Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

You are babbling about knowledge of how time started. You have no such knowledge. You are crowing from ignorance.

You don't have the slightest clue what it means for time to start.

But saying that time started is not saying it was uncaused. That is an insane non sequitur.

Now about YOUR claim about an infinite series that ends.

When will you even try to support YOUR claim instead of boring me with claims I never made?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

You are babbling about knowledge of how time started. You have no such knowledge. You are crowing from ignorance.

You don't have the slightest clue what it means for time to start.

But saying that time started is not saying it was uncaused. That is an insane non sequitur.

Now about YOUR claim about an infinite series that ends.

When will you even try to support YOUR claim instead of boring me with claims I never made?

The non sequitur is saying that time starting without a cause is not an uncaused cause.

Either it was caused which means that it wasn't a start (so eternal time is real) or it is itself an uncaused cause.

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

(This is so 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. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

 

[untermensche]

The non sequitur is saying that time starting without a cause is not an uncaused cause.

Nobody made that claim. It is pulled directly from thin air.

Either it was caused which means that it wasn't a start (so eternal time is real) or it is itself an uncaused cause.

If it was caused it's cause is unlike causes that occur within time. It's cause is unknowable that is all.

But you can claim it can't have a cause all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

 

[bilby]

Nobody made that claim. It is pulled directly from thin air.

Either it was caused which means that it wasn't a start (so eternal time is real) or it is itself an uncaused cause.

If it was caused it's cause is unlike causes that occur within time. It's cause is unknowable that is all.

But you can claim it can't have a cause all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

You can claim it can't have existed forever all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

See how well that works?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody made that claim. It is pulled directly from thin air.



If it was caused it's cause is unlike causes that occur within time. It's cause is unknowable that is all.

But you can claim it can't have a cause all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

You can claim it can't have existed forever all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

See how well that works?

I don't make a claim. I make an argument.

If time is infinite in the past that means the amount of time in the past has no end. It means the amount of time before any previous moment has no end.

If it is an amount of time that has no end then it can't have already occurred before any previous moment. An amount of time without end can't already occur. It goes on without end.

It is irrational to say that something both has no end and has an end. It is like saying a person is both alive and dead.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody made that claim. It is pulled directly from thin air.

Either it was caused which means that it wasn't a start (so eternal time is real) or it is itself an uncaused cause.

If it was caused it's cause is unlike causes that occur within time. It's cause is unknowable that is all.

But you can claim it can't have a cause all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

My claim was conditional.... "if time is eternal...."

You offer fantasies and faith.

So you are resorting to goddidit or some similar nonsense. But then that would make god (or whatever) the uncaused cause. And everyone knows that god exists eternally so time is eternal.

If you aren't resorting to some sort of god or something else that is eternal as the cause then show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time isn't infinite in the past.

(This is so 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. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

 

[untermensche]

So you are resorting to goddidit or some similar nonsense. But then that would make god (or whatever) the uncaused cause. And everyone knows that god exists eternally so time is eternal.

What part of unknowable do you have problems with?

If time was caused it's cause is unknowable.

You seem to know all about the cause. It is you claiming absurd knowledge.

Now that we are done with your nonsense of uncaused causes will you defend your claim of an infinite series that ends?

Will you actually defend your claims? That is a question I have been asking for a long time.

 

[bilby]

You can claim it can't have existed forever all day. But that is just a worthless claim with no evidence or argument to support it.

You will never support YOUR claim will you?

All you offer are claims about knowledge of the start of time.

You offer fantasies and faith.

See how well that works?

I don't make a claim. I make an argument.

No, you make a claim.

If time is infinite in the past that means the amount of time in the past has no end.

Oh, look, there it is! You make this claim, but you fail to back it up. The position against which you are arguing is that time has no beginning. You claim that this entails time having no end; but this is an empty and unsupported claim.

It means the amount of time before any previous moment has no end.

Nonsense. If time has no beginning, then the amount of time before any given moment has no beginning. It has an end - at the moment given.

If it is an amount of time that has no end then it can't have already occurred before any previous moment.

But you have not shown that time has no end; and if there is such a thing as a moment, and time is infinite, then infinite time must have elapsed at any given moment.

An amount of time without end can't already occur. It goes on without end.

We are not discussing time without end; we are discussing the presence or absence of a beginning.

