Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The A-Theory Of Time And An Actual Infinite

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 8:54:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If one assumes A-theory, then one can believe an actual infinite is impossible and still believe the universe did not come into being, with no issues at all...If B-Theory is true, then the universe did not begin to exist and there is no temporal regress of past events anyway, because time would be objectively tenseless.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection. But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:08:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection. But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

Craig would reject this view as it leads to the conclusion that his non-existence before his birth is just as real as his existence right now. We all know how obsessive he is about what is "intuitively obvious", so I would bet he would not like this view. Regardless, there are very serious problems with Possibilism (more so than Presintism or Eternalism).

http://pages.shanti.virginia.edu...

"Of the three, growing block has the fewest defenders. I shall argue that it should have none." - Trenton Merricks

From what I have seen in other papers as well, Presentism and Possibilism are the two Big players in town, with the Growing Block as the least likely.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:14:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection. But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

Also, wouldn't the universe still not really begin to exist just like B-Theory under Growing Block? If this is the case, I do not think the theist wants to go that route in an argument trying to show an absolute beginning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Growing Block is odd, as it has some A-Theory features and Some B-Theory features. I'm trying to think if the universe would actually begin to exist under Possibilism or not...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:19:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection. But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

(correction)

*Presentism and Eternalism are the two Big players in town, with the Growing Block as the least likely.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Once again, you are confusing semantics with reality, McTaggart"s argument really boils down to claiming that the A Theory is self-referential; if the answer to the question "How much time is in a minute" is "A minute of time", and therefore the A Theory is false.

You"ve taken a very small piece of McTaggart"s argument out of context and drawn invalid conclusions about it here. He didn"t argue that there is a choice to be made between A Theory and B Theory, and he certainly didn"t make some kind of assertion about where Theism must fall in this false dichotomy. He argued that the B Theory is referential to the A Theory, and that the A Theory is both necessary and self-referential, but in being self-referential, it must be false, so time must be "unreal".

It"s no coincidence that "The Unreality of Time" was published three years after Einstein"s Special Relativity paper, McTaggart was exploring the philosophical implications of Special Relativity regarding time and concluded that time doesn"t exist as an independent and ontologically objective reality. Hardly anyone has a problem accepting the implications of Einstein"s Special Theory regarding time, it is a dynamic that is relative to frames of reference and there is no privileged frame of reference from which we can claim its independence or ontologically objective reality; that is no surprise to anybody today, even the dreaded Theists get that. The General Theory was explicitly ontological in nature, and what it told us is that time is not an independent thing, it is part of a single "fabric" of spacetime, and ontologically speaking, that matter, energy, time, and space are relationships. The logical conclusion is that the universe that we know and study, is a contingent reality, and the unanswered question is what is it contingent upon, if matter, energy, time, and space are relationships, what are they relationships among? Most Theists are OK with that, they believe in an answer that works for them and I doubt any of them care that you get all bunged up about it.


Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Not so, the impossibility of an actual infinite does indeed necessitate the notion that the universe is finite in the past, you can"t traverse an infinite and so postulating an infinite past is a logical contradiction, and there is no need to consider your contrived A Theory, B Theory false dichotomy.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:55:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:54:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If one assumes A-theory, then one can believe an actual infinite is impossible and still believe the universe did not come into being, with no issues at all...If B-Theory is true, then the universe did not begin to exist and there is no temporal regress of past events anyway, because time would be objectively tenseless.

Ummm, yeah, time is not an object, thanks for clearing that up for us.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:57:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.

Nope, that"s not what it means.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:08:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection. But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

Craig would reject this view as it leads to the conclusion that his non-existence before his birth is just as real as his existence right now. We all know how obsessive he is about what is "intuitively obvious", so I would bet he would not like this view. Regardless, there are very serious problems with Possibilism (more so than Presintism or Eternalism).

Yes, and I would agree with Craig; I myself am also a presentist.


http://pages.shanti.virginia.edu...

