Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

Show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that the universe had a beginning.

It is every physicist I ever read that said the universe had a beginning.

Now again, either show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

Then you have only read a few physicists from before the middle of the last century.

But you still haven't shown me an uncaused cause. So show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that time had a beginning.

If what physicists say count then current physicists say that time is likely infinite. I even gave you a link to a Penrose talk where he stated that time was infinite and even explained the physics that showed it.

 

[untermensche]

It is every physicist I ever read that said the universe had a beginning.

Now again, either show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

Then you have only read a few physicists from before the middle of the last century.

But you still haven't shown me an uncaused cause. So show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that time had a beginning.

If what physicists say count then current physicists say that time is likely infinite. I even gave you a link to a Penrose talk where he stated that time was infinite and even explained the physics that showed it.

Show me an infinite series that ends.

It isn't a red herring. It is central to my argument.

I can understand why you avoid it like ebola.

 

[Mageth]

I take that as a "Yes", you're still asserting the nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us (or rather, with the present).

Saying time in the past is infinite because we can experience the present is not a logical argument.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that, then.

The only way to experience a present moment is if the past is finite.

There would be a present moment whether or not the past is finite or infinite! We are talking about time here, aren't we, and it's nonsensical to talk about time passing (whether finite or infinite) without there being a present moment that marks the leading edge or point at which time is passing, isn't it?

If a finite amount of time passed before a present moment then that moment can occur.

If it is required for infinite time to pass first then that present moment will never occur because infinite time will never pass first.

There you are with the nonsensical requirement for "infinite time to pass" for there to be a present moment in time. There is a present moment in time whether the past is finite or infinite. Again, time passes, whether the past is finite or infinite, and since time is passing there is a present moment, where we are at present. This is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

Infinite time goes on and on. It can't pass first.

You're going backwards again! Time goes forwards! And we are at the present moment, the leading edge of time, which is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

And you're still just asserting "impossible! absurd!"

 

[skepticalbip]

Then you have only read a few physicists from before the middle of the last century.

But you still haven't shown me an uncaused cause. So show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that time had a beginning.

If what physicists say count then current physicists say that time is likely infinite. I even gave you a link to a Penrose talk where he stated that time was infinite and even explained the physics that showed it.

Show me an infinite series that ends.

It isn't a red herring. It is central to my argument.

I can understand why you avoid it like ebola.

Again with this shit?

Show me an uncaused cause. Why are you avoiding it like ebola?

You are ignoring the fact that neither an infinite nor finite time can be logically argued because we have no hard evidence to support either. You trying to show that we can't prove infinite time and so are claiming that proves finite time. As has been explained, that is a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance - something that should embarrass the hell out of you since you want to claim to know something about logic. But then since you apparently don't understand logical fallacies, it sounds "logical" to you.

 

[untermensche]

...There you are with the nonsensical requirement for "infinite time to pass" for there to be a present moment in time...

You can't say infinite time is back there and say it doesn't have to pass before a previous moment.

If it is there it has to pass first.

You simply want it both ways. You want to say that infinite time is there and you also don't want it to have to pass. You want to pretend it has already passed.

You want to pretend an infinite series has ended.

How many times do you have to be told, an infinite series never ends?

- - - Updated - - -

Show me an infinite series that ends.

It isn't a red herring. It is central to my argument.

I can understand why you avoid it like ebola.

Again with this shit?

Show me an uncaused cause. Why are you avoiding it like ebola?

You are ignoring the fact that neither an infinite nor finite time can be logically argued because we have no hard evidence to support either. You trying to show that we can't prove infinite time and so are claiming that proves finite time. As has been explained, that is a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance - something that should embarrass the hell out of you since you want to claim to know something about logic. But then since you apparently don't understand logical fallacies, it sounds "logical" to you.

You are predictable.

You never back up a word you say.

You claim an infinite series can end. Produce one or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Show me an infinite series that ends.

It isn't a red herring. It is central to my argument.

I can understand why you avoid it like ebola.

Again with this shit?

Show me an uncaused cause. Why are you avoiding it like ebola?

You are ignoring the fact that neither an infinite nor finite time can be logically argued because we have no hard evidence to support either. You trying to show that we can't prove infinite time and so are claiming that proves finite time. As has been explained, that is a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance - something that should embarrass the hell out of you since you want to claim to know something about logic. But then since you apparently don't understand logical fallacies, it sounds "logical" to you.

