Richard,

I noticed a contradiction in my text from what I said earlier:

(first set of comments)

>>>R: There is a 4th way, we could have always existed. Then there is no need for a creator. Current scientific thinking is that universes have always existed is the most probable case. Therefore, no need to create something from nothing. There has always been something before. No beginning to time, for example. H: I won't argue whether an irrational explanation can be true (since we cannot know that), but I will argue that this 4th view is irrational. That is, if the universe always existed in some form (e.g., false vacuum), then that means that the universe does not exist because of some logically necessary requirement... Since it is not true of this 4th view that something is more primitive then the universe, this view does not fit along a logical (rational) explanation. Therefore the 4th view is an irrational explanation.>R: Can time in some sense be infinity in both directions and still operate in universes that have rules? I do not know of a physics theory that disallows that. I hope you do not say that philosophy disallows it. H: No, nothing in physics or philosophy disallows it. Nor is it necessarily an illogical state of affairs. For example, an infinite timeline could be true because X is true (and X is true because of some basic set of axioms to the universe).

• No cause beginning? - yanniru - November 13, 2001 - 15:40 UTC
  • I need your clarification - harvey1 - November 14, 2001 - 04:55 UTC
    • irrational component - yanniru - November 14, 2001 - 14:38 UTC
  • Where did you get this interpretation? - harvey1 - November 14, 2001 - 16:36 UTC
    • Essay seems to agree with my understanding - yanniru - November 16, 2001 - 16:02 UTC
  • Does it, though? - harvey1 - November 16, 2001 - 17:37 UTC