"Of the three, growing block has the fewest defenders. I shall argue that it should have none." - Trenton Merricks

From what I have seen in other papers as well, Presentism and Possibilism are the two Big players in town, with the Growing Block as the least likely.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:06:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 4:54:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Once again, you are confusing semantics with reality, McTaggart"s argument really boils down to claiming that the A Theory is self-referential; if the answer to the question "How much time is in a minute" is "A minute of time", and therefore the A Theory is false.

You"ve taken a very small piece of McTaggart"s argument out of context and drawn invalid conclusions about it here. He didn"t argue that there is a choice to be made between A Theory and B Theory, and he certainly didn"t make some kind of assertion about where Theism must fall in this false dichotomy. He argued that the B Theory is referential to the A Theory, and that the A Theory is both necessary and self-referential, but in being self-referential, it must be false, so time must be "unreal".

It"s no coincidence that "The Unreality of Time" was published three years after Einstein"s Special Relativity paper, McTaggart was exploring the philosophical implications of Special Relativity regarding time and concluded that time doesn"t exist as an independent and ontologically objective reality. Hardly anyone has a problem accepting the implications of Einstein"s Special Theory regarding time, it is a dynamic that is relative to frames of reference and there is no privileged frame of reference from which we can claim its independence or ontologically objective reality; that is no surprise to anybody today, even the dreaded Theists get that. The General Theory was explicitly ontological in nature, and what it told us is that time is not an independent thing, it is part of a single "fabric" of spacetime, and ontologically speaking, that matter, energy, time, and space are relationships. The logical conclusion is that the universe that we know and study, is a contingent reality, and the unanswered question is what is it contingent upon, if matter, energy, time, and space are relationships, what are they relationships among? Most Theists are OK with that, they believe in an answer that works for them and I doubt any of them care that you get all bunged up about it.


Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Not so, the impossibility of an actual infinite does indeed necessitate the notion that the universe is finite in the past, you can"t traverse an infinite

There would be no actual infinite number of past events at any moment of time. Therefore, there would be no actual infinite in reality even if the universe did no begin to exist.

and so postulating an infinite past is a logical contradiction

Nobody is positing an actual infinite past even if there is no beginning lol If Presentism is true, the only now is "real". Is there an infinite number of past events that exist right now? No? Then there is no actual infinite set even if the universe did not have a beginning.

, and there is no need to consider your contrived A Theory, B Theory false dichotomy.

These are the only real live theories of time. If the Kalam relies on another theory of time then it still fails because because other other theory of time is unlikely.

So, one can believe that the universe did not begin to exist and not believe in an actual infinite with no problem. If Presentism is true then only now is actual. If only now is actual, then there is no infinite set of past event that has any place in reality. This holds true whether the universe had a beginning or not. Thus, your argument fails.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 4:57:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.

Nope, that"s not what it means.

Yes it is lol Who cares if an actual infinite is impossible? If A-Theory is true, reality would never consist of an actual infinite because reality would just be "now" as the past does not exist. Meaning, one can believe in a universe without a beginning and that an actual infinite is impossible with no contradiction.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:13:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 4:57:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.

Nope, that"s not what it means.

In Hilbert's Hotel it involves an infinite set existing at the same "now" point. If we assume that the universe did not begin to exist, and that A-Theory is true, then there has never been a "now" point which contains an infinite number of past events. Therefore, there would never exist an actual infinite even if the universe did not begin to exist. The second you deny this, you admit that you are either a Growing Blocker or a B-Theorist over a Presentist.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection.

I"ll agree that it"s a relatively new way to confuse epistemology and ontology and come to false conclusions about Theism, but it sure looks like the same old misuse of the words real and unreal to me.

But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

One could also recognize that almost everybody accepts that Einstein changed our conception of time and most of us understands that the Newtonian concept of time as an absolute is no longer logically or scientifically valid. There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 11:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:44:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption that the A-theory of time is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past and future are not actual. This would mean it would be illogical to think that the universe not having a beginning implies an actual infinite under the assumption that A-Theory is true. If A-Theory is true, then the past is not actual and does not exist at all. Only "now" is actual under the A-Theory of time. This means that if the theist implies that the universe not having a beginning implies the existence of an actual infinite, then they concede the B-Theory of time (the theory that posits that the past is actual).

