Jump to content
Islamic Forum
noxiouspython

Logical Proof Of Creator, Above Creation!

Recommended Posts

:D

 

[before you start to read, I would like to apologize in advance for any mistakes I may have made in writing this theory. If I have made any unfounded or an illogical assumption then please do correct me, and if possible give your suggestion(s) as well. Thank you.]

 

 

Logical proof of the creator beyond this system

 

This theory has been deduced from another theory presented to negate the theory that the universe had been in existence since eternity. This theory is purely mathematical. Let us now analyze this theory.

 

 

‘If the universe is infinite years old, it could very well be said that the universe began at point ‘A’ in time, which was infinite years from today, let us call it point ‘B’. So it could be said that the distance in time between point ‘A’ and point ‘B’ is infinite in unit time. Therefore, it could be said that it would take infinite time to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’. In simple words it will take forever to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ i.e. it is impossible to get to point ‘B’ from point ‘A’. Therefore it is not logically possible for the beginning of the universe to be infinite years ago. If that assumption is made then it is impossible that universe ever reaches this point in time, because it would literally take forever for it to reach this point in time! Thus, it is illogical to think that the universe is without a beginning!’

 

 

There are only two possibilities regarding the origin of the universe, either:

v ‘It has been there forever’

Or,

v ‘It was created’.

 

As the former has been proven to be invalid the only possibility remaining is the later. There is no other possibility because there cannot be a reaction without an action! So the only possibility left is that it was created, right! Well this is not the point, yet! There is a more deeper and basic question that arises from this theory, and it is about Allah (God).

 

cont...

Edited by noxiouspython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

You could apply the same reasoning and logic to the concept of God and you get the same problem! How when Allah (God) is infinite years old, if we apply the same theory, then how come we are here? This question is very important and needs answering! Well, the answer, surprisingly, is simple.

 

 

As the universe cannot be infinite years old, we assume it was about 13.7 billion years ago that it was create (that is what the scientist say). Then we say that the creator created the universe about 13.7 billion years ago. Now the creator has to be of some age otherwise it again causes a problem. Hence, we assume the creator was ‘X’ number of years old at the time of creation of the universe (‘X’ not being infinite). So it has to be said that that creator had been created ‘X’ + 13.7 billion years ago, assuming the above theory is right. Then you have the creator’s creator who is then again ‘Y’ number of years old. And this process is going in a circle, because you cannot have a creator who is infinite years old, neither can you have infinite amount of creators. Having infinite amount of creators would again cause the same problem as to how do you reach at this creation, as it would take infinite creations. So we have to say the only explanation for this can be that the Originator of this Universe is beyond this creation. The Creator must transcend this creation. When I say creation it means time, space and causality*, as we understand it! Therefore, it would not be a very far-fetched statement that there is a Creator, who is beyond this system.

 

cont...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Not part of the theory only my personal opinion]

*My understanding of this is that the Creator transcends time; it means there is no such thing as past, or future for him. We only have past and future we cannot actually realize the actual present. Let me try to elaborate on that… The absolute present is this moment, and technically we live in the past. This is because our physical senses operate on the data received from the physical environment. Lets take the sense of sight as an example to make it more clear and simple. When we see the light, it takes time to reach our eyes from the object it is reflected or emitted from. For example it takes light approximately 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. For objects close to the receiver that time, even though the time taken is very minute, it is there nonetheless. And the time that is required to process it etc also adds to the time we are behind the actual now! So the present for us is virtually non-existent! So the Creator created the concept of time, and time did not exists before it. So it could be said in a crude way that for Him its only present and no past or future.

The Creator is not bound to space, and is infinite in the absolute sense. When a person imagines something, it has a form! When one thinks of an abject is something that it occupies space, and has a form. When we give something form it becomes finite, cause anything that has shape would have ends meaning it is not be infinite. The Creator, with His absolute creativity, created ‘form’ and fashioned it, as He willed!

All causality runs from Him, but He is free from the concept of cause and effect! That means all that is, is from Him. All the knowledge, wisdom, love, mercy etc are because of Him. He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that is in existence. He needs nothing, and is beyond the concept of cause and effect, because He created it! He causes and is not caused, thus He is truly independent of everything.

