There seems to be a problem (for some anyway) with the phrase "beginning to exist’.
Now cyghost claims he actually exists now.
He, the person cyghost in front of a computer, obviously did not actually exist in 1810.
It just logically follows that he began to exist some time before now and after 1810. When exactly is irrelevant since he did not actually exist and is actually existing now.
Either cyghost does not actually exist now, or cyghost actually always existed (yes, even in 1810), or cyghost began to actually exist between now and 1810.
By your own argument, cyghost has existed potentially for all eternity because he has come to be actualised, and therefore he has always existed. More, he will continue to exist forever because you cannot rule out the potential of another cyghost arising somewhere, sometime.
There are differences between potentiality and actuality. Here are a few:
Potentiality does not change itself to be actual.
Potentiality is changed into something actual by something that is already actually existing.
A potentiality itself is not actual, otherwise it would be an actuality and not a potentiality.
Thus, the correct way to say what you said is:
By my own argument cyghost potentially existed stretching backwards in time. He has come to be actualized, and thus began to actually exist. Cyghost is however a human being, and it is not the nature or essence of humans to exist for infinity, thus, an actually existing human like cyghost does not have the potential to live for infinity and thus will not continue to actually exist for infinity because there is no potentiality for it to happen to be actualized. More, cyghost potentially (not actually) exist stretching forwards in time and may continue to do so (potentially exist and not actually) without actually existing.
This of course raises the possibility of the idea of pure potentiality that does not actually exist but has the potential to exist as something actual. The notion that the total energy content of reality (uni or multiverse) is zero seems like pure potentiality. I suppose reality can be in a state of pure potentiality without space and time. I don’t see any problem with that.
Currently cyghost have a time limit of 1810 set upon him. Quite arbitrarily and as it happens, incorrectly. Cyghost, on top of existing potentially (which is another daft concept; but what I have come to expect from philosophics) also traces his genealogy back to 1652 with the arrival of Jan innie Kaap. Cyghost’s DNA could furthermore theoretically be traced backward to the beginning of life*. And cyghost happens to think the beginning of life could be traced back to the singularity but don’t hold him to it. He’ll admit to not knowing whenever he is pressed unlike some he has had the misfortune to interact with. Currently it just seems the most parsimonious explanation that fits the facts. Every particle that makes up the gracious cyghost has existed for quite a lot of time.
Where in all of this time span is his real beginning? I submit “begin to exist” to be a useless phrase because all we have is cause and effect stretching from the Big Bang to the much vaunted cyghost. This observation is born up by phrony’s evasion in providing things that begin to exist (other than virtual particles) and his inability to determine when cyghost in all his glory began to exist.
Take cyghost’s 2008 yaris. In 2007 it presumably didn’t exist and then when he drove it out the Helderberg Toyota shop in 2008 it definitely existed. Now according to phrony it must have had a beginning. (or it is some kind of unnamed fallacy) But where is this beginning? When the wheels were put down? When the first screw were picked up? When the metal was mined?
So even if we give phrony his unmentioned fallacy, I submit that cyghost and his car both came into existence over a period of time from different sources and changes in the fabric of the material involved. To this extend it is ludicrous to talk about “beginning to exist” and the premise of the fucked up Kalaam Cosmological Argument is so much vacuous nonsense even before we can determine it true or not.
as a quick aside, cyghost, as he informs me, is truly happy his father ejaculated in his mother and brought forth the splendor that is he.
*I’m not a 100% on this but am sure someone in the know could potentially clarify for us.
So which is it?
Cyghost does not actually exist now.
Cyghost actually always existed (yes, even in 1810).
Cyghost began to actually exist between now and 1810.
Btw, according to Big Bang theory, there were no particles very early on in the universe, so they also began to exist and they actually exist now, although they change from actual existence (as particles) to potential existence (quantum vacuum) and back quite often. So things begin and end to actually exist quite often, just like you. So how about answering the above questions ;).
cyghost exists now. cyghost in some form existed, yes even in 1810.
the particles that makes cyghost gradually formed cyghost between 1810 (and much earlier) and now.
Not being able to point out at which particular point in time cyghost began to exist and being able to in possibility trace “begin to exist” back in small steps all the way to the Big Bang, hamstrings the point of “begins to exist” to such an extend that renders it meaningless.
All we have is change in form over time as opposed to actual begin to exist.
Cyghost actually exists now:
Is cyghost actually a human, a rock, a fish, a car, a computer?
