The religion of "no beginning".

[untermensche]

It's not a question of first cause being necessary. My question to you was, do you believe that there was a first cause? You reject eternity of time.....so what is your alternative? First cause or something else?

It is all about being necessary. If something is necessary to dismiss it is irrational.

I am asking you. For the tenth time.

Is it possible the past was infinite?

If it was not then of course it had a beginning.

So was the past infinite or not? Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

That is the question this thread is looking at.

Why are you here and not addressing the OP in any way?

What I know is that it is impossible the past was infinite.

This has nothing to do with beliefs.

Except those with the religious belief in "no beginning".

You haven't answered my question, instead of answering my question you deflect your clear unwillingness to give an answer by claiming that I have not answered your question, which I think I have already said long ago...that I see no reason why 'no beginning' should be dismissed as a possibility. Whether time is actually eternal or not is not known. How the Universe came about, or if it did (cyclic) is not known.

Now can you answer my question or not? A simple yes or no will do.

Again, do you believe that there was a first cause? You reject eternity of time.....so what is your alternative? First cause or something else?

You can't come into this thread and not address the questions inherent to it and attempt to derail it to something I will gladly discuss after you address the OP.

 

[untermensche]

It's impossible that it wasn't, unless you're equivocating or redefining "the past". Are you?

So you're saying you can traverse an infinite line.

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

 

[DBT]

You haven't answered my question, instead of answering my question you deflect your clear unwillingness to give an answer by claiming that I have not answered your question, which I think I have already said long ago...that I see no reason why 'no beginning' should be dismissed as a possibility. Whether time is actually eternal or not is not known. How the Universe came about, or if it did (cyclic) is not known.

Now can you answer my question or not? A simple yes or no will do.

Again, do you believe that there was a first cause? You reject eternity of time.....so what is your alternative? First cause or something else?

You can't come into this thread and not address the questions inherent to it and attempt to derail it to something I will gladly discuss after you address the OP.

So you can't or won't answer a question that is directly related to the OP subject. Fine. That much is quite clear.

 

[untermensche]

You haven't answered my question, instead of answering my question you deflect your clear unwillingness to give an answer by claiming that I have not answered your question, which I think I have already said long ago...that I see no reason why 'no beginning' should be dismissed as a possibility. Whether time is actually eternal or not is not known. How the Universe came about, or if it did (cyclic) is not known.

Now can you answer my question or not? A simple yes or no will do.

Again, do you believe that there was a first cause? You reject eternity of time.....so what is your alternative? First cause or something else?

You can't come into this thread and not address the questions inherent to it and attempt to derail it to something I will gladly discuss after you address the OP.

So you can't or won't answer a question that is directly related to the OP subject. Fine. That much is quite clear.

What is clear is you enter a thread designed to specifically avoid the stupidity you are trying to pull and you try to pull it anyway.

This thread is about one thing.

Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

Do you have an opinion or not?

Your distraction is getting tiring.

 

[Kharakov]

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Ok, so a line that cannot be crossed is your model of an incorrect interpretation of the infinite past? I hate to beg the question, well, I don't actually.

Your position can be summarized as that which was wasn't. I want a shirt that says "That which was, wasn't" by untermensche. It can have a goofy Mr. Yuk above crossed boners over a puking, hot stripper with tits ripping through her ragged shirt.

 

[DBT]

So you can't or won't answer a question that is directly related to the OP subject. Fine. That much is quite clear.

What is clear is you enter a thread designed to specifically avoid the stupidity you are trying to pull and you try to pull it anyway.

This thread is about one thing.

Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

Do you have an opinion or not?

Your distraction is getting tiring.

Instead of answering a question that is clearly related to OP, you choose to run through the briers and the brambles of absurdity, oblivious to the damage that the course you have taken is inflicting upon you.

 

[untermensche]

So you can't or won't answer a question that is directly related to the OP subject. Fine. That much is quite clear.

What is clear is you enter a thread designed to specifically avoid the stupidity you are trying to pull and you try to pull it anyway.

This thread is about one thing.

Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

Do you have an opinion or not?

Your distraction is getting tiring.

Instead of answering a question that is clearly related to OP, you choose to run through the briers and the brambles of absurdity, oblivious to the damage that the course you have taken is inflicting upon you.

Is a first cause necessary?

Can you traverse an infinite line?

How long will you evade this?

- - - Updated - - -

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Ok, so a line that cannot be crossed is your model of an incorrect interpretation of the infinite past? I hate to beg the question, well, I don't actually.

Your position can be summarized as that which was wasn't. I want a shirt that says "That which was, wasn't" by untermensche. It can have a goofy Mr. Yuk above crossed boners over a puking, hot stripper with tits ripping through her ragged shirt.

Traverse can mean to cross but I use it to mean move from the beginning to the end and you know that.

Who is being deliberately ignorant?

 

[DBT]

Instead of answering a question that is clearly related to OP, you choose to run through the briers and the brambles of absurdity, oblivious to the damage that the course you have taken is inflicting upon you.

Is a first cause necessary?

Can you traverse an infinite line?

How long will you evade this?