 

cont...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of all this elaboration is making a point. The point is that Allah is our Creator, and we cannot comprehend Him. You see we cannot think of something that is beyond time, or has got no form understandable to our senses. Let us take ‘time’ as an example. When I say that He has got no past or future only present, I am giving an idea of time. Or when one says he has been there forever, that also gives us a measurement in time. Language was invented to help us communicate our thoughts and perceptions. Theses thoughts are limited to our experiences and surroundings. Thus, the limitedness of the language shows the limitedness of our understanding. This limitedness makes it impossible for us to comprehend anything that is beyond the environment we live in. As the Creator is infinite, therefore it can be said that the finite cannot encompass the infinite. So we cannot judge His matters with our limited knowledge. Therefore, when we don’t understand His wisdom we give His knowledge preference over our perception. Therefore, we should not try to delve deeper into understanding Allah (God) because this would lead us astray. (We might end up giving the Creator the attributes of His creation like the people of the old). In conclusion I would like to say what the Prophet Muhammad saas said which means something like; “reflect on the creation and not the Creatorâ€[because it is bound to confuse you].

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

brothers and sisters,

 

I got the above theory fromone of the Lectures of Doctor BIllal on Islamic Studies. He was trying to explain that the universe had been created and not eternal. Well after i herd a question popped up in my head which kept on bothering me. By the will of Allah, the listening to differnt lecturers paid of and i remembered an answer in another lecture. The answer was for another question but i mixed the two answers and got this answer. It is just my understanding and it is very likely thati was not able to look at the matter from different angles. so please correct me where i am wrong. I wish to have it critically analized befor i use it in an discussion.

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

waitng fo rany mistakes you might have found :D

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Common guys no opinion whatsoever? If it is wrong then please tell, i really want an opinion :D .

 

Waiting anxiously.

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kash786
The point is that Allah is our Creator, and we cannot comprehend Him....

 

We may know God through his attributes and beautiful names, for example, I believe God is Light, God is Love, God is Peace and God is Forgiving, these I have realised in myself or through my own 'reflection on the creation'.

It is agnostics who believe that God exists but there is no way of knowing God, i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We may know God through his attributes and beautiful names, for example, I believe God is Light, God is Love, God is Peace and God is Forgiving, these I have realised in myself or through my own 'reflection on the creation'.

It is agnostics who believe that God exists but there is no way of knowing God, i think.

 

:D

 

brother thankyou for replying. I thought it was too boring for anyone to read through. :D

 

what i mean by that is that we cannot comprehend Him, our knowlege cannot encompase Him. although we know him through what he has revealed. The reason why i say we cannot enocmpase Him is simple, we are finite and He is infinite. And yeah we know of Him what has been told to us. Hope i made my point clear.

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

While logical proofs are good, the contentious kuffar will begin to debate philosophy to refute these ideas.

 

The strongest proof of Allah (swt) is the clear proof He has given us through His revelations.

 

Allah (swt) didn't just leave mankind to guess about His existence and His nature and what He wills, He gave a clear revelation with miracles to distinguish it from falsehood.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

While logical proofs are good, the contentious kuffar will begin to debate philosophy to refute these ideas.

 

The strongest proof of Allah (swt) is the clear proof He has given us through His revelations.

 

Allah (swt) didn't just leave mankind to guess about His existence and His nature and what He wills, He gave a clear revelation with miracles to distinguish it from falsehood.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

:D

 

