Infinite past... with a beginning?

Sarkus said:
Then you're not talking about time, and the notion of "infinite past" becomes meaningless. But if you really are here simply to try to redefine "is" to suit your needs, then I'll happily leave that to you and yourself.
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" -- Bill Clinton.
"Universe" is really nothing more than a placeholder for the thing being referenced that is said to have a beginning. Call it whatever you want.
Then you're talking about the multiverse, and as such that is what is deemed to have a beginning. The term "universe" that I offered is simply a placeholder for whatever it is you think has a beginning.
The passage of time is implied through the notion of "past". For something to be past it has to have happened (passage of time). To talk of "past" without that inherent implication is meaningless. So either you accept the passage of time, or you can't talk of an infinite past.
No, it is contradictory to what is implied about time within the word "past". Past implies the passage of time.
And this rebuts the analysis... how, exactly?
And this rebuts the analysis... how, exactly?
No. To talk of the past implies the passage of time. This, per the analysis provided, leads to the conclusion of the logical impossibility of an infinite past with a beginning.

Or are we really going to have to define what "is" means?
Click to expand...
You don't know time beyond your subjective experience of time. Our concept of objective time is what we believe time is. Believe.
EB
 
James R said:
Okay. I'll bite.

1. Assume there is an infinite past.
2. An infinite past means that for every instant in time there is an earlier instant.
3. Assume there is a beginning that happened at a particular instant in time.
4. A beginning is an instant in time prior to which there are no instants in time.
5. By (2), there must be an instant in time earlier than the time of the beginning.
6. However, (5) contradicts (4).
7. Therefore, if all of the above is valid, then there can be no infinite past with a beginning, since the notion that both things can exist simultaneously leads to contradiction - a logical impossibility.

I think that's a "proper" argument.[ /quote]

Indeed
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Speakpigeon said:
You don't know time beyond your subjective experience of time. Our concept of objective time is what we believe time is. Believe.
Click to expand...
So that's all you have to offer? No description of such a notion of objective time, and how this might lead to an infinite past having a beginning? No? Nothing?
 
I only talked about the "logical possibility" of an infinite past with a beginning.
I provided several examples.
All apply to "objective time".
EB
 
There is a difference between, "forever" and, "for all eternity." This has been displayed in the film, "The Mummy." "Forever", is without a beginning, "for all eternity" continues from the present into the future without end. Time is, "for all eternity." It has a beginning, but no end. :)
 
TheFrogger said:
There is a difference between, "forever" and, "for all eternity." This has been displayed in the film, "The Mummy." "Forever", is without a beginning,
Click to expand...
I will love you forever. Beginning.
TheFrogger said:
"for all eternity" continues from the present into the future without end.
Click to expand...
Sure, so does "eternity" on its own.
TheFrogger said:
Time is, "for all eternity." It has a beginning, but no end. :)
Click to expand...
So, what's the problem if there's a beginning to eternity?
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
I only talked about the "logical possibility" of an infinite past with a beginning.
I provided several examples.
All apply to "objective time".
Click to expand...
You've provided nothing but your claim to be able to imagine it, and your description of an infinite past with a beginning as being an infinite past that had a beginning. No examples. Nothing. Just hot air.
Beyond that you've simply resorted to arguing semantics in an effort to paper over the gaping hole of logic in your claim.
Speakpigeon said:
So, what's the problem if there's a beginning to eternity?
Click to expand...
Eternity has no endpoint. An infinite past with a beginning, however, has two end points: "now" at one end and "the beginning" at the other. A series with closed ends is finite, not infinite. Thus any past with a beginning is finite.
 
kx000 said:
Theologically, what I know is that love is quantifiable greatest thing in the universe in at least two ways.
Click to expand...
  1. You can not "know" anything theologically. You can only believe it.
  2. Love can only be expressed by actions - words can be empty - and actions may or may not be quantifiable. For example, do you love your child "more" if you send him to Harvard instead of community college?
  3. Love may or may not be "the greatest thing" in human society and/or in other animal societies. It is not the greatest thing everywhere in the universe, on the surface of the sun, for example.
  4. Love has nothing to do with God, if that's what you're implying by "at least two ways."
 
sideshowbob said:
  1. You can not "know" anything theologically. You can only believe it.
  2. Love can only be expressed by actions - words can be empty - and actions may or may not be quantifiable. For example, do you love your child "more" if you send him to Harvard instead of community college?
  3. Love may or may not be "the greatest thing" in human society and/or in other animal societies. It is not the greatest thing everywhere in the universe, on the surface of the sun, for example.
  4. Love has nothing to do with God, if that's what you're implying by "at least two ways."
Click to expand...

To many LOVE is the most important thing known to man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top