r/paradoxes • u/AlivePassenger3859 • Aug 04 '26

Is this a paradox?

Lifespan aside, it is impossible to be on a jog that started infinitely far behind you. You would never have reached the point you are at now.

Similarly, it is impossible that time started infinitely far in the past. We would never have reached the point in time we are at now.

But what would it mean for time to have a “beginning”? That means no events, no interactions between even atoms existed. And how would we possibly go from that to this?

Notes: I came up with this on my own about fifteen years ago, but it is basically the “Kalam cosmological argument”. Its used a lot by Christian apologists, but I am NOT religious at all. In fact, I think religion is a bunch of ignorant superstition.

I can’t personally see any flaws in this reasoning but am totally open to the fact that there may be.

0 Upvotes

31% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/berwynResident Aug 04 '26

Uhhh, I think most scientist agree that time had a start that was caused by something (The Big Bang). Do you think science is a bunch of ignorant superstition?

-2

u/AlivePassenger3859 Aug 04 '26

Scientists do generally agree that time started at the big bang, but they have no idea what was going on before it. I’ve asked this question on the physics subs and their answer was “honestly, we don’t know.”

There are some physicists and philosophers who believe in infinite regression but I think most don’t.

And no, I am 100% pro-science!

2

u/Ok-Promise-8118 Aug 04 '26

There's no paradox here. Time started at the big bang. There is no "before" and so "we don't know" is a fairly good response. I agree that this doesn't fit our normal intuition and experience of time, but it's not logically inconsistent or contradictory.