Think about it...If only "now" exists then at no point in time has there been an actually infinite set of of past events, there is no actually infinite set of past events, and at no point in the future will there be an actually infinite set of past events (even if the universe did not come into being). If A-Theory is true, then this "infinite set" the theist is trying to posit with regards to "no beginning" is just imaginary! If A-Theory is true, then there has never been a point in time when an actual infinite number of past events has ever been the case.

Therefore, the theist has to throw away their argument that the impossibility of an actual infinite necessitates the notion that the universe came into being. If they do not, then they contradict A-Theory. This would be fatal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That's quite refreshing an objection.

I"ll agree that it"s a relatively new way to confuse epistemology and ontology and come to false conclusions about Theism, but it sure looks like the same old misuse of the words real and unreal to me.

All you are doing is confusing a concept with reality. If A-Theory is true, then reality only consists of "now". If only "now" is actual, then this means no actual existing set of past events exists! This holds true whether or not the universe had a beginning or not. Thus, the whole think between "no beginning" and an "actual infinite" actual concedes Growing Block or B-Theory.


But consider: there are different ways one can be an A-theorist. One can, for example, embrace what is known as a Growing Block Theory of time in which the past and the present exist. Under this view, it seems as if the Growing Block Theorist could comfortably run the arguments against the existence of actual infinities.

One could also recognize that almost everybody accepts that Einstein changed our conception of time and most of us understands that the Newtonian concept of time as an absolute is no longer logically or scientifically valid.

Yes, this hurts Presentism more than helps it lol

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:48:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:06:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 4:54:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Not so, the impossibility of an actual infinite does indeed necessitate the notion that the universe is finite in the past, you can"t traverse an infinite

There would be no actual infinite number of past events at any moment of time. Therefore, there would be no actual infinite in reality even if the universe did no begin to exist.

Yeah, if you take the position that the past does not exist then you can say things in the past don't exist, but it's kind of an inane approach to the questions of our Cosmological past.

and so postulating an infinite past is a logical contradiction

Nobody is positing an actual infinite past even if there is no beginning lol If Presentism is true, the only now is "real". Is there an infinite number of past events that exist right now? No? Then there is no actual infinite set even if the universe did not have a beginning.

Yeah, the past doesn't exist so you have solved all the questions of Cosmology LOL.


, and there is no need to consider your contrived A Theory, B Theory false dichotomy.

These are the only real live theories of time. If the Kalam relies on another theory of time then it still fails because because other other theory of time is unlikely.

Hell yeah, time is unreal so all Cosmological questions have been resolved, you are brilliant LOL. I think there's still that Relativity and Quantum Physics thing out there, why don't you reconcile those next.

So, one can believe that the universe did not begin to exist and not believe in an actual infinite with no problem. If Presentism is true then only now is actual. If only now is actual, then there is no infinite set of past event that has any place in reality. This holds true whether the universe had a beginning or not. Thus, your argument fails.

What argument? That was in the past and the past doesn't exist, so it can't fail, nonexistent arguments can't fail, we're living in the moment, there is no success or failure, there's just now, stop being silly.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:56:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:48:44 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:06:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 4:54:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Not so, the impossibility of an actual infinite does indeed necessitate the notion that the universe is finite in the past, you can"t traverse an infinite

There would be no actual infinite number of past events at any moment of time. Therefore, there would be no actual infinite in reality even if the universe did no begin to exist.

Yeah, if you take the position that the past does not exist then you can say things in the past don't exist, but it's kind of an inane approach to the questions of our Cosmological past.

Well this is the result if you are a Presentist. Presentists believe the past is not actual and that the future is not actual. Only "now" is actual. Thus, unless an infinite number of past events exists "now" then there is no actual infinite number of past events that effects reality even if the universe had no beginning.


and so postulating an infinite past is a logical contradiction

Nobody is positing an actual infinite past even if there is no beginning lol If Presentism is true, the only now is "real". Is there an infinite number of past events that exist right now? No? Then there is no actual infinite set even if the universe did not have a beginning.

Yeah, the past doesn't exist so you have solved all the questions of Cosmology LOL.