Of course brother i di agree with you completely. To me even if wasn't able to answer it, it would just leave to the day of Judgement. When Allah will clarify everything. I just thought of it therefore, just hought maybe it would be helpful. and then you see its just to support an argument. YOu know certain people do not even belive in God, so you know you could use this to try and convince them. Cause we have to do Dawa with intelect and not force. You hav to use reasoning sometimes (actually most). One can do that by pondering upon things around them. One cant just say thati believe and that is why you should too believe. The signs of Allah are there in his creation, and one with inteligence should be able to understand through creation what he can about the Creator. Like Prophet Ibrahim pbuh did. he thought at such an early age, he had not recived a revelation but he was able to conclude with his profound observation that there can only be one Creator. Although Allah in his mercy has revealed scriptures to guide the mankind even further. Although one could with his intelect be able to duduce the existence of the Creator, the revelation is there to reinforce any grey doubt. And indeed Quran is the word of Allah and the ultimate miracle. But in some occassion certaind reasoning is also required to convince a person (at least try to). This is just my thinking, but please correct meif i am wrong. :D

 

btw is there anything wrong ith the theory???? :D

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOu know certain people do not even belive in God, so you know you could use this to try and convince them. Cause we have to do Dawa with intelect and not force. You hav to use reasoning sometimes (actually most). One can do that by pondering upon things around them. One cant just say thati believe and that is why you should too believe. The signs of Allah are there in his creation, and one with inteligence should be able to understand through creation what he can about the Creator.

 

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

The best way to make da'wa is to follow the Sunnah for da'wa.

 

I don't debate people in philosophy to prove God, I use the Qur'an and Ahadith themselves, and the miracles they contain, to prove that they could not have come from other than Allah (swt).

 

For example, browse some sections on the miracles of the Qur'an:

 

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_forum.bodybuilding(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/showthread.php?t=579633&highlight=compendium"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_forum.bodybuilding(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/showthread.p...ight=compendium[/url]

 

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Salam alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

 

‘If the universe is infinite years old, it could very well be said that the universe began at point ‘A’ in time, which was infinite years from today, let us call it point ‘B’. So it could be said that the distance in time between point ‘A’ and point ‘B’ is infinite in unit time. Therefore, it could be said that it would take infinite time to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’. In simple words it will take forever to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ i.e. it is impossible to get to point ‘B’ from point ‘A’. Therefore it is not logically possible for the beginning of the universe to be infinite years ago. If that assumption is made then it is impossible that universe ever reaches this point in time, because it would literally take forever for it to reach this point in time! Thus, it is illogical to think that the universe is without a beginning!

 

I don't understand what you mean by saying the Universe 'began' at point 'A' in time, since, according to the Materialists, it never began? I'm a little confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

You find some use for this:

 

When we look around us, we find that God has created everything in this universe with a beginning and an end. Each of God's creations, including man, is limited in several respects and dependent on something else. We find that in every living and non-living thing an element of weakness, a stage of breaking down, a dependence on some other created thing, and a point of termination or finiteness.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll start with 2 simple premises:

 

Something cannot bring itself into existence.

 

"A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time.

 

[*] From the above guidelines we know that the universe could not have brought itself into existence.

 

If something doesn't exist, it does not have the ability to do anything, let alone an act which it uses to bring itself into existence.

 

If something is able to perform an action, then it exists

 

[*] Hence, the universe was brought into existence by something other than itself. Since it exists, and it did not create itself, and the thing which created it cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.

 

[*] All knowable things in the universe which come into existence have causes, causes other than themselves.

 

If the universe did not have a cause, it would be an infinite regression of events (backwards). This would mean it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, it takes an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present.

 

From the basic laws of entropy, if the universe is infinitely old, the universe would be at a state of unusable energy (all energy, while remaining equal in quantity, has achieved maximum disorder over infinite time, order approaches chaos over time).

 

If the universe is infinitely old, it would be infinitely large, since the universe is constantly expanding. Contrarily it would be infinitely small if shrinking. **ASIDE: The Universe is either expanding or contracting, once it stops expanding it begins to contract due to electromagnetic forces of attraction, or "gravity" as some like to say.

 

None of the above effects of an infinitely old universe exist, therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old, and must be finite.

 

[*] Since it is not infinitely old, it is not infinite in size, so it is finite in size.

 

Since the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

 

[*] From above, since the universe is finite, and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite regress of events in its finite existence, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes to bring it into existence. Since there aren't infinite events (backwards), and hence not an infinite amount of causes, there must be a single cause of the universe which does not have a cause preceding it- an uncaused cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*] The universe, and everything in the universe, is limited in size, and since they have a beginning and an end, are not eternal.

