Argument Against an Infinite Past

[Faith No More]

Nothing could be temporally prior to creation, since time is part of creation. The first cause could only be logically prior to traditional cause-effect relationships.

Cause and effect is, by its very definition, a temporal concept. The cause must precede the effect, so by attempting to explain creation with a first cause, you are thereby ascribing that first cause a temporal position. If time does not exist, however, doing so is impossible and nonsensical.

[Cato]

Are there problems with proposing an infinite past?

Penzias and Wilson ring a bell? If it's the mathematics that you want then perhaps Doroshkevich and Novikov are more to your liking, no?

Either way, an infinite past ranks up there with, "What if 'd.o.g.' really spelled 'cat'.........inconsequential bullshit.

[MindForgedManacle]

Physicists have agile minds that are able to manipulate multiple layers of symbolic meanings. This makes following their expressions an edifying mental exercise beyond the mere face values of their meanings, and offer some insight into how their minds work and make the connections between the different layers.

Conflating differing meanings of a word to make an incorrect statement isn't a good mental exercise.

This is analogous to the way following the writtings of masters of an language is an edifying mental exercise that couldn't be matched by reading cliffsnotes, and offer insight into the concept of the workings of linguistic mastery.

Inasmuch as language isn't abused, I've no problem.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Cause and effect is, by its very definition, a temporal concept. The cause must precede the effect, so by attempting to explain creation with a first cause, you are thereby ascribing that first cause a temporal position. If time does not exist, however, doing so is impossible and nonsensical.

Well, within your folk understanding of cause you are right. In philosophy, you will find distinctions between various types of cause. Unfortunately, I'm debating this topic on two other threads and don't have much time to expand. If you want you can look up these terms: formal cause, efficient cause, material cause, and final cause.

---

Physicists have agile minds that are able to manipulate multiple layers of symbolic meanings. This makes following their expressions an edifying mental exercise beyond the mere face values of their meanings, and offer some insight into how their minds work and make the connections between the different layers.

Ha ha ha ha ha, I say the same thing about the multiple layers of meaning in the Holy Scriptures and you scoff. Now you want do the same for scientific ideas, which are supposed to be so clear cut and objective. Right back at you, buddy. Right back at you.

[genkaus]

Well, within your folk understanding of cause you are right. In philosophy, you will find distinctions between various types of cause. Unfortunately, I'm debating this topic on two other threads and don't have much time to expand. If you want you can look up these terms: formal cause, efficient cause, material cause, and final cause.

Point of clarification - If I recall correctly, we agreed that the sense in which the term 'cause' is used has changed a lot from Aristotle's time. Aristotle used the term 'cause' to mean 'the explanation for the existence of the object'. We now use the term to refer specifically to the efficient cause. That is, we now use the term in the sense 'that which brings about the existence of the object'. So, I'd say that it isn't the folk understanding of the term that is the issue, it is that the meaning itself has changed over time. With the new meaning is temporal in nature.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...we agreed that the sense in which the term 'cause' is used has changed a lot from Aristotle's time...the new meaning is temporal in nature.

Agreed. The point I meant to make originally was this: First cause, meaning efficient, arguments are bullshit.

[Whateverist]

Nothing could be temporally prior to creation, since time is part of creation. The first cause could only be logically prior to traditional cause-effect relationships.

I would only ask why you speak of creation in such a way as to imply "the creation" rather than "a creation". Are we in any position to rule out the possibility that whatever it is which causes nothing to manifest as everything hasn't done so before? Whether or not there exists a cosmic stick on which anyone has made a notch for each and every big bang, still does not rule out the possibility.

We likewise are in no position to rule out the simultaneous emergence of existence as a natural state of nothing in more than one location at a time. Space within our local/current big bang event is expanding and may well do so infinitely. If other big bang events were to do the same, it may be that there would exist someway to observe it. But it might also be the case that neighboring emergence phenomena some how repulse one another.

Now all that I've said is wild speculation with no evidence to support it. But I would argue that to assume there is nothing going on beyond our powers of observation is likewise an ungrounded assumption. To be honest we should admit our actual epistemic position sucks when it comes to getting the really big picture. Speculation is fun but no one really knows shit about the really big picture. We should celebrate the gradual expansion of the speculation which is supportable by evidence without imagining for a moment that we now know it all. We don't and we never will. Get used to it, fellow puny humans.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't get the whole multiverse thing, linguisticly. If the universe is everything, then it's everything, including all the results of multiple bangs.

[Angrboda]

I don't get the whole multiverse thing, linguisticly. If the universe is everything, then it's everything, including all the results of multiple bangs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

[max-greece]

"Speculation is fun but no one really knows shit about the really big picture. We should celebrate the gradual expansion of the speculation which is supportable by evidence without imagining for a moment that we now know it all. We don't and we never will. Get used to it, fellow puny humans."

Interestingly there will come a point when we know less than we do today:

The universe is expanding. As this process continues more and more of the universe will reach light speed relative to us and disappear.

There will come a time in the distant future when the only thing we can observe is our own Galaxy. Scientists at that point will reason that this is all that exists, that the entire universe is our own Galaxy.

They may come across ancient writings talking about other such universes (to them) but my guess is they will ignore them and only deal with their own observations (in true scientific style).