nazz
Doubting Thomas
No thanks. One either gets it or they don't and no amount of debating changes anyone's mind.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Universe Always Was Existing
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
No thanks. One either gets it or they don't and no amount of debating changes anyone's mind.
You said and I quote: "You don't realize it but your very statement above proves the impossibility of an infinite regression of time." How?
He highlighted the word "start" I think as an attempt to highlight a paradox for something that's supposed to be an infinite. With infinite time there is nowhere to start at zero to count backwards. Ok quit with trying to explode our heads, just mind boggling to think counting backwards forever, with no "beginning", if it didn't start, what the......:thud:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
There you go. You got it. If time infinitely regressed you could never get to where we are now because there is no starting point.
Time doesn't "start" or "travel" or "reach" or "gets to" anywhere of course. What would time "travel" along to "get to where we are now"? Itself?
Please read those links I supplied you with. Just like we can start now counting zero, -1, -2 and you'll never find a "starting number" we can start now counting zero, -1 minute, -2 minutes and never find a "starting minute" simply because there isn't one.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
But are you both not saying the same thing. Where is the debate. You two seem to agree.
I said:But are you both not saying the same thing. Where is the debate. You two seem to agree.
... we can start now counting zero, -1 minute, -2 minutes and never find a "starting minute" simply because there isn't one."
He appears to say that if there wasn't a -1 umptillionth starting minute in the past, we could never reach a now where we could say that now is the zero minute and count back -1 minutes and -2 minutes. I would like Nazz to explain why if I count back -1 minute, -2 minutes, -3 minutes from this minute, why at some point I would have to reach some -umptillionth "first" minute and why there couldn't be a -1 umptillonth and one minute.
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
You don't get it even though you keep using the word "start" over and over again. Just try counting to -1 umptillion but don't START with zero or anywhere else in the series of numbers. Let's see how far you get. That's why I don't debate this, it is too frustrating. Arguing for an infinite regression of time is like arguing for square circles.
Yes infinite loops are also frustrating but at least they sound more feasible.
I cant see being able to count backwards forever, with no start we would never get to today.
Let's try a different approach. You say that time requires a starting point to reach "now"? What does your "time" travel through to reach "now"?
Who are "we" and did you all have to exist all the way from the start of time to get to today too?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Time does not literally travel anywhere. It's a measurement of change. Forget about time. An infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible. Plain and simple.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
How do you know this to be true? Specifically.
So what you are saying is that an effect was preceded by a cause which was preceded by an effect which was preceded by a cause which was preceded by an effect which was preceded by a cause etc. but at some point there must be an effect that wasn't preceded by a cause or a cause that wasn't preceded by an effect because you can't keep saying "an effect was preceded by a cause which was preceded by an effect which was preceded by a cause" forever? Why can't you?
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Just keep thinking about it. Maybe one day the light bulb will come on. I said I would not debate this again so I'm done. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to argue with someone who believes square circles can exist? What could one possibly say to change their minds?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
The same way I know square circles or married bachelors can't exist.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Source(s) please.
You make the same claim numerous times, even poke fun at those who do not share belief in your claim, but have not preented anything to support your claim.
please support your claim.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Interesting claim.
now all you have to do is support it.
And no, "common sense" does not work.
You could tell Mestemia and Monk Of Reason and me why "an infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible"? You don't have to "debate" anything. Just tell us why.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Explaining why always just leads to a frustrating debate. Again, how could I tell someone why square circles can't exist? All I can say it is they are logically impossible by definition. Same goes for an infinite regression of cause and effect. It really should be obvious. You just have to think it all the way through.