Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

Unter:
Saying the same thing for 186 pages isn't quite enough. While it is obviously true that if something is said enough times and we believe deeply enough then it has to become true, you haven't got there quiet yet. Maybe if you add the phrase "logic says" more before saying it, then it will happen sooner.

 

[untermensche]

Unter:
Saying the same thing for 186 pages isn't quite enough. While it is obviously true that if something is said enough times and we believe deeply enough then it has to become true, you haven't got there quiet yet. Maybe if you add the phrase "logic says" more before saying it, then it will happen sooner.

You telling me an argument you've never addressed is invalid is a worthless statement.

The argument is as follows. I won't have to change it.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

You seem to think pretending you have addressed the logic of this argument is the same as actually addressing it.

 

[skepticalbip]

And you keep pretending that there is coherent thought and logic there.

I have addressed it several times and you ignored it several times so I stopped trying. You obviously just want to believe. I've never been able to get a fundy to acknowledge anything they don't already believe either.

 

[untermensche]

And you keep pretending that there is coherent thought and logic there.

I have addressed it several times and you ignored it several times so I stopped trying. You obviously just want to believe. I've never been able to get a fundy to acknowledge anything they don't already believe either.

If you actually addressed it you would have your proven arguments ready to present.

You don't.

You have no arguments. You simply want to pretend without end that you do.

 

[skepticalbip]

Like I said, you have ignored my previous posts that conflict with your belief.

 

[untermensche]

I remind the believers in infinity that there is not one argument in this thread demonstrating that infinite time has passed in the past. Or demonstrating it is likely.

The believers in infinity are like the believers in god.

They think their faith is evidence and argument.

 

[untermensche]

Like I said, you have ignored my previous posts that conflict with your belief.

I've ignored very little. I've addressed every argument made I've seen.

None stand.

Where are they? What are these winning arguments?

My argument is still here intact.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

 

[skepticalbip]

I remind the believers in infinity that there is not one argument in this thread demonstrating that infinite time has passed in the past. Or demonstrating it is likely.

The believers in infinity are like the believers in god.

They think their faith is evidence and argument.

You can't even get what we are saying right so throw up your strawman to argue againt. Does the phrase "we just don't know" ring a bell.

 

[skepticalbip]

I've ignored very little. I've addressed every argument made I've seen.
None stand.

Where are they? What are these winning arguments?

My argument is still here intact.

I never saw a response to this from way back on page 171.

You are making the totally unsupported claim that the past can be infinite.

You are the one selling nonsense.

Your argument amounts to; It can be infinite because it can be infinite.

Ah, you are making a second shot at my same post in the hopes that you can make at least one post that makes sense?

You are misstating my argument (apparently so you can seem to make a point). My argument is we don't know in contrast to your absolute certainty. The argument that infinite time is possible is that time has to be either eternal or finite. There is no known way finite time can be supported by our current physics so that leaves eternal time a possibility especially since it can be supported by our current physics, though that doesn't mean that it necessarily is eternal. We can't say what future advances in physics will tell us.

 

[untermensche]

I remind the believers in infinity that there is not one argument in this thread demonstrating that infinite time has passed in the past. Or demonstrating it is likely.

The believers in infinity are like the believers in god.

They think their faith is evidence and argument.

You can't even get what we are saying right so throw up your strawman to argue againt. Does the phrase "we just don't know" ring a bell.

That is not an examination of the logic of my argument, nor is it an argument demonstrating that time was infinite in the past.

It is just an admission that I might be right.

I make no such admission for your claims.

They are frivolous and ridiculous.

Humans invented infinity. They didn't observe it. They made it up whole, like the tooth fairy.

To think this thing humans created whole actually exists, and without a shred of evidence it does, is a joke.

And you seem to think the default position is that we assume time is infinite in the past until that is proven false. You have it exactly backwards.

Like claims of god, we assume it is a frivolous claim until it shown to be true.

I don't have to prove this thing never observed never existed.

 

[untermensche]

I never saw a response to this from way back on page 171.

You are making the totally unsupported claim that the past can be infinite.

You are the one selling nonsense.

Your argument amounts to; It can be infinite because it can be infinite.

Ah, you are making a second shot at my same post in the hopes that you can make at least one post that makes sense?

