SRB

That is the claim for which you have no argument.

How can it seem that in infinite past is impossible if you have no argument for such a claim? I can only imagine that, like Craig, you realise that there is no formal contradiction in the notion of a beginningless past so you appeal to the fact that a beginningless past has unfamiliar properties. This won't do for at least two reasons:

(i) It is not unexpected that a beginningless past would have unfamiliar properties. We often find that contexts we do not regularly experience have counterintuitive and unfamiliar properties.

(ii) The theory that time was caused to exist is at least as counterintuitive and unfamiliar as the idea that time is beginningless.

Concerning (ii), can you explain how God might possibly create anything (does he, like us, have a body so as to perform creative actions?) Is God outside of space and time? Did God exist before time began?

If we are to make much sense of the idea that God caused time to begin then we will need these questions answered.

SRB

luvluv

I'm betting you can't demonstrate a formal contradiction to the existence of God. Why do you not believe He exists? If you say because there is no evidence, then this is also among the reasons I do not believe in the possibility of an infinite regress.

You can't have it both ways. It is probably true that a first cause involves as many unfamiliar evidence as an infinite regress, but it being that I have independant reasons for believing in the existence of God, I believe in the first cause argument. Is that against the law or something? You believe in a nonsensical infinite regress, I believe in a nonsensical first cause. I am not saying you have no right to hold your belief, only that it makes less sense to me than mine. You would probably say the same. I've said repeatedly that while I do not consider the cosmological argument to be sound, I consider an infinite regress an ever more improbable scenario. With Craig, I agree that the entire series of events would still need a cause.

Are you under the impression that there are less questions to be answered before the notion of an infinite regress will make sense?

I'm trying to make this easy for you. The problems with infinite regress, in my subjective opinion, are more severe than the problems with an infinite regress PARTICULARLY given that I have independant reasons for believing in the existence of God. Thus, I believe that there was a first cause. I can't prove that infinite regress is impossible, but I have no belief that it is possible. May I have that opinion, please? This is probably precisely the same situation as that underlying your atheism (if you are an atheist). So, I will back down from the claim that an infinite regress cannot happen and will say that I simply lack a belief in infinite regress. I will believe it when evidence is provided for it. Until then, I don't believe in it.

eh

Timelessness implies nothing, because it is a non concept.

The universe has been expanding for all time. As I said, the beginning is merely the intitial state, and there is no before or prior time when the universe was not expanding. This is only a problem if you insist on thinking in terms of absolute time.

Somehow we went from discussing the contingency of the universe to the cosmological argument. Since you seem to agree that it is a very weak attempt at supporting the God conclusion, let's move on.

SRB

The mere fact that there is no clear contradiction in the idea of a beginningless past is some reason to think that the idea is (logically) possible. I know of little more reason to think that other controversial claims are (logically) possibly true (e.g. "past time has a beginning").

To "believe in an argument" is to believe that it would be at least a tiny bit persuasive to any unbiased observer who does not already believe that the conclusion of the argument is true. A useful (and worthwhile) argument is one that serves this function.

You might as well say that you “believe in” this argument:

(1) Two plus two is five or God exists.
(2) Two plus two is not five.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

A beginningless sequence of events cannot possibly have a cause.

Yes. The notion of a beginningless past is entirely sensible (if counterintuitive). I can answer any questions you have about it. The idea that a disembodied person causes time to begin is, I believe, impossible. For example, causation necessarily occurs in spacetime. The initial singularity did not exist at well-defined co-ordinates in spacetime, and hence God cannot possibly have caused the singularity to exist.

What "problems"? You have yet to identify any problem at all. I noted that the idea of a beginningless past is counterintuitive. This is not a problem of any great significance.

SRB

luvluv

In plain English, SRB, I am agreeing to disagree with you.

I'm agnostic as to the possibility of an infinite regress. Prove that it is possible, and that it obtains, and I'm on your side. Otherwise, what are we talking about? I actually backed off of my claim that it was impossible. I'm now simply saying I don't believe it is possible. Is that not enough for you?

tronvillain

luvluv:
If you are going to treat time like distance, you cannot talk of "traversing" it without assuming a higher level of time. Without such an assumption, any talk of "traversing the infinite terrain of time" is either gibberish or completely trivial, and in either case proves nothing. Of course, such an assumption leads to a completely unproductive infinite regress, so it is far simpler to abandon the idea of "traversing" time altogether. Once this is done the possibility of time extending infinitely into the past is obvious.

Now, I always argue for the possibility of time extending infinitely into the infinitely into the past, but I do not actually think it does. Again, I take what appears to be the far simplier route, and take the position that time begins at the point of the Big Bang.

luvluv

tronvillian:

I'm talking about events in time traverssing time. The present is merely the set of events that have arrived in this state at this time. Remember, an infinite regress does not simply posit infinite time but infinite EVENTS IN TIME. So I am speaking of that series of events having reached the present moment.

Ditto.

tronvillain

luvluv:
An "event" is something which takes place at a given point in time, so I have no idea what you mean when you talk of "events in time traversing time". Perhaps you are using a different definition of "event", but in that case everything I said will still apply:

When you define the present as "the set of events that have arrived in this state at this time" you are implying that the present is something which is moving forward in time. In other words, you are trying to treat time like distance travelled, which assumes a higher level of time and so is completely unproductive. The only alternative is to abandon the notion of a moving present and change your statement to "the set of events that exist in this state at this time."

luvluv

I'm referring to the succession of cause-effect occurances which are assumed in an infinite regress, which have progressed, from infinity past, to form the future. Each effect must have a preceding cause, and so on. These events started in the infinite past, so the string of causally related events should have never reached the present, IMHO.

Wiploc

When I try to test this claim with a thought experiment, I don't get the result you do.

Example 1:
If the universe were created ten minutes ago, then ten minutes would have passed since the creation, and it would now be now.

Example 2: If the universe were created 100 billion years ago, then 100 billion years would have passed since the creation, and it would now be now.

Example 3: If the universe were created infinity ago, then infinity would have passed since then, so it would now be now.

Conclusion: I don't see any circumstances in which the amount of time since the creation prevents us from reaching the present.
crc