Infinite Past

[untermensche]

To claim it could be real requires some evidence where it is real.

So you are saying that we have to show evidence that it is real in order to claim that it could be real. That is like saying that we must show evidence that there is life on other planets to claim it could be real.

Is it not rational today to claim that life on other planets can exist even though we have not found evidence for it?

Life is something we are familiar with.

Planets are something we are familiar with.

Infinity is not something we have any experience with at all.

It is a concept used in mathematics. Something about an unending series, an imaginative thing.

Not something that has ever been observed.

Claiming infinity is real is like claiming the Easter Bunny lives on some other planet.

 

[ryan]

So you are saying that we have to show evidence that it is real in order to claim that it could be real. That is like saying that we must show evidence that there is life on other planets to claim it could be real.

Is it not rational today to claim that life on other planets can exist even though we have not found evidence for it?

Life is something we are familiar with.

Planets are something we are familiar with.

Infinity is not something we have any experience with at all.

It is a concept used in mathematics. Something about an unending series, an imaginative thing.

Not something that has ever been observed.

The end of time or space has not been observed either. Why should I agree to your claim that it ends?

Claiming infinity is real is like claiming the Easter Bunny lives on some other planet.

I have corrected you many times that I am not claiming infinity is real. Why do you keep saying this?

 

[DBT]

Yet you can't seem to grasp that nobody has claimed that infinity is real, just that there is no obvious logical reason why it cannot be real.

But, given your track record, I guess you aren't too good with making basic distinctions.

You are an expert at avoiding questions though. Like, if time had to have a beginning (this being your claim), what was the state immediately before time emerged?

Think about that. If you can.

So you finally understand infinity is imaginary? Then say it. Infinity is an imaginary concept. No more real that the Easter Bunny.

And if nobody is saying it is real then nobody should be trying to apply it to real entities.

If you think you can apply infinity to time you are in effect saying infinity is real.

Whether you understand that or not is immaterial.

So you are unable to make distinctions or grasp what your opponent is saying because it doesn't happen to be what you believe.

And I never once claimed time had a beginning. .

I'm sure you have, Your line being that all things that exist must have a beginning.....if not, what is your alternative? That time had no beginning and is therefore eternal?

You need to do better than this.

 

[untermensche]

So you finally understand infinity is imaginary? Then say it. Infinity is an imaginary concept. No more real that the Easter Bunny.

And if nobody is saying it is real then nobody should be trying to apply it to real entities.

If you think you can apply infinity to time you are in effect saying infinity is real.

Whether you understand that or not is immaterial.

So you are unable to make distinctions or grasp what your opponent is saying because it doesn't happen to be what you believe.

And I never once claimed time had a beginning. .

I'm sure you have, Your line being that all things that exist must have a beginning.....if not, what is your alternative? That time had no beginning and is therefore eternal?

You need to do better than this.

It is absurd to say that we can apply imaginary concepts willy nilly to real objects and claim time somehow has this imaginary mathematical quality we call eternity, infinite time. Absolute insanity. There is no argument showing it is logically possible to use imaginary concepts like this.

What I have said is the idea of "no beginning" means no existence. If something has no beginning it does not exist. That is the rational use of the phrase.

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

Bottom line: If you think you can apply infinity to time you are claiming infinity is a real quality that real entities can possibly have.

If infinity is a real quality where do we observe it?

 

[DBT]

So you are unable to make distinctions or grasp what your opponent is saying because it doesn't happen to be what you believe.

And I never once claimed time had a beginning. .

I'm sure you have, Your line being that all things that exist must have a beginning.....if not, what is your alternative? That time had no beginning and is therefore eternal?

You need to do better than this.

It is absurd to say that we can apply imaginary concepts willy nilly to real objects and claim time somehow has this imaginary mathematical quality we call eternity, infinite time. Absolute insanity. There is no argument showing it is logically possible to use imaginary concepts like this.

What I have said is the idea of "no beginning" means no existence. If something has no beginning it does not exist. That is the rational use of the phrase.

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

Bottom line: If you think you can apply infinity to time you are claiming infinity is a real quality that real entities can possibly have.

If infinity is a real quality where do we observe it?

That's absurd. Infinity is not something that can be observed, and you know it. Or you don't know it, so you are using your very own definition of the concept in a futile attempt to form an argument.

