Hello Todd.
Please don't interpret the following criticism as a personal attack.
...
 TH> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite.
This statement seems vaguely worded.
 TH> Time is the same as any finite progression of events. If time were
 TH> infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all points of
 TH> possible existence.
I dispute this claim.
 TH> Time isn't like that. Time progresses moment by moment - it doesn't
 TH> matter if you measure moments in years, seconds, etc - the effect is
 TH> the same. One finite moment of time passes and ends, then another
 TH> comes and goes, and so on. It is a finite progression of events. Time
 TH> is continually moving toward the future.
You seem to define a "moment" as an interval of time. Others may define a 
"moment" as a single point on a continuous space such as the "real number 
line". I have not yet seen any argument from you which shows that time is
not a continuum.  I'll keep reading.
 TH> If time were infinite, the it would not pass. it continually passes
 TH> from one mode of temporal existence to new modes that it did not
 TH> occupy. That is why there are moments that have not happened yet -
 TH> time's existence is finite, and as more moments pass, time is covering
 TH> new moments that it did not previously cover. Its the same as the
 TH> chicken and the egg.
I see no reason to conclude either of these:
(infinite time continuum) => (no "passage" of time)
(finite time continuum) => (some moments "have not happened")
 TH> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical, but
 TH> a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning.
I don't see how accusations of cowardice contribute to your argument.
 TH> It hinges on the first question I posed. We can agree that if there
 TH> was ever a point in which absolutely nothing exists, then nothing
 TH> would EVER exist.
If "we" means you and I, then no.  I do not agree with this implication.
I'm not sure how the intended recipient of your message thinks.
 TH> Now, the second half of that is that if there was ever a time in
 TH> which anything DID exist, then that means that there is a level of
 TH> reality which has always existed.
Disagreed.
 TH> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there would be
 TH> nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something DOES exist,
 TH> then we know that there was NEVER a point in which nothing existed.
You seem to be assuming that everything that exists has an external cause.
I dispute this assumption.
 TH> Now, the universe does not exhibit characteristics of infinite as I
 TH> have explained.
I regard this as still unestablished.
 TH> There is another level of reality which does not change, which is
 TH> beyond time, which as always existed and always will, and that is the
 TH> origin of the universe.
This reads like unsupported speculation.
 TH> Any sequence of progression, whether it be chickens or moments in
 TH> time, by its very nature, is finite and had a beginning,
Many do not regard the "progression" of time as a "sequence",
which is a discrete sort of thing, but as a linearly ordered
continuum with an uncountably infinite number of points.
Such a model renders all "chicken and egg" analogies faulty.
 TH> else it would not be in the process of progressing from state to
 TH> state because its infinite existence would already encompass all
 TH> points and possibilites and wouldn't be in a process of progression
 TH> or change.
Again I dispute this implication.
 TH> Time flows in one direction, and is often compared to a line. A
 TH> mathematical line is construct that is an infinite set of points along
 TH> a direction. Infinite in both directions. The scenario you are
 TH> proposing is that the past extends into infinity, yet we see that the
 TH> future is still happening. That makes the line infinite in one way,
 TH> yet finite in the other. You cannot have something that is
 TH> half-infinite. That's illogical.
This seems to hinge on the implication you have stated several times,
but which I dispute.  I have some other problems with this paragraph,
but until the discrete-vs-continuous issue is clarified, it is perhaps
best that I do not elaborate on them.
 TH> The very nature and behavior of the universe under the laws of
 TH> physics demands a finite universe. The universe operates on entropy
 TH> and inertia. Eventually, stars "die", energy dissipates. Angular
 TH> monentum is lost - maybe bled off in the form of scattered heat. The
 TH> natural tendency is toward balance - nature hates a vacuum as they
 TH> say. This natural winding down, coupled with everything I have told
 TH> you so far, indicates a finite universe which existed in a more
 TH> energetic and maybe concentrated state from which the winding down
 TH> process began. And as with all things, this process continues.
While I may not have seen this "everything I've told you so far",
it would appear that the contents of the message I am replying to
do not establish the finiteness of time, at least in many senses
of the word "finite".  I think what's needed most is a clarification
of terminology.
 TH> The universe is finite, yet logically, because existence HAS ALWAYS
 TH> existed in some level, there remains a force, God, continuum, etc that
 TH> has always existed, always will, is beyond time, and brought the
 TH> universe into existence.
This conclusion seems to depend at least partly on an assumption that 
everything that exists has an external cause, which I again dispute.
Mr. Rigor
--- GoldED 2.50+
---------------