Infinite Past

[untermensche]

No.

You merely have bad worthless claims you can't support in any way, like the past is infinite.

You suffer from this modern ignorance that you can apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

"Modern ignorance".


What does modern mean here and what older thing does it contrast against?

It is an ignorance that persists in the modern world.

This ignorance that you can apply imaginary concepts like infinity to real entities like time.

 

[bilby]

Ain't that the truth.

It's was a full thought and you had to butcher it to make a point.

Well, I didn't have to, but I chose to.

You behave like a child not an adult.

Thank you.

 

[untermensche]

It's was a full thought and you had to butcher it to make a point.

Well, I didn't have to, but I chose to.

No. You had to.

Without butchering my sentences you have nothing.

Nothing but a strange ignorance that imaginary concepts can rationally be applied to real entities.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Aha. I see you're completely ignorant about quantum mechanics. Please read more books.

There's just too much to explain for a short post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't explain anything to me if you are stupid enough to think you can apply imaginary qualities to real entities.

Quantum effects aren't imaginary. I never said they were. You did.

 

[untermensche]

You can't explain anything to me if you are stupid enough to think you can apply imaginary qualities to real entities.

Quantum effects aren't imaginary. I never said they were. You did.

Infinity is not a quantum effect.

It is an imaginary concept of something continuing without end.

 

[DBT]

Yet the Universe exists and we do not know whether time had a beginning or if our Universe is not a Universe but just an expanding bubble of energy in a larger system.

So it is you who is making claims of what is possible and what is not possible, when it is clear that you cannot possibly know what is possible and what isn't. And there lies the irony of your position.

We can't turn our ignorance of something into a positive claim about something else. Our total ignorance of how a universe could exist is not evidence infinity is real.

We don't know how a universe could exist.

But we do know the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And we do know that claiming some imaginary concept actually exists is nonsense.

You are the one making a positive claim where no such claim can be justifiably made. On top of that cannot explain your belief in terms of a beginning to time (which you claim must necessarily be true) and worse, where time came from....eternal nothingness? (you claim that the concept of eternity is imaginary). Then how? How does your beginning of time work? You don't know and can't explain. Typically, you just assert what you believe regardless of the problems.

 

[untermensche]

We can't turn our ignorance of something into a positive claim about something else. Our total ignorance of how a universe could exist is not evidence infinity is real.

We don't know how a universe could exist.

But we do know the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And we do know that claiming some imaginary concept actually exists is nonsense.

You are the one making a positive claim where no such claim can be justifiably made. On top of that cannot explain your belief in terms of a beginning to time (which you claim must necessarily be true) and worse, where time came from....eternal nothingness? (you claim that the concept of eternity is imaginary). Then how? How does your beginning of time work? You don't know and can't explain. Typically, you just assert what you believe regardless of the problems.

You cannot explain the "beginning of time" in any way.

You cannot say anything about it.

But we do know that claiming something has no beginning is equivalent to saying it does not exist and never existed.

And we do know that it is irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

So you ignore the things we know and are fixated for some reason on the things we don't.

 

[DBT]

You are the one making a positive claim where no such claim can be justifiably made. On top of that cannot explain your belief in terms of a beginning to time (which you claim must necessarily be true) and worse, where time came from....eternal nothingness? (you claim that the concept of eternity is imaginary). Then how? How does your beginning of time work? You don't know and can't explain. Typically, you just assert what you believe regardless of the problems.

You cannot explain the "beginning of time" in any way.

You cannot say anything about it.

But we do know that claiming something has no beginning is equivalent to saying it does not exist and never existed.

And we do know that it is irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

So you ignore the things we know and are fixated for some reason on the things we don't.

You cannot logically say what you say about eternity or infinity being imaginary, yet that doesn't stop you. You don't know if there is such a thing or not. The very fact that you have no explanations for the problems I raised, and your admissions, proves that. Yet you still make the same positive claims of knowledge regardless.

