Proponents of cosmological arguments usually have a supporting argument in an argument against an infinite past. This is off the top of my head, but I think it usually goes something like this:

Quote:1) An actual infinite can not exist, because an infinite series cannot be traversed.
2) A beginningless past is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore the past is not infinite, and there was an absolute beginning.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I have a gripe with the argument, but I've seen more mathematically-savvy people take issue with it and its proponents. Are there problems with proposing an infinite past?

(September 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Are there problems with proposing an infinite past?

There may be, however, I don't find the argument you cited to be particularly effective (it asserts, but does not demonstrate that an existent series must necessarily be traversable).

I note also that in using this argument to support the cosmological argument that they invoke the fallacy of special pleading for their eternal creator.

(September 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Proponents of cosmological arguments usually have a supporting argument in an argument against an infinite past. This is off the top of my head, but I think it usually goes something like this:

Quote:1) An actual infinite can not exist, because an infinite series cannot be traversed.
2) A beginningless past is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore the past is not infinite, and there was an absolute beginning.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I have a gripe with the argument, but I've seen more mathematically-savvy people take issue with it and its proponents. Are there problems with proposing an infinite past?

Well.....lets start with a circle - find me the beginning.

Now consider time - we are used to it flowing in one direction from an earlier point to a later one. We therefore surmise time had a beginning and we can put that at the beginning of the universe (which is known as space/time). There is no before the beginning as time itself did not exist (nothing existing - as in nothingness).

Several thoughts going on from this include:

Suppose time is circular.
Was nothingness infinite? Can nothingness be infinite?
What if (as is proposed under Quantum Physics) nothingness is inherrently unstable?
Could a universe form in those circumstances (if the net energy state of the universe is zero)?
Without outside interference?

The answer to the last 4 is......apparently.

(September 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Are there problems with proposing an infinite past?

I imagine so, because it seems to me we wouldn't get able to get to this point in time. An infinite past would not allow you to chronologically get to a present point in time. That would be like trying to count to zero from negative infinity.

(September 9, 2013 at 2:41 pm)max-greece Wrote: Well.....lets start with a circle - find me the beginning.

Now consider time - we are used to it flowing in one direction from an earlier point to a later one. We therefore surmise time had a beginning and we can put that at the beginning of the universe (which is known as space/time). There is no before the beginning as time itself did not exist (nothing existing - as in nothingness).

Describing 'nothingness' as 'existing' is a contradiction.

Quote:Several thoughts going on from this include:

Suppose time is circular.
Was nothingness infinite? Can nothingness be infinite?
What if (as is proposed under Quantum Physics) nothingness is inherrently unstable?
Could a universe form in those circumstances (if the net energy state of the universe is zero)?
Without outside interference?

Calling empty space 'nothingness' is unhelpful and bad in my opinion. Empty space is something, not nothing. And nothingness could not have properties like instability.

I hate the "infinite vs finite" argument. Science is pointing away from a cognition either way. Finite or infinite still does not require human invented fictional super heros as gap answers.

I don't think that makes any sense... This argument itself (if successful) doesn't point to a god, but to anything in principle, so long as it is uncaused or 'non-temporal' (whatever that actually means).

It's my current view that both concepts of "prime mover / uncaused cause" and "infinite regress" are problematic. I may be entirely wrong on this, but I don't think that either has been adequately logically demonstrated, nor can either be necessarily ruled out. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily a case of it being one or the other - if, for example, we are mistaken about the nature and necessity of causality - particularly in spatial-temporal locations where our concept of physics breaks down.

TL;DR: I simply don't think we know enough to answer such questions definitively.

I think the biggest problem with such arguments is that, usually, the people making them, don't have the first understanding of infinity proper. Most such arguments hinge on "intuitions" about infinity, and such intuitions, typically lead to nonsense. It's been far too long since I've studied the subject formally, but most such arguments as practised end up being little more than argument from analogy, and thus can't be made deductively sound. (There are more significant issues once the initial bar is hurdled, but few people ever make it that far to begin with.)

(September 9, 2013 at 3:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's my current view that both concepts of "prime mover / uncaused cause" and "infinite regress" are problematic. I may be entirely wrong on this, but I don't think that either has been adequately logically demonstrated, nor can either be necessarily ruled out. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily a case of it being one or the other - if, for example, we are mistaken about the nature and necessity of causality - particularly in spatial-temporal locations where our concept of physics breaks down.

TL;DR: I simply don't think we know enough to answer such questions definitively.

Are you kidding, infinite regress is a solid refutation against a god.

The paragraph you just typed is simply another apology to excuse shifting the burden of proof.

"You can neither prove or disprove". Good science and good logic does not work as a 50/50 proposition. Otherwise "all claims are true by default until disproven" , and you know that is a ridiculous statement.