15 Mar '13 12:26>
In the thread "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" Thread 15183 it was argued (via youtube video) that time cannot be infinite in the past. The argument seems to be based on:
1. A claim that an infinite past requires 'traversing infinity' which is claimed to be impossible. (though no justification is given).
2. A claim that infinities are theoretical and cannot exist in reality (though no justification is given).
3. Analogies using known finite sets which lead to the conclusion that the set is finite (but without justification for why the finite requirement applies or why the analogy is suitable).
I have heard this argument before, but if it was a valid argument, I would expect to see it in scientific presentations, which I haven't.
So, what do other people think of the argument? Does anyone think it is valid, and why? Does anyone agree with me that it is invalid, and why?
And if you think it is a valid argument, would it apply to an infinite future? If you are theist, would it apply to heaven?
1. A claim that an infinite past requires 'traversing infinity' which is claimed to be impossible. (though no justification is given).
2. A claim that infinities are theoretical and cannot exist in reality (though no justification is given).
3. Analogies using known finite sets which lead to the conclusion that the set is finite (but without justification for why the finite requirement applies or why the analogy is suitable).
I have heard this argument before, but if it was a valid argument, I would expect to see it in scientific presentations, which I haven't.
So, what do other people think of the argument? Does anyone think it is valid, and why? Does anyone agree with me that it is invalid, and why?
And if you think it is a valid argument, would it apply to an infinite future? If you are theist, would it apply to heaven?