 

[untermensche]

You cannot explain the "beginning of time" in any way.

You cannot say anything about it.

But we do know that claiming something has no beginning is equivalent to saying it does not exist and never existed.

And we do know that it is irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

So you ignore the things we know and are fixated for some reason on the things we don't.

You cannot logically say what you say about eternity or infinity being imaginary, yet that doesn't stop you. You don't know if there is such a thing or not. The very fact that you have no explanations for the problems I raised, and your admissions, proves that. Yet you still make the same positive claims of knowledge regardless.

How many times must it be explained.

We don't believe things are real until there is evidence to support their existence.

Evidence, not ignorance or incredulity.

 

[DBT]

You cannot logically say what you say about eternity or infinity being imaginary, yet that doesn't stop you. You don't know if there is such a thing or not. The very fact that you have no explanations for the problems I raised, and your admissions, proves that. Yet you still make the same positive claims of knowledge regardless.

How many times must it be explained.

We don't believe things are real until there is evidence to support their existence.

Evidence, not ignorance or incredulity.

How many times must it be explained that nobody has made the claim of eternal time, I have said this repeatedly. There is no apparent logical or physical reason why eternity is an impossibility, but we don't know if it is in fact a reality or not.


You are the one making the positive claims that infinity/eternity is imaginary and that time must have a beginning....so you are left with the problem, how did time begin from absolute nothingness (how long did that last), or what caused time to begin...and how long was that cause present and where did it come from.

But you can't explain anything.

 

[Juma]

claiming that something has no beginning is equivalent to saying it does not exist and never existed.

Prove that!

 

[untermensche]

claiming that something has no beginning is equivalent to saying it does not exist and never existed.

Prove that!

The man had no beginning.

Therefore the man never existed.

This is what it rationally means to have no beginning.

To not have a beginning means it doesn't exist or never has existed.

To claim it is somehow a rational description of "eternity" is nonsense. Eternity is an imaginary concept. It has no rational explanation when applied to reality.

 

[untermensche]

How many times must it be explained.

We don't believe things are real until there is evidence to support their existence.

Evidence, not ignorance or incredulity.

How many times must it be explained that nobody has made the claim of eternal time, I have said this repeatedly. There is no apparent logical or physical reason why eternity is an impossibility, but we don't know if it is in fact a reality or not.


You are the one making the positive claims that infinity/eternity is imaginary and that time must have a beginning....so you are left with the problem, how did time begin from absolute nothingness (how long did that last), or what caused time to begin...and how long was that cause present and where did it come from.

But you can't explain anything.

There is a huge apparent reason why eternity is not possible.

It is an imaginary concept invented by humans that cannot possibly apply to anything real.

To show it is not imaginary requires evidence, not claims.

 

[DBT]

How many times must it be explained that nobody has made the claim of eternal time, I have said this repeatedly. There is no apparent logical or physical reason why eternity is an impossibility, but we don't know if it is in fact a reality or not.


You are the one making the positive claims that infinity/eternity is imaginary and that time must have a beginning....so you are left with the problem, how did time begin from absolute nothingness (how long did that last), or what caused time to begin...and how long was that cause present and where did it come from.

But you can't explain anything.

There is a huge apparent reason why eternity is not possible.

Well, you haven't been able to describe the reason. You have not been able to explain your reasoning. You have not been able to argue your case (not having a case to argue).

You simply assert, reassert and assert again. Assertion being all you have.

[
It is an imaginary concept invented by humans that cannot possibly apply to anything real.

To show it is not imaginary requires evidence, not claims.

Yet you are making claims here and now, and every post you have offered to date. Nothing has changed.

 

[untermensche]

There is a huge apparent reason why eternity is not possible.

Well, you haven't been able to describe the reason. You have not been able to explain your reasoning. You have not been able to argue your case (not having a case to argue).

