Posted by Jeremiahthirtythreethree [24.69.255.204 - px3wh.vc.shawcable.net] on 20 February 2003 at 23.03.28 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Evidently not posted by Gremlin on 18 February 2003 at 21.39.15 ZuluTime:

Look back at the "food for thought" essay. If after having read the essay one still wants to maintain that nothing is eternal then it must be assumed that that person is affriming the universe is finite or dependent! Is that a false dichotomy? [ to reduce the problem to only an either\or statement] Obviously not .The universe cant be infinite and finite at the same time and in the same relationship, that would violate the law of logic and would be in the final analysis an absurd statement. You must affirm either one or the other, you cannot assume both at the same time without being absurd. If you want to affirm that nothing is eternal then by default you are affirming that everything is temporal. And if everything is temporal then you are affirming that everything has a beginning. If everything is temporal then how did the first thing which is temporal come into existence? This brings us back to St.Augustines four possible explanations for the universe as stated in the above essay "food for thought" ,namely the idea of self creation. Another popular phrase for self creation is "spontanious generation."

The idea is ...the universe just ...literally... popped into existence!

Spontanious generation was first popularized in the scientific community during the period of the enlightenment[1700's]. It was observed that rotting meat would have maggots appear seemingly with no prior cause therefore it was deemed possible that the universe did not necessarily need an antecendent cause. Today however that idea has long been debunked. We now know that bacteria can travel through the air and land on uncovered meat. At that time they also believed tadpoles could arise out of mud from nothing and nowhere.

The idea of self creation or spontanious generation should be abandoned because things which have no being produce no effects. So exactly how can the first temporal "thing" come into being if nothing exists prior to it ,if everything is temporal and if nothing is eternal?

It would have to "be" before it "is" so that it can exercise force to create itself. As stated before things cannot be and not be, at the same time and in the same relationship this is a violation of the law of non contradiction.Things which are temporal imply dependence. You cant have a temporal chain of cause and effect relationships regress [ go back ]forever because EVERYTHING in the chain is temporary [that is at least if you still want to maintain that NOTHING is eternal ] ...
     Therefore it becomes necessary for anyone who wants to maintain that nothing is eternal to affirm spontanious generation for the reasons already stated above. That person can affirm spontanious generation as there explanation for the universe if they want, that's their constitutional right but beliefs that are protected by the constitution are not necessarily true.
      So exactly how can the first temporal "thing" come into being if nothing exists prior to it ,if everything is temporal and if nothing is eternal?
     The obvious answer is, it can't.