It is irrational to say that something both has no end and has an end. It is like saying a person is both alive and dead.

As no one except you is saying that infinite time necessarily has no end, its rationality or otherwise is a non sequitur.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are resorting to goddidit or some similar nonsense. But then that would make god (or whatever) the uncaused cause. And everyone knows that god exists eternally so time is eternal.

What part of unknowable do you have problems with?

If time was caused it's cause is unknowable.

You seem to know all about the cause. It is you claiming absurd knowledge.

Now that we are done with your nonsense of uncaused causes will you defend your claim of an infinite series that ends?

Will you actually defend your claims? That is a question I have been asking for a long time.

If it is unknowable then you can not say that time can not be eternal which has been your whole position for these fifteen hundred posts. (Unless you are claiming Divine revelation)

If you want to stick with your position then you need to show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time can not be infinite in the past.

(This is so 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. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

 

[untermensche]

I don't make a claim. I make an argument.

No, you make a claim.

If time is infinite in the past that means the amount of time in the past has no end.

Oh, look, there it is! You make this claim, but you fail to back it up. The position against which you are arguing is that time has no beginning. You claim that this entails time having no end; but this is an empty and unsupported claim.

Already you display an ignorance of the definition of an infinite series.

If time is claimed to be an infinite series in the past, that BY DEFINITION, not claim, means the amount of time in the past has no end.

That is what an infinite series is. A series without end.

It means the amount of time before any previous moment has no end.

Nonsense. If time has no beginning, then the amount of time before any given moment has no beginning. It has an end - at the moment given.

If it has no beginning then the amount of it has no end. You think saying it has no beginning is some magic spell that explains something.

You are claiming an amount of time that has no end ended at some given moment.

You are contradicting yourself.

We are not discussing time without end; we are discussing the presence or absence of a beginning.

To say that time has no beginning is to say the amount of time has no limit. It has no end.

That is time without end.

You should first know what you are talking about before trying to talk about them.

As no one except you is saying that infinite time necessarily has no end, its rationality or otherwise is a non sequitur.

The definition of an infinite series is a series with no end. infinite time means time that goes on without end. And to say time has no beginning is just to say the amount of time in the past has no end.

The topic is some claiming the past is time without end and some claiming it is time with an end. And the ever present now is that end.

 

[untermensche]

What part of unknowable do you have problems with?

If time was caused it's cause is unknowable.

You seem to know all about the cause. It is you claiming absurd knowledge.

Now that we are done with your nonsense of uncaused causes will you defend your claim of an infinite series that ends?

Will you actually defend your claims? That is a question I have been asking for a long time.

If it is unknowable then you can not say that time can not be eternal which has been your whole position for these fifteen hundred posts. (Unless you are claiming Divine revelation)

I said the cause is unknowable.

The fact that saying infinite time already passed in the past is a contradiction is knowable.

For some.

Your infatuation with bad arguments about causes that are unknowable has been a good dodge.

A pathetically transparent dodge, but it has kept you from defending your worthless claims about an infinite series that ends. When you will ever defend YOUR worthless claims is unknowable as well.

 

[skepticalbip]

If it is unknowable then you can not say that time can not be eternal which has been your whole position for these fifteen hundred posts. (Unless you are claiming Divine revelation)

I said the cause is unknowable.

The fact that saying infinite time already passed in the past is a contradiction is knowable.

For some.

Your infatuation with bad arguments about causes that are unknowable has been a good dodge.

A pathetically transparent dodge, but it has kept you from defending your worthless claims about an infinite series that ends. When you will ever defend YOUR worthless claims is unknowable as well.

If the cause is unknowable then the fact that it happened is unknowable unless you are claiming the unknown cause was an eternal uncaused cause which still leads to infinite time unless you are claiming divine revelation which also suggests infinite time.

 

[untermensche]

If the cause is unknowable then the fact that it happened is unknowable unless you are claiming the unknown cause was an uncaused cause which still leads to infinite time unless you are claiming divine revelation which also suggests infinite time.

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

 

[skepticalbip]

If the cause is unknowable then the fact that it happened is unknowable unless you are claiming the unknown cause was an uncaused cause which still leads to infinite time unless you are claiming divine revelation which also suggests infinite time.

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

Aha. Back to believing that placing the phrase "logic says" in front of an asinine statement makes it true.

If you want to stick with your position then you need to show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time can not be infinite in the past.