 

[*] Since the uncaused cause does not have a cause, it was not created by something else, nor did it create itself (see above). It must therefore be eternal. If this "Creator" was created by something else, it could not rationally be the Creator. It could not be self-created from the premise and proof above. Hence, the uncaused cause, the Creator, must be eternal.

 

[*] Since "the Creator" is the uncaused cause, the first cause, all else is dependent on it initiating other causes, and all things including the universe are caused after the first cause, "the Creator" cannot be dependent on anything it has caused, because it existed before and after all causes and effects.

 

[*] Therefore "the Creator" is independent of the universe and all causes and effects it contains.

 

Since "the Creator" is independent of all things, it is self-subsistent.

 

[*] Therefore "The Creator" is both eternal and self-subsistent.

 

[*] Any cause that is contained within the system of the universe is a natural part of the universe and its stream of causes and effects.

 

The uncaused cause, "the Creator" cannot be contained within the system of the universe which is finite, because it is eternal.

 

[*] The uncaused cause is SUPER-natural because it is other than the universe and not natural to it. It is not wholly contained within it.

 

The supernatural uncaused cause is God, all Praise is due to Him, Our Lord, Creator of the Universe, Sustainer of Worlds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Salam alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

I don't understand what you mean by saying the Universe 'began' at point 'A' in time, since, according to the Materialists, it never began? I'm a little confused.

 

 

:D

 

That theory above is to refute the claim that the universe never began. And we can go into furthur arguments into proving that theory taking the Big Bang theory into consideration. the points that proove it etc. Hope you nunderstand.

 

Brother SyrianKid is there any mathmatical error in it??? i would really like to know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syrian kid, thats a good shot u did there but you simply cannot continue to explain without proving stuff.

 

Something cannot bring itself into existence.

 

"A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time.

 

[*] From the above guidelines we know that the universe could not have brought itself into existence.

 

If something doesn't exist, it does not have the ability to do anything, let alone an act which it uses to bring itself into existence.

 

If something is able to perform an action, then it exists

 

I REALLY REALLY HATE YOU FOR THIS!! :D

 

You have not sufficiently explained what it means to "exist". I hate you for bringing on metaphysics and what it means to exist, this thing is a source of massive headaches for everyone that tries to explain it. So first off we have to discuss what it means to exist before you carry any further. I've just thrown my hands up in there as I cannot come to avalid conclusion on what it means to exist. However there is alot of counters for every explanation of existence i've heard. This one is no different.

 

Ability has nothing to do with existence for existence does not necessarily bring about concious(sp?) inflluence - notice that ability is a reflection of concience with direction, otherwise it would simply be a property. A volcano does not have the ability to explode, the so called ability to explode if you want to call it that is just a property - like rocks are heavy. Something does not have to have an ability to exist. A rock on the ground has the ability to do nothing --> no abilities. Plenty of properties -->height, width, texture, weight etc. Yet the rock exists. Ability is not a prerequisite for existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the basic laws of entropy, if the universe is infinitely old, the universe would be at a state of unusable energy (all energy, while remaining equal in quantity, has achieved maximum disorder over infinite time, order approaches chaos over time).

 

If the universe is infinitely old, it would be infinitely large, since the universe is constantly expanding. Contrarily it would be infinitely small if shrinking. [/color] **ASIDE: The Universe is either expanding or contracting, once it stops expanding it begins to contract due to electromagnetic forces of attraction, or "gravity" as some like to say.

 

aaah my dear friend, it appears you do not understand the nature of scientific laws. First they said "matter cannot be created or destroyed" then they said "oh crap! matter got destroyed!" then they said "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can convert to eachother and vice versa". This is where we are now. Bottom line is that every "law" you hear of is never accurate and at best works relatively well in the areas it's been tested in. Which is usually a vary narrow testing field considering the vast array of tests that can hypothetically be conducted. That being said, it is not possible to say a law will hold up when you exceed the extremeties that are used to establish that law.

