Originally posted by twhiteheadOnly skimmed a bit of this thread, but it would seem that saying that something has an "infinite past" is equivalent to saying that it has always existed. Knowing this, all this talk about "not being able to reach the present" seems absurd.
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 infi ...[text shortened]... rgument, would it apply to an infinite future? If you are theist, would it apply to heaven?
Am I missing something?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo, I don't think an infinite past is equivalent to 'always existed'. A finite past could also have 'always existed'. A finite past is one in which time itself is finite, not just matter being finite within an infinite timeline.
Only skimmed a bit of this thread, but it would seem that saying that something has an "infinite past" is equivalent to saying that it has always existed. Knowing this, all this talk about "not being able to reach the present" seems absurd.
Am I missing something?
Of course those making the argument, then go right ahead and position a creator before the beginning of time, violating the whole concept, but that sort of contradiction never stopped a theist.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I don't think an infinite past is equivalent to 'always existed'. A finite past could also have 'always existed'. A finite past is one in which time itself is finite, not just matter being finite within an infinite timeline.
No, I don't think an infinite past is equivalent to 'always existed'. A finite past could also have 'always existed'. A finite past is one in which time itself is finite, not just matter being finite within an infinite timeline.
Of course those making the argument, then go right ahead and position a creator before the beginning of time, violating the whole concept, but that sort of contradiction never stopped a theist.
You lost me here. How can something which has a "finite past" have "always existed"? BTW I didn't say that "an infinite past is equivalent to 'always existed'" if that makes a difference to what you're trying to explain.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSomething which has existed from the beginning of time (if there is a beginning)
How can something which has a "finite past" have "always existed"? .
would have always existed for a finite time.
The discussion is "Can the past be infinite" not whether it is or not, but
is there the possibility it may be.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Not sure if you understand what I meant.
Something which has existed from the beginning of time ([b]if there is a beginning)
would have always existed for a finite time.
The discussion is "Can the past be infinite" not whether it is or not, but
is there the possibility it may be.[/b]
What I said was, "saying that something has an 'infinite past' is equivalent to saying that it has always existed." If that something is "time", then "saying that TIME has an 'infinite past' is equivalent to saying that TIME has always existed." What's the problem?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI understand that, thanks. I was just responding to your bit I quoted.
Not sure if you understand what I meant.
What I said was, "saying that something has an 'infinite past' is equivalent to saying that it has always existed." If that something is "time", then "saying that TIME has an 'infinite past' is equivalent to saying that TIME has always existed." What's the problem?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI quoted a complete question from your post without alteration and replied to
Okay, though the bit you quoted is meaningless without the larger context.
Can't say as I understand the point of your earlier response.
it. I suppose as usual your agenda is to disrupt a perfectly good debate so I
wont be wasting any more time reading your posts.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I quoted a complete question from your post without alteration and replied to it.
I quoted a complete question from your post without alteration and replied to
it. I suppose as usual your agenda is to disrupt a perfectly good debate so I
wont be wasting any more time reading your posts.
I know you did. Clearly that wasn't my point.
I suppose as usual your agenda is to disrupt a perfectly good debate so I
wont be wasting any more time reading your posts.
Right. That's my "usual...agenda".
If you believe that you're any more rational than some of the theists that you rank on on this forum, posts like this belie that.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSorry, I misunderstood your question. If time is finite, then anything that has 'always existed' has a finite past. The question of the thread is whether it is possible to have infinite time.
You lost me here. How can something which has a "finite past" have "always existed"? BTW I didn't say that "an infinite past is equivalent to 'always existed'" if that makes a difference to what you're trying to explain.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe question of the thread is whether it is possible to have infinite time.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. If time is finite, then anything that has 'always existed' has a finite past. The question of the thread is whether it is possible to have infinite time.
That I understood. I'll try to reframe my point. If one can imagine something having always existed, then that something must have an "infinite past" . It doesn't matter whether that something is the universe, time, God or whatever. All this talk about "not being able to reach the present" is just nonsense. From what I gather, those spouting that nonsense believe that God has always existed.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo, if time is finite, then something having always existed would only have a finite past.
If one can imagine something having always existed, then that something must have an "infinite past" .
It doesn't matter whether that something is the universe, time, God or whatever. All this talk about "not being able to reach the present" is just nonsense. From what I gather, those spouting that nonsense believe that God has always existed.
They apparently believe that God is separate from time (and time is finite).
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, if time is finite, then something having always existed would only have a finite past.
No, if time is finite, then something having always existed would only have a finite past.
[b]It doesn't matter whether that something is the universe, time, God or whatever. All this talk about "not being able to reach the present" is just nonsense. From what I gather, those spouting that nonsense believe that God has always existed.
They apparently believe that God is separate from time (and time is finite).[/b]
That's a curious conception of "always existed". Seems to make more sense to say that it has not "always existed" if it has a "finite past".
They apparently believe that God is separate from time (and time is finite).
I'm sure you've heard many a coherent explanation of exactly what that entails.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne'Always' in this context, means 'all time prior to now'. There is no requirement for it to be infinite.
That's a curious conception of "always existed". Seems to make more sense to say that it has not "always existed" if it has a "finite past".
I'm sure you've heard many a coherent explanation of exactly what that entails.
Of course not, but most of them recognise that such a concept is difficult to conceptualize, and it is one of the few cases where some theists admit ignorance rather than trying to elaborate and I can't really fault them.
I believe that God being independent of time leads to certain consequences that most theists would be very uncomfortable with including:
1. We are static with respect to him.
2. He is static with respect to us.
3. All interactions with the universe must be 'done at once' from his perspective.