VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 10, 04:27:26pmLogin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345[6]78910 ]
Subject: I hope so.


Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 01/12/04 10:14am
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Making things simple" on 01/10/04 3:40pm

>Neither premise is particularly wrong in an imaginary
>world where one can define the terms however they wish.

Granted, the scenario is hypothetical, but its conclusion logically follows from the premises and if so it implies an infinite past cannot exist in the real, non-imaginary world. (I can provide a formal proof of this if you wish.)


>The points I brought up address the way you have
>framed the question. I don't agree with your notions
>of what infinity is, and I certainly don't agree that
>if the past is infinite that there can neccessarily be
>a present. There cannot be. Every event has the
>quality of being past, present and future. It simply
>depends on what your reference is as to where the
>event falls. Restricting something to having an
>"infinite past" relegates it to only having the past.
>It cannot have a future, it cannot have a present, it
>has a non-terminating past, and as such, it can never
>build up to a present, just more and more past. A
>preschooler could grasp this point.

I advise you to test your theory by explaining this to a preschooler.

It isn’t clear that your reasoning logically follows, in fact it isn’t even clear what your premises are that have led to your conclusion (and what are those premises exactly?). Why can’t there be both an infinite past and a never-ending future as well? (Picture a point with one arrow stretching to the left towards infinity, and the point having an arrow to the right stretching to infinity.) Such a thing at least would appear logically possible. If the physical universe were now infinite old somehow (thus having an infinite past) it still stands to reason that there is a present, by direct observation. Similarly, there appears to be a future as well.

One criticism against an infinite past is that there would have to have been an infinite series of events, which would have taken an infinite amount of time to complete, and thus we should never have gotten to our current point in time. This seems to be similar to what you are saying. Is it?


>The mistake you seem to be making is treating time as
>if it were a real entity and not something that humans
>use as intellectual shorthand. If time itself is
>infinite, (past, present, future) we live such a short
>space of it that it is no surprise that we have a
>linear conception of it. No amount of logical
>manipulation and bullshitting will change that point.

Cursing aside, how is this relevant? Even if time is in some sort of infinitely traversing loop the past would still be infinite (it would just be a past of a different flavor).

>As a final note, I find it interesting that you, Wade,
>have managed to construct logical proofs proving the
>existence of God and now neatly resolved whether or
>not the past is infinite which incidentally and not
>surprisingly seems to support your personal beliefs.

For the record, I do not believe I have found any logical proofs proving the existence of God (evidence, but not rigorous proofs). I’m glad you find it interesting, but I just try to accept beliefs that are rational as it pertains to philosophy of religion. If an infinite past is terribly rational than I am reasonable to reject it. If you find anything wrong with the argument (its premises) then by all means point it out and I will reject it as unsound. That’s part of the reason I’m taking it to the message boards: to see if there’s anything wrong with it. I have failed find a way to refute it satisfactorily, do you concede you have nothing as well?


>It's amazing how you pick and choose the logical
>proofs that happen to coinicide with what you think,
>while ignoring the criticisms in philosophy that go
>counter to your position (or proofs for that matter).

When have I ever ignored criticisms in philosophy that go counter to my position, proofs or otherwise? If you think I haven’t addressed one such philosophical issue, by all means start another thread and let’s discuss it there.

>I'm sure I can expect some victim mentality response
>from you or that I've somehow "misunderstood" you. So,
>for this thread, I'm going to let it be generally
>known that this is the pattern you've continually run
>on this board, and let that serve as testimony to my
>successive silence hereafter concerning my
>participation in this thread.

IRRC you actually have attacked distorted versions of my actual views. It was perfectly legitimate for me to point that out in such cases. I have noticed that when people hold to a view very fervently they can, it some cases, get a distorted view of the opponent (e.g. the infamous straw man fallacy); and not surprisingly the distorted version is easier to attack than the real thing (e.g. the creation-evolution dispute, see Del Ratzsch's The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
One ammendmentDamoclese01/12/04 9:27pm


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.