From what angle did it have to start? I think this is your preconception.

An infinite past points to a universe that has always been here, in some form. It's weird to imagine, I know. But as I said, time is our invention. It's how we see things. From an "outside perspective", if there is such a thing, an infinite past may make perfect sense.

Or time could be circular, even. Who knows? Science hits a walk at the plank time. Beyond that, we're guessing. What's the point in guessing? Everyday logic does not work when you hit a barrier where all our normal rules are going completely mental.

From the angle, that since every point of time had to come and was not always there, and the whole of it consists of something that wasn't always there, it had to come to being. From the angle, that if we go back infinitely, it obviously didn't have a start. Therefore all this is showing it's a paradox to say an infinite past began to exist. Yet we know since every point of that time began to exist, this is what we would be saying.

Well, I still don't know what a point in time beginning to exist is meant to mean. It follows on from the previous point in time, quite possibly discretely if I understand the science. So whatever point you pick, it will follow on from the previous one, and so on. Where is the paradox? You are assuming it cannot have always been going, that someone must set it in motion. You are simply assuming the past is not infinite by doing this.

The problem of infinite regress is more of a problem for you, because whatever "creator" or whatever you want to call it you try to prove, has to have come from somewhere by your own argument. It can't have always been there, by your argument. Anything else is special pleading.

An infinite regress of time holds no such problem.

I'm not assuming, I am showing you it's a paradox. It's saying "infinite past all began to exist" which makes no sense.

I agree that makes no sense, but I don't think that's an accurate representation. Time doesn't begin to exist, it's abstract. It's our tool.

We started measuring what we call time at a certain point. How can you claim to know how time worked before the plank time when all of science doesn't? How can you possibly know it doesn't continue back infinitely far, or go in a circle? You're just describing it in a weird way, which then doesn't make sense to you, or to me.

I don't agree with how you describe it. But maybe we've hit a wall here. Either way, your model cannot work without special pleading. If your creator can have always been there, then the universe can have always been there. You're simply moving the question back one layer, and then demanding your creator not be subject to the same problems.

EDIT: I think I've identified how this "creator" does not solve the apparent paradox, which I don't agree is there anyway, but instead just adds one more layer to be explained.

Can anyone else help us break this barrier of understanding regarding an infinite past and MK's way of describing time? I just don't get what he means.

God doesn't consist of points that all came to be, so the problem doesn't apply to him, and in reality, an eternal being that was always there without flowing from one point to another, is the only solution to this paradox.

(July 22, 2015 at 7:16 am)robvalue Wrote: I agree that makes no sense, but I don't think that's an accurate representation. Time doesn't begin to exist, it's abstract. It's our tool.

We started measuring what we call time at a certain point. How can you claim to know how time worked before the plank time when all of science doesn't? How can you possibly know it doesn't continue back infinitely far, or go in a circle? You're just describing it in a weird way, which then doesn't make sense to you, or to me.

I don't agree with how you describe it. But maybe we've hit a wall here. Either way, your model cannot work without special pleading. If your creator can have always been there, then the universe can have always been there. You're simply moving the question back one layer, and then demanding your creator not be subject to the same problems.

EDIT: I think I've identified how this "creator" does not solve the apparent paradox, which I don't agree is there anyway, but instead just adds one more layer to be explained.

Can anyone else help us break this barrier of understanding regarding an infinite past and MK's way of describing time? I just don't get what he means.

Is all time equal?

Uhm... I don't know what that means

I know time is relative. Also, whatever it is that we are abstractly modelling with time is probably more complex than we are aware of.

MK: This is the special pleading I was talking of. You're inventing a solution to the problem by just defining it to apparently solve the problem. That's not an indication that such a thing is in any way possible.

Here is the question:

Is there anything that can have always existed?

Yes: How do you know the universe is not one of those things?

No: Infinite regress of creators.

The difficulty in imagining an infinite past is not a reason for it to be untrue. I don't see any paradox, you just keep describing it as if it's also finite, and so can't be infinite. Of course it can't, if you impose that restriction. But there is no need to, that is the whole point. "The universe has always existed." How is that paradoxical? I'm not saying it's true, but it's internally consistent. You seem stuck on the idea that it "must have had a start point" or "must have been set going". I don't see why these are necessary. You seem to be implying that the very nature of infinity is paradoxical, because it doesn't fit with how you would imagine it.

How is "the universe always existing" a paradox, but a "being always existing" not a paradox? Just because you say it isn't, because he's really special, basically. I'm not being petty, but that's what is going on here. You are claiming that an infinite past is a paradox. Your creator has an infinite past, so this is also a paradox, by your own argument. You're then simply stating that the paradox doesn't apply to him because of [strange reasons]. That is special pleading. If not even time applies to him, he can't act. Acting is temporal. His state would remain the same. If you're just going to say "he's special and doesn't need time" then again, it's just inventing properties to try and deal with your own proclaimed paradox; one I don't agree even exists.

God doesn't consist of all points that came to be? I have no idea what this is even meant to mean I'm afraid. Neither does the universe, if there is something outside of it.

PS: This is why philosophical arguments are not enough to establish the existence of something. You need some evidence, at some point. Otherwise you can never be sure that you're not trying to define things into existence that cannot possibly exist.

Time consists of moments. All these moments came to be.

God doesn't consist of moments. He just was always there.

That is called special pleading. "Just always there" isn't a valid explanation. I can say the universe was "just always there". You haven't got any information at all about whatever creator this is, so to talk about the infinite nature of his past is rather presumptuous. You are simply assuming there must be something behind it all, and defining it in any way you like to try and make it fit. It doesn't mean it's even possible such a thing exists.

I think I'll bring this to a close as we don't seem to be able to reach any agreement here. If you have anything new MK then feel free to bring it along. Or if anyone wants to chime on whether or not this is special pleading, feel free. Otherwise I'll leave it for the readers to decide.

Anyone else want to have a try? Don't be shy. Stroll right up and test your logic.