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

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.

it would have no start to its existence and if it never started existing it does not exist. — Devans99

Something that exists forever, has no start for its existence, yet it exists forever. I don't see the difficulty that Aquinas raises is valid.

I have really stopped speculating on these mattters, infinity and eternity. My mind can't deal with these concepts. You get caught up in circular arguments from which there is no escaping.

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?

[

Something can exist since all eternity, — god must be atheist

Whenever I start to imagine eternity I stop somewhere along the line.
I can't imagine eternity, so it does not exist.

I guess we have to distinguish between:

1. Past Eternity
2. Future Eternity

[2] is, under the presentist model of time anyway, a form a potential infinity, so maybe it is possible, but I still doubt it.

[1] however is a a form actual infinity, which causes me to choke intellectually for several different reasons. For example:

An event that has occurred (for example, you reading this post) must have had a non-zero probability per calendar year of occurring. If we imagine time going back forever, then we have:

(a non-zero probability of the event occurring) X (∞ years) = (event occurs an infinite number of times)

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.

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.

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 important thing is that it shows intervals of time. You are forcing a question that can only be answered with a numerical value if time started at one point. But time did not start at any point. The clock did not start at 0:00:00. The clock never started. It is going round and round, one cycle in 24 hours. The cycle could be from 0:00:00 to 0:00:00 or from 14:32:56 to 14:32:56. What the face shows is only material for things that are temporal (do not last infinitely in time).

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.

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 an iteration produces a specific result, and each iteration other than that form one instance to another, produces the same specific result, then the result at any one iterative point exists.

For instance, let's say the first instance is 0. Add to this two and subtract one. You get 1. This is the instance plus one in value.

Let's pick any instance now, say, X. Add to this two and subtract one. You get X+1. This is the instance plus 1.

The induction here shows that if you add two to any number and subtract one, then you get the number plus one.

The same process of induction can be applied to time.

At midnight tonight, if you subtract two hours, and add one hour, you get midnight minus one hour.

At any time on the timeline, if you take a time, X, and subtract two hours, and add one hour, you get that time minus one hour. This applies to all X values.

If X is infinite, then you get a value that satisfies the inductive process at each time, as it should.

If X has a minimum value, below which values don't exist, then the inductive process creates values that are outside the domain of the process. But that is impossible. Therefore X cannot be a minimum.

----------------

The short form of this I have already proposed: "The clock is set at the alleged beginning of time. The clock shows a time before which there is always a five minute period. When the clock is started at the beginning of the time, what was the time five minutes before it was started?"

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

Reductio ad absurbum is a proof that has a premise: "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and at the same respect." If you claim that trees are green AND red at the same time and in the same respect, then that is a necessarily false claim.

I see no recuctio ad absurdum in your example.

You must somehow think that because something is bizarre, then it must be absurd, and anything absurd is impossible.

I think you commit the equivocation fallacy.

A belief in the infinite past and in the future both imply that those states that have a nonzero possiblity of occurring in the universe, infinitely repeat. 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.

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

It has been said that some qualities of eternity can be known, without experiencing eternity.

To try to experience eternity will certainly make a human question his own sanity.

Terry Pratchett, a writer for whom I hold high respect, wrote in one of his books: (not a quote, but a description of events) Two people from temperate climate zones who are by fate now in a desert at night, are staring at the starry sky with its infinite stars and galaxies, and one says something to the effect: "This is why religions always start in deserts. A man (meaning a human: man or woman) needs to place something, like a god, between himself and infinity in order to preserve his sanity."

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

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?"

Yes the human mind needs distractions. Without, you either become religious or crazy. Perhaps there is not much difference between the two.

It can show any time ... The clock never started. — god must be atheist

The clock never started keeping time so it can show no time currently - so an eternal clock is impossible - not only did it never start keeping time, it never started existing so cannot exist currently.

Every system that exists within time, be it a clock, a particle, or a whole universe, requires an initial state else there are no subsequent states - the initial state is the ultimate determinant of all subsequent states. That initial state can only be given by the start of time. Without that initial state, poof, the system does not exist.

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

Time is UNDEFINED before the start of time and the clock does not exist. There is no time before the start of time. 'Before' is a temporal concept, it does not apply to timelessness.

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

Induction cannot be used to prove past time is infinite because there is no first moment of time from which to start the induction reasoning from. The example you give is not induction, it is reverse induction - you are working backwards from today to justify infinite past time. That's not how time works; each moment defines and determines the next moment so it is only valid to use forward rather than reverse induction.

As you have found with the clock example, forward induction is impossible with infinite past time as there is no start of time from which to start the induction process.

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

So you are at least admitting infinite past time is bizarre. Reductio ad absurdum is when you have an argument that leads to an absurd conclusion. You say my argument leads to a bizarre but not absurd conclusion. I think you are splitting hairs.

