- To believe future exists before happening is irrational.
This proposition is arguing before the future exists, it doesn't actually exist.
What follows from that the time that has passed is growing/increasing.
-Time passed away is increasing/growing.
What can we follow from this? If time was infinite, and think about this, there would be no end in the past, but this no end makes sense both ways, it would mean there is no beginning and no end, that is nature of infinity if time spanned, that is if there was an infinite line, there we be no beginning and no end, you couldn't end it because it has no length. The same is analogous to time, it would span endlessly. The following can be concluded then:
- If time was infinite, so then future exists.
Now what is interesting is that there is a contradiction between the last premise and the first premise if time is infinite. There is only not a contradiction if time is finite.
How do we know future doesn't already exist? There is many ways but one way to know is by you acting freely. As Atheist rightly point out to Theists, if God knows the future, there is no choice possible in free-will sense. There is only the illusion of choice, because there is only one outcome possible at that time.
While Theists might argue of possible worlds in God's knowledge and choosing what we would of chosen, in my opinion, it sill doesn't negate the free-will being impossible, but what I wanted to say by this, while they might try to wiggle out of it by such philosophizing there is no wiggle room if future already exists without God.
So if you know free-will exists, you can rationally conclude that it is irrational to believe future exists.
So we will re-write all the premises so it leads nicely
1. If some element of freedom of will exists, than future doesn't already exist.
2. We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.
3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.
4. Time passed away is growing.
5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.
6. Therefore time is not infinite.
7. Therefore time is finite.
Let us now make arguments with finite time.
If time is finite, there is a start.
Now if start always existed it would be eternal.
Eternal spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.
The first moment in time didn't always exist.
Something caused the first moment in time to exist.
Universe state before time caused first moment time is irrational.
This is stating that universe was timeless, but what timeless mean? It would mean the physical world would just initiate time, which is required for motion and change.
A stateless universe also where does it exist? This is good question, because time and location go together. It would be a realm beyond time than all of sudden limits itself to time and time becomes a propery of it. It was beyond time than all of a sudden that state caused time to become part of it.
Is this possible for a purely physical thing to do? The paradigm would also be spaceless, no 3rd space which requires time, than all of sudden, create 3rd for itself.
Ok, suppose this is true, what is crazier is that all these physical rules part of our universe that weren't part of all of sudden become rules it has to follow.
I would rightly conclude that is impossible and irrational to believe is possible.
The conclusion is something beyond what we know of the universe today had to create time.
The starter to time and space requires will.
This is the last conclusion, and it would prove the point above anyways and more. That it is manifest that a decision has to make time and space which didn't exist to come to existence and all the rules that is applied to the physical world has to be in put place. A lawless state beyond time would not all of sudden implement rules to itself with no time to make the change available nor anything in motion.
So let us empahsize all the premises together:
1. If some element of freedom of will exists, then the future doesn't already exist.
2. We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.
3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.
4. Time passed away is growing.
5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.
6. Therefore time is not infinite.
7. Therefore time is finite.
8. If time is finite, there is a start.
9. Now if start always existed it would be eternal.
10. Eternal implies it spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.
11. The first moment in time didn't always exist.
12. Something caused the first moment in time to exist.
13. A lawless state beyond time cannot all of a sudden implement rules to itself with no time to make the change available nor anything in motion.
14. It is irrational to believe a stateless universe before time started time and all the rules that come with the universe.
15. The starter of time and space requires will and power.
Tell me disputed premise(s). Please do not attack conclusion with the argument. All the premises are explained, so don't just quote the premise and not address the reasoning showed for it.
With peace.
This proposition is arguing before the future exists, it doesn't actually exist.
What follows from that the time that has passed is growing/increasing.
-Time passed away is increasing/growing.
What can we follow from this? If time was infinite, and think about this, there would be no end in the past, but this no end makes sense both ways, it would mean there is no beginning and no end, that is nature of infinity if time spanned, that is if there was an infinite line, there we be no beginning and no end, you couldn't end it because it has no length. The same is analogous to time, it would span endlessly. The following can be concluded then:
- If time was infinite, so then future exists.
Now what is interesting is that there is a contradiction between the last premise and the first premise if time is infinite. There is only not a contradiction if time is finite.
How do we know future doesn't already exist? There is many ways but one way to know is by you acting freely. As Atheist rightly point out to Theists, if God knows the future, there is no choice possible in free-will sense. There is only the illusion of choice, because there is only one outcome possible at that time.
While Theists might argue of possible worlds in God's knowledge and choosing what we would of chosen, in my opinion, it sill doesn't negate the free-will being impossible, but what I wanted to say by this, while they might try to wiggle out of it by such philosophizing there is no wiggle room if future already exists without God.
So if you know free-will exists, you can rationally conclude that it is irrational to believe future exists.
So we will re-write all the premises so it leads nicely
1. If some element of freedom of will exists, than future doesn't already exist.
2. We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.
3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.
4. Time passed away is growing.
5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.
6. Therefore time is not infinite.
7. Therefore time is finite.
Let us now make arguments with finite time.
If time is finite, there is a start.
Now if start always existed it would be eternal.
Eternal spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.
The first moment in time didn't always exist.
Something caused the first moment in time to exist.
Universe state before time caused first moment time is irrational.
This is stating that universe was timeless, but what timeless mean? It would mean the physical world would just initiate time, which is required for motion and change.
A stateless universe also where does it exist? This is good question, because time and location go together. It would be a realm beyond time than all of sudden limits itself to time and time becomes a propery of it. It was beyond time than all of a sudden that state caused time to become part of it.
Is this possible for a purely physical thing to do? The paradigm would also be spaceless, no 3rd space which requires time, than all of sudden, create 3rd for itself.
Ok, suppose this is true, what is crazier is that all these physical rules part of our universe that weren't part of all of sudden become rules it has to follow.
I would rightly conclude that is impossible and irrational to believe is possible.
The conclusion is something beyond what we know of the universe today had to create time.
The starter to time and space requires will.
This is the last conclusion, and it would prove the point above anyways and more. That it is manifest that a decision has to make time and space which didn't exist to come to existence and all the rules that is applied to the physical world has to be in put place. A lawless state beyond time would not all of sudden implement rules to itself with no time to make the change available nor anything in motion.
So let us empahsize all the premises together:
1. If some element of freedom of will exists, then the future doesn't already exist.
2. We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.
3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.
4. Time passed away is growing.
5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.
6. Therefore time is not infinite.
7. Therefore time is finite.
8. If time is finite, there is a start.
9. Now if start always existed it would be eternal.
10. Eternal implies it spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.
11. The first moment in time didn't always exist.
12. Something caused the first moment in time to exist.
13. A lawless state beyond time cannot all of a sudden implement rules to itself with no time to make the change available nor anything in motion.
14. It is irrational to believe a stateless universe before time started time and all the rules that come with the universe.
15. The starter of time and space requires will and power.
Tell me disputed premise(s). Please do not attack conclusion with the argument. All the premises are explained, so don't just quote the premise and not address the reasoning showed for it.
With peace.
![[Image: a9d6604a2d27152ff8832c8e021954a1--hilari...-ha-ha.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a9/d6/60/a9d6604a2d27152ff8832c8e021954a1--hilarious-memes-funny-ha-ha.jpg)
