Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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.

Do you claim that an infinite number of units of time must have passed until today if time has no beginning?

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.

I know.

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.

My point was that what happens after today is not relevant to the argument.

 

[untermensche]

ILLOGICAL, not impossible.

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

Bullshit.

I can't prove what never existed couldn't have existed.

To think that was possible is to be a fool.

This is my argument.

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.

What I am claiming is impossible is the idea that an infinite amount of time can finish passing.

Which leads to the conclusion that thinking it is possible for there to have been infinite time in the past is illogical.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bullshit.

I can't prove what never existed couldn't have existed.

To think that was possible is to be a fool.

This is my argument.

WTF?

You claimed that time began. Prove it and you will prove that time is not infinite into the past.

Or are you now agreeing with everyone else that we just don't know?

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

I can't prove what never existed couldn't have existed.

To think that was possible is to be a fool.

This is my argument.

WTF?

You claimed that time began. Prove it and you will prove that time is not infinite into the past.

Or are you now agreeing with everyone else that we just don't know?

We can say anything is possible if we say "we just don't know."

Maybe Jesus is a god? We just don't know.

Maybe tomorrow I will sprout wings and fly? We just don't know.

Maybe time is infinite in the past? We just don't know.

What we do know, and it is the conclusion of my argument, is that it is illogical to claim time was infinite in the past.

Like it is illogical to claim humans evolved from chimpanzees.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF?

You claimed that time began. Prove it and you will prove that time is not infinite into the past.

Or are you now agreeing with everyone else that we just don't know?

We can say anything is possible if we say "we just don't know."

Maybe Jesus is a god? We just don't know.

Maybe tomorrow I will sprout wings and fly? We just don't know.

Maybe time is infinite in the past? We just don't know.

What we do know, and it is the conclusion of my argument, is that it is illogical to claim time was infinite in the past.

Like it is illogical to claim humans evolved from chimpanzees.

There is nothing wrong with admitting our ignorance about things we don't know. Without this admission we have no reason to look for the answer. It is arrogantly claiming we KNOW something we don't know that is a hindrance to humanity. This is what religion gives us - someone claiming absolute certainty to explain the questions being asked to dispel of the questions.

We don't know if time has a beginning or if the past in infinite. To choose one because it just feels good to us is the way of religion. To admit our ignorance and seek to find the reality is the way of science.

Who knows, maybe we will have an answer sooner than we imagine with the new models they are even now attempting to test.

The rest of your post was mindless prattle.

 

[untermensche]

We can say anything is possible if we say "we just don't know."

Maybe Jesus is a god? We just don't know.

Maybe tomorrow I will sprout wings and fly? We just don't know.

Maybe time is infinite in the past? We just don't know.

What we do know, and it is the conclusion of my argument, is that it is illogical to claim time was infinite in the past.

Like it is illogical to claim humans evolved from chimpanzees.

There is nothing wrong with admitting our ignorance about things we don't know. Without this admission we have no reason to look for the answer. It is arrogantly claiming we KNOW something we don't know that is a hindrance to humanity. This is what religion gives us - someone claiming absolute certainty to explain the questions being asked to dispel of the questions.

We don't know if time has a beginning or if the past in infinite. To choose one because it just feels good to us is the way of religion. To admit our ignorance and seek to find the reality is the way of science.

Who knows, maybe we will have an answer sooner than we imagine with the new models they are even now attempting to test.

The rest of your post was mindless prattle.

What you ignore are the salient points and you focus on nonsense.

We DO know. We know it is illogical to believe time existed infinitely into the past.

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.

People can say "we just don't know" all they want. It won't make an illogical faith into a logical belief.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is nothing wrong with admitting our ignorance about things we don't know. Without this admission we have no reason to look for the answer. It is arrogantly claiming we KNOW something we don't know that is a hindrance to humanity. This is what religion gives us - someone claiming absolute certainty to explain the questions being asked to dispel of the questions.

We don't know if time has a beginning or if the past in infinite. To choose one because it just feels good to us is the way of religion. To admit our ignorance and seek to find the reality is the way of science.

Who knows, maybe we will have an answer sooner than we imagine with the new models they are even now attempting to test.

The rest of your post was mindless prattle.

What you ignore are the salient points and you focus on nonsense.

We DO know. We know it is illogical to believe time existed infinitely into the past.

If you actually had assumptions that made any sense and understood logic you would do better. However this isn't a question that can be answered by logic since we have no reality to base the assumptions on. It is like some ancient Greek sitting in his cave using his pure reason and logic to understand the nature of the universe. We tried that technique for a few thousand years and it got us nowhere. It has only been in the last few hundred years that the scientific method begin to tell us something about reality.

Why don't you spend more time proving that time began? Since you KNOW it did, you must have, or think you have, some evidence of the fact. Or was it just that it felt right?

