Most of you have heard the argument from the theist side that an infinite series of past events cannot be possible because to be infinite in the negative direction would be to not have a beginning at all, no starting point from which you can then trace a line from that point to the present. Yet, here we are experiencing the present. So, according to the theist, there seems to be some logical contradiction going on here.

Eternalism (typically associated with the B-theory of time) has an answer to this, which is that time is not how we intuit it to be. Given eternalism, there is no series of past events occurring in a "time-flowing" manner. Rather, all "past events" still presently exist along with present (and with "future") events. So, it seems to me, that no purportedly impossible tracing of the line from "no beginning" to the present has to occur.

But I was wondering how a presentist atheist would answer to this problem. Assuming time actually does flow, with future eventually becoming present, and present flowing into the past, how do you logically trace a line (as a hypothetical eternal being) from "no beginning" to the present point?

By line, I mean in the loose casual sense of the word, not the strictly mathematical definition of it.

I've never been terribly fussed over this 'infinite regress of events' thingy.  I consider it to be a non-problem brought up by theists to create a non-solution.  It is only a problem for atheists who insist that the universe is infinitely old. The theist counter is that the universe must have had a beginning, and that beginning must have had a cause and that cause must have been God blah blah blah.

Since it is pretty clear that the universe doesn't regress infinitely into the past, why should time?

Boru

(December 10, 2017 at 6:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've never been terribly fussed over this 'infinite regress of events' thingy.  I consider it to be a non-problem brought up by theists to create a non-solution.  It is only a problem for atheists who insist that the universe is infinitely old. The theist counter is that the universe must have had a beginning, and that beginning must have had a cause and that cause must have been God blah blah blah.

Since it is pretty clear that the universe doesn't regress infinitely into the past, why should time?

Boru

Because then you'd have to deal with logical problems associated with timeless entities, including timeless causation.

Also, I don't think even the Big Bang theory states that the universe had a beginning. Rather, what began with the Big Bang was the expansion of the universe, not its existence.

I refer you to this link from Sean Carroll's website:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...rse-start/

Quote:There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. When they choose to be more careful, these cosmologists might say “Of course we don’t know for sure, but…” Which is true, but it’s stronger than that: the truth is, we have no good reasons to believe that those statements are actually true, and some pretty good reasons to doubt them.

And as I said in my OP, eternalism avoids the problem of temporal infinite regress even with a posited eternal universe.

I agree. Will we ever know for sure if there is a beginning or it's infinite regression? Probably not. If our "time" started at the singularity how can we ever look at things before time? It's a non issue for me but the religious sure love it/hate it. 

Kinda of disappointed. Thought this would be christmas presentism.

Quote:Because then you'd have to deal with logical problems associated with timeless entities, including timeless causation.

lol, I'd have to do no such thing.  'Timeless entities' and 'timeless causation' are nonsense terms.  It would be like asking 'How tall is Sunday?' or 'How many salads make up a purple?'.

As I said, this is only a non-problem for theists.  No atheist I'm aware of spends a helluva lot of time worring about timeless entities.

Boru

(December 10, 2017 at 9:12 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I agree. Will we ever know for sure if there is a beginning or it's infinite regression? Probably not. If our "time" started at the singularity how can we ever look at things before time? It's a non issue for me but the religious sure love it/hate it. 

Kinda of disappointed. Thought this would be christmas presentism.

You're free to ignore the problems, but it doesn't mean the problems aren't there. In addition to my previous response, I'm not even talking about just "our time" anyway (there is extremely likely more to this reality than just this local universe). I'm talking more metaphysical time than anything else, whatever it may be. You know, that thing that is inevitable when any sort of change occurs.

I do not waste my time  pondering such issues.. Life is short. I do enjoy reading scientists attempts to solve the time puzzle but I do not waste my time with preachers or the laity and their limpid musings on time.

Quote:Thought this would be christmas presentism.

Be sure to save the receiptisms.

Boru

(December 10, 2017 at 9:19 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 10, 2017 at 9:12 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I agree. Will we ever know for sure if there is a beginning or it's infinite regression? Probably not. If our "time" started at the singularity how can we ever look at things before time? It's a non issue for me but the religious sure love it/hate it. 

Kinda of disappointed. Thought this would be christmas presentism.

You're free to ignore the problems, but it doesn't mean the problems aren't there. In addition to my previous response, I'm not even talking about just "our time" anyway (there is extremely likely more to this reality than just this local universe). I'm talking more metaphysical time than anything else, whatever it may be. You know, that thing that is inevitable when any sort of change occurs.

What problems, other than to provide a source of make believe for the religious?

(December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Because then you'd have to deal with logical problems associated with timeless entities, including timeless causation.

lol, I'd have to do no such thing.  'Timeless entities' and 'timeless causation' are nonsense terms.  It would be like asking 'How tall is Sunday?' or 'How many salads make up a purple?'.

Worse, it would be like talking about square circles. Logical contradictions can't be ignored. Well, you can choose not think about them, but they are still there.

Quote:As I said, this is only a non-problem for theists.  No atheist I'm aware of spends a helluva lot of time worring about timeless entities.

If you posit something in logic, usually you tend to make sure the implications don't suffer from logical contradictions. But that is your choice if you have no interest in these matters, in which case no need to bother replying here.

---

(December 10, 2017 at 9:20 am)chimp3 Wrote: I do not waste my time  pondering such issues.. Life is short. I do enjoy reading scientists attempts to solve the time puzzle but I do not waste my time with preachers or the laity and their limpid musings on time.

I didn't come up with the philosophy (eternalism) or the science (B-theory of time) myself. And what is wrong with laypeople pondering these matters that you have to ridicule them for it? If you're not interested, then don't bother posting. Your time to waste, not mine.