The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

Wrong.

I have rationally concluded that something unlike all we can observe in some way is necessary.

Oh, good, and so maybe this thing is just an infinite past?

Ah, no, wait, you've already decided that an infinite past couldn't exist because it would have been something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Only something that could possibly have existence could possibly exist.

A real completed infinity is not a concept that could even possibly be real.

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!
EB

 

[untermensche]

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

Wrong.

I have rationally concluded that something unlike all we can observe in some way is necessary.

Oh, good, and so maybe this thing is just an infinite past?

Ah, no, wait, you've already decided that an infinite past couldn't exist because it would have been something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

A real completed infinity is not a possibility.

Which means time began.

From what it began from also could not be a real completed infinity.

The idea of trying to apply the concept of infinity to anything real is total absurdity.

It is like claiming the sun craves justice.

- - - Updated - - -

Only something that could possibly have existence could possibly exist.

A real completed infinity is not a concept that could even possibly be real.

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!
EB

I have concluded it.

You are stuck.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Aw, really?

No, it's time for dinner here. Sardines and salade. And then some.

Nothing illogical, though, sorry. I'll leave all things illogical to you.
EB

 

[fast]

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Sex. The universe is horny. It decided that it would find a voyeuristic means of satisfying it's urge, so with immense intense focus, it began to manifest energy with such extreme ferocity that once it reached the pennacle of its climatic apex, it ruptured into what we now call the Big Bang.

The energy blasted outward and began converting into matter as the universe began to cool. Then, over time, particles began to coalesce. Next, a clump of iron became the core of a planet that had found a way to eventually bring about dinosaurs who enjoyed humping--after a long period of primordial confusion about who would eventually rule the best galaxy ever.

Okay, so the universe prefers dinosex. Anyway, that's WHY the universe gravitated towards a world of something instead of a world of nothing.

 

[DBT]

I have. You can't seem to see what is right in front of your nose.

You believe you have. You are wrong. You have not explained why first cause is necessary or what first cause may be, nor how first cause itself got started, or appeared from nothing itself.

You have explained nothing, you merely assert the necessity of first cause without description, argument or reason

Two completely separate topics.

An assertion, I have pointed out the relationship. If infinity is impossible, what is the alternative? What is possible and whatever the alternative may be, first cause, etc, how is it possible?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way. The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So what we can observe comes from something, albeit something unlike what we can observe in some way? Has this something that we cannot observe, yet brought the universe in existence, always existed?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Perfectly minimalist. Just, an urge. Nothing more economical. And, obviously, that's still the rule now. We're still at it.

By the way, the sardines were just excellent.

Thanks. Hope FDI's happy with that.
EB

 

[bilby]

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

True; But to be fair, it's far from his first time. Terrible logic is something of a speciality of unter's.

 

[untermensche]

You believe you have. You are wrong. You have not explained why first cause is necessary or what first cause may be, nor how first cause itself got started, or appeared from nothing itself.

A first cause is necessary if the past is finite.

The past must be considered finite because a real completed infinity is rationally considered impossible until proven possible.

Just like flapping your arms to fly to the moon is considered impossible until proven possible.

All claims are considered impossible until at least they are shown to possibly be possible.

A real completed infinity is not possibly possible.

It is like saying the sun is having a mental breakdown.

You can't apply human psychological problems to reality and you can't apply imaginary mathematical constructions to reality.

There is no "one" in the real world. No square root of negative one. And no infinity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

True; But to be fair, it's far from his first time. Terrible logic is something of a speciality of unter's.

Wait! Not just bad logic. Also, bad English and bad forum manners.

OK, he's not the only one offender around here but he's definitely the worse.

Still, one assumes it's too late for bad English and bad manners, but the guy isn't even willing to address his own contradictions.

My heart bleeds, life must be hell for him. Maybe only a priest could still do something for him.

Oh, wait, no, this U-bot doesn't even have a soul.

I give up.
EB

 

[untermensche]

When they talk about me and not my arguments I know they are pitifully lost.

These believers in real completed infinities.

These fools.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The mogettes were great and the big, fat oignon just crunchy like I like.

And the camembert... Gosh, that shouldn't be allowed.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When they talk about me and not my arguments I know they are pitifully lost.

These believers in real completed infinities.

These fools.

Still no answer to my post. Here's another chance for you:

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.
The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So, how exactly would "something unlike all we can observe in some way" be at all possible if we are to dismiss any possibility of an infinite past on the ground that it's "something unlike all we can observe in some way. Me, I think an infinite past is indeed "something unlike all we can observe in some way".
EB

Just try it. You haven't even tried yet. Just try. So people can laugh.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I am laughing at you and all defenders of magic real completed infinities.

That which is necessary must be possible.

A real completed infinity is not necessary.

Since it is possible the time on the past was finite. The passage of any finite amount of time is possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am laughing at you and all defenders of magic real completed infinities.

That which is necessary must be possible.

A real completed infinity is not necessary.

Since it is possible the time on the past was finite. The passage of any finite amount of time is possible.

You still haven't addressed my point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm planning on a salad tonight, again, with shallot and colza oil. And some stuff. Pork pâté? Hmm.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I have addresses your point several times.

Your claim I have not is as worthless as claims that real completed infinities are possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have addresses your point several times.

No, you haven't. Not once. Not even close. Not even like you seemed like trying.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I have addresses your point several times.

No, you haven't. Not once. Not even close. Not even like you seemed like trying.
EB

I have. Move on.

You have no point.

Since we can rationally conclude time began then it had to have begun from something.

And that something must be unlike all we can observe in some way because time would not exist there but the conditions to create time would.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have addresses your point several times.

No, you haven't. Not once. Not even close. Not even like you seemed like trying.
EB

I have. Move on.

You have no point.

Since we can rationally conclude time began then it had to have begun from something.

And that something must be unlike all we can observe in some way because time would not exist there but the conditions to create time would.

I have shown there's a contradiction in your position. There's no moving on until you address this.
EB