A Debate on Time

Thank you, m93samman, for this debate. My opponent gives a rather lengthy explanation as to why he would win in the case that we prove our respective opponent's stances to be impossible. However, this is all made irrelevant by another rule, which describes exactly what should occur given this situation: "[I]f both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO." Whatever burdens of proof or clash my opponent claimed we would have have been redefined by the rules of this debate. If anybody believes that this rule is unfair, read the following rule: "In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins." Given the difficulty of proving something to be logically impossible, CON would seem to have the advantage. Add that I didn't even choose the side that I was attacking, and I would have to be prepared to prove either finite time or infinite time to be logically impossible. He next attempts to redefine time as the fourth dimension of space-time. This contradicts the definition that I established in Round 2, and went unchallenged through Rounds 2 and 3, only in the fact that it constrains time to the universe (although this assumes God not to be part of the universe, even though my opponent's source, Wikipedia, considers the universe to be "the totality of everything in existence" [3:1]). However, we are not debating about time restricted to the universe, excluding God; we are arguing about the entire system of sequential relations. Any event that has any sequential relation to any other (...God decided to expand the universee ==> God created the rest of the universe ==> God started the Big Bang ==> ... ==> mongeese and m93samman debate over time ==> ...) is a part of time. My opponent adds that if time were independent of the universe, then space-time wouldn't exist. Space-time would still exist; the portion of time that occurs within the universe, be it finite or infinite, would still contribute to this space-time concept, just as much as a river flows through a canyon along its vast route, creating a geographic system reliant on both the canyon and the river. He then tries to use God's transcendency as an explanation, but I am attacking with the full force of logic itself; for God to truly be outside of my arguments, He must defy logic, losing my opponent the debate. My opponent then accuses me of using semantics, but it is he who has attempted to introduce a new definition that conflicts with a definition established for two whole rounds without challenge. He goes on that God cannot be illogical because he created the laws of logic. Logic, however, is a study of argument [1], concieved of and built upon by humans, not God. If God were to suddenly break the law of the excluded middle [2], becoming, say, neither tired nor not tired, He has still acted contrary to the human conception of logic. He would undeniably have broken the law of the excluded middle, hence no longer acting logically. Therefore, He would be illogical. As my opponent relies heavily on this "illogicalness" to make finite time possible, finite time may be illogically possible, but not logically possible. My opponent continues that since God created time, he couldn't affect anything with it. However, time is defined by a sequence of events. It's not something that can simply be created. How does one create sequential relations between events that weren't there before? That's not logically possible. Additionally, assuming that God follows the laws of logic (something that my opponent must assume to be true in order to win the debate), he'd be subject to all of the facts I've outlined in Round 2. He'd be just as unable to shift from inaction to action as anything else, requiring Him to be in constant action, be this action contemplating whether or not to create the cosmos or an actual motion. If God was ever not doing anything (and I mean anything) before He created anything else, then He would remain for ever in a state of inaction. He would not be able to remove himself from His state of inaction, because He is not doing anything; if He were simply waiting, He would be thinking of when He'd be done waiting, repeatedly checking that He need not wait any longer. This would constitute action. Because there would be no change within God's status, and God's current status would demand that He not do anything, there would never be a change in Him that would induce Him to do anything. Any argument my opponent makes in which God can shift from complete inaction to action would involve some form of action during the period in which God was supposed to be in inaction, be it thinking, contemplating, counting, waiting, whatever. This is essentially my Round 2 argument, but personalized to God. Nothing else would be able to induce God into action, because nothing else would have existed yet. God, therefore, would never have a change to begin time, because any action like beginning time would have to follow some other action by God (because He couldn't ever have been in inaciton, EVER), and since this action would constitute an event with a sequential relation to the creation of the universe, which has a sequential relationship to everything else, it would be a part of time. It's impossible for God to have begun time, because time must precede all of God's actions, as it must precede any event at all. Finally, we look to my opponent's argument regarding the definition of "universe." Firstly, I have already used Wikipedia to source my definition [3:1]; Wikipedia also happens to be the source my opponent used to explain the fourth dimension and space-time. Secondly, it really doesn't matter what definition my opponent or anybody else favors, because the word was used by me. My opponent only started using "universe" to actually launch arguments starting in Round 4; every other time, it was a rebuttal to something that I had said. Given that it was my contention, it is only right that I may define the words in it however I please, given that I give my opponent a reasonable chance to respond to the newly clarified contentions, as I have done. What right does my opponent have to define a word in my own sentences. That would be like using a modern definition of "gay" while reading decades-old literature; it would be taking the word out of the intended context. Given that my definition of "universe" is acceptable (see Wikipedia), it only makes sense that I may use it to clarify my own contentions, as my opponent may clarify definitions to clarify his own contentions. (Well, it's too late now, as it's the last round and all.) Also, my use of "universe" would best fit, from my opponent's list, Dictionary.com's #4: "the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion." As God has entered the discussion, God has become part of the universe that I refer to, by either Wikipedia's definition or this definition. To conclude, if the universe (everything in existence) is ever in a state of inaction, it can never take action to put itself in a state of action, and is therefore stuck in inaction. Therefore, for the universe (everything in existence) to be in a state of action (as it is now), the universe must always be in a state of action. Finite time suggests a start of time, but as long as the universe (everything in existence) was always in a state of action, no one action could ever be considered to start time, as time would be infinite. This applies to God as well as it does to any other system. Therefore, logically, time cannot be finite. I have met my goal as stated in Round 1, winning the debate. Thank you, m93samman, for this interesting debate on time, and I hope to debate you again in the future. And thank you, voters, for reading. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...