Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time"

[The Grand Nudger]

The argument shows there is a starter, and I showed why a starter would require will and power.

Not in any part of the posted list of assertions, you didn't....you just asserted it at the very end.  

and if it's the conclusion....it doesn't follow from anything before it.

Turns out it is the conclusion, you just a little excited and went off too early. The starter of the universe with will and power is just another way to say god. You know that, I know that, there's no need for pretense.

Not my fault you omitted a demonstration that this assertion followed from anything that precedes it, if you have it, now is it?  I did suggest you try again, didn't I?

Include -that- next time, it seems like it might be an important step.

[bennyboy]

The argument shows there is a starter, and I showed why a starter would require will and power.

That didn't happen.

---

1. If some element of freedom of will exists, then the future doesn't already exist.

Multi universes, and this fails.

2.  We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.

No we don't know that. We believe it. Or, we can define it so that the feeling is WHAT we call free will.

3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.

You made two total assumptions, and followed it with "therefore." That's really weak. Let me try this:
If aliens are real, then people are alien slaves. We know aliens are real. Therefore, people are alien slaves.

See the problem?

4. Time passed away is growing.

Maybe, if time is a thing which can be said to "grow."

5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.

Nope. One direction of infinity is sufficient.

6. Therefore time is not infinite.

Here, again. You make a speculation, and then say "therefore."
If time is a bagel, then it's an onion bagel. Therefore, time is an onion bagel.

7. Therefore time is finite.

You haven't arrived at this conclusion logically.

8. If time is finite, there is a start.

Most of us already think this.

9. Now if start always existed it would be eternal.

Eternal means "across all time," but the start is only the start. Your words don't mean anything here.

10. Eternal implies it spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.

That's not a rational conclusion-- it's a result of your goofy semantics.

11. The first moment in time didn't always exist.

Exist where? To exist means to be real in time and space. What does this sentence even mean?

12. Something caused the first moment in time to exist.

You're still having trouble with the word "exist." For something not to exist, and then to exist, there must be a framework in which the thing can be located. There's no such thing as a time when time didn't 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.

Okay.

14.  It is irrational to believe a stateless universe before time started time and all the rules that come with the universe.

Again, your semantics are bad. "Before" means, "located earlier IN TIME." Talking about a time before time is like talking about a donutless donut-- it's just goofy talk.

15. The starter of time and space requires will and power.

Literally nothing in 1-14 arrives sensibly at this conclusion. Nor, if there is a starter of the universe, have you explained how IT could possibly exist. "Exist" means be present in time and space. So where does this Starter of Universes exist?

Look, whatever you do, something must have existed without having been created. But if there is a God, then how did it come to being? You cannot logically describe this state. But if anything is allowed to be a paradox, why invite Sky Daddy to fill that role? Let the Universe itself do it, or the multiverse, or a quantum foam. No Jew-hating required.

[AFTT47]

I did and it's bullshit.

We may not be able to directly confirm 4-D space-time but we sure as hell can falsify the theory of which it is an integral part. You can't make it go away that easily.

"It's bullshit" is not a compelling argument.

Science deals with phenomena. The experience of time =/= time itself. It would help if you actually knew what science was addressing.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

I always get the "It's bullshit" response from stupid people who don't understand stuff. It's bullshit as in, it's nonsense, as in, it doesn't make sense to you, as in, it doesn't make sense to you because you can't fucking grasp it and/or are unwilling to research what I'm actually talking about before you spout irrelevant shit about science. We're doing philosophy and logic here. Science deals with what we experience as humans.

Saying that what used to exist but no longer exists still exists or what will exist but doesn't exist yet already exists is just talking utter nonsense. You may as well say square circles are real because science. When science studies that the way we experience what we call "time" appears to be that way when we get into the physics of our experience of reality, that's very different to saying that a square can be a circle which is what you're saying by pretending that science is relevant to the arguments that are being made here. Regardless of what we seem to experience or whatever the science is about it, what existed but no longer exists by definition existed but no longer exists, what doesn't exist yet by definition doesn't exist yet, and to say that all times exist equally at the same time is more nonsense. The entirety of the science about time is wholly compatible with the philosophical notion that time itself is an illusion and all that really exists is the present because science then simply is studying the experience of that illusion. This is all something that you just clearly can't grasp.