Who said I solved all questions? My point was just that a universe not having a beginning would not imply the existence of an actual infinite. If Presentism is true, then only "now" is actual and there is not an actual infinite number of past events that would exist at any point in reality.



, and there is no need to consider your contrived A Theory, B Theory false dichotomy.

These are the only real live theories of time. If the Kalam relies on another theory of time then it still fails because because other other theory of time is unlikely.

Hell yeah, time is unreal so all Cosmological questions have been resolved, you are brilliant LOL.

I never said time is unreal. When did I claim to be a B-Theorist?

I think there's still that Relativity and Quantum Physics thing out there, why don't you reconcile those next.

Both of those support B-Theory.


So, one can believe that the universe did not begin to exist and not believe in an actual infinite with no problem. If Presentism is true then only now is actual. If only now is actual, then there is no infinite set of past event that has any place in reality. This holds true whether the universe had a beginning or not. Thus, your argument fails.

What argument? That was in the past and the past doesn't exist, so it can't fail, nonexistent arguments can't fail, we're living in the moment, there is no success or failure, there's just now, stop being silly.

The only one being silly here is you my friend....
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 5:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:09:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 4:57:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.

Nope, that"s not what it means.

Yes it is lol Who cares if an actual infinite is impossible? If A-Theory is true, reality would never consist of an actual infinite because reality would just be "now" as the past does not exist. Meaning, one can believe in a universe without a beginning and that an actual infinite is impossible with no contradiction.

Nope, go back to Wikipedia and read it again, that is the B Theory of time you are talking about here. pay attention this time, what McTaggart argued was that time must be ordered by an A as well as a B series or change is not possible, your position that you have to choose one or the other is a false dichotomy....unless you are arguing that change doesn't occur.

If that is your point, that change doesn't happen, then we don't really need time anyway.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:58:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:09:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 4:57:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:23:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If we assume the A-Theory then this makes Hilbert's Hotel a false-analogy when trying to show that the universe not beginning to exist is impossible. This Hotel scenario involves an infinite set of "x" existing at the same "now". However, if the universe did not begin to exist and A-Theory is tru, then an infinite set of past events would not exist at any actual point we could call "now". Meaning there is NO problem in believing that the universe did not begin to exist, and that an actual infinite is impossible.

Nope, that"s not what it means.

Yes it is lol Who cares if an actual infinite is impossible? If A-Theory is true, reality would never consist of an actual infinite because reality would just be "now" as the past does not exist. Meaning, one can believe in a universe without a beginning and that an actual infinite is impossible with no contradiction.

Nope, go back to Wikipedia and read it again, that is the B Theory of time you are talking about here.

No. Presentism posits that only "now" is actual. B-Theory implies its all actual. you obviously do not know the difference. I am discussing A-Theory, not B-Theory dude.

pay attention this time, what McTaggart argued was that time must be ordered by an A as well as a B series or change is not possible, your position that you have to choose one or the other is a false dichotomy....unless you are arguing that change doesn't occur.

I never posited a false-dichotomy. You are positing a straw-man and you clearly do not know the differences between the theories of time.


If that is your point, that change doesn't happen, then we don't really need time anyway.

I never claimed to be a B-Theorist lol I am talking about A-Theory. Have you lost your mind my child?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Presentism is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then there could not be an actual infinite set of past "now" events, as this would necessitate Possibilism or Eternalism. This would hold true even if the universe did not begin to exist. Therefore, even if an actual infinite set is impossible, this does not mean the universe cannot be eternal. That is a non-sequitur.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.

Nope, that would be the B Theory, go back and read your Wiiki again :LOL
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:31:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 6:12:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.

Nope, that would be the B Theory, go back and read your Wiiki again :LOL

Like I said, you clearly do not understand philosophy of time lol Presentism is the theory that only "now" is actual. B-Theory is that everything that exists in the past, present, and future is actual.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

"Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entities and, in some versions of presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and sets"that occur in the present exist. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:32:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For some reason it won't let me post the link because of the brackets. Just type in

"Presentism (philosophy of time)" in Google.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 6:31:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 6:12:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.