Does cyghost possess the capability to reason here and now?
Does cyghost possess the capability to be rational here and now?
Btw, if you phrase it a bit better, it will sound a bit more plausible. Here: cyghost actually exists now. cyghost potentially existed, yes even in 1810 and even potentially exist even in 2012.
The particles that makes cyghost, begin and end to actually exist all the time between 1810 (and much earlier) and now.
cyghost is many things. However, He is human, He isn’t any of the other mentioned objects currently.
cyghost reasons spectacularly here and now.
cyghost is spectacularly rational here and now.
cyghost also understands that phrony wants to reiterate his point which cyghost grasped the first time. cyghost cannot remember being human, able to reason or being rational in 1810. Although it seems possible some particles that are now part of cyghost were in other humans capable of these things in 1810.
Going in circles are fun at times but this will very soon become tedious and cyghost will be bored to tears. He needs some Friday stimulation.
ETA: cyghost notes your edit but is happy with the way he expresses himself. Thanks all the same.
Well then that settles it.
Cyghost actually exists as a human now.
Cyghost potentially existed as a human in 1810.
Cyghost began to actually exist as a human before 2010 and after 1810.
cyghost however notes that you completely dismiss his argument that causes for his existence can be traced back to the Big Bang which renders your 1810 limit false.
Hey, I am happy to concede that cyghost the human potentially existed all the way back until the beginning of time. I am happy to accept that cyghost the human began to actually exist as a human. Win win situation for both of us and we can both accept that actual things begin to exist. Surely you can’t believe nothing begins to actually exist or (to put it differently) no actual material thing has a beginning.
dude, what is your issue?
do you have nothing better to do but correct my spelling and comment on my punctuation or whatever. get a goddamn life allready.
how about commenting on the issue at hand. how old are you? like 80 in the shade?
human like cyghost does not have the potential to live for infinity and thus will not continue to actually exist for infinity because there is no potentiality for it to happen to be actualized
YAY! Teleo is close to taking a solid stance on something! So, you don’t believe in transhumanism (we are not able to live forever) OR you believe that our universe is doomed to end (and hence an infinite existence is impossible). Which one is it?
If cyghost’s beginning can be anywhere in a 14 billion year period or at the start of that period of what use is the “beginning” and how do we actually accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause?
I’ll happily give you that everything we observe follows a cause / effect pattern and that nothing we observe (except those pesky virtual particles and the radio active thingymajigybobs) happens without a cause. This does not logically follow that everything follows this rule.
If we do however wager on this assumption we also notice that every cause ever observed is natural. I’ll leave you to follow that logic through.
The problem isn’t so much with beginning to exist (although as you see I do take issue with it) - you took my words ran with it and in your legendary way opened another redundant thread without considering my meaning - the problem is your shaky premise from which you want to draw a sound argument.
One of these days you are going to have an epiphany and it won’t be that God doesn’t exist. It will be that God simply cannot be rationally and logically augmented for and that all you have is faith in this concept.
1) Actual things, such as particles, humans, computers begin to actually exist.
all things are made out of particles. molecules, neutrons, what have you. it was created when the big-bang happened. before that, nobody can say what was cooking, if anything at all. computers start to exist, when some dude puts it together, before that, its pieces of plactic and wiring. living things start to exist at the moment of conception.
2) Things have potentially existed since the beginning of time and continue to potentially exist until they actually exist.
physical things, in any form that can be recognised as living, only started exsiting, when life started evolving. the processes of the living entity, combined elements it found in its surroundings, to grow its body. thus using allready existing particles as building blocks to create its body from. when the entity dies, its body decomposes, and the elements return to the environment. basic life cycle there.
just because the entity has used those elements those be alive, doesnt mean it continues to exist.
and as much as its romantic to envision that all living things on earth, are part of each other, for that fact, its silly to lend life and consiousness to a molecule. the molecule has no sense of self, its merely a building block, as much as a brick is a piece of the house, when the house is demolished, the house ceases to exist. you may recycle the pieces to build something else, but the orginal house is gone for good, plastered and painted over. a bird wont come and nest on the new house, cause there are brick in that house, that was part of a house, the bird was hatched on, and it can feel its 'presence'. stupid analogy, but it makes sense to me.
And the following formulations of potentiality and actuality are intact.
1) Potentiality does not change itself to be actual.
2) Potentiality is changed into something actual by something that is already actually existing.
3) A potentiality itself is not actual, otherwise it would be an actuality and not a potentiality.
