Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Bahman]

The "infinite future" is not a particular place or time one might "reach." Someone who lived forever would reach every point on an infinite timeline eventually (of which there are infinitely many).

I am afraid that that is not true given the definition of infinity.

What definition are you using? What falsifies it?

Let me put it this way: Suppose there is a timeline T. For any point T1 on T, a traveler beginning at a point T2 earlier that T1 will reach T2, given infinite time, for any length of T.

Infinite: Limitless or endless.

[Bahman]

My first premise is evident: Any act requires time. That means that God needs time in order to create. There was no time before the act of creation though. That means that God needed time for the creation of time. This obviously leads to an infinite regress.

There is a dispute among theologians as to whether God exists in time or not, whether his existence is temporal or atemporal. If God existed temporally prior to Creation, then his act of creation didn't include the creation of time, but only of space, matter, and energy.
However, this presupposes the obsolete Newtonian distinction between mutually independent absolute space and absolute time, which is incompatible with Einsteinian physics, according to which space and time are unified into one spacetime and not independent of one another.

I see what you mean. So in fact spacetime cannot be created. Thanks for your contribution.

"Western theists agree that God is eternal; the task is to formulate and assess conceptions of what this eternality might amount to.
Broadly speaking, there have been two rival views of what God’s eternality consists in. On the first, God is timeless (divine timelessness); on the second, God is in time (divine temporality)."

Eternity in Christian Thought: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

Note that there is also a mixed view:

"William Lane Craig’s view is that God is timeless without creation, and temporal with creation (Craig 2000). God exists timelessly “without” creation rather than before creation, because there isn’t literally a before. And so it can’t literally be the case that God becomes temporal, since becoming anything involves being first one thing and then the other. Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ”, God “enters time at the moment of creation” (Craig 2000: 33). God exists changelessly and timelessly, but by creating, God undergoes an extrinsic change “which draws Him into time” (Craig 2000: 29)."

Thanks for the link and the information.

[Bahman]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

The temporal interval between any time-point (instant) in the infinite past and now is always finite. So it is not the case that it "takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now." Of course, -∞ is not a time-point (instant) in the past; so there is no possible travelling from -∞ to now.

I agree that the infinite past is not a point but a series of points. But my argument stands since there are an infinite amount of arbitrary points in the infinite past.

[GrayArea]

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

Self-causation (self-creation) is impossible in principle, no matter whether we're talking about some existent or existence qua totality of all existents.

Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself.

[Sculptor1]

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

Self-causation (self-creation) is impossible in principle, no matter whether we're talking about some existent or existence qua totality of all existents.

Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself.

Circular arguments are circular and are meaningless.

[Sculptor1]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

The temporal interval between any time-point (instant) in the infinite past and now is always finite. So it is not the case that it "takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now." Of course, -∞ is not a time-point (instant) in the past; so there is no possible travelling from -∞ to now.

I agree that the infinite past is not a point but a series of points. But my argument stands since there are an infinite amount of arbitrary points in the infinite past.

It is neither.
Infinity cannot be divided.
Take an infinite piece of string. Now cut it in half and tell me what you have??

[Bahman]

If the universe does not have a beginning then it means that the universe existed in the infinite past. It however takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now. This is logically impossible given the definition of infinity since infinity is unreachable by definition.

The temporal interval between any time-point (instant) in the infinite past and now is always finite. So it is not the case that it "takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now." Of course, -∞ is not a time-point (instant) in the past; so there is no possible travelling from -∞ to now.

I agree that the infinite past is not a point but a series of points. But my argument stands since there are an infinite amount of arbitrary points in the infinite past.

It is neither.

Infinity is studied within set theory.

Infinity cannot be divided.
Take an infinite piece of string. Now cut it in half and tell me what you have??

You get infinity again.

[Sculptor1]

The temporal interval between any time-point (instant) in the infinite past and now is always finite. So it is not the case that it "takes an infinite amount of time to reach from any arbitrary point in the infinite past to now." Of course, -∞ is not a time-point (instant) in the past; so there is no possible travelling from -∞ to now.

I agree that the infinite past is not a point but a series of points. But my argument stands since there are an infinite amount of arbitrary points in the infinite past.

