Then simply quote a reliable source saying infinite regression of cause and effect is logically impossible by definition.
-
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
nazz
Doubting Thomas
do you need an authority to tell you circles can't be square?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Wrestling ring....
I take it you have nothing to show in support of your claim?
You could save loads of time, effort and aggravation if you were to just flat out state as such.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
um...
To be fair and honest....
The first quote of mine you had there was to Pegg, not Nazz...
Oh, then I refer to your post number 78 instead then.
Then I take it you have no references or any support for your claim? Then why make it?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Its not obvious. Nor are there conflicting terms being used. To say "time began" is more contradictory than to say infinite regression. There are reasons to believe against it but I'm wondering why you feel it is "obviously" impossible. So far you nor anyone else has shown this to be true. In fact I can show you a way where it IS possible for there to be infinite regression. We don't know if this is the way the universe exists however.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Go for it. I am always open to changing my mind.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I am more interested in your reasons as to "why" it is impossible other than simply your opinion.
A simple way to figure the universe as infinite is a circular universe where the "last effect" is the "first cause" or would be more specifically correct to say that there is no first or last cause or effect. Any number of non-linear models of the universe can exist in infinity with no problems. If they are true or not is yet to be seen but it certainly is beyond our current knowledge to claim that they are "obviously incorrect".
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I already considered that. That still does not work. But nice try.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I already considered your theory. Your wrong therefore I win. Good day.
This is more or less what you stated. Why is it "obvious" infinite regression is impossible. What function or system or law in our universe requires it to be false?
And I am giddy with anticipation as to why you think a legitimate physics theory is dismiss-able without so much as an argument otherwise.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I thought you might have something new for me to consider. That's the sort of thing I'd be interested in.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Still waiting.....
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't care what your interested in. Please respond to my last post.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I've already explained why I don't want to debate this. Sorry.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
But why won't you support your claim?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Then I can't consider your point valid and there is no reason to continue if you refuse to support your points. I shall look forward to debating you elsewhere.
Time is an issue. Time would go infinitely to the past meaning no beginning and no way to reach the present, cause an infinite regressed past wouldnt allow it.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Space, time, matter, etc. nothing at all existing at any "past time" is equally as incomprehensible as eternity...yet here we are
Our thought and language constructs are obviously too limited and restricted for any option to be completely, truly grasped and made sense of. We sense and understand a tiny portion.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Having a "begining" to time is even more problematic if we apply the same logic. Neither is "obviously" wrong or correct due to our depth of ignorance on the subject. We have a hard time accurately defining time within the context of different scenarios and we know that time is not a steady constant as we would like to believe. Several things can change "time" ect.
For example it seems ludicrous to say that two objects have existed for the same amount of "time" but have different ages.
Perspective is key and fundamental when ever addressing time. There is no privileged perspective that we can talk from that would avoid us giving a very specific point of view. The argument that some have made about "if there is an infinite number of moments before now we would never have reached now" are trying to talk from two different perspectives. All we can talk about is "now". Nothing along the line of logic states that we cannot have an infinite amount of time before and behind us. We are not on a "track" of time. Anyone who thinks that we are must have groundbreaking evidence or are misguided in their understanding of what "time" is.