Apologetics open challenge

[Mystic]

If time was infinite it would still have to be preceded by a point in time? Why? Because it's hard to imagine an infinite past? 

No it's because it's infinite by definition, meaning there is always preceding point of time....

[robvalue]

No, infinite means there is no point which precedes all points. That's exactly what negative infinity is. For all points in time n, there exists another point in time m so that m<n. That is exactly what an infinite past means.

[Mystic]

No, infinite means there is no point which precedes all points. That's exactly what infinite is. For all points in time n, there exists another point in time m so that m<n. That is exactly what an infinite past means.

Both are implied by it's meaning, and hence it's irrational paradox. From one perspective, all points of time must be preceded by infinite points of time. From another perspective, the whole of time, is not preceded by a point of time. That is why it's a paradox. Both are implied.

Anyways, did you find any fault with the first argument for why time is temporal? That is argument 2.  What about Argument 1?

[The Grand Nudger]

Have we ever seen a "life-full" force bring something like time into being?  The statement, "we know lifeless force can't create things like time" is supposed to lead us to what knowledge..and what does it have to do with lifelesness or life-fulness in the first place?

-and again, you still haven't stated what rule of inference you're using and what the conclusion from your 1, 2, and 3 are. There's really no reason to consider your assertions before we can determine this. It doesn't matter what they are -or- whether or not they're true until you've taken the effort to go -at least- that far. You certainly can't claim to have provided any argument, until you've met that bar.

[robvalue]

Temporal means pertaining to time. So by definition time is temporal, or rather events happening in time are temporal. Events can't happen pre-time, because there is no time for them to happen in.

I have no idea what you're talking about I'm afraid. There is no paradox. I can only assume you don't understand the nature of infinity. I gave you the definition of negative infinity. For all n there exists m so that m<n. By definition there is not a point preceding all other points, if this is the case. If you can't see that, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Your argument seems to be infinite is finite so infinite is impossible. That makes no sense at all.

Bottom line, all of science does not know what happened before the plank time. But apparently you do?

[Pizza]

It should be noted that arguments can be valid, but premises are false. Validity comes cheap. For example:
If apes exist, cats speak English. If P, Q.
Apes exist. P
Therefore, cats speak English. Q

Oh yes, for sure. Good point. Unsupported assertions will be pointed out, they are on my list But it's very true, the argument can still be valid. The result is then only as true as its premises.

WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

-That- one's not actually an issue of an -unsupported assertion-.  It's a mechanical issue of -material implication- whereby the "if" modifier is being leveraged improperly.  Because an argument (of the type invoked) is only said to be valid when it takes a form wherein it is impossible for the assertions to be true while the conclusion is simultaneously false, and because an argument (of the type invoked) requires a specific condition which is not present...........that argument is actually -invalid-.  

Validity doesn't come cheap, people have simplistic and incomplete concepts of validity, is all.  "If p, then q" works as a simple description of a logical operation divorced from conditionals in natural language.......but that's the end of it's utility.  The trouble is the inference of conditionals in natural language, and their translation to a logical form.  If this doesn't -already- make it sound hopeless...I have some bad news......english might be one of the worst languages in the world on that count.  There is no such trouble with the "if" modifier in other languages.  That means that some of us are suffering from a handicap not uniform to all of us, and ironically that;s the problem with the word "if" in english.  It does not describe a uniform condition, and theres no way of ensuring that the condition it descibes is the appropriate condition for the operation used, as in the statement regarding apes, cats.....and whether or not they speak english....

(for more, google downing, wilson, or goldstein et al - or, for some heavier reading not limited to this subject but containing one of the best explanations -of it- try "Causality and Determinism" by Von Wright)

Modus ponens is a valid form of interference. My point being there is more to a good deductive argument than validity. The premises need to be true. The first premise in my example was false (If apes exist, cats speak English) since we see cats don't speak English and that apes exist.

[robvalue]

I thought if the word. Sound. Yeah? The argument can be sound, but the conclusion may be invalid.

[Mystic]

Temporal means pertaining to time. So by definition time is temporal, or rather events happening in time are temporal. Events can't happen pre-time, because there is no time for them to happen in.

I have no idea what you're talking about I'm afraid. There is no paradox. I can only assume you don't understand the nature of infinity. I gave you the definition of negative infinity. For all n there exists m so that m<n. By definition there is not a point preceding all other points, if this is the case. If you can't see that, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Your argument seems to be infinite is finite so infinite is impossible. That makes no sense at all.

Ok I concede you are right. What about argument 1 with respect to time being temporal?

[Mystic]

I thought if the word. Sound. Yeah? The argument can be sound, but the conclusion may be invalid.

An argument can be valid, but not sound. But all sound arguments must be valid.

A conclusion can be true, but it doesn't make the argument valid or sound (if it happens the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).

[robvalue]

I still don't understand what it's supposed to mean. Are you saying each point in time is created as a result of the previous point in time? Or someone is creating each point? I really don't know.

I have a lot of respect that you would concede the point about infinity though Good show.