You are misstating my argument (apparently so you can seem to make a point). My argument is we don't know in contrast to your absolute certainty. The argument that infinite time is possible is that time has to be either eternal or finite. There is no known way finite time can be supported by our current physics so that leaves eternal time a possibility especially since it can be supported by our current physics, though that doesn't mean that it necessarily is eternal. We can't say what future advances in physics will tell us.

I don't accept you as the final authority on modern physics.

So you actually have to make an argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can't even get what we are saying right so throw up your strawman to argue againt. Does the phrase "we just don't know" ring a bell.

That is not an examination of the logic of my argument, nor is it an argument demonstrating that time was infinite in the past.

It is just an admission that I might be right.

I make no such admission for your claims.

They are frivolous and ridiculous.

Humans invented infinity. They didn't observe it. They made it up whole, like the tooth fairy.

To think this thing humans created whole actually exists, and without a shred of evidence it does, is a joke.

And you seem to think the default position is that we assume time is infinite in the past until that is proven false. You have it exactly backwards.

Like claims of god, we assume it is a frivolous claim until it shown to be true.

I don't have to prove this thing never observed never existed.

If you actually understood any logic then you would be well aware that a logical argument based on asinine assumptions will necessarily give an asinine conclusion. But then your scree isn't even a logical argument. It is only a series of absurd assertions.

 

[untermensche]

That is not an examination of the logic of my argument, nor is it an argument demonstrating that time was infinite in the past.

It is just an admission that I might be right.

I make no such admission for your claims.

They are frivolous and ridiculous.

Humans invented infinity. They didn't observe it. They made it up whole, like the tooth fairy.

To think this thing humans created whole actually exists, and without a shred of evidence it does, is a joke.

And you seem to think the default position is that we assume time is infinite in the past until that is proven false. You have it exactly backwards.

Like claims of god, we assume it is a frivolous claim until it shown to be true.

I don't have to prove this thing never observed never existed.

If you actually understood any logic then you would be well aware that a logical argument based on asinine assumptions will necessarily give an asinine conclusion. But then your scree isn't even a logical argument. It is only a series of absurd assertions.

You claim a god exists. You call it infinite time in the past.

Then you claim that your god exists until I prove it doesn't.

I say I can't prove something that never existed never did.

Ahah! You say. My god is proven.

 

[skepticalbip]

I never saw a response to this from way back on page 171.

You are making the totally unsupported claim that the past can be infinite.

You are the one selling nonsense.

Your argument amounts to; It can be infinite because it can be infinite.

Ah, you are making a second shot at my same post in the hopes that you can make at least one post that makes sense?

You are misstating my argument (apparently so you can seem to make a point). My argument is we don't know in contrast to your absolute certainty. The argument that infinite time is possible is that time has to be either eternal or finite. There is no known way finite time can be supported by our current physics so that leaves eternal time a possibility especially since it can be supported by our current physics, though that doesn't mean that it necessarily is eternal. We can't say what future advances in physics will tell us.

I don't accept you as the final authority on modern physics.

So you actually have to make an argument.

Then give an example of an uncaused cause. The two authorities that you cited as believing time begin with the BB both disagree with you and I gave you quotes where they did. Both in the place where you claimed they supported you.

 

[untermensche]

Then give an example of an uncaused cause. The two authorities that you cited as believing time begin with the BB both disagree with you and I gave you quotes where they did. Both in the place where you claimed they supported you.

Yes, I know.

Your god exists until I prove it doesn't.

Despite the fact you don't have a shred of evidence of your god.

 

[bilby]

Then give an example of an uncaused cause. The two authorities that you cited as believing time begin with the BB both disagree with you and I gave you quotes where they did. Both in the place where you claimed they supported you.

Yes, I know.

Your god exists until I prove it doesn't.

Despite the fact you don't have a shred of evidence of your god.

You have it arse about. You are the one claiming that an infinite past is impossible. Every single person who has posted in opposition to your claim has said that it is possible. None of them has said it actually happened. We don't know whether the past is or is not finite. And your 'arguments' that you do know are based on logical fallacies. So either you need to accept that you don't know, or you can continue to be wrong.

That nobody has proven the past to be infinite is unsurprising, because nobody has made that claim.

The only claim to knowledge here is yours; and it is up to you to support it.

That you still fail to grasp that time without beginning is infinite regardless of whether it has an end, suggests that you will not be supporting it any time soon.

If time does not begin, then it is infinite.

Infinite does NOT mean without end; it means infinite.

