Presentism and Infinite Chain of Past Events

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Logical contradictions can't be ignored.

*chuckle snort*  Of course they can.  What's more, arguments based on logical contradictions and/or flawed logic can be ignored.  Here's a famous case in point:

1.  All cat are mammals.
2.  Socrates was a mammal.
C.  Socrates was a cat.

If you wish to spend your spare time trying to construct a refutation to prove that Socrates wasn't a cat, that's your own look out.  For me, I choose to ignore it and move on.

Boru

[chimp3]

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.

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.

---

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.

You asked!

[GrandizerII]

Logical contradictions can't be ignored.

*chuckle snort*  Of course they can.  What's more, arguments based on logical contradictions and/or flawed logic can be ignored.  Here's a famous case in point:

1.  All cat are mammals.
2.  Socrates was a mammal.
C.  Socrates was a cat.

If you wish to spend your spare time trying to construct a refutation to prove that Socrates wasn't a cat, that's your own look out.  For me, I choose to ignore it and move on.

Boru

No, that's just terrible logic, and therefore needs no serious refutation. As much as I give theists crap for the arguments they make for God, they're not generally as terrible as the example you provided.

Let me be clear, by the way, on why thinking that time had a beginning is problematic. If time had a beginning, yet time exists, then its existence was triggered. But triggering is an act, and all acts are associated with time existing, so it's like saying that something triggered time to exist within time. And that's like a logical problem, you know. Because how does time exist before time began existence?

Anyway, looks like this thread didn't go in the direction I intended, lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a presentist when it comes to REAL noumenological reality, and also a presentist when it comes to our naive experience, although it may seem to seem otherwise deep down things only seem present to us. Hence why we are capable of recognizing that our memories and thoughts of the future still happen in the present.

Science can redefine and study phenomenological reality, and see that eternalism seems to make sense in some sense. But science can never possibly ultimately touch 'REAL' noumenological reality otherwise it wouldn't be science.

Noumenological time can't have really began because the beginning of something is itself a temporal concept. It would be like asking what happened before time . . . which again makes no sense.

[GrandizerII]

I'm a presentist when it comes to REAL noumenological reality, and also a presentist when it comes to our naive experience, although it may seem to seem otherwise deep down things only seem present to us. Hence why we are capable of recognizing that our memories and thoughts of the future still happen in the present.

Science can redefine and study phenomenological reality, and see that eternalism seems to make sense in some sense. But science can never possibly ultimately touch 'REAL' noumenological reality otherwise it wouldn't be science.

Noumenological time can't have really began because the beginning of something is itself a temporal concept. It would be like asking what happened before time . . . which again makes no sense.

How would you address what theists argue in my OP from a presentist, no-beginning time, point of view?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a presentist when it comes to REAL noumenological reality, and also a presentist when it comes to our naive experience, although it may seem to seem otherwise deep down things only seem present to us. Hence why we are capable of recognizing that our memories and thoughts of the future still happen in the present.

Science can redefine and study phenomenological reality, and see that eternalism seems to make sense in some sense. But science can never possibly ultimately touch 'REAL' noumenological reality otherwise it wouldn't be science.

Noumenological time can't have really began because the beginning of something is itself a temporal concept. It would be like asking what happened before time . . . which again makes no sense.

How would you address what theists argue in my OP from a presentist, no-beginning time, point of view?

I think they are confused. So what if an infinite universe means there is no beginning at all? Maybe there is no beginning.

Personally I believe existence is finite but eternal.

[GrandizerII]

How would you address what theists argue in my OP from a presentist, no-beginning time, point of view?

I think they are confused. So what if an infinite universe means there is no beginning at all? Maybe there is no beginning.

Personally I believe existence is finite but eternal.

Finite in terms of?

Anyhow, forget universe and substitute it with existence, because as far as theists are concerned, not even existence (apart from their God) can be eternal. So if there was no beginning to time, how did we reach the present?

I know the theist side suffers major problems regardless, but Im curious about the presentist responses, or do you believe their argument is not worth response?

[Edwardo Piet]

Finite in terms of?

Size.

Anyhow, forget universe and substitute it with existence, because as far as theists are concerned, not even existence (apart from their God) can be eternal. So if there was no beginning to time, how did we reach the present?

Yes, indeed, substitute it with existence.

The universe began but existence didn't. And existence as a whole MUST be eternal. And the universe can't be (if we assume the big bang is the beginning of it).

I know the theist side suffers major problems regardless, but Im curious about the presentist responses, or do you believe their argument is not worth response?

I think presentism is the only theory of time that ultimately makes sense if we put science aside (because I don't think science is relevant if we're talking about what something must be beyond our ability to test reality empirically).

[SteveII]

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.

There is a fundamental flaw in your question. You think that eternalism avoids the problem of past infinite series of events. It does not. Tell me, on your version of eternalism philosophy of time, do you think causality is a feature of reality? Is entropy a thing? Is the universe expanding? Are you the same person on December 11 as the person on December 10?

[henryp]

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.

Here's the thing with the origins of the universe:  It's above your paygrade.  At best, all you can do is just parrot what some fancy mathematician/physicist says.  And it's not like you're checking their math to make sure you agree with their conclusion.  You just pick a person who seems really smart, and decide they are who you agree with.  

Just have a bit of humility, and when the topic of the origin of the universe comes up, shrug your shoulders and say "who the fuck knows?"  Because the answer to that is both not you and not the theist making whatever argument they are making.

The alternative, is that you take a stance that you can only sort of understand, because you're just some random person watching youtube videos, and smart theists like Steve as seen above, can 'score points' on you, because there's no way for you to speak on the topic with any authority.