
I simply meant by this that the theistic God is a very complicated and unparsimonious explanation, and therefore, one might use Occam's Razor effectively against it. That is all.
Topic: Islame re-reads the Quran