You are predictable.

You never back up a word you say.

You claim an infinite series can end. Produce one or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

Several have been shown to you but you discount them as "only math". However you are still avoiding showing an uncaused cause, even mathematically.

Also it is you that keep saying that time ends today, not anyone else. Everyone else has been saying that time can be eternal.

 

[untermensche]

You are predictable.

You never back up a word you say.

You claim an infinite series can end. Produce one or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

Several have been shown to you but you discount them as "only math". However you are still avoiding showing an uncaused cause, even mathematically.

Also it is you that keep saying that time ends today, not anyone else. Everyone else has been saying that time can be eternal.

You have shown no such thing.

Now show an infinite series that ends or stop pretending you have a word to say about my argument.

Waving your hands forever is not evidence time is infinite in the past.

 

[skepticalbip]

Several have been shown to you but you discount them as "only math". However you are still avoiding showing an uncaused cause, even mathematically.

Also it is you that keep saying that time ends today, not anyone else. Everyone else has been saying that time can be eternal.

You have shown no such thing.

Now show an infinite series that ends or stop pretending you have a word to say about my argument.

Waving your hands forever is not evidence time is infinite in the past.

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

I gave you a Penrose lecture.

 

[Mageth]

You can't say infinite time is back there and say it doesn't have to pass before a previous moment.

I didn't say that.

If it is there it has to pass first.

Yes, it did pass. That's the point.

You simply want it both ways. You want to say that infinite time is there and you also don't want it to have to pass.

No, I'm saying it has passed.

You want to pretend it has already passed.

Jesus F. Christ, of course the past has already passed!!!!

You want to pretend an infinite series has ended.

No, that's your red herring. I've never said or claimed that anything has ended, or that "infinite past" == "infinite series". As far as I can tell, your "infinite series can't end" schtick says nothing at all the possibility of an infinite past.

How many times do you have to be told, an infinite series never ends?

What does that have to do with the possibility of an infinite past???

 

[untermensche]

You have shown no such thing.

Now show an infinite series that ends or stop pretending you have a word to say about my argument.

Waving your hands forever is not evidence time is infinite in the past.

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

I gave you a Penrose lecture.

Your problems with uncaused causes don't interest me. My argument is not an argument about causes. I have no idea if time can be caused or not.

You claimed that an infinite series can end. I asked you to produce one.

You have avoided this question many times already. Your refusal to answer is basically a refusal to engage.

 

[untermensche]

You can't say infinite time is back there and say it doesn't have to pass before a previous moment.

I didn't say that.

Yeah you did. You complained when I said it has to pass first.

You are all over the place. You have no position.

If you claim infinite time exists in the past then infinite time has to pass before any present moment can exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

I gave you a Penrose lecture.

Your problems with uncaused causes don't interest me. My argument is not an argument about causes. I have no idea if time can be caused or not.

You claimed that an infinite series can end. I asked you to produce one.

You have avoided this question many times already. Your refusal to answer is basically a refusal to engage.

Whether it interests you or not, your assertion that time can not be eternal means that there must have been an uncaused cause.

So show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

 

[Mageth]

I didn't say that.

Yeah you did. You complained when I said it has to pass first.

No, I didn't. What I said, in response to your assertion:

So if we say the amount of time we must wait to pass for the previous moment to arrive has no limit then the previous moment will never arrive.

was:

You're still asserting this nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us???

We don't have to wait for the previous moment to arrive. Each moment in time arrives. And that's where we are. This is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

I've never said that the past hasn't passed. What I've said is that time passes, we/time are at the present moment, the past has passed, and this is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

Retract now.

You are all over the place. You have no position.

My position has been the same on this thread from the beginning.

Retract now.

If you claim infinite time exists in the past then infinite time has to pass before any present moment can exist.

Exactly - but note that we're not waiting for the past to pass. The past has passed, and we are at the present moment, and this is true whether the past is finite or infinite. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

[untermensche]

Your problems with uncaused causes don't interest me. My argument is not an argument about causes. I have no idea if time can be caused or not.

You claimed that an infinite series can end. I asked you to produce one.

You have avoided this question many times already. Your refusal to answer is basically a refusal to engage.

Whether it interests you or not, your assertion that time can not be eternal means that there must have been an uncaused cause.