It is not a matter of necessity, as I have already pointed when I described my position on this issue (which was ignored)

My question to you was and still is; do you believe that there was a first cause? You reject eternity of time.....so what is your alternative? First cause or something else?

 

[untermensche]

Instead of answering a question that is clearly related to OP, you choose to run through the briers and the brambles of absurdity, oblivious to the damage that the course you have taken is inflicting upon you.

Is a first cause necessary?

Can you traverse an infinite line?

How long will you evade this?

It is not a matter of necessity...

Yes it is.

Do you believe a first cause is necessary?

If not prove one is not necessary.

I am not talking about beliefs. I am talking about what I know.

And I know it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

I know the past could not have been infinite.

If you think it is possible to traverse an infinite line prove it.

 

[Kharakov]

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Ok, so a line that cannot be crossed is your model of an incorrect interpretation of the infinite past? I hate to beg the question, well, I don't actually.

Your position can be summarized as that which was wasn't. I want a shirt that says "That which was, wasn't" by untermensche. It can have a goofy Mr. Yuk above crossed boners over a puking, hot stripper with tits ripping through her ragged shirt.

Traverse can mean to cross but I use it to mean move from the beginning to the end and you know that.

Who is being deliberately ignorant?

Apparently neither of us, but I could see how it would look like that to an outsider. Would you agree that you're an idiot?

 

[untermensche]

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Ok, so a line that cannot be crossed is your model of an incorrect interpretation of the infinite past? I hate to beg the question, well, I don't actually.

Your position can be summarized as that which was wasn't. I want a shirt that says "That which was, wasn't" by untermensche. It can have a goofy Mr. Yuk above crossed boners over a puking, hot stripper with tits ripping through her ragged shirt.

Traverse can mean to cross but I use it to mean move from the beginning to the end and you know that.

Who is being deliberately ignorant?

Apparently neither of us, but I could see how it would look like that to an outsider. Would you agree that you're an idiot?

If you define "idiot" as somebody who understands things you don't.

Like you can't traverse an infinite line.

All the time in the past has been traversed.

It could not have been infinite.

 

[bilby]

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Using your definition of 'traverse', it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

But before you get your hopes up:

1) This would only model reality if there were an eternal being that had to be present throughout the infinite past. Objects with finite lifespans or periods of existence have no problem existing for finite parts of an infinite timeline.

So, no, you cannot 'traverse an infinite line, but that doesn't (as you appear to believe) render an infinite past in any way impossible, nor illogical. It's not necessary for the past to have a beginning in order that anything else might have one; you can define an entity as beginning at noon on the first of January 1952, without needing to refer in any way to time before that point; you certainly don't need to know how much time existed before 1952, nor whether that time is finite or infinite.

Nothing needs to 'traverse' time in order for that time to have existed.

2) By your definition, it is also impossible to traverse a circle. If your logic can be used to disprove the existence of circles, it's probably not very good logic.

Perhaps you should learn how to use logic before making an idiot of yourself by trying and failing so spectacularly. People would laugh at you a lot less if you did.

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, so a line that cannot be crossed is your model of an incorrect interpretation of the infinite past? I hate to beg the question, well, I don't actually.

Your position can be summarized as that which was wasn't. I want a shirt that says "That which was, wasn't" by untermensche. It can have a goofy Mr. Yuk above crossed boners over a puking, hot stripper with tits ripping through her ragged shirt.

Traverse can mean to cross but I use it to mean move from the beginning to the end and you know that.

Who is being deliberately ignorant?

Apparently neither of us, but I could see how it would look like that to an outsider. Would you agree that you're an idiot?

If you define "idiot" as somebody who understands things you don't.

I don't understand painters on ladders.

Like you can't traverse an infinite line.

By your definition, sure. However, reality never ensued, it always was. It's a timeless classic.

 

[untermensche]

I can cross any line. In fact, it's the only thing I get better at as I drink.

You've never seen a line.

A line is imaginary.

To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end.

You don't seem to comprehend I am using a line as a model.

Using your definition of 'traverse', it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

It is not my definition. It is a definition. Traverse: to travel across or through

I am talking about the idea of completely traversing. To completely travel across the length of an infinite line.

And none of it is just my idea.

It is an idea that anybody should be able to understand.

1) This would only model reality if there were an eternal being that had to be present throughout the infinite past. Objects with finite lifespans or periods of existence have no problem existing for finite parts of an infinite timeline.

It models an infinite past. Nothing else. A past with "no beginning".

No imaginary beings needed in any way.

This "criticism" is absurd.

So, no, you cannot 'traverse an infinite line, but that doesn't (as you appear to believe) render an infinite past in any way impossible, nor illogical.

You are half right.

You cannot traverse an infinite line. No infinity can be traversed.

The past has been completely traversed at every given moment.

It could not have been infinite.

2) By your definition, it is also impossible to traverse a circle.

By a definition, not my definition, you cannot traverse a circle infinite times.

You can keep traversing forever but you will never complete an infinity.

 

[untermensche]

By your definition, sure. However, reality never ensued, it always was. It's a timeless classic.

Not my definition.

It is a definition. To move across.

And I am talking about completely moving across the length of an infinite line.

