Debating with a Theist: The Infinite Staircase

My ever constant theistic debate (GM) insists that if there is a past temporal infinity, then it is impossible to get to the present since you have to participate in an infinite number of events before you can get to any current event. He introduced the analogy of “the infinite ladder” and how if you climb that ladder you will never reach the top. However, he screwed up his own analogy in a big way as evidenced by the following series of exchanges made over many moons, and which I have improvised.

My key distinction here is that if you have a finite life and you started an infinite amount of time ago, then you clearly can’t get to the present. However, if you were hit with an infinite lifespan, such as an up quark (which can neither be created nor destroyed), then no problem. A finite lifetime can only travel through a finite period of time; an infinite life is not subject to such restrictions.

[Note: previous to-and-fro discussions resulted in the following exchanges.]

MG – “As such, you have a series where each event is closer to a line than the previous ones, and eventually the series reaches that line. Infinite series can’t do that. It’s like having an infinite number of runs on a ladder , but claiming to have reached that peak right now. It’s inconsistent.”

JP – If you were climbing a ladder with infinite routes, why would you say you had reached the top? We have already agreed that infinity does not have endpoints, in other words, it does not have a top.

MG – “If you agree that you can’t climb to the top of an infinite ladder, and you see someone at the top, the correct conclusion is that the ladder wasn’t infinite after all!!”

JP- Wow! It is 1) wrong to use the word “you” since “you” is a finite event, and 2) you destroyed all logic by saying that you “see someone at the top”. Since I have said that infinity has no endpoints, it is illogical for me to say that I see someone (again a fallacy since someone is also a finite event) at the endpoint.

MG – “The ladder is the past series of events (not “moments”; “events”, like the Civil War, my breakfast this morning, etc.) and ends at the present event (me writing this sentence) because that’s what what “past” MEANS. I passed all the races of the PAST event series, and I’m at the top (the present event). But, like you said, you can’t get to the top of an infinite ladder. Therefore, the past is not infinite.”

JP 1 – It is more than possible to go from an infinite past to here and how if you yourself have an infinite life. This is not a difficult concept.

JP 2 – Of course “you” can’t since humans have a finite life, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done, especially if you don’t actually have a finite life. Now if you take infinite time and infinite events, the two infinities cancel out and you just have time and events. You can cross any number of events if you have enough time. You can cross an infinite number of events if you have an infinite amount of time. I’m going to substitute something that doesn’t have a finite lifetime (ie “you”) with something that does, say an up quark. Actually, the timing of your First Cause argument doesn’t matter at the moment. Just tell me how old an up quark really is.

MG – “It was a current event, just like every rung on the ladder below me was once the current rung. I still can’t complete a climb of infinite steps. It’s logically incoherent. It defies even your definition of “infinity.” and you know it.”

JP – Of course YOU cannot climb an infinite ladder since you are a temporally finite event. But if something (ie an up quark) is a temporally infinite ‘event’, then I don’t see the problem.

MG – “So your argument is ‘well, I agree you can’t get to the top of a ladder with infinite rungs, but… I guess that infinite particle MUST have, since it’s here and it’s infinite’ “?”

JP – The proof of the pudding is in eating it. A temporally infinite particle [like an up-quark] it is simply in the here and now. For all I know, it went through a wormhole, but here it is. You can now negate this by ‘creating’ the particle out of existence, thus refuting or negating the idea that a particle is invincible!

MG-“[A]And you can’t get out of it by saying “the proof is in the pudding.”

JP – But the proof IS in the pudding. The Cosmos is infinite and yet there are particles here and now. Deal with him! Now, even if there is an infinite past and an infinite future, your concept of “The Present Moment” where we find those particles has to fall somewhere on that timeline. Let’s call that High Noon in New York City (NYC). There was a High Noon in New York the day before. There will be a High Noon in New York the next day. It’s not a big deal to time travel in that finite interval between noon the day before “The Present Moment” and noon the day after “The Present Moment”, a period of 48 hours. The existence of an infinite past/future is irrelevant. Now keep pushing that concept back and forth as far as your imagination can imagine.

MG – “From that particle’s frame of reference, something is happening right now, regardless of how other frames of reference regard the ‘now’. And, if its lifetime is infinite, then a truly infinite number has passed and completed of events prior to the current one you are going through now.

JP- Yes.

MG – “But you can’t actually complete an infinite amount of steps before a point; that would be like climbing an infinite ladder and reaching the highest rung. It’s impossible. You already accepted it. Basically, just like r [another poster]You continue to agree with both premises, but refuse to accept the conclusion.”

JP: If you have a finite life, you can complete a finite journey. By the same reasoning, if you have an infinite lifespan, you can complete an infinite journey (that is, an infinity that is up to the point you are nominating), even though there is still an infinite journey ahead of you. Infinity (from the past to the “point”) plus infinity (from the “point” to the future” still equals infinity.

MG – “I fully understand that you are saying that an infinitely long-lived particle could be in the midst of an infinite number of events, but what I am saying is that it cannot actually have COMPLETED an infinite number of events before its current event, because that would be conceptually equivalent to climbing to the TOP of a ladder with infinite rungs. Do we agree on this (leaving aside what the alternatives should be, like creating matter/energy or anything else)?”

JP – No. Wouldn’t you agree that your infinite God could not have completed an infinite number of events before creating life, the Universe and everything according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? If their God could do that, then an infinitely long-lived particle could have done the same thing. If your God couldn’t have completed an infinite number of events before His “In the beginning,” then He’s not that all-powerful now, is He?

MG – “No, even God cannot have completed a truly infinite number of events before a point… Completing a truly infinite sequence before a point is logically inconsistent. It violates the very concept of “infinity.”

JP- Wow! Now here I thought your magic invisible man in the sky had some control over time. I am corrected. Journal! I guess that means a particle with infinite life is more powerful than your invisible magic man in the sky.

MG – “But you have admitted that an infinite set of steps cannot be completed, and that an infinitely long-lived particle would have gone through an infinite number of events prior to the current one. That is the same as saying that a ladder with infinite runs cannot be completed. they can climb to the top, and yet this particle has. It’s a self-contradiction…”

JP – Speaking of contradictions, “infinite rungs” and “top” is a logical contradiction quite unworthy of you. Anyway, the answer is “No”. Even if the particle is only halfway to the top of its ladder, it has still traveled an infinite number of steps.

MG – “So, the problem with reaching the highest rung of an infinite ladder is not that it is logically impossible to complete an infinity, is it just that the climber has not lived long enough? This is nonsense. You already accepted it, you can’t complete an infinite number of steps before a point because the very concept of infinity is that it never completes, but then you gleefully dismiss it when it would mean that the particle must have done something logically impossible or else your world view needs to be adjusted and the past had a beginning.”

JP – While all answers are answers, not all answers are answers! Now here this: there is a big difference between what has an infinite lifetime (like a particle) and what has a finite lifetime (like you). You can’t climb an infinite ladder and live to tell the tale; an elementary particle can continue. Even a particle will never reach the end, as there is no end to infinity, so your statement that there is an “upper rung of an infinite ladder” is itself a nonsensical statement. It was you who, I remember, introduced the ridiculous idea or concept of “the top rung of an infinite ladder.”

MG – “Anyway, you have not understood the analogy of the ladder.”

JP – I understand that contrary to your statements, my statement is that you cannot have a higher rung on an infinite ladder. Case closed.

Discussion:

Isn’t there an infinite number of lines (rungs in the ladder analogy) that you could draw between the start line and the finish line of, say, a race? And yet you can start and finish the race!

Now the question for readers is, who is right? MG or JP?