It's also hard to tell a YEC from an asshole posing as a YEC to fuck with people. Having been wrong about various things in the past sort of locks me into the no man's land of "is this guy a moron or is he fucking with us?" I think it's the latter, because the former would be.. well, I'm not particular either way.
Yes, I considered for a while that he may actually know something about the subject and was just trying to make us think. However his continually posting the exact same "argument" for well over a hundred pages even though the error of his "facts" have been repeatedly shown makes it seem unlikely to me. We should be well past the point that he would expose his lesson and explain why some of us (maybe even me) were close and where we missed. By dragging it on this long, he won't be able to show those who got fed up with the nonsense and left the thread.
Please do. Only this time express it in terms that actually apply to reality.
The past is a location in time (from now) that is in the negative direction.No. This definition is clearly wrong.
Ok, the subsequent logic is good enough but the premise is false. That’s what is wrong, the premise.
So the definition does not apply to the past.
The past is clearly over and done with so whether finite or infinite it would have to have had an end. At least now it has to have an end.
So the past does not go on at all. It’s finished. Whether finite or infinite, the past is finished. It does not go on.
On the other hand (or end?), counting an infinite past would have a beginning but no end. God could count it, if He could be bothered, but not us. But we’re very clever and we have an infinite amount of time in front of us to find a smart way maybe to count the past.
A possible definition of the past may be time that just ended, so the past definitely has to have an end and this applies to both a finite and an infinite past. A finite past would have a beginning to, while an infinite past wouldn’t.
So that’s it. And pretty much everyone here should be able to agree with that.
EB
Yes the past is finished but the past represents the passing of time.
Yeah- check out this gem:
At any point in infinite time, and infinite amount of time has passed and will pass.
Nope. Something that is infinite is defined as something that is boundless, or immeasurably great, or immeasurably large. The key word is "immeasurably".
Well, from your statements in this thread, I've been able to infer that you have an infinite amount of incorrect things to say, even if you have to repeat some of them periodically.
This is one of the points that untermensche has been tirelessly trying to make. Now means that infinity has passed which doesn't make sense.
So you finally, after all this time, understand what infinite time is? Sheesh....
No it isn't. He even defined "passed" as simply meaning time that has been passing which has already passed (like the amount of time that it took for me to write this). He also has been told that if time has a beginning, an infinite amount has not passed (because a defined beginning, instead of an undefined beginning, implies finite time).
Hawking, Krauss, and many others agree that time had a zero and it is nonsense to even consider it. Well, not really, no dogma. The physics world finds Penrose, Carroll, and others willing to fill in the theoretical beginnings. These involve infinite time. In one the universe becomes so dilute it forgets it was a universe and a new bang proceeds ad infinitum.
The whole problem was your lack of understanding of what any infinite thing or being is. So you finally understand what infinite time is if time is infinite. Seriously... wow.
