Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[RoadRunner79]

-If- time had a beginning...and that beginning of time coincides with..say, the bb....then there was a never a prior time t that the universe did not exist.  Ergo it did not begin to exist in the sense important or relevant to the thread (or argument).  Ergo it does not have a cause, in the sense important to the thread or argument..... for the reasons stated in the thread......or argument.

-If- there was some prior time t.....and the universe existed in some form but not this form prior to that time t...then whatever caused the change in state between t- and t+ is a proximate..rather than ultimate, cause.

Precisely. If matter, energy, and space are co-terminous with time, then there was never a time when there was no matter. So, there was not a *progression* from !matter to matter. So, once again, the KCA argument fails.

For me, if you are talking about a time before time, then you are using the word in two different ways.  Referring to a period of time, or in this instance a period where there was no time.

[polymath257]

Precisely. If matter, energy, and space are co-terminous with time, then there was never a time when there was no matter. So, there was not a *progression* from !matter to matter. So, once again, the KCA argument fails.

For me, if you are talking about a time before time, then you are using the word in two different ways.  Referring to a period of time, or in this instance a period where there was no time.

using the term 'period' in this context assumes the existence of time. I am NOT talking about a 'time before time' as that would be nonsense. I am talking about a *start* to time. So, there was no time before that at all. The before' is not even applicable. Which is why causality is also nonsense in context.

[RoadRunner79]

For me, if you are talking about a time before time, then you are using the word in two different ways.  Referring to a period of time, or in this instance a period where there was no time.

using the term 'period' in this context assumes the existence of time. I am NOT talking about a 'time before time' as that would be nonsense. I am talking about a *start* to time. So, there was no time before that at all. The before' is not even applicable. Which is why causality is also nonsense in context.

No just assuming a period without time.  You might consider it logically prior to time.

[polymath257]

using the term 'period' in this context assumes the existence of time. I am NOT talking about a 'time before time' as that would be nonsense. I am talking about a *start* to time. So, there was no time before that at all. The before' is not even applicable. Which is why causality is also nonsense in context.

No just assuming a period without time.  You might consider it logically prior to time.

That also makes no sense. The term 'period' assumes a duration, hence it assumes time.

As for being 'logically prior', that is also a meaningless phrase in context. Logic doesn't have a causal relationship with anything in the real world since it is a *language* we use to describe the real world.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Prior" assumes time from the outset. If time began, there is no prior to times beginning, end of.

[RoadRunner79]

No just assuming a period without time.  You might consider it logically prior to time.

That also makes no sense. The term 'period' assumes a duration, hence it assumes time.

As for being 'logically prior', that is also a meaningless phrase in context. Logic doesn't have a causal relationship with anything in the real world since it is a *language* we use to describe the real world.

Actually, as far as cause/effect, there is the view that temporally it is simultaneous, but is logically prior.  There was a recent example in another thread of a ball breaking through a window.  The window breaks as the ball hits the window and transfers energy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bob Saget!

[polymath257]

That also makes no sense. The term 'period' assumes a duration, hence it assumes time.

As for being 'logically prior', that is also a meaningless phrase in context. Logic doesn't have a causal relationship with anything in the real world since it is a *language* we use to describe the real world.

Actually, as far as cause/effect, there is the view that temporally it is simultaneous, but is logically prior.  There was a recent example in another thread of a ball breaking through a window.  The window breaks as the ball hits the window and transfers energy.

And that was incorrect. The reason that the ball breaks the glass is that the forces induced on the glass from the motion of the ball are sufficient to overcome the forces between the atoms in the glass itself. That is all because of the *physical laws* applicable to this situation. In particular here, it is the electromagnetic repulsion between the electrons of the ball and those of the glass as compared to the attraction between the atoms in the ball and between atoms of the glass that is relevant for the glass breaking.

Without physical laws, the 'logic' would give absolutely no information about this interaction. That is the only 'logically prior' here. The causality is *because* of the physical laws.

And the interaction does, in fact, happen through a period of time. In particular, the reaction of the glass to the ball takes time, it is NOT a simultaneous thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our inability to percieive small (or large) increments of time probably contributed to our misapprehension in this regard.  That inability..not for nothing..also a product of physical law. 

How fast a signal can travel in nueral media, and how much information it can carry per tic. Not fast...and not alot..for reference...to those who wonder.

[RoadRunner79]

Actually, as far as cause/effect, there is the view that temporally it is simultaneous, but is logically prior.  There was a recent example in another thread of a ball breaking through a window.  The window breaks as the ball hits the window and transfers energy.

And that was incorrect. The reason that the ball breaks the glass is that the forces induced on the glass from the motion of the ball are sufficient to overcome the forces between the atoms in the glass itself. That is all because of the *physical laws* applicable to this situation. In particular here, it is the electromagnetic repulsion between the electrons of the ball and those of the glass as compared to the attraction between the atoms in the ball and between atoms of the glass that is relevant for the glass breaking.

Without physical laws, the 'logic' would give absolutely no information about this interaction. That is the only 'logically prior' here. The causality is *because* of the physical laws.

And the interaction does, in fact, happen through a period of time. In particular, the reaction of the glass to the ball takes time, it is NOT a simultaneous thing.

I would agree, that there are a series of things which occur in the instance of a ball breaking a window.

Would you agree, that the "physical laws" are just descriptive and do not have a causal abilitiy?  The physical laws, give us a way to describe, understand, and model what happens as the force of the ball is transferred to the glass?  The physical laws that you are describing is just how things behave.  They are not prescriptive, and do not have causal power.