4. Nothing can permanently exist inside of time - it would have no start to its existence and if it never started existing it does not exist. — Devans99
it would have no start to its existence and if it never started existing it does not exist. — Devans99
This point is false. Something can exist since all eternity, and can exist into infinite future. There is no logical or other limitation that prevents something from being such. The limitation Aquinas put on this is false, arbitrary, and does not stand up to even intuitive reason. — god must be atheist
Something existing for an eternity of past time is an impossibility. To see this you can for example imagine a 24h clock that has exist forever and has been keeping time forever. What time does it read currently? — Devans99
So a belief in an infinite past equates to a belief that:
- Someone exactly like you
- On a planet exactly like earth
- Has been reading a post exactly like this
- And this event has occurred an infinite number of times in the past.
This has always struck me as an absurdum reductio argument for the impossibility of infinite past time. — Devans99
I totally agree with you. That is why I have stopped to try to figure out Eternity. That is a sure way to end up in an asylum for the mentally insane. — ovdtogt
Something existing for an eternity of past time is an impossibility. To see this you can for example imagine a 24h clock that has exist forever and has been keeping time forever. What time does it read currently? — Devans99
It can show any time ... The clock never started. — god must be atheist
Let me ask you: Let's suppose you are right, and time does have a beginning, at which the clock was started. Then what was the time five minutes before that? Because every time you pick a specific time, there are five minutes before that, and five minutes after that. — god must be atheist
Another way of showing that time is infinite is the method of mathematical induction. Mathemathical induction is a type of proof in which if you can establish that in the first instance ... The same process of induction can be applied to time. — god must be atheist
This may strike you as unbelievable, but just because it strikes you so, you have not proven that they are impossible. They are bizarre, for which a synonym is absurd, but it has no relation to the reductio ad absurdum logic state. — god must be atheist
This is a false argument. You might as well challenge the infinity of the three dimensional space with a similar mental experiment.
"Infinite directions are impossibilities. To see this, you can for example imagine an infinite series of yardsticks that have been lain in one direction coming toward you, and reaches the point at which you exist. How many inches (fractions are allowed) does the yardstick show at the point on which you stand?" — god must be atheist
Every system that exists within time, be it a clock, a particle, or a whole universe, requires an initial state — Devans99
So I would be standing at the point represented by -1 and the next yardstick out would be -2 etc... The person laying out the yardsticks would have to start at the point '...' — Devans99
↪god must be atheist Understanding infinite time and space requires infinite wisdom. — ovdtogt
you can internalize with limited wisdom — god must be atheist
You can't internalize infinity. You don't have enough space. — ovdtogt
I meant aspects of it. Not the entire thing. — god must be atheist
NO, but the way anyone can understand pregnancy without being pregnant — god must be atheist
The clock that has always existed shows an undeterminent time at present. Whatever it shows now, it will show five minutes more in five minutes. — god must be atheist
Every one of your arguments involves a starting point. And you don't specifically say it, but you imply that everything must have a starting point. — god must be atheist
Again, you are speaking of a starting point. But there is no starting point in infinite space in any direction. — god must be atheist
The person must have had no chance of survival, as documented by medical evidence, and must have recovered only after they started praying to a specific person, thus implying the presence of “God/supernatural.” — Julianne Carter
ALL miraculous events are evidence for the divine.” That premise is too broad. Saying that all miracles are evidence for the divine makes it sound as though the miracles of the Buddha could be evidence of a Christian God, or vice versa — Julianne Carter
You’d have a harder time explaining miracles in Christianity, for example: the healing of paralytics, resurrection from the dead, and so on. Those things are outside natural and scientific laws — Julianne Carter
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.