RE: Presentism and Infinite Chain of Past Events
December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2017 at 10:39 am by GrandizerII.)
(December 11, 2017 at 10:03 am)SteveII Wrote:(December 10, 2017 at 2:49 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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.
Under eternalism, there is no series of events happening, not in a time-flowing sense. Past moments and future moments are just as real as present moments, in the same way that the USA is just as real as Canada.
Quote: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?
Yes (but not in the sense you might be thinking of), yes (see Sean Carroll for that one), yes, yes/no (depending on the angle you're looking at this, and how you are defining the self).
(December 11, 2017 at 10:21 am)wallym Wrote: 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.
I don't have to do mathematics or physics. I am mainly doing some logic and philosophy, which almost any human being is capable of doing with enough interest and motivation.
I only bring up the science when others force me to bring up the science, and I never speak with authority on these matters. I let scientists do the talking.
Quote: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.
I never said I know what caused the origin of the universe, if it did have an origin. You're strawmanning me here.
Quote: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.
No, asshole, I did not just simply watch YouTube videos. I've read articles and book chapters on the philosophy of time as well. Go do your sociopath character undermining speech elsewhere, dickhead.
(December 11, 2017 at 10:29 am)Hammy Wrote:(December 11, 2017 at 10:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: Ok, but I don't feel like you're actually trying to address the objection that I've been stating to you on behalf of theists. Maybe it's lack of interest, or you're not prepared at this stage to address it? But I think I was pretty clear on what I was curious about.
No . . . not lack of interest. Didn't I address it? Weren't you talking about theistic eternalism? I addressed it by arguing against eternalism. We already know theism is stupid. What am I missing? I'm not playing dumb, or lacking interest here, I'm genuinely not sure what you think I'm missing.
My bad. Ok, how did we reach the present from no beginning, according to presentism?