You're partially right in that I don't get exactly what you're saying about what science can study. I don't believe I need to for 2 reasons:

1. I'm sure any theoretical physicist gets it. And they talk about 4-D space-time as if talking about fact. That tells me either you don't grasp what you're talking about either or more likely, it doesn't apply here.

2. General Relativity is a falsifiable theory. It is science. It has been confirmed over and over and over. We continue to test it even today as new technology makes new tests possible. It continues to pass every test with flying colors. While that can't be said of 4-d space-time by itself, it doesn't stand by itself. It is an integral part of relativity. Relativity doesn't work without it. Let that sink in. You can't have the theory of relativity if you throw away 4-D space-time.

Saying that a particular thing that theoretical physicists say is "utter nonsense" when you are not a theoretical physicist is arrogant and stupid. Obviously, you have a difficulty wrapping your head around 4-D space time or have some philosophical prejudice against it. You know you cannot dispute it with science so you concoct an argument that science doesn't even apply. Sounds like a desperation ploy to me. If there was any validity to it, I have to think physicists like Brian Greene would have already recognized it. Even if not, other physicists would have and critiqued Green and others like him for talking about 4-D space-time in factual terms.

Should I listen to you or theoretical physicists on the subject of theoretical physics?

[The Grand Nudger]

[Edwardo Piet]

Should I listen to you or theoretical physicists on the subject of theoretical physics?

That isn't the subject. That's the point. I agree with the science fully. I'm just drawing a distinction between what science studies and what science doesn't study.

But I do battle with so many straw men that I'm really just wasting my energy post of the time. No point me getting frustrated all the time.

[AFTT47]

Should I listen to you or theoretical physicists on the subject of theoretical physics?

That isn't the subject. That's the point. I agree with the science fully. I'm just drawing a distinction between what science studies and what science doesn't study.

Yes, Hammy, it sure as hell is the subject. I see what you're doing here. You're doing everything you can to weasel out of the fact that you have a conviction which flies in the face of what theoretical physicists have been saying for over 100 years. Rather than try to argue the physics, you have crafted an argument that physics doesn't matter. It's clever but it doesn't work. The problem with your argument is that you treat 4-D space-time as an entity that is floating out there on its own and than say, "see, science can't study this because we can't experience it." But 4-D space-time doesn't stand on its own. It is attached to general relativity - a theory which is very much falsifiable, very much in the realm of what science can study. There is no way to dis 4-D space-time without dissing general relativity.

[Mister Agenda]

First of all, if time is infinite, it does not follow that the future already exists, only that events that have not yet occurred will continue to occur forever, that is, that we won't 'run out of future' for things to happen in.

[Edwardo Piet]

[Mystic]

First of all, if time is infinite, it does not follow that the future already exists, only that events that have not yet occurred will continue to occur forever, that is, that we won't 'run out of future' for things to happen in.

It does follow from the argument I used for it that an infinite line would span infinitely both ways. There would be no end on either end.

[AFTT47]

Logic is about what is and isn't possible. You don't have to fail to experience a square circle to know that a square circle is impossible. And you don't have to fail to experience that which doesn't exist yet already existing to know that that's impossible.

Now where have I heard that kind of talk before?

Oh right, It's exactly the kind of thing creationists say. Obviously, everything has to have a creator. Simple logic. Just like them, you suffer from the delusion that reality is limited by your own capacity to comprehend it.

Do you deny quantum mechanics too? Much of it is a lot less intuitive than 4-D space-time. Come to think of it, the same is true of other aspects of relativity. Two objects traveling near the speed of light collide head-on and the energy of the impact is the speed of light. Defies logic. Fortunately, we've learned that the way to discover truth is to follow where the evidence leads - not our intuition.