 

Perfect example is Newtons laws. Force = Mass * Acceleration is a load of crock that worked well with what we tested it with in the past, but it fails miserably since the extremeties we are working with have expanded. And now we have Eisnteins laws! Which are simply waiting to be shattered again as we are able to test at wider and wider extremeties.

 

I do not remember this basicl law of entropy, but when you throw in a number like infinite, I assure you it has a high probability of failing.

 

P.S. about the expanding and contracting, look up "supernova" and you'll learn why expansion and contractino of the universe could be irrelevant in determining its age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Brother 3D,

 

I will endeavor to explain my point and clarify and ambiguities. Please do correct me where you think I am wrong and I shall try to clarify my point.

 

key,

 

My original theory

 

Your view

 

My explaination

 

Firstly, you said

 

If the universe is infinite years old

 

“Infinite is not a number. Infinite years old is simply as old as possible or as old as you whish - this is not a number, not even a variable. That being said, this statement is valid.â€

 

When I said infinite I wanted to say that it has been there forever and not as a value infinite.

 

Then,

 

Therefore, it could be said that it would take infinite time to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’.

 

“We are not even talking about objects and there is no reference point so there is no valid displacement or velocity that can be mentioned. Using a measure of time the best you can say is that they are infinite hours, seconds, or years apart. Notice how since infinite is not a valid number that the unit of time used is irrelevant so long as it is a unit of time. If this is the angle you are approaching this statement from, then you are correct here.â€

 

Here I wanted to say that it would take infinite time (forever) for something, which is bound to time, to reach ‘B’ from ‘A’. I did not use the units as they are irrelevant.

 

continued...

Edited by noxiouspython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i.e. it is impossible to get to point ‘B’ from point ‘A’.

 

“Impossible is a relative term, therefore this sentence is incomplete. If you said, it's impossible for humans/animals/living organisms/atoms to get from point 'A' to point 'B' then this would have been valid.â€

 

Over here I am referring to anything and everything, which is relative or is bound to time. So for example the physical world is relative to time.

Therefore it is not logically possible for the beginning of the universe to be infinite years ago.

 

“How does your previous sentences prove the universe is not infinitely old?

 

You've simply said that something you've left ambiguous will not be able to make it from point A in time to point B. Had you said a dog, or a cat - then hey that’s valid. But later on you said this-->â€

 

If that assumption is made then it is impossible that universe ever reaches this point in time, because it would literally take forever for it to reach this point in time

 

Yeah maybe I need to explain this. Well you see when I said everything I meant the physical universe is not infinite years old. Now let me explain what I meant. For better understanding we would take time to be a line. Point A and B are on the line. The distance between A and B is supposing X (we assume X is greater then any assigned value i.e. it is infinite). So it would take forever anything moving alone the line (time) from point A to B, as the ‘interval’ between them would be infinite. As the universe (physical) is bound to time then it would take it forever to reach point B from A. Now we are also in the universe (physical), as it applies to us as well.

 

“You have made an assumption here without proving it. You have assumed that "everything" does not last forever without proving it. You're proof might have been valid if "everything" was living organisms but "everything" is a pretty damn big term that encompasses both tangible and intangible abstract thingsâ€

 

Now when I say this I do not mean that everything does not last forever, what I mean is that it at least starts at some point. For example the counting starts from 0 and goes on to infinite (but it starts at zero). I am not contesting the lastingness of anything I am just saying that it begins at one point.

 

I hope I was clear, in explaining these points. Looking forwards to your views.

 

W/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part I'm going to deal with because as you saw in my reply, I pretty much agreed with the validity of the previous stuff.

 

So it would take forever anything moving alone the line (time) from point A to B, as the ‘interval’ between them would be infinite. As the universe (physical) is bound to time then it would take it forever to reach point B from A.

I'll give you that, but notice that this says nothing of whether it is possible or impossible for something to actually make it from point A to B.

 

Now when I say this I do not mean that everything does not last foreve

It appears that you've skipped what seemed to be your initial direction of saying nothing can make the trip of "forever", fine we shall continue with your new direction.