 

[bilby]

'X is illogical' doesn't mean 'X doesn't feel right to me'; in the context of this sub-forum, it means 'X can be shown to be incorrect by the use of formal logic'.

It appears that you are using a casual and unscientific definition of 'illogical'. If you are, you are wasting everyone's time here. If you are not, then why don't you present a structured argument with clear premises and conclusions that is logically valid, and which doesn't rely on premises that are in dispute?

 

[ryan]

'X is illogical' doesn't mean 'X doesn't feel right to me'; in the context of this sub-forum, it means 'X can be shown to be incorrect by the use of formal logic'.

It appears that you are using a casual and unscientific definition of 'illogical'. If you are, you are wasting everyone's time here. If you are not, then why don't you present a structured argument with clear premises and conclusions that is logically valid, and which doesn't rely on premises that are in dispute?

Just in case you missed it, I have a question for you or anyone else feeling brave. If answered straightforwardly, I predict that this question will lead to a resolution in this thread.

Here goes: Do you claim that an infinite number of units of time must have passed before today if time has no beginning?

 

[Mageth]

'X is illogical' doesn't mean 'X doesn't feel right to me'; in the context of this sub-forum, it means 'X can be shown to be incorrect by the use of formal logic'.

It appears that you are using a casual and unscientific definition of 'illogical'. If you are, you are wasting everyone's time here. If you are not, then why don't you present a structured argument with clear premises and conclusions that is logically valid, and which doesn't rely on premises that are in dispute?

Just in case you missed it, I have a question for you or anyone else feeling brave. If answered straightforwardly, I predict that this question will lead to a resolution in this thread.

Here goes: Do you claim that an infinite number of units of time must have passed before today if time has no beginning?

For cryin' out loud, ryan. It's not that damn hard to grasp. The past has passed, whether time had a beginning or not! To claim the past can't have passed is madness.

We are at today, agreed? Once again, this is the case whether the past is finite or infinite. There is no "unit of time" in the past from which today could not have been reached, whether the past is finite or infinite. Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite. If the past is infinite, however, then there is no beginning of time, no unit of time in the past before which there was not more time. Yet here we are, at today.

 

[untermensche]

What you ignore are the salient points and you focus on nonsense.

We DO know. We know it is illogical to believe time existed infinitely into the past.

If you actually had assumptions that made any sense and understood logic you would do better. However this isn't a question that can be answered by logic since we have no reality to base the assumptions on. It is like some ancient Greek sitting in his cave using his pure reason and logic to understand the nature of the universe. We tried that technique for a few thousand years and it got us nowhere. It has only been in the last few hundred years that the scientific method begin to tell us something about reality.

Why don't you spend more time proving that time began? Since you KNOW it did, you must have, or think you have, some evidence of the fact. Or was it just that it felt right?

Here's the argument again, since for the countless time you completely ignore the logic of 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.

It's a complete argument I haven't needed to change in a while.

It's been attacked with absurd objections, claims that the past isn't time that has already passed were made, claims that time doesn't pass were made, claims that time had no beginning were made, claims that infinite time can finish passing, claims that infinities end, and many other absurd claims were made.

But the logic of the argument remains. And the conclusion of the argument is that it is illogical to believe time in the past was infinite.

It is as illogical as to say that modeling infinite time with a line and an arrow somehow protects you from the logical consequences of saying time had no beginning.

Time with no beginning is an amount of time that can never finish passing. Just when we think it all has passed the arrow moves a little further and there is more to pass.

Infinite time is not like an infinite amount of fractions that are limited by a whole number. Infinite time is like the positive integers. An infinity that grows larger without end.

The past is one day plus another plus another. It is an ever growing infinity.

 

[Mageth]

What I fail to see in the above rambling is anything that establishes that time must have had a beginning.

 

[ryan]

Just in case you missed it, I have a question for you or anyone else feeling brave. If answered straightforwardly, I predict that this question will lead to a resolution in this thread.

Here goes: Do you claim that an infinite number of units of time must have passed before today if time has no beginning?

For cryin' out loud, ryan. It's not that damn hard to grasp. The past has passed, whether time had a beginning or not! To claim the past can't have passed is madness.

We are at today, agreed? Once again, this is the case whether the past is finite or infinite. There is no "unit of time" in the past from which today could not have been reached, whether the past is finite or infinite. Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite. If the past is infinite, however, then there is no beginning of time, no unit of time in the past before which there was not more time. Yet here we are, at today.

I will assume that you agree.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

 

[untermensche]

What I fail to see in the above rambling is anything that establishes that time must have had a beginning.

How many times and how many ways do you need to be told?

The argument demonstrates it is illogical to believe time in the past was infinite.