Something that cannot be done.

 

[bilby]

Using your definition of 'traverse', it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

It is not my definition. It is a definition. Traverse: to travel across or through

I am talking about the idea of completely traversing. To completely travel across the length of an infinite line.

And none of it is just my idea.

It is an idea that anybody should be able to understand.

I understand all of that. I am merely pointing out that I am sticking with the EXACT SAME definition you are using - "To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end". This is necessary, because some people love to equivocate, which is a logical fallacy.

1) This would only model reality if there were an eternal being that had to be present throughout the infinite past. Objects with finite lifespans or periods of existence have no problem existing for finite parts of an infinite timeline.

It models an infinite past. Nothing else. A past with "no beginning".

No imaginary beings needed in any way.

This "criticism" is absurd.

Well, I understand that you think so; But as you have stated no grounds for this thought, I can only assume, pro tem that it is an emotional, and not a reasoned response; As such, I shall ignore it until some supporting reason is presented.

So, no, you cannot 'traverse an infinite line, but that doesn't (as you appear to believe) render an infinite past in any way impossible, nor illogical.

You are half right.

You cannot traverse an infinite line. No infinity can be traversed.

The past has been completely traversed at every given moment.

By WHAT has the past been completely traversed at every given moment? You just said "No imaginary beings needed in any way." Are you going back on that claim? Because if not, what is it that is doing (or has done) this traversing?

It could not have been infinite.

Why not? Again, you have stated no grounds for this thought, other than to contradict your own earlier claim. If this is what you believe constitutes logic or reason, then you are wasting everyone's time until you learn how those things are done.

2) By your definition, it is also impossible to traverse a circle.

By a definition, not my definition, you cannot traverse a circle infinite times.

You can keep traversing forever but you will never complete an infinity.

No, your definition was very explicit:

"To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end".

A circle has neither start nor end; By your definition, it cannot be traversed. Now you are engaged in that equivocation fallacy I was concerned about. It's a good thing I was explicit about the fact that I am using YOUR definition, and no other - or you might have gotten away with it!

If you cannot be precise and consistent, then you cannot be shocked when people laugh at your absurd claim to be engaged in logic or reason - clearly you have not the slightest inkling of what such things entail.

 

[untermensche]

I understand all of that. I am merely pointing out that I am sticking with the EXACT SAME definition you are using - "To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end". This is necessary, because some people love to equivocate, which is a logical fallacy.

Thank you for imagining moving across the length of an infinite line.

Now can you completely traverse that infinite line?

The past at every moment has been completely traversed.

Well, I understand that you think so; But as you have stated no grounds for this thought, I can only assume, pro tem that it is an emotional, and not a reasoned response; As such, I shall ignore it until some supporting reason is presented.

You pull some imaginary being out of your ass and somehow it is my problem?

Where did this imaginary being come from?

Why is it necessary to imagine traversing an infinite line?

The past has been completely traversed at every given moment.

By WHAT has the past been completely traversed at every given moment? You just said "No imaginary beings needed in any way." Are you going back on that claim? Because if not, what is it that is doing (or has done) this traversing?

No need for anything to traverse it to understand that all the time in the past is gone at every given moment.

If there is time there is the ability of something to traverse it. The past can be thought of as having been completely traversed. Unless you think there is some part of the past that has not been expressed at any moment in the present.

This is a thought experiment, not an observation. It takes the ability to think.

No, your definition was very explicit:

"To traverse it means to move along it from it's starting point until it's end".

Everything must be spoon fed to you.

A circle can be given an arbitrary starting point and it does not matter which. But a circle is one line, not infinite.

 

[DBT]

It is not a matter of necessity...

Yes it is.

Do you believe a first cause is necessary?

If not prove one is not necessary.

I am not talking about beliefs. I am talking about what I know.

And I know it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

I know the past could not have been infinite.

If you think it is possible to traverse an infinite line prove it.

I'm asking you to give an account of your position. You reject infinity or eternity....so what is your alternative?

If not Infinity/Eternity.......what?

 

[untermensche]

It is not a matter of necessity...

Yes it is.

Do you believe a first cause is necessary?

If not prove one is not necessary.

I am not talking about beliefs. I am talking about what I know.

And I know it is impossible to traverse an infinite line.

I know the past could not have been infinite.

If you think it is possible to traverse an infinite line prove it.

I'm asking you to give an account of your position. You reject infinity or eternity....so what is your alternative?

If not Infinity/Eternity.......what?

That is not a rational question.

The past must be finite.

You cannot traverse an infinite line.

Infinity is not an option.

Who told you it was?

 

[DBT]

I'm asking you to give an account of your position. You reject infinity or eternity....so what is your alternative?

If not Infinity/Eternity.......what?

That is not a rational question.

The past must be finite.

You cannot traverse an infinite line.

Infinity is not an option.

Who told you it was?

It's not a question of ''who told me'' The issue being my question to you. You say the 'past must be finite' using a flawed example, yet cannot offer an explanation for how time began.....a first cause? Spontaneous generation out of nothing? Magic?.....what? Apart from asserting that the past must be finite, what is the alternative?