So show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

It means that time had a start.

Saying that time had a start at the big bang is exactly what many physicists claim.

Now show me an infinite series that ends as you claim or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

How many times can you avoid this?

 

[untermensche]

I've never said that the past hasn't passed.

My position has been the same on this thread from the beginning.

Retract now.

If you say the past has finished passing then you are saying it is finite. A series that ends is a finite series.

If you claim the past is infinite AND has finished passing you are claiming that only part of the past has passed.

I retract nothing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Whether it interests you or not, your assertion that time can not be eternal means that there must have been an uncaused cause.

So show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

It means that time had a start.

Saying that time had a start at the big bang is exactly what many physicists claim.

I know of no cosmologists who say that. You are just making an assertion pulled out of your arse.

You already tried that earlier with your link to a Hawking talk. Hawking contridicted, in that talk, what you claimed he thinks.

Now show me an infinite series that ends as you claim or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

How many times can you avoid this?

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

 

[untermensche]

It means that time had a start.

Saying that time had a start at the big bang is exactly what many physicists claim.

I know of no cosmologists who say that. You are just making an assertion pulled out of your arse.

You already tried that earlier with your link to a Hawking talk. Hawking contridicted, in that talk, what you claimed he thinks.

Bullshit.

He concluded exactly what I quoted him as concluding. Time had a beginning at the big bang.

You just don't like his conclusion so you think hand waving can change it.

You don't have a shred of evidence that time existed before the big bang. You have as much evidence of time before the big bang as Christians have of heaven.

And your beliefs are just as irrational.

Now show me an infinite series that ends as you claim or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

How many times can you avoid this?

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

I have not made one claim about uncaused causes. If time started I assume it had a cause. This is simply nonsense pulled from your ass.

You claimed an infinite series can end.

Back up one thing you claim. Just once.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know of no cosmologists who say that. You are just making an assertion pulled out of your arse.

You already tried that earlier with your link to a Hawking talk. Hawking contridicted, in that talk, what you claimed he thinks.

Bullshit.

He concluded exactly what I quoted him as concluding. Time had a beginning at the big bang.

You really need to see a professional about your short memory:

Stephen Hawking from your linked article:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

The full two paragraphs were included rather than just the bolded part so you would not claim it was taken out of context.

The first sentence of the second paragraph explains why his conclusion was that time begin at the BB for this particular model, it is only because that is where the model resets the clock to zero since what happened before has no observational effect on what we can observe today.

You just don't like his conclusion so you think hand waving can change it.

You don't have a shred of evidence that time existed before the big bang. You have as much evidence of time before the big bang as Christians have of heaven.

And your beliefs are just as irrational.

Now show me an infinite series that ends as you claim or stop pretending you are responding to my argument.

How many times can you avoid this?

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

I have not made one claim about uncaused causes. If time started I assume it had a cause. This is simply nonsense pulled from your ass.

You claimed an infinite series can end.

Back up one thing you claim. Just once.

Your saying that there could not be an infinite past is saying that it began in an uncaused cause.

Show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using.)

 

[untermensche]

You really need to see a professional about your short memory:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.

This is hemming and hawing. It isn't science.

It is pretending events that can't be observed exist, even in the complete absence of evidence.

Believing in things without evidence is faith, not science.

Your saying that there could not be an infinite past is saying that it began in an uncaused cause.

No it doesn't. All it means is that time had a start. It is not a claim that the start of time was uncaused.

Stop repeating this nonsense about uncaused causes. It is an insane non sequitur.

Now back up YOUR claim. You claim an infinite series ends.

Show me one or stop pretending you are addressing my argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.

This is hemming and hawing. It isn't science.

It is pretending events that can't be observed exist, even in the complete absence of evidence.

Believing in things without evidence is faith, not science.

Your saying that there could not be an infinite past is saying that it began in an uncaused cause.

No it doesn't. All it means is that time had a start. It is not a claim that the start of time was uncaused.

Stop repeating this nonsense about uncaused causes. It is an insane non sequitur.

Now back up YOUR claim. You claim an infinite series ends.

Show me one or stop pretending you are addressing my argument.

If time had a start then it was either a result of a previous event (which means it wasn't a start) or it is an uncaused cause.

So show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using. Which is sorta fun because you appear incapable of recognizing a logical fallacy though you love to claim that your nonsense is logical.)