Our only point of reference in time is the present; we cannot know whether it ends; and FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON, we cannot know whether it began. You want the past to be fundamentally different from the future. But wanting doesn't make it so; you have to show that it is.

By the way, the present is the end of the past; but it isn't the end of time, so even if you want to persist with the foolish claim that a timeline with an infinite past has no end, that still wouldn't help your case. Because time hasn't ended.

 

[ryan]

Unless that time has no beginning, in which case it is infinite.

Of course, infinite time couldn't pass - that would take an infinite amount of time. Oh, wait; in this scenario, we HAVE an infinite amount of time for that to happen.

You are begging the question.

If "no beginning" means infinite time, then we are arguing that there was a beginning. And then you say, "unless that time has no beginning, in which case it is infinite".

It is true that an infinite amount of units of time can pass in an infinite amount of time, but it is also true that it doesn't.

By the way, the present is the end of the past; but it isn't the end of time, so even if you want to persist with the foolish claim that a timeline with an infinite past has no end, that still wouldn't help your case. Because time hasn't ended.

As far as I can tell, the claim does not need time to go infinitely into the future. So you can just imagine time ending today or at some point in the finite future.

 

[bilby]

You are begging the question.

No, I am trying to employ sarcasm to address the circularity of untermensche's argument.

If "no beginning" means infinite time, then we are arguing that there was a beginning. And then you say, "unless that time has no beginning, in which case it is infinite".

I also want to add that infinite minutes passing through infinite time does not necessarily cancel each other out. You might have a week left or negative one week left.

It doesn't matter. To show that it is not impossible is all that is needed to show that untermensche's claim that it is impossible is false.

I am not trying to prove anything other than that we don't know for certain that the past is finite. Untermensche claims that he does; He has the burden of proof.

By the way, the present is the end of the past; but it isn't the end of time, so even if you want to persist with the foolish claim that a timeline with an infinite past has no end, that still wouldn't help your case. Because time hasn't ended.

As far as I can tell, the claim does not need time to go infinitely into the future. So you can just imagine time ending today or at some point in the finite future.

You or I can imagine that. Apparently untermensche cannot.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, I know.

Your god exists until I prove it doesn't.

Despite the fact you don't have a shred of evidence of your god.

You have it arse about. You are the one claiming that an infinite past is impossible. Every single person who has posted in opposition to your claim has said that it is possible. None of them has said it actually happened. We don't know whether the past is or is not finite. And your 'arguments' that you do know are based on logical fallacies. So either you need to accept that you don't know, or you can continue to be wrong.

Just so you understand. I'm claiming that thinking the time that has passed in the past is infinite is ILLOGICAL, not impossible.

And I have given my logic demonstrating this.

That nobody has proven the past to be infinite is unsurprising, because nobody has made that claim.

There is no logic to conclude it could be possible. Simply saying anything is possible is not a logical argument in support of any particular.

The only claim to knowledge here is yours; and it is up to you to support it.

I have supported the claim that thinking the time that has already passed is infinite is illogical.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

That you still fail to grasp that time without beginning is infinite regardless of whether it has an end, suggests that you will not be supporting it any time soon.

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

What is the logic that shows us time had no beginning? What is the logic showing time without beginning makes any sense at all?

What is the evidence?

 

[bilby]

You have it arse about. You are the one claiming that an infinite past is impossible. Every single person who has posted in opposition to your claim has said that it is possible. None of them has said it actually happened. We don't know whether the past is or is not finite. And your 'arguments' that you do know are based on logical fallacies. So either you need to accept that you don't know, or you can continue to be wrong.

Just so you understand. I'm claiming that thinking the time that has passed in the past is infinite is ILLOGICAL, not impossible.

And I have given my logic demonstrating this.

That nobody has proven the past to be infinite is unsurprising, because nobody has made that claim.

There is no logic to conclude it could be possible. Simply saying anything is possible is not a logical argument in support of any particular.

The only claim to knowledge here is yours; and it is up to you to support it.

I have supported the claim that thinking the time that has already passed is infinite is illogical.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

That you still fail to grasp that time without beginning is infinite regardless of whether it has an end, suggests that you will not be supporting it any time soon.

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

What is the logic that shows us time had no beginning? What is the logic showing time without beginning makes any sense at all?

What is the evidence?

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble here if you had mentioned at the start of the thread that you don't know what logic is.

ILLOGICAL, not impossible.

Holy fuck. There are not enough faces and palms in the world.