A simple proof against an infinite past

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke_K

Guest
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the future from the past.
  3. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the future compared to the past, and the past cannot be infinite. There is indeed a beginning.
Anything wrong with this logic? 🤷
 
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the future from the past.
  3. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the future compared to the past, and the past cannot be infinite. There is indeed a beginning.
Click to expand...
Why not substitute the terms?
  1. The future is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the past from the future.
  3. No further past is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the past.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the past compared to the future, and the future cannot be infinite. There is indeed an end. 🙂
 
Luke_K said:
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the future from the past.
  3. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the future compared to the past, and the past cannot be infinite. There is indeed a beginning.
Anything wrong with this logic? 🤷
Click to expand...
Luke:

Tonyrey gave me a good insight. Why not:
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The past is still infinitely in the past and will continue to remain in the infinite past indefinitely.
  3. Therefore, we can never get here.
God bless,
jd
 
tonyrey said:
Why not substitute the terms?
  1. The future is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the past from the future.
  3. No further past is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the past.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the past compared to the future, and the future cannot be infinite. There is indeed an end. 🙂
Click to expand...
An interesting argument, for sure. But just because the future is not actually infinite, doesn’t mean that it has an end. I can add up 1+1+1+… days for as long as I want but never reach infinity. However, we can’t subtract 0-1-1-1-1-… days back without limit because the past isn’t contingent on the present. The present is contingent on the past! The future is contingent on the present, though.

This supports my conclusion, but I suppose it makes my original argument irrelevant. :o
 
Luke_K said:
An interesting argument, for sure. But just because the future is not actually infinite, doesn’t mean that it has an end. I can add up 1+1+1+… days for as long as I want but never reach infinity. However, we can’t subtract 0-1-1-1-1-… days back without limit because the past isn’t contingent on the present. The present is contingent on the past! The future is contingent on the present, though.

This supports my conclusion, but I suppose it makes my original argument irrelevant. :o
Click to expand...
Luke:

I think that is wrong, much to my chagrin. Time is an unbroken continuum: past to and through future. The Present is not a part of time. It is neither the Past nor any part of the Past, nor does it drag any part of the Past along with it. Likewise, the Present, a.k.a, the Now, is not the Future nor any part of the Future. It is that place directly between the outermost “surface” of the Past and the outermost “surface” of the Future. Its duration is so infinitesimally small that it really does not separate the Past and the Future into two continuums but it does differentiate them. Time is to a line as the Now is to a point, comparatively speaking. Unlike the line, which exists all at once, i.e., with all of its parts simultaneously present, the continuum of time exists only successively. Further, the Now is always flowing, while a point on a line is not.

Essentially, both Past and Future are contingent on the Now. The Now flowing generates time. It generated the Past and will generate the Future. Consider a point on a geometrical line that is imagined to be moving. If one takes a closer look at this imaginary moving point, one realizes that it is always different. The Now is like that. It is always different while never going out of existence.

You are correct regarding your conception of infinity. It is immensity constantly growing. What we call infinity is potential infinity. There is no actual infinity except God. The word potential here does not mean “stored up,” (like a battery) or “wound up” (like a spring). It means that the imaginary number “infinity” will never be within our grasp.

But, the fact is that time began with the Big Bang, i.e., the creation of mobile being. First there was nothing, then God created and then there was something. It is difficult to express without reference to ‘time’. But, that’s the only way we can convey its meaning.

God bless,
jd
 
Luke_K said:
  1. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
Click to expand...
Your logic fails here. If there is no further future, then you cannot be dealing with an infinite quantity.
 
Luke_K said:
An interesting argument, for sure. But just because the future is not actually infinite, doesn’t mean that it has an end. I can add up 1+1+1+… days for as long as I want but never reach infinity. However, we can’t subtract 0-1-1-1-1-… days back without limit because the past isn’t contingent on the present. The present is contingent on the past! The future is contingent on the present, though.

This supports my conclusion, but I suppose it makes my original argument irrelevant. :o
Click to expand...
You are right about the present being contingent on the past as far as physical causes are concerned but the past was contingent on the present from the aspect of final causes, i.e. purposes. Both divine and human goals have determined the present and will determine the future! 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
You are right about the present being contingent on the past as far as physical causes are concerned but the past was contingent on the present from the aspect of final causes, i.e. purposes. Both divine and human goals have determined the present and will determine the future! 🙂
Click to expand...
What final causes?