What I have said is the idea of "no beginning" means no existence. If something has no beginning it does not exist. That is the rational use of the phrase.

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

You have said more than that but I couldn't be bothered going back through your posts. Nevertheless, what you say here still implies that if something doesn't have a beginning, it does not exist....which is your assumption

Then came my question; if time had to have a beginning (according to your assumption), how did time begin? And more to the point, from where or what did time begin? What came before time?

Can you explain or are you planning to avoid the problems with your assertions?

 

[untermensche]

So you are unable to make distinctions or grasp what your opponent is saying because it doesn't happen to be what you believe.

And I never once claimed time had a beginning. .

I'm sure you have, Your line being that all things that exist must have a beginning.....if not, what is your alternative? That time had no beginning and is therefore eternal?

You need to do better than this.

It is absurd to say that we can apply imaginary concepts willy nilly to real objects and claim time somehow has this imaginary mathematical quality we call eternity, infinite time. Absolute insanity. There is no argument showing it is logically possible to use imaginary concepts like this.

What I have said is the idea of "no beginning" means no existence. If something has no beginning it does not exist. That is the rational use of the phrase.

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

Bottom line: If you think you can apply infinity to time you are claiming infinity is a real quality that real entities can possibly have.

If infinity is a real quality where do we observe it?

That's absurd. Infinity is not something that can be observed, and you know it. Or you don't know it, so you are using your very own definition of the concept in a futile attempt to form an argument.

Real things can be observed, either directly or though their effects. That is the definition of "real".

Not my definition by the way.

What I have said is the idea of "no beginning" means no existence. If something has no beginning it does not exist. That is the rational use of the phrase.

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

You have said more than that but I couldn't be bothered going back through your posts. Nevertheless, what you say here still implies that if something doesn't have a beginning, it does not exist....which is your assumption

I seem to have to make arguments about ten times before you can comprehend them.

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning? How about the bird? How about the cloud? How about the mouse? How about the blade of grass? How about the idea in his head?

What does it mean to say a thing has no beginning?

This is not my definition of anything.

It is about people claiming the words "no beginning" when applied to time somehow makes sense. It doesn't. It is a fantasy phrase with no scientific understanding.

 

[ryan]

It is not a proof that all things have a beginning. It is only an explanation of what "no beginning" logically means.

I seem to have to make arguments about ten times before you can comprehend them.

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning? How about the bird? How about the cloud? How about the mouse? How about the blade of grass? How about the idea in his head?

What does it mean to say a thing has no beginning?

What about an end? Do things have to have an end the same way you believe that they logically must have a beginning?

 

[abaddon]

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning?

The words "the boat had no beginning" mean the boat had no beginning.

Whether that's true or not about the boat is a different issue. But the phrase means what it says.

 

[DBT]

I seem to have to make arguments about ten times before you can comprehend them.

You don't have arguments. You have unsupported assertions of what you happen to believe,

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning? How about the bird? How about the cloud? How about the mouse? How about the blade of grass? How about the idea in his head?

What does it mean to say a thing has no beginning?

This is not my definition of anything.

It is about people claiming the words "no beginning" when applied to time somehow makes sense. It doesn't. It is a fantasy phrase with no scientific understanding.

That's a good example of the nonsense you call an argument. Basic logic should tell you that objects like boats have a beginning, but time is not an object. Think about the implications.

 

[untermensche]

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning?

The words "the boat had no beginning" mean the boat had no beginning.

Whether that's true or not about the boat is a different issue. But the phrase means what it says.

Does the boat with no beginning exist? Is there a boat there?

 

[untermensche]

You don't have arguments. You have unsupported assertions of what you happen to believe,

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning? How about the bird? How about the cloud? How about the mouse? How about the blade of grass? How about the idea in his head?

What does it mean to say a thing has no beginning?

This is not my definition of anything.

It is about people claiming the words "no beginning" when applied to time somehow makes sense. It doesn't. It is a fantasy phrase with no scientific understanding.

That's a good example of the nonsense you call an argument. Basic logic should tell you that objects like boats have a beginning, but time is not an object. Think about the implications.

A boat is real. Time is real.

You have no special right to apply special definitions of "no beginning" to time.

Your argument is nothing but a desire to apply magical special nonsensical definitions to "no beginning" when it applies to time.

It is absolute nonsense.

