A Debate on Time

He claims that if he can demonstrate infinite time to be impossible, then finite time must be possible. However, this is irrelevant. If I cannot prove infinite time to be logically impossible in this debate, then my opponent wins. Otherwise, I win. If we both prove our opponent's oppositions to be logically impossible, then we've come to some impasse; however, in that case, I would still win, as I had still achieved my initial objective of proving finite time to be logically impossible. And I quote, from Round 1: "Whether or not CON can prove the other possibility to be impossible is irrelevant to this debate; if both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO. In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins. " My opponent claims that my arguments rely on semantics. However, it is only semantics in the fact that the definition is much more inclusive than my opponent would lead you to believe. The greater fault in debate would be to misconstrue a definition to mean what it does not, rather than showing the definition for what it really is. Before I begin with my real arguments, I'd like to clarify what I meant last round when I introduced a definition of "universe. " I meant that any time at all that I ever said "universe" in any of my arguments, I was referring to "the totality of everything that exists. " My opponent protests that his understanding of the universe excludes God. That's perfectly fine. If he were to define "universe," it would probably be the totality of everything that exists except God. It's important for the readers and my opponent to know that when I refer to the state of action or inaction of the universe, I mean the combined system of God and the universe. It would be the same as putting together my opponent's understanding of the universe and God in a single system. A comparable system would be a scientist and a fish tank; while the scientist is separate from the fish tank, they are in the same system, with the scientist triggering events in the fish tank at his will. My opponent's first argument claims that God's decision to put the universe in motion is not an event in time, because "time has not happened yet. " My opponent does not argue against the idea that this event of God putting the universe in motion is an event, and rightly so. He also seems to agree that the events of his concept of time directly followed God's initiation of motion in the universe. Therefore, by the definition of "time," such an event would be part of time, and unable to precede time. It would be impossible for time to still not have happened, because the event of putting the universe in motion, "starting time," would itself be an event that has a sequential relation with the Big Bang, or whatever my opponent believes occured at what he considers the "start" of time, and would therefore be a part of time by definition. My opponent then protests my claim that if he must invoke an ability of God to defy logic for the possibility of a finite time, then finite time would still be logically impossible. Once my opponent disregards logic, he can no longer show finite time to be logically possible, but only illogically possible. My burden in this debate, as established in Round 1, is "to prove that my opponent's chosen argument is logically impossible. " Therefore, once my opponent disregards logic, I have won the debate. My opponent also slips in the claim that if God begins time, time would not be affected, but rather would "begin. " This seems rather strange. If we were to assume that time had a starting point, in which the universe shifted from a state of complete inaction to a state filled with action, that would be the largest effect anything could ever have on the universe, short of creating or destroying it. (Note: Read this paragraph, as with all of my other paragraphs, using the definition of "universe" from Round 3. ) Triggering something to "begin" is most certainly an effect, and I challenge my opponent to come up with an argument that properly distinguishes the two. Note that since he is trying to refute my argument, he must define "effect" in a way that doesn't contradict the understanding of "effect" that I have already established, which, by my Round 2 arguments, can only be understood to mean the causing of any change in the state of the universe, the most prominent being the change from inaction to action. He further claims that he does not require God to defy logic, but for God to simultaneously exist outside of time and have sequential effects on the universe, which by definition would be included in time, He must logically exist within time. My opponent finally claims that God created the universe. He is obviously using a different definition of "universe" than I am, so his arguments are rather irrelevant to mine. I would first contest that God only created "the heavens and earth," as described in Genesis. I'd also like to point out that it is impossible for God to have created the universe under my definition unless He also created Himself, which my opponent may or may not believe, but is irrelevant to God's relation to the universe. My opponent's analogies are confusing. How can a building company build a building that included all aspects of life if they are not in it? If they are not considered aspects of life, then this is fine; however, if they are, then they cannot claim that their building includes all aspects of life unless they themselves were in the building. Similary, God must be in the universe by definition, because the universe is everything, not everything excluding God. Of course, this all depends on the definition of "universe," but as I've said, all of these analogies would depend on how criteria is established and characteristics defined. It may be semantics, but it's rather inevitable. Good luck, m93samman. (I got it right this time, right? )