An Infinite Past?

[seer]

A change is a change, and a force is a force no less so for a thought than for a physical change, so the problem of infinite regression isn't solved by the God hypothesis. Besides, if either the universe or God is infinite, what is the problem with infinite regression? Was there a certain point within infinity when God decided to create the universe? Did he have infinite many thoughts previous to that thought?

The problem with infinite regression Jim is that it is irrational. And no, thoughts are not physical change, not that we really know how God thinks, only that He does. If infinite regression was the case we could never have reached this present universe. But since we can not comprehend an infinite past I can make the point like this: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

[JimL]

The problem with infinite regression Jim is that it is irrational. And no, thoughts are not physical change, not that we really know how God thinks, only that He does. If infinite regression was the case we could never have reached this present universe. But since we can not comprehend an infinite past I can make the point like this: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

Thoughts are a change that take place in time whether time is eternal or began to exist. Do your thoughts take place in time? Thoughts, Gods just like your own, either take place in time just as all other events do, or they are eternal and fixed. Could you ever reach every past thought of God, even given eternity? So the problem of infinite regression isn't solved by tranferring it to thoughts rather than to physical events.

[shunyadragon]

And be honest Shuny - what did Carroll say - that none of them worked, or could be demonstrated - not even his.

No he did not say this. If you believe so you have to better then this assertion without references.

[shunyadragon]

The nature or character of a carpenter doesn't change when he makes a chair. And the problem with change according to Aquinas is infinite regression. For even in a multi-verse there must be a physical change or force that created this universe for instance. But some force or change must have preceded the force or change that created this universe, the movers and the moved, cause and effect, into infinity past.

Infinite regression can only occur within time from a human perspective, and does not limit the possibility of an Infinite Past. The problem with Aquinas is his reliance on Aristotle's thinking in terms of Infinities. Lucretius in the 1st Century BC adequately addressed the problems of an Infinite past and future by simple logic. There are no numbers on time to consider Infinite regression any more then a human construct.

[seer]

No he did not say this. If you believe so you have to better then this assertion without references.

You are fibbing again Shuny, you should stop. I watch the entire debate, I know what was said.

[seer]

Infinite regression can only occur within time from a human perspective, and does not limit the possibility of an Infinite Past. The problem with Aquinas is his reliance on Aristotle's thinking in terms of Infinities. Lucretius in the 1st Century BC adequately addressed the problems of an Infinite past and future by simple logic. There are no numbers on time to consider Infinite regression any more then a human construct.

Again you have no idea what you are speaking of. Infinite regression is irrational, as my example shows: But since we can not comprehend an infinite past I can make the point like this: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

[shunyadragon]

You are fibbing again Shuny, you should stop. I watch the entire debate, I know what was said.

Your either fibbing or grossly misinformed, and you do not know what he said. I am listening to Carroll right now, and he states he can come up with at least 17 models for an eternal cosmology. He of course, says that these models do not answer all the questions and in the future they will probably be replaced by better models with more explanatory power. He never said that these eternal models do not work. Based on a much better and complete knowledge of physics and cosmology, Carroll ripped the theologian Craig, with no background in the science of physics and cosmology. Carroll specifically pointed out many instances where Craig selectively misrepresented other cosmologists.

It would be interesting to have a thread where we can discuss, and accurately cite Carroll in actually what he stated in the debate. It would be nice if I could get an actual transcript I can cite, but at present I cannot find one.

In terms of an argument for the question of could the greater cosmos by 'infinite', Lucretius answered that in the 1st Century BC Rome. In terms of the possibility of the universe being possibly eternal, the current science Carroll presents is, yes.

He discussed the nature of the Quantum World from which our universe and all possible universes arose, which parallels my view I present here.

[seer]

Your either fibbing or grossly misinformed, and you do not know what he said. I am listening to Carroll right now, and he states he can come up with at least 17 models for an eternal cosmology. He of course, says that these models do not answer all the questions and in the future they will probably be replaced by better models with more explanatory power. He never said that these eternal models do not work. Based on a much better and complete knowledge of physics and cosmology, Carroll ripped the theologian Craig, with no background in the science of physics and cosmology.

That is the point Shuny, none of them work. If they do not answers the questions necessary to explain this cosmos then they are not viable. If they do not track with reality as we know it then they are just theory with no basis in fact. And which one of the 17 is correct Shuny? They all can't be. Either they all are wrong, or one right - but we have no idea. The truth is there is zero evidence for an eternal physical past. Stop pretending that there is.

He discussed the nature of the Quantum World from which our universe and all possible universes arose, which parallels my view I present here.

Carroll can make up whatever he likes (after all he is a devoted atheist), but where is the evidence? And like my example shows infinite regression is both impossible and irrational.

[JimL]

That is the point Shuny, none of them work. If they do not answers the questions necessary to explain this cosmos then they are not viable. If they do not track with reality as we know it then they are just theory with no basis in fact. And which one of the 17 is correct Shuny? They all can't be. Either they all are wrong, or one right - but we have no idea. The truth is there is zero evidence for an eternal physical past. Stop pretending that there is.