It is neither.

Infinity is studied within set theory.

Infinity cannot be divided.
Take an infinite piece of string. Now cut it in half and tell me what you have??

You get infinity again.

But is it logical to divide something and double what you have?
1 divided by two is 1/2
You are saying that 1 divided by two equals 2.
What happens if I chop up the string an infinite number of times?
I get an infinity of infinitely sized strings.
None of this is logical.

So "logically" the universe must begin otherwise there is no time, since it would be meaningless to divide an infinite series.

[Bahman]

I agree that the infinite past is not a point but a series of points. But my argument stands since there are an infinite amount of arbitrary points in the infinite past.

It is neither.

Infinity is studied within set theory.

Infinity cannot be divided.
Take an infinite piece of string. Now cut it in half and tell me what you have??

You get infinity again.

But is it logical to divide something and double what you have?
1 divided by two is 1/2
You are saying that 1 divided by two equals 2.

No, I am not saying that. Infinity has its own arithmetic which is different from the arithmetic of finite numbers. You might like to read this.

What happens if I chop up the string an infinite number of times?

You get infinity again.

I get an infinity of infinitely sized strings.
None of this is logical.

It is logical.

So "logically" the universe must begin otherwise there is no time, since it would be meaningless to divide an infinite series.

I cannot follow you here.

[Sculptor1]

It is neither.

Infinity is studied within set theory.

Infinity cannot be divided.
Take an infinite piece of string. Now cut it in half and tell me what you have??

You get infinity again.

But is it logical to divide something and double what you have?
1 divided by two is 1/2
You are saying that 1 divided by two equals 2.

No, I am not saying that. Infinity has its own arithmetic which is different from the arithmetic of finite numbers. You might like to read this.

What happens if I chop up the string an infinite number of times?

You get infinity again.

I get an infinity of infinitely sized strings.
None of this is logical.

It is logical.

So "logically" the universe must begin otherwise there is no time, since it would be meaningless to divide an infinite series.

I cannot follow you here.

Indeed you cannot

[GrayArea]

Existence from nothing—as in, existence without an external cause—is possible, because existence itself is its own cause. This is possible only for "existence itself" and nothing else "within" existence, because the very meaning or definition of existence is to exist.

Self-causation (self-creation) is impossible in principle, no matter whether we're talking about some existent or existence qua totality of all existents.

Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself.

Circular arguments are circular and are meaningless.

Not when it comes to describing the circle itself.

[Consul]

What is nomologically possible is logically possible, and what is logically impossible is nomologically impossible.

No that is not so. It might be so, but there is a reason we might use nomological or logical adjectivally.
Logic is not about the laws of nature, though it might be.

If the laws of nature are all physical laws, then nomological modality = physical modality. Logic isn't physics, but logical impossibility entails physical impossibility, and physical possibility entails logical possibility.

[Viswa_01210]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

True. That's why there is no real creation happens from Nothingness. Only ONE's Delusion.

[Sculptor1]

Self-causation (self-creation) is impossible in principle, no matter whether we're talking about some existent or existence qua totality of all existents.

Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself.

Circular arguments are circular and are meaningless.

Not when it comes to describing the circle itself.

Not even then.
A circle is a circle is a circle.
Not very impressive.

[Sculptor1]

What is nomologically possible is logically possible, and what is logically impossible is nomologically impossible.

No that is not so. It might be so, but there is a reason we might use nomological or logical adjectivally.
Logic is not about the laws of nature, though it might be.

If the laws of nature are all physical laws, then nomological modality = physical modality. Logic isn't physics, but logical impossibility entails physical impossibility, and physical possibility entails logical possibility.

No logical impossibility does not entail physical impossibility.
You are effectively saying that logic is the same as possible. That is simply not true.

If everything you do is impossible
and you do something
then that something is impossible.

This statement is logically true and has nothing to do with that is real, or what is physically true.

Snobgrobblers are all Nannypoos
Sligo is a Snobgrobbler.
Therefore Sligo is also a Nannypoo

This is also perfectly logical, but bears no relationship to physical realities, and are not nomological.

Science is about the physical realities of the word.
Logic is only about langauge and meaning.