What purposes?
 
Luke_K said:
That’s the point of the argument.
Click to expand...
But the restriction is yours for the sake of attempting to prove your argument.

Since an infinite timeline includes all points in time, at any point in time there is always an infinite time from the past and an infinite future ahead.

Fact is, in the realm of existence that we perceive we cannot really know. It’s simply speculation. We end up choosing the one that best suits our observations.
 
Luke_K said:
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the future from the past.
  3. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the future compared to the past, and the past cannot be infinite. There is indeed a beginning.
Anything wrong with this logic? 🤷
Click to expand...
I find that premise 1 is the first problem. Time beginning at the moment of the big bang appears to disagree with the claim to an infinite past.
 
Filthy_Tugboat said:
I find that premise 1 is the first problem. Time beginning at the moment of the big bang appears to disagree with the claim to an infinite past.
Click to expand...
Exactly. His goal is to disprove an infinite past regardless of the big bang.
 
Luke_K said:
  1. The past is infinite.
  2. The present is infinitely far in the future from the past.
  3. No further future is possible, because we are already infinitely far in the future.
  4. (3) is obviously false, therefore we are not infinitely far in the future compared to the past, and the past cannot be infinite. There is indeed a beginning.
Anything wrong with this logic? 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, there is something wrong with your logic. #2 is manifestly false, even if #1 is correct.

You cannot prove a beginning in time from logical alone. It requires revelation. St. Thomas Aquinas argued this point quite well, that is why His Second Proof of God’s existence, namely that form causality, does not refer to a cause “in time”, but allows for the possibility that an infinite temporal system would still require a non-temporal cause.
 
Katholish said:
Yes, there is something wrong with your logic. #2 is manifestly false, even if #1 is correct.

You cannot prove a beginning in time from logical alone. It requires revelation. St. Thomas Aquinas argued this point quite well, that is why His Second Proof of God’s existence, namely that form causality, does not refer to a cause “in time”, but allows for the possibility that an infinite temporal system would still require a non-temporal cause.
Click to expand...
This, beside being an assertion with no worthy explanation, is an arguement from authority and is thus in this context at least representative of a rebuttal that would have been better off if it had never been uttered.
 
It seems like people are misunderstanding the argument. I assume the first premise and attempt to show that it leads to an absurd conclusion, therefore proving the first premise wrong. It’s an argument by contradiction.
 
The argument is problematic in another way. We are imposing our concept of time on the argument. For example, if one believes in Big Bang Theory, most people assume that is the starting point of time. That is simply for convenience. Time have started before then, but it has no meaning for our purposes, so we simply ignore that concept and assume it started at the point of the Big Bang.

Furthermore, if one believes that God has always existed, that would imply that time has always existed. Once again, we may choose some event as the starting point, but it for our convenience.
 
JDaniel said:
Luke:

I think that is wrong, much to my chagrin. Time is an unbroken continuum: past to and through future. The Present is not a part of time. It is neither the Past nor any part of the Past, nor does it drag any part of the Past along with it. Likewise, the Present, a.k.a, the Now, is not the Future nor any part of the Future. It is that place directly between the outermost “surface” of the Past and the outermost “surface” of the Future. Its duration is so infinitesimally small that it really does not separate the Past and the Future into two continuums but it does differentiate them. Time is to a line as the Now is to a point, comparatively speaking. Unlike the line, which exists all at once, i.e., with all of its parts simultaneously present, the continuum of time exists only successively. Further, the Now is always flowing, while a point on a line is not.

Essentially, both Past and Future are contingent on the Now. The Now flowing generates time. It generated the Past and will generate the Future. Consider a point on a geometrical line that is imagined to be moving. If one takes a closer look at this imaginary moving point, one realizes that it is always different. The Now is like that. It is always different while never going out of existence.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing the concept of “past” with the reality that the past once was. Yes, the concept of the past is dependent on a Now, but the reality that used to be the past was not dependent on the present time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top