Carroll can make up whatever he likes (after all he is a devoted atheist), but where is the evidence? And like my example shows infinite regression is both impossible and irrational.

Your example seer only shows that a finite regression is impossible without a first cause, not that an infinite regression is. But if the universe itself is uncaused and infinite then nothing is caused because nothing new is created, all existing things belong to one and the same infinite existing universe. You needn't trace back in infinite time to find it's origen because you are already there. Besides the argument that all things need a cause therefore there must be a first cause contradicts the argument itself that all things need a cause. All temporal things may be said to need a cause, but temporal things are not things in themselves, they are in the cause, and so one with it.

[robrecht]

Good post, Jim. For questions like this in classical thought, one also needs to distinguish between what they understood as efficient and what they understood as final causality.

[shunyadragon]

Again you have no idea what you are speaking of. Infinite regression is irrational, as my example shows: But since we can not comprehend an infinite past I can make the point like this: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

The problem of Infinite Regress is a problem presented in the arguments for "What is the 'First Cause?' This remains apart of most arguments. The concept of multi-verse is not a sequence of universes, Universes form and return to the Greater Cosmos with no relationship to the beginning nor end of the greater Cosmos.

[shunyadragon]

That is the point Shuny, none of them work. If they do not answers the questions necessary to explain this cosmos then they are not viable. If they do not track with reality as we know it then they are just theory with no basis in fact. And which one of the 17 is correct Shuny? They all can't be. Either they all are wrong, or one right - but we have no idea. The truth is there is zero evidence for an eternal physical past. Stop pretending that there is.

Here again, no cosmologists nor other scientists involved have ever stated that 'None of them work.' Please cite cosmologists or other scientists involved with the subject to support your assertion. As Carroll explained Craig nor you understand the science involved. Again cite the science and not just your assertions.

I am not pretending, it is you who are not citing any references to support your assertions. Your accusation of fibbing challenged me as to citing Carroll properly and not whether Carroll was himself was correct.

Carroll can make up whatever he likes (after all he is a devoted atheist), but where is the evidence? And like my example shows infinite regression is both impossible and irrational.

I am not interested in your negative assertions about Carroll. I am interested in prober citations as to what the present scientific view is. Bringing his religious views into play is a classic fallacy. I do not care what his belief is, only his science.

In his talk he presented the classic scientific view of 'Methodological Naturalism,' In that the conclusions of science are neutral and indifferent to theological questions. He argued rightfully so that Craig could not use the Physics and Cosmology of Science to justify an argument for the existence of God.

[seer]

Here again, no cosmologists nor other scientists involved have ever stated that 'None of them work.' Please cite cosmologists or other scientists involved with the subject to support your assertion. As Carroll explained Craig nor you understand the science involved. Again cite the science and not just your assertions.

There is no evidence that any of these theories are correct Shuny. Tell us which one of the 17 or so is correct? Where is the physical evidence that supports their theory? You or Carroll claim that this universe rose from a Quantum World - we know a such a world exists IN this universe, where is the evidence it existed outside of this universe or before this universe or gave rise to this universe? I'll be waiting...

I am not pretending, it is you who are not citing any references to support your assertions. Your accusation of fibbing challenged me as to citing Carroll properly and not whether Carroll was himself was correct.

You always fib Shuny, that is how you operate. You are implying that there is evidence for an eternal physical past. That is not true - period.

am not interested in your negative assertions about Carroll. I am interested in prober citations as to what the present scientific view is. Bringing his religious views into play is a classic fallacy. I do not care what his belief is, only his science.

And now you add hypocrisy to your list of sins. You are always claiming that Craig and others are letting their religious views taint their conclusions, but Carroll's radical atheism doesn't color his view?

In his talk he presented the classic scientific view of 'Methodological Naturalism,' In that the conclusions of science are neutral and indifferent to theological questions. He argued rightfully so that Craig could not use the Physics and Cosmology of Science to justify an argument for the existence of God.

Who cares what Carroll says he is after all a radical atheist, who is bias. And what makes you think that 'Methodological Naturalism' is able in the first place to explain creation?

[seer]

The problem of Infinite Regress is a problem presented in the arguments for "What is the 'First Cause?' This remains apart of most arguments. The concept of multi-verse is not a sequence of universes, Universes form and return to the Greater Cosmos with no relationship to the beginning nor end of the greater Cosmos.

Nonsense, it still requires an infinite regression of causes and effects, even in your multiverse.

[seer]

Your example seer only shows that a finite regression is impossible without a first cause, not that an infinite regression is. But if the universe itself is uncaused and infinite then nothing is caused because nothing new is created, all existing things belong to one and the same infinite existing universe. You needn't trace back in infinite time to find it's origen because you are already there. Besides the argument that all things need a cause therefore there must be a first cause contradicts the argument itself that all things need a cause. All temporal things may be said to need a cause, but temporal things are not things in themselves, they are in the cause, and so one with it.

No Jim, even in your greater universe you still end up with an infinite regression of causes and effects. Some physical effect caused this universe to rise, but what effect caused that effect? And so on and so on. You can break the chain of cause and effect but then there would be no reason for a specific cause to come about.