Consider also the measure problem:

- Assume time is eternal.
- Probability of event X happening is 1% per calendar year
- Probability of event Y happening is 0.00001% per calendar year
- Over infinite time X happens 1% * ∞ = ∞ times
- Over infinite time Y happens 0.00001% * ∞ = ∞ times
- That is the same 'kind' of infinity for both the number of occurrences of X and Y
- So X and Y are both equally likely over infinite time
- Reductio ad absurdum.

The math of probability works just fine for finite time periods, as shown above probability results in absurdities when used with infinite time. So either probability is absurd or infinity is absurd. My money is on the 2nd.

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

I do challenge the infinity of infinite space. Infinity is plain impossible - the whole idea is a pipe dream. Only in our minds can things continue ‘forever’; in reality this would surely be akin to magic. In your infinite yardsticks example, how did the infinite yard sticks come about? Someone would have to lay the infinite yard sticks out - but that's impossible - they would never finish laying them out - there is no greatest number - numbers go on forever but at no point do we ever encounter a number ∞ - so an infinite number of yardsticks is impossibility.

We can also imagine the infinite yardsticks as represented by the series of negative integers:

{ ..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 }

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 '...' but that's impossible, that point is UNDEFINED - so they can never have started laying out the infinite yardsticks - there are no infinite yardsticks.

Every system that exists within time, be it a clock, a particle, or a whole universe, requires an initial state — Devans99

,,,unless it has always existed.

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.

The clock has a beginnig point on its dial, and an end point, if you choose 0:00:00 and 23:59:59. But a period of time elapsed that you are measuring does not have to start at 0:00:00. It can start at 14:24:38 if you want, and you simply subtract the beginning time from the end time to arrive at the elapsed time.

If you have a clock going on for infinite time, you can't measure a finite time segment, because infinite time is not delimited by a beginning (or by an end or by both). Therefore the clock face is meaningless as to what it shows for present time if it has been going on forever in the past.

The Universe is clock for which you can't change the batteries.

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

Again, you are speaking of a starting point. But there is no starting point in infinite space in any direction.

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.

Aside from chaning your argument form the fact that you try to prove that there is a starting point (end conclusion) because there is a starting point (your premise), you need to conceptualize that that there is no starting point when something is infinite. Once you got that, you can begin to realize what I am trying to explain to you.

Among other things to consider FOR ME, is my uncle, who is a physician, who, like you, also is stuck in this starting-point concept. He often wants to start discussion about belief in god, as he is religious, and he starts his discussion with "You see, nephew, everything has to have a start, and..." and there is no way in earth, heaven or hell, that I could convince him that not everything has a start. Those things that have gone on since infinity, don't have a start.

This is a conceptual problem or limitation, and I don't wish to discuss it further, because if you are like my uncle, then you are a person who can never imagine or conceptualize this, and there is nothing and nobody who can enlighten you with this intuitive thought.

Understanding infinite time and space requires infinite wisdom.

↪god must be atheist Understanding infinite time and space requires infinite wisdom. — ovdtogt

Well, some aspects of it may, but there are aspects that you can internalize with limited wisdom, and the overview of the concept itself does not require infinite wisdom at all.

you can internalize with limited wisdom — god must be atheist

You can't internalize infinity. You don't have enough space.

You can't internalize infinity. You don't have enough space. — ovdtogt

I meant aspects of it. Not the entire thing. I think I expressed that in the post.

Otherwise you're right. But then again, otherwise everyone is always right.

I meant aspects of it. Not the entire thing. — god must be atheist

You mean like a woman can be a little bit pregnant?

NO, but the way anyone can understand pregnancy without being pregnant.

Are you just trying to make conversation? Why don't you and I rent a room instead?

NO, but the way anyone can understand pregnancy without being pregnant — god must be atheist

If it was that easy, we would have figured it out 200.000 years ago.

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

A clock that has 'always' existed has can only have an UNDEFINED time at present - it never started ticking and so for example, UNDEFINED + 24 = UNDEFINED. You admit so much yourself by using the term 'undeterminent'. No such clock can exist, it is a figment of wishful thinking, as is an infinite past in general.

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

I believe everything in time must have a temporal starting point - maybe you can give a counter example?

And my arguments are not restricted to the need for a temporal starting point - I have referenced equilibrium, probability/math and scientific arguments in this / other threads.

Again, you are speaking of a starting point. But there is no starting point in infinite space in any direction. — god must be atheist

Spacetime has boundaries I believe. It started 14 billion years ago with the BB and has been expanding ever since - leading to a finite radius of the universe. What is beyond this radius? Nothing - there is no time and no space beyond these boundaries - nothing can exist without space or time - and nothing has no size - so the entirety of everything is finite.

It sounds to me like you should listen to your uncle more.

Interesting points about the role of Islam in this.