Nope, that would be the B Theory, go back and read your Wiiki again :LOL

Like I said, you clearly do not understand philosophy of time lol Presentism is the theory that only "now" is actual. B-Theory is that everything that exists in the past, present, and future is actual.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

"Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entities and, in some versions of presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and sets"that occur in the present exist. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all."

I know what Presentism is and I know that your argument is purely semantic, the fact is, the A Series and the B Series aren't two different ways of ordering events in time, events are ordered in exactly the same way under both series, the rest is just semantics. You just love to confuse epistemology and ontology, it's your thing, but you really haven't made a point at all here....and throwing wiki links at me makes no point at all.

How about you read these links and formulate an argument that makes sense.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 8:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 7:51:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 6:31:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 6:12:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.

Nope, that would be the B Theory, go back and read your Wiiki again :LOL

Like I said, you clearly do not understand philosophy of time lol Presentism is the theory that only "now" is actual. B-Theory is that everything that exists in the past, present, and future is actual.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

"Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entities and, in some versions of presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and sets"that occur in the present exist. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all."

I know what Presentism is and I know that your argument is purely semantic, the fact is, the A Series and the B Series aren't two different ways of ordering events in time, events are ordered in exactly the same way under both series, the rest is just semantics. You just love to confuse epistemology and ontology, it's your thing, but you really haven't made a point at all here....and throwing wiki links at me makes no point at all.

How about you read these links and formulate an argument that makes sense.

You are confusing conception with reality. You can imagine an infinite set of past events with regards to an eternal universe, but if we live in an eternal universe then this infinite set of past events would never be actual if presentism is true. Therefore, I can believe in a universe that did not begin to exist and not believe in an actual infinite set if Presentism is true. This is because every "now" point would itself be all the reality there is is Presentism is true. There would have never been a reality in which an infinite set of past events would have ever been the case, even with no beginning of the universe because reality would only be individual "now" points with the past not being actual. To say that no beginning of the universe necessitates an actual infinite directly implies Possibilism or Eternalism (or maybe some obscure theory of time).

You can knock down the idea of an actual infinite all you want but that says nothing about a universe that begins to exist or not. You call it semantical, but you have not even shown how and all we see is bare assertions.

Please tell me...If we assume Presentism is true for the sake of argument, and if we assume that the universe did not begin to exist for the sake of argument, where are you getting this actual infinite set from? There would be not be an actual infinite set of past of events if Presentism is true, as the only actual would be "now" (which would lack an infinite set of past events if Presentism is true). This means that pointing out how an actual infinite set is impossible, does nothing to undermine an eternal universe if we assume Presentism.

Also I did not confuse epistemology with ontology because there is no ontological status of "real" with regards to an infinite set of past events if Presentism is true (even if one assumes no beginning of the universe). The only the certain "now" moment in the present would be ontologically "real" if Presentism is true.

If anybody is confusing the two, I think it is you my friend....
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 10:15:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 8:13:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 7:51:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 6:31:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 6:12:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:18:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 5:13:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

There are a lot of ways to conceive of time outside of McTaggart"s A Theory and B Theory dichotomy, the Heraclitus/Parmenides "being or becoming" debate is at least 2500 years old and still going strong, McTaggart certainly didn"t resolve it by saying time is unreal.

I never argued for B-Theory. I'm saying that if A-Theory is true, then only "now" is actual. If only "now" is actual, then no actually infinite set of past events exists as only "now" actually exists. This would hold whether or not the universe had a beginning or not.

Nope, that would be the B Theory, go back and read your Wiiki again :LOL

Like I said, you clearly do not understand philosophy of time lol Presentism is the theory that only "now" is actual. B-Theory is that everything that exists in the past, present, and future is actual.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

"Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entities and, in some versions of presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and sets"that occur in the present exist. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all."

I know what Presentism is and I know that your argument is purely semantic, the fact is, the A Series and the B Series aren't two different ways of ordering events in time, events are ordered in exactly the same way under both series, the rest is just semantics. You just love to confuse epistemology and ontology, it's your thing, but you really haven't made a point at all here....and throwing wiki links at me makes no point at all.