And to not see it as nonsense shows serious flaws in reasoning abilities.

 

[untermensche]

I seem to have to make arguments about ten times before you can comprehend them.

What does it mean to say the boat had no beginning? How about the bird? How about the cloud? How about the mouse? How about the blade of grass? How about the idea in his head?

What does it mean to say a thing has no beginning?

What about an end? Do things have to have an end the same way you believe that they logically must have a beginning?

Are you proposing immortality of something?

Immortality is a concept people invented to apply to their god. And then of course to their own "soul".

What god of your choosing do you want to apply it to?

 

[abaddon]

The words "the boat had no beginning" mean the boat had no beginning.

Whether that's true or not about the boat is a different issue. But the phrase means what it says.

Does the boat with no beginning exist? Is there a boat there?

Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. It doesn't matter either way.

Your analogy is a comparison of two entirely unlike "things" (the boat being a thing, time not being a thing). You'll have to leave the images behind to address the degree of abstraction of this topic.

But, point is, logical possibility isn't an issue of if it's known to be real or true. That's what the word "possibility" means. To consider logical possibilities you must consider a lot of big vague maybe's and nevermind if it's currently known to be real.

So, yes, we can rationally apply imagined things to real "entities". You're inventing (il)logical consequences that aren't there, like "if it doesn't begin it can't exist" for one example. We can conceive of infinite time with no inherent contradiction between those two concepts, as we cannot with a square circle.

 

[ryan]

What about an end? Do things have to have an end the same way you believe that they logically must have a beginning?

Are you proposing immortality of something?

Immortality is a concept people invented to apply to their god. And then of course to their own "soul".

What god of your choosing do you want to apply it to?

Immortality, god, wuh?

I just wanted to know if your thoughts about ends are the same as you thoughts about beginnings?

 

[untermensche]

Are you proposing immortality of something?

Immortality is a concept people invented to apply to their god. And then of course to their own "soul".

What god of your choosing do you want to apply it to?

Immortality, god, wuh?

I just wanted to know if your thoughts about ends are the same as you thoughts about beginnings?

I'm asking you.

I see the idea of applying the concept of immortality to something as irrational.

- - - Updated - - -

Does the boat with no beginning exist? Is there a boat there?

Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. It doesn't matter either way.

It matters.

And how is a boat with no beginning "maybe there"? How did it possibly get there.

How about a tree with no beginning?

Possibly there as well?

 

[bilby]

You don't have arguments. You have unsupported assertions of what you happen to believe,




That's a good example of the nonsense you call an argument. Basic logic should tell you that objects like boats have a beginning, but time is not an object. Think about the implications.

A boat is real. Time is real.

You have no special right to apply special definitions of "no beginning" to time.

Then you will have no problem catching a fish from the outer reef; you can get there using your time, or if you don't have time, you can hire one.

You have no special right to apply special definitions of "cannot cruise out to the reef in it" to time.

 

[untermensche]

A boat is real. Time is real.

You have no special right to apply special definitions of "no beginning" to time.

Then you will have no problem catching a fish from the outer reef; you can get there using your time, or if you don't have time, you can hire one.

You have no special right to apply special definitions of "cannot cruise out to the reef in it" to time.

"Cruise out to the reef" is a clear concept.

We can clearly see what things it might apply to.

"No beginning" is only clear in one way. If we try to apply it to things in the world that actually exist.

If the boat has no beginning it does not exist. If there was no beginning to it then it never existed. That is the only way the concept is clear.

Saying it is some mystical property of time that has a whole different definition is nonsense.

That is the way religious zealots argue.

They say they can apply special meanings to their god. They can say their god exists but had no beginning.

Now modern day religious adherents say the same thing about time.

 

[ryan]

Immortality, god, wuh?

I just wanted to know if your thoughts about ends are the same as you thoughts about beginnings?

I'm asking you.

I see the idea of applying the concept of immortality to something as irrational.

So does everything end?

 

[untermensche]

I'm asking you.

I see the idea of applying the concept of immortality to something as irrational.

So does everything end?

Humans are in no position to answer that question.

But they can understand that applying magical qualities like immortality to things is no real answer to anything.

 

[ryan]

So does everything end?

Humans are in no position to answer that question.

But they can understand that applying magical qualities like immortality to things is no real answer to anything.

But you seem to be answering it.