It is an illogical claim.

What more do you think it could be possible to demonstrate about infinite time?

 

[Mageth]

What I fail to see in the above rambling is anything that establishes that time must have had a beginning.

How many times and how many ways do you need to be told?

The argument demonstrates it is illogical to believe time in the past was infinite.

It is an illogical claim.

What more do you think it could be possible to demonstrate about infinite time?

What argument? I just see a bunch of assertions.

 

[Mageth]

For cryin' out loud, ryan. It's not that damn hard to grasp. The past has passed, whether time had a beginning or not! To claim the past can't have passed is madness.

We are at today, agreed? Once again, this is the case whether the past is finite or infinite. There is no "unit of time" in the past from which today could not have been reached, whether the past is finite or infinite. Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite. If the past is infinite, however, then there is no beginning of time, no unit of time in the past before which there was not more time. Yet here we are, at today.

I will assume that you agree.

No assuming; instead, accept the fact that I'm not playing your game.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

That makes no sense.

What do you imagine the point of your word game that you're playing with yourself is, ryan?

 

[untermensche]

What argument? I just see a bunch of assertions.

Obviously many sentences are tough for you so I'll just start with the first.

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.

This is not a string of assertions. The first sentence is stating the claim. The second sentence is just a logical conclusion of the first.

I have said over and over we don't have to talk about time, we can talk about change.

So in terms of change the past is what the universe used to be and the present is what it is.

You can't have a prior state of the universe without a present state first.

You can't have the past without the present first.

 

[Mageth]

Obviously many sentences are tough for you so I'll just start with the first.

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.

This is not a string of assertions. The first sentence is stating the claim. The second sentence is just a logical conclusion of the first.

I have said over and over we don't have to talk about time, we can talk about change.

So in terms of change the past is what the universe used to be and the present is what it is.

You can't have a prior state of the universe without a present state first.

You can't have the past without the present first.

Whaaaat?

Is there a point to that nonsense?

Both you and ryan appear to be randomly throwing darts hoping you'll eventually hit something.

Again:
What I fail to see in the above rambling is anything that establishes that time must have had a beginning.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously many sentences are tough for you so I'll just start with the first.



This is not a string of assertions. The first sentence is stating the claim. The second sentence is just a logical conclusion of the first.

I have said over and over we don't have to talk about time, we can talk about change.

So in terms of change the past is what the universe used to be and the present is what it is.

You can't have a prior state of the universe without a present state first.

You can't have the past without the present first.

Whaaaat?

Is there a point to that nonsense?

Both you and ryan appear to be randomly throwing darts hoping you'll eventually hit something.

You obviously have some dissonance.

This is a simple complete argument.

It has to be read.

 

[bilby]

If you actually had assumptions that made any sense and understood logic you would do better. However this isn't a question that can be answered by logic since we have no reality to base the assumptions on. It is like some ancient Greek sitting in his cave using his pure reason and logic to understand the nature of the universe. We tried that technique for a few thousand years and it got us nowhere. It has only been in the last few hundred years that the scientific method begin to tell us something about reality.

Why don't you spend more time proving that time began? Since you KNOW it did, you must have, or think you have, some evidence of the fact. Or was it just that it felt right?

Here's the argument again, since for the countless time you completely ignore the logic of 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.

It's a complete argument I haven't needed to change in a while.

It's been attacked with absurd objections, claims that the past isn't time that has already passed were made, claims that time doesn't pass were made, claims that time had no beginning were made, claims that infinite time can finish passing, claims that infinities end, and many other absurd claims were made.

But the logic of the argument remains. And the conclusion of the argument is that it is illogical to believe time in the past was infinite.

It is as illogical as to say that modeling infinite time with a line and an arrow somehow protects you from the logical consequences of saying time had no beginning.

Time with no beginning is an amount of time that can never finish passing. Just when we think it all has passed the arrow moves a little further and there is more to pass.

Infinite time is not like an infinite amount of fractions that are limited by a whole number. Infinite time is like the positive integers. An infinity that grows larger without end.

The past is one day plus another plus another. It is an ever growing infinity.

It's a bait-and-switch. You use the word 'end' to mean 'limit'; and then later you use it to mean 'upper limit', as if these were the same thing.

Infinite time is time without limits. If we consider the past as finishing today, then that only establishes an upper limit; It says nothing about the existence or otherwise of a lower limit, so it is inadequate to settle the question of whether or not the past is finite.

Your logic is not logic, and your case is unproven. All you have done is prove that he past is behind us. We all knew that already.

You haven't changed your argument in a while; but that is more an indication of stubbornness than of any merit in your position. In order for us to recognize the logic in it, first it would need to contain logic.

'Logical fallacy' contains the string 'Logic', but it would be truly foolish to claim that they are the same thing