How about you read these links and formulate an argument that makes sense.

You are confusing conception with reality.

No I"m not; you are confusing semantics with reality.

You can imagine an infinite set of past events with regards to an eternal universe, but if we live in an eternal universe then this infinite set of past events would never be actual if presentism is true.

Yeah, because with Presentism there is no past, so you can say anything you want about it, so what? That isn"t an argument, it's the tactic of someone without an argument.

Therefore, I can believe in a universe that did not begin to exist and not believe in an actual infinite set if Presentism is true. This is because every "now" point would itself be all the reality there is is Presentism is true. There would have never been a reality in which an infinite set of past events would have ever been the case, even with no beginning of the universe because reality would only be individual "now" points with the past not being actual. To say that no beginning of the universe necessitates an actual infinite directly implies Possibilism or Eternalism (or maybe some obscure theory of time).

Yeah, something really obscure like believing that the past represents events that have occurred, and that as time passes, the present becomes the past. Perhaps even some strange theory of time as a continuum in which there is a linear progression of events that succeed one another.

You can knock down the idea of an actual infinite all you want but that says nothing about a universe that begins to exist or not. You call it semantical, but you have not even shown how and all we see is bare assertions.

Oh pulease, I don"t need to knock down the idea of an actual infinite, everyone knows that the idea of an infinite past is logically contradictory because we would never arrive at the present, which is kid stuff. If the Universe can"t be infinite in the past, then it must be finite in the past, which means it began unless you can think of another way the Universe can be finite in the past.

Please tell me...If we assume Presentism is true for the sake of argument, and if we assume that the universe did not begin to exist for the sake of argument, where are you getting this actual infinite set from? There would be not be an actual infinite set of past of events if Presentism is true, as the only actual would be "now" (which would lack an infinite set of past events if Presentism is true). This means that pointing out how an actual infinite set is impossible, does nothing to undermine an eternal universe if we assume Presentism.

Well no, not if you think Presentism eliminates the need for logic, but then I have this funny way of thinking arguments are supposed to be logical, go figure.

Also I did not confuse epistemology with ontology because there is no ontological status of "real" with regards to an infinite set of past events if Presentism is true (even if one assumes no beginning of the universe). The only the certain "now" moment in the present would be ontologically "real" if Presentism is true.

Yeah, if Presentism is true, then you can dispense with logic and declare any wild thing you imagine to be true and real, holy moly, you are really good at this debate thing, I"m very impressed. This is almost as good as your argument that nothing means everything.

If anybody is confusing the two, I think it is you my friend....

That"s your opinion, and in my opinion, I could feed my Dalmatian a bowl of alphabet soup and he could crap a better argument than this nonsense you are posting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 10:25:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Oh pulease, I don't need to knock down the idea of an actual infinite, everyone knows that the idea of an infinite past is logically contradictory because we would never arrive at the present" - Sidewalker

There would be no actual infinite past if Presentism is true even if the universe is eternal under Presentism, because the only thing actual would the present, and the past would not exist and be acutal. This would be true for every moment that could ever be called the "present". Since this would hold true even if the universe had no beginning, then even if an actual infinite is impossible this would not mean an eternal universe is. You do not understand the difference between something that is conceptual and has an ontological status of "real". Thus, if you believe the universe having no beginning means an actual infinite then this implies Possibilism or Eternalism.

Regardless, what do you mean "we" never would have reach to now? "We" only began a few billion years ago. Where are you getting this hypothetical observer from without begging the question? It seems that conceptualizing an actual infinite past with regards to a universe and claiming it is illogical, is fallacious in itself. This is because if Presentism is true, then reality has never consisted of an infinite number of past moments even if the universe did not begin to exist. This is because reality would only be each moment at a time. Calling this semantics is a bare assertion and a cope out as it is no such thing, just simple logic.

For this reason, you still fail to grasp this concept. You are acting like something that is not actual (the past under Presentism) could be part of an actual set if Presentism is true. This is obviously a logical blunder of an epic scale on your behalf.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 10:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All you have done Sky Walker is appeal to ridicule without warrant and commit bare assertion fallacies to no end. This is getting old...