 

Now when I say this I do not mean that everything does not last forever, what I mean is that it at least starts at some point. For example the counting starts from 0 and goes on to infinite (but it starts at zero). I am not contesting the lastingness of anything I am just saying that it begins at one point.

 

Okay, so you want to prove that "it" (ambiguity again, perhaps your refering to everything?) starts at some point. That is everything starts at some point. You're statements of A, B, the timeline, and time it takes to get between them is of no relevance to proving that the time line has an initial value --> i.e. a beginning.

 

You're 'counting' example is of no use towards proving the beginning of anything. You have simply placed a limit/boundary on numbers. That limit boundary itself is the beginning and ending of the numbers within that limit. It says nothing of the beginning nor the ending of the number line.

 

Counting refers to counting positive whole values. It should not come as a shock that the limit of this boundary is 0 and infinite.

 

Side note - Though a count can return 0(nothing) a count cannot count 0(nothing). yes, I'm a programming geek :D

 

Anywho, moving on, if you set a limit on the number line - such is the case when you are counting - we know the limit is 0 and infinite.

To ask for the beginning of the number line means to remove all limits. If you want the first value, then you are asking for the smallest value on that number line. It is negative infinite :D

 

Do you see the a between this and the timeline? (no I'm not pointing at negative time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

same key

 

Brother I shall try to clarify my point to the best of my abilities.

 

So it would take forever anything moving alone the line (time) from point A to B, as the ‘interval’ between them would be infinite. As the universe (physical) is bound to time then it would take it forever to reach point B from A.

 

“I'll give you that, but notice that this says nothing of whether it is possible or impossible for something to actually make it from point A to B.â€

 

Yes, as to what I understand of it is that it is definitely/absolutely impossible for anything relative to time to reach point B from point A.

 

Now when I say this I do not mean that everything does not last forever

 

“It appears that you've skipped what seemed to be your initial direction of saying nothing can make the trip of "forever", fine we shall continue with your new direction.â€

 

Let me explain what I mean by forever. Let us take the example of numbers –1234… they would continue to a billion and a googol and to a googolplex and continue forever, but they would not reach the infinite number. That is because infinite is greater then any assigned value. Similarly, we can live or X number of years, how ever much, but it will never be infinite!

 

Now when I say this I do not mean that everything does not last forever, what I mean is that it at least starts at some point. For example the counting starts from 0 and goes on to infinite (but it starts at zero). I am not contesting the lastingness of anything I am just saying that it begins at one point.

 

“Okay, so you want to prove that "it" (ambiguity again, perhaps your refering to everything?) starts at some point. That is everything starts at some point. You're statements of A, B, the timeline, and time it takes to get between them is of no relevance to proving that the time line has an initial value --> i.e. a beginningâ€

 

Over here I am referring to everything relative to time.

 

continued...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“You're 'counting' example is of no use towards proving the beginning of anything. You have simply placed a limit/boundary on numbers. That limit boundary itself is the beginning and ending of the numbers within that limit. It says nothing of the beginning nor the ending of the number line. Counting refers to counting positive whole values. It should not come as a shock that the limit of this boundary is 0 and infinite. Side note - Though a count can return 0(nothing) a count cannot count 0(nothing). yes, I'm a programming geek. Anywho, moving on, if you set a limit on the number line - such is the case when you are counting - we know the limit is 0 and infinite. To ask for the beginning of the number line means to remove all limits. If you want the first value, then you are asking for the smallest value on that number line. It is negative infinite. Do you see the a between this and the timeline? (no I'm not pointing at negative time)â€

 

Well its mostly to do with semantics, and I am not really a good rhetorician. Anyhow, I will endeavor to explain my point. Can one ever count to infinite? No. you can count to, I have said a certain value but not infinite. Similarly, X number of units (be it hours, Years, eons) of time can pass, but not infinite number of units of time! If the universe started infinite years ago (I know infinite is not a value but just for the sake of understanding) then it would take the universe infinite years to reach today. As we know we cannot reach infinite, then it is not possible for the ‘physical universe’ to have been there forever!

 

I hope I made some sense.

 

Your views and opinions are very much appreciated.

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×