You simply assert, reassert and assert again. Assertion being all you have.

[
It is an imaginary concept invented by humans that cannot possibly apply to anything real.

To show it is not imaginary requires evidence, not claims.

Yet you are making claims here and now, and every post you have offered to date. Nothing has changed.

It is not a claim that infinity is an imaginary concept. It is a fact.

To prove this wrong show me some EVIDENCE.

Not a claim.

I feel as if I am arguing with a religious fanatic.

Show me some evidence your god is real or I dismiss it as imaginary with the wave of my hand.

 

[DBT]

Well, you haven't been able to describe the reason. You have not been able to explain your reasoning. You have not been able to argue your case (not having a case to argue).

You simply assert, reassert and assert again. Assertion being all you have.

[
It is an imaginary concept invented by humans that cannot possibly apply to anything real.

To show it is not imaginary requires evidence, not claims.

Yet you are making claims here and now, and every post you have offered to date. Nothing has changed.

It is not a claim that infinity is an imaginary concept. It is a fact.

To prove this wrong show me some EVIDENCE.

Not a claim.

I feel as if I am arguing with a religious fanatic.

Show me some evidence your god is real or I dismiss it as imaginary with the wave of my hand.

You merely state that it's a fact without offering a rhyme or reason why its true...therefore you are not proving that its a fact, you claiming that it's a fact. You have no descriptions. You can't address the questions being asked or the problems raised. You have no argument. You drift away building a strawman with your ''evidence for god.'' You have assertions. That's all.

 

[Juma]

Prove that!

The man had no beginning.

Therefore the man never existed.

This is what it rationally means to have no beginning.

To not have a beginning means it doesn't exist or never has existed.

To claim it is somehow a rational description of "eternity" is nonsense. Eternity is an imaginary concept. It has no rational explanation when applied to reality.

what bullshit. Sad thing is that you know this is bulkshit.
Time isnt a man. There is no expected lifespan of time itself.
Your post is just a sad remainder of that you have stopped thinking.
Bye.

 

[untermensche]

The man had no beginning.

Therefore the man never existed.

This is what it rationally means to have no beginning.

To not have a beginning means it doesn't exist or never has existed.

To claim it is somehow a rational description of "eternity" is nonsense. Eternity is an imaginary concept. It has no rational explanation when applied to reality.

what bullshit. Sad thing is that you know this is bulkshit.
Time isnt a man. There is no expected lifespan of time itself.
Your post is just a sad remainder of that you have stopped thinking.
Bye.

No, this is a sad reminder you have objections but no arguments.

The words "no beginning" are not a scientific explanation of any phenomena.

They are empty words with no meaning when applied to something like time.

Nobody can say what it means.

It is absolute gibberish.

 

[Juma]

what bullshit. Sad thing is that you know this is bulkshit.
Time isnt a man. There is no expected lifespan of time itself.
Your post is just a sad remainder of that you have stopped thinking.
Bye.

No, this is a sad reminder you have objections but no arguments.

The words "no beginning" are not a scientific explanation of any phenomena.

They are empty words with no meaning when applied to something like time.

Nobody can say what it means.

It is absolute gibberish.

Everyone knows what "no beginning" means.
No one, except you, has said wether time had a beginning o not.
It is you that states, but give no proof for, that the time must have a beginning.

This entire thread is an enormous manifesto to the fact that your brain has rot.
Dont bother answering this, everyone already knows what you are going to say.

 

[untermensche]

No, this is a sad reminder you have objections but no arguments.

The words "no beginning" are not a scientific explanation of any phenomena.

They are empty words with no meaning when applied to something like time.

Nobody can say what it means.

It is absolute gibberish.

Everyone knows what "no beginning" means.

What the hell does it mean?

If you tell me about anything real that has "no beginning" it means the thing does not exist and never did exist.

What exactly gives you the right to somehow use the words differently and magically with time?

Why the logical inconsistency?