(This is so 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. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

 

[bilby]

The definition of an infinite series is a series with no end.

So you keep saying. But it ain't so - or rather, it is an equivocation on the definition of the word 'end'. Insofar as an infinite series is defined as a series with no end, the word 'end' means 'limit'; a dimension stretches in two directions. It is infinite if it has no ends; or if it only has one end. If it has two ends, it may be finite.

However, when used in combination with the word 'beginning', 'end' means 'the limit found in the direction opposite to the beginning'. Like East and West, End and Beginning imply movement in opposite directions.

If time has no end, but has a beginning, it is infinite. If it has neither beginning nor end it is infinite. And if it has an end, but no beginning it is infinite.

A line has two ends. One might be called the beginning; if so, the other is called THE end.

This is a line. THE 'end' is AN end; and THE beginning is AN 'end'. There are EITHER two 'ends'; or, using the OTHER meaning of end, there is ONE end, and ONE beginning. If either of the two 'ends' is not present, the line must be infinite.

 

[bilby]

If the cause is unknowable then the fact that it happened is unknowable unless you are claiming the unknown cause was an uncaused cause which still leads to infinite time unless you are claiming divine revelation which also suggests infinite time.

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

I did. The negative Integers. Your dismissal of this was notable for its absurdity; If you want to claim that the negative integers start at -1 and are infinite (and I agree that that that is one valid way to look at them), then time can equally, and for the same reasons, be said to start now, and stretch back in time WITHOUT END. Time stretching back without end is exactly the same as time stretching forward without beginning.

 

[Juma]

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

I did. The negative Integers. Your dismissal of this was notable for its absurdity; If you want to claim that the negative integers start at -1 and are infinite (and I agree that that that is one valid way to look at them), then time can equally, and for the same reasons, be said to start now, and stretch back in time WITHOUT END. Time stretching back without end is exactly the same as time stretching forward without beginning.

Unter will not get this since he confuses series and time. For him the series and the flow of time MUST be the same. That he thereby conflates physics and mathematics is something he cannot see...

It is all so easy: the infinite series for time up to now can be (using seconds as units): now, now-1sec, now-2sec, now-3sec, .... etc. Whether this stops or not has not anything to do with the definition of infinity. But if time has always been going on the there will be (tempus?) positions in time for each of these infinitely many terms.

 

[ryan]

So you agree with my 4th premise.

A point in time is a specific point in time. Eternity did not start at a specific point- it did not start, it is eternal. I said if you changed the 4th premise to "from any point in time, an infinite amount of units cannot pass" it would work.

Okay, that is better.

If the past can be infinite from some point in time, then why can't the future be infinite too? What is so special about the past that it can be infinite while the future can't be?

What if time started to go the other direction; shouldn't it also be finite like the real future is?

 

[Mageth]

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.

No, saying the past has passed is using the term "the past" properly. The past has passed whether it's finite or infinite. If the past had no beginning, the past is infinite. Yet it's still passed.

And quit saying that I'm saying things that I'm clearly not saying.

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

Utter bullshit. But I must admit that your implying that the past hasn't passed is rather amusing! Of course the past has passed!. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the past. Once again, this is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

I retract nothing.

Selectively quote from my posts, imply that I say things that I don't say...and weirdass twisted shit that I clearly don't say or even imply...on second thought, you don't have to retract anything. You're saying nothing.

 

[untermensche]

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

Aha. Back to believing that placing the phrase "logic says" in front of an asinine statement makes it true.

If you want to stick with your position then you need to show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time can not be infinite in the past.

(This is so 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. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

I've fully addressed your stupid little uncaused cause nonsense. If time had a cause it is not a cause as we understand the word. In no way shape or form does my argument claim that time is uncaused. To think the argument says that is pure ignorance.

What the argument says is the time could not have existed infinitely into the past. It had to have started. End of argument. Nothing more can be drawn from it. You can't draw some god from the argument and you can't dispense with one either. It is not an argument that says one word about gods.

And the reason I can still make it after 150 pages is because nobody has shown the problems with the argument. Nobody has made a valid objection.

So the argument remains. It is not possible for there to have been infinite time in the past.

To claim it is to claim an infinite amount of time already passed.

For many I don't have to write another word, they understand the problem with saying infinite time has already finished passing. They know infinities don't finish.