I’d like to provide a critique of your assertion that miracles are not evidence of the divine, and the counterexample that you use to illustrate that.

You say that religious people “simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions.” I think this is false. In the Catholic Church, for example, before an individual can be sanctified, they must have performed two miracles, which are investigated for eligibility. Say the miracle is a medical one, and a person recovered from a terminal illness. 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.” On the other hand, if you’re referring to miracles recorded in the Bible, I think you have a better point, because those are less documented and researched (although equally outside natural laws.) If those are the miracles you’re referencing, it would be helpful to say that. You continue, “From a simple logical perspective the reasoning of believers depend on the following premise: 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. And what if believers of a religion find some miracles plausible, but reject others, such as Orthodox Jews who believe in some miracles from God but not in the resurrection of Jesus?

To show the above premise false, you say, “My own counterexample would be a modern 1st world citizen with a simple modern device, such as a camera, visiting a pre-contact people and by that I mean people who are stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (I believe there are tribes in Brazil who qualify). They would simply be struck with wonder by the camera which, in other words, means the camera would be a miracle. Yet, this person is not a God.” I take issue with your definition of a miracle as something that strikes people “with wonder.” Miracles are outside natural and scientific laws, and a camera is not. If you are arguing that the camera is a miracle because these people had no way to explain it, then I see your point. However, if somebody showed you a time traveling machine, would you consider it a miracle? No, you’d probably want to know how it operated. Similarly, in your example, the people could be informed of the way the camera works, because there is a natural and scientific explanation for it. 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, but your counterexample is not, so I think it should be refined in order to better illustrate your point; or if you consider those miracles to be false, then an argument formulated directly toward that conclusion would be helpful.

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

This is as good as it gets I suppose. The principles active therein seem inspired by reason. Come to think of it, the logic of the Catholic Church is captured in toto by Sherlock Holme's signature principle of reasoning: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. And the detractors of Christianity claim that religion is irrational. :roll:

I suppose the issue, in the eyes of atheists, is that the Catholic criteria for miracles fall short of the mark because a key feature of a causal claim, I'm restricting myself to miraculous healing, is missing viz. persistence of the pattern otherwise known as repeatability Not all who pray are healed and that raises the possibility that a few instances of healing by prayer to saints could be mere conicidences.

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

Well, I was trying to be as inclusive as possible. The divine I'm referring to here is meant to encompass all religions. Yes, there are differences between religions but it only takes a moment of thought to realize that all religions represent a yearning for, an intuitive apprhension of, a recognition of the possibility of, a world, a realm, a reality beyond, more magnificent than our own.

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

I've come to the realization that miracles are relative to knowledge. The person who knows less will see more miracles than the person who knows more. Quite naturally right? After all, the entire notion of miracles hangs on the failure to explain them within the existing framework of knowledge. Ergo, knowing more will explain more, knowing less will explain less. The camera is inexplicable to people of the iron age and will be treated as a miracle.

On the matter of healing miracles, I've already said what I wanted to say but to reiterate my point, it has yet to be established that they aren't just coincidences.

As for resurrecting from the dead, it all depends on whether people of the iron age had a medically sound definition of death. Heck, even into the 17th century and 18th centuries, people didn't know how to tell apart unconcsciousness and death - I believe graves were equipped with a contraption the person in a grave could use to ring a bell to indicate that fae was still alive although assumed to be dead and thus buried.

There are no miracles in the Bible.. NOTHING SUPERNATURAL.. there is only symbolism, metaphor, and poetic words.. along with frequent ambiguities.. to make us think.. A blind man is a man without understanding.. a deaf person is someone who will not listen.. A person is DEAD.. because his heart has stopped working.. metaphorically speaking.. and when Jesus walks over the high waves of the sea.. and stills the winds and calms the waves.. All we need to do is ask.. what does this really mean..? and search the Bible until we find the answer..

JESUS WALKING ON WATER.. AND SILENCING THE WIND AND WAVES…A MIRACLE… OR ALLEGORY ? - “HE REBUKED THE WINDS AND THE SEA, AND A CALM SET IN”
“He is stilling the noise of the seas, The noise of their waves and the turmoil of the national groups. He causes the windstorm to stand at a calm, So that the waves of the sea keep quiet.” – “The national groups themselves will make a din just like the noise of many waters. And He will certainly REBUKE IT….”

ALLEGORY – As a literary device, an allegory is a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences. Allegory (in the sense of the practice and use of allegorical devices and works) has occurred widely throughout history in all forms of art, largely because it can readily illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.
Writers or speakers typically use allegories as literary devices or as rhetorical devices that convey (semi-)hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.”

"Then, getting up, HE REBUKED THE WINDS AND THE SEA, AND A CALM SET IN. So the men became amazed and said: “What sort of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” – Matthew 8:23

-