I think we have already shown that isn’t true. You just continue to doggedly use your own definition of “eternal”, even after we have said that it doesn’t apply.
Well that’s just a reworking of the old “You can never get from point A to point B” conundrum, which goes something like: “You would have to cover half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half of that, ad infinitum.” I’ve heard it debunked before, but I’ll be damned if I can remember how. It’s obviously false because we can get from point A to point B. Similarly, we can get from time A to time B without an infinite amount of time passing.
And even if it were true, I’m not getting how it makes the case for a causal mechanism outside of the universe. The universe that ostensibly spawned our universe would be subject to the same paradox, so it answers nothing.
Don’t reverse the burden of proof on me. There are 2 assertions here:
The universe requires an external causal mechanism to exist.
Jesus did that thing with the loaves & fishes.
Neither of which I accept as proven. I am not saying there is no external causal mechanism; in fact, many have hypothesized that there is. I am merely saying that it does not follow necessarily from our current understanding of physics.
Yes, I remember. Eternal means “timeless”, wasn’t that it? Just another one of the beautiful mysteries of materialism.
No, I’m afraid that’s not right. As was already explained, the universe is not like an abstract number line. There are discrete units of both time and distance. There is nothing in between two units of Planck time.
So, it’s turtles on top of turtles holding up the earth, is it? What is the evidence for these alleged other universes?
Don’t dodge. I asked the original question. Kindly answer it. Here it is again: How can something arise from nothing when nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism by which something may arise?
No. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is impossible because “invisible” and “pink” are mutually contradictory properties.
Branes are the world we perceive. We see them from a certain perspective, which creates the illusion of what we see.
Why don’t you offer a definition of “eternal” if you don’t like the one we’re using? Actually explain your position for once.
Fine.
First: entropy never reaches 100%, it merely approaches it asymptotically. This is important to note: some have argued that information processing in the universe can continue indefinitely at a slower and slower rate.
Second: From an atemporal perspective, the universe never arises; it is. Creation requires change, which requires time.
Third: Even given your cosmological assumptions, your argument is invalid. Indeed, if we chose a random moment from an infinite time, the chances of perceiving a universe like the one we do are infinitely small. Hey Lib, guess what the chances are of the universe being in precisely such a configuration so that you exist? Yep – you’re infinitely unlikely.
Forth: The anthropic principle still applies. Humanity presumably cannot exist in a universe where entropy has increased beyond a certain point. Therefore, the fact that we exist at a point in the universe’s history where entropy is relatively low isn’t surprising.
Fifth: we’re taking for granted that our understanding of cosmology is approximately correct. We can only observe the wider universe, not perform experiments on it, and our ability to observe is limited. If the universe isn’t actually expanding – if the universe isn’t destined to expand forever – if entropy is an absolute concept and not a relative one – if computation is only possible at certain levels of entropy – then this point is moot.
While very few doubt the veracity of the anthropic principle, I am not sure what it has to do with the mechanism by which something can come from nothing.
It doesn’t. It has something to do with Lib’s argument that since we see a universe which is infinitely unlikely, there must be something responsible for its current condition.
If we consider the most basic elements of reality, we can’t generate an underlying mechanism for them. We don’t have to: there’s nothing “beneath” them to explain, or else they wouldn’t be the most basic elements, would they?
The universe, when considered as a structure in at least four dimensions, doesn’t “come from nothing”. It never appears, or disappears, or begins, or ends. Those are things which happen in time, and time itself doesn’t exist in some higher “metatime” (or that would be the true time, and we’ve accepted that we’re looking at everything there is).