Here I was, thinking we had actually gotten somewhere yesterday, but apparently not.
Here I was, thinking we had actually gotten somewhere yesterday, but apparently not.
Every one of your objections was answered.
I think your last claim was that the same amount of time as time without end somehow was not time without end.
Just the last in a string of absurd objections.
The argument is only two lines and some do understand it.
(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Every one of your objections was answered.
I think your last claim was that the same amount of time as time without end somehow was not time without end.
Just the last in a string of absurd objections.
The argument is only two lines and some do understand it.
(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Some do understand it? Who thinks that's an actual, complete argument? I want references - maybe they can explain it better than you can.
Some do understand it? Who thinks that's an actual, complete argument? I want references - maybe they can explain it better than you can.
It is a definition and then the consequences of that definition.
It is a definition and then the consequences of that definition.
Who thinks that's an actual, complete argument?
Who thinks that's an actual, complete argument?
It is two things.
Either you can give a rational objection to the definition.
Or a rational objection to the consequence of the definition.
You can't call time out.
It is two things.
Either you can give a rational objection to the definition.
Or a rational objection to the consequence of the definition.
You can't call time out.
You said people understand your argument. Who?
You said people understand your argument. Who?
People that can read and think.
It is simply a definition: (1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
And then the obvious consequences: (2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Anybody can pretend they don't understand a simple thing.
It is the last refuge of some.
People that can read and think.
It is simply a definition: (1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
And then the obvious consequences: (2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Anybody can pretend they don't understand a simple thing.
It is the last refuge of some.
So no one you can name. You haven't been able to convince ANYONE of such a simple thing? Not one person?
What seems more likely; that everyone here is pretending not to understand your argument or that your argument just doesn't make sense?
So no one you can name. You haven't been able to convince ANYONE of such a simple thing? Not one person?
What seems more likely; that everyone here is pretending not to understand your argument or that your argument just doesn't make sense?
I guess it doesn't include you.
You are simply refusing to engage.
You have something before you but you will not address it.
That is also the last refuge of an argument going south.
I guess it doesn't include you.
You are simply refusing to engage.
You have something before you but you will not address it.
That is also the last refuge of an argument going south.
Or you could just hide behind insults and prevarication instead of doing a little introspection.
I suppose there's still another possibility: there might be an actual argument there but you're just shit at explaining it.
Or you could just hide behind insults and prevarication instead of doing a little introspection.
I suppose there's still another possibility: there might be an actual argument there but you're just shit at explaining it.
I am not the one refusing to engage.
I provided a sound argument. An incredibly simple argument.
I cannot make anybody address it.
But your behavior is transparent.
I am not the one refusing to engage.
I provided a sound argument. An incredibly simple argument.
I cannot make anybody address it.
But your behavior is transparent.
There are 1500+ posts (just in this thread alone) addressing it. Yet, you've managed to convince exactly no one. Not really impressive for a sound, incredibly simple argument.
There are 1500+ posts (just in this thread alone) addressing it. Yet, you've managed to convince exactly no one. Not really impressive for a sound, incredibly simple argument.
I cannot force anybody to think rationally.
You're talking about 3 people who somehow are lost. Nothing significant.
I have not run from an argument or refused to engage.
(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
The idea of infinite time in the past is absurd.
To believe it is to believe something impossible and irrational.
Have a nice life.
Through? What is going through what?Unless there are time loops that sprout an infinite amount of the same branch over and over again, that exist as part of the fundamental structure of reality.
Infinite trips through a "branch" of time is still time that never ends.
...Don't mistake people giving up on correcting you with them not disagreeing with you anymore. A few of us are just gluttons for punishment.
* If I left you out and you want to be included, or I added you and you don't disagree with untermensche, feel free to speak up.
Through? What is going through what?Infinite trips through a "branch" of time is still time that never ends.
I am still trying to get an answer to a simple question. Is time from your argument's position something that exists in the future and the past (block universe), or does it exist in the past but "grow" to facilitate our changing present with future nonexistent (growing block universe)?
Or are you talking about something else altogether?
...Don't mistake people giving up on correcting you with them not disagreeing with you anymore. A few of us are just gluttons for punishment.
* If I left you out and you want to be included, or I added you and you don't disagree with untermensche, feel free to speak up.
This is a thread that has covered many topics.
This talk of infinite time is just a rehash of losing arguments people tried to make a while back
The same bad arguments pop up even after being refuted years ago.
The same nonsense about time with no beginning somehow being a different amount of time than time with no end.
(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Who told you this was difficult?
This is a thread that has covered many topics.
This talk of infinite time is just a rehash of losing arguments people tried to make a while back
The same bad arguments pop up even after being refuted years ago.
The same nonsense about time with no beginning somehow being a different amount of time than time with no end.
(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.
Who told you this was difficult?
So your counter is that all those people think you are wrong about different things, instead of all of them thinking you are wrong about the same thing?
I just want to get this straight.
Through? What is going through what?
I am still trying to get an answer to a simple question. Is time from your argument's position something that exists in the future and the past (block universe), or does it exist in the past but "grow" to facilitate our changing present with future nonexistent (growing block universe)?
Or are you talking about something else altogether?
Moving through time is a common phrase.
My argument does not depend on the definition of time.
It works for both a static and dynamic system.
All that is required is people define "infinite time" and stick with it.
You can't say infinite time is time with no end one minute and then say it isn't the next.
