Why God Certainly Exists...
Offline ...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...
First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".
God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.
God is NOT the Bible (or any "holy book"
- the Bible is simply a book. Look, I understand that when confronting a Christian it is perhaps best to do so on their 'home-turf' – however, not even deep in the recesses of the archives of the volumes of Christian Doctrine does it say anywhere that the Bible is God. Please, let both sides stop using this book to make claims about God (but by all means feel free to do so when constructing claims about Christianity).
God is NOT Christianity – despite the strong wishes on both sides, God is not Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that while fully aware of the distinction, Atheists refuse to make it. Maybe this is because 98% of you so-called Atheists are in actuality only really anti-Christianity. Maybe you get a kick out of pointing out obvious contradiction, and refuse to step out of your Christianity/God comfort zone where truth is less ‘obvious’, and the logic a little more complex. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience with a supposedly Christian person or a non-denominational church…shit – we’ve all been there. Whatever your reason for doing so, enough is enough. And if your one of those who was just plain ignorant (most likely a Christian) – well now you know. Regardless of what you heard or think you know, God is not owned by, was not created/invented by, God is NOT Christianity.
Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?
God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.
Ok? Good…
So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.
There is a certain argument that when Atheists encounter, they either ignore it (a la Dawkins), or unknowingly conclude that a known and verified scientific principle (which they themselves use to defend evolution and attack creationism) is wrong. I am of course talking about the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms but the gist is, 1. There is a cause for every effect. 2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely. 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain. 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.
The standard Atheistic replies are directed at 3 and 5. They’ll say, “An infinite chain is possible and perhaps actual, and besides even if its not, all you have is a first cause…not the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.
Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact. We now know that the universe is expanding. Confirmation of this happens daily with the observation of redshifts of stars increasing over time and in proportion to distance. To quote Stephen Hawking, “The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time.” Further, you Atheists use this claim to bolster arguments against literal Creationism and the view that the earth was formed in seven days! You can’t have it both ways – remember either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t, there is no third choice.
What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator… what we do not have the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
Were you paying attention? God is not Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc. So why does the truth about God have to reflect Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc.? The answer is - it doesn’t.
God stands alone, without need for “holy books”, churches, ceremony, war, violence, hate, praise, worship, religion, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, patriotism, and yes even your belief…or mine for that matter.
Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.
Just be sure to toe your own lines.
- Login to post comments
Offline Chukwu wrote:todangst wrote:
Actually, there's nothing for me to 'get away with', it is you that is making the error.
I will point it out again.
Quote:#1 - A contradiction is of the form A & -A
#2 - My statement is thus: Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
Again, your error is this: if it stretches back infinitely, then there is no starting point. So it can't 'stretch back to infinity'
It can only be a potential infinity.
So what you really mean to say is that 'either there is a starting point, or there isn't'.
If there is no starting point, then time DOESN'T stretch back into infinity.. instead, its a potential infinity.
So there is no 'infinite regress' problem, in fact Hawking's own model for the universe involves an infinite regress that is solved by a finite but boundless model.
Quote:#3 - Any old dick can see this is of the form A ∨ -A
And again, this is a false dichotomy, as I show below.
Quote:#1 - Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
Here is you error. What you mean to say is that either there is a starting point, or there ISN'T.
If there is no starting point, then you can't say it stretches back to infinity... if it has no starting point, you can only say it is a potential infinity. And there's no impossibility of a potential infinity.
Quote:Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨
TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
Actually, this is wrong. What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't... if there isn't a starting point, then you can't say it 'stretches back infinitely...." because for it to stretch infinitely would require that it traversed an infinite amount of tiem, which in turns requires a starting point!
So you can only say it's a potential infinity.
This is your error.
This - in all seriousness - no offense whatsoever intended - reads as rubbish...
I don't take any offense at all. A dog wouldn't be able to make sense of it either.
If you understood the point, you'd not have made the error in the first place. Again, your error is that your argument implies that an infinite regress has a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago.
Quote:I've shown it to some friends of mine - they can make NO sense of it...I
I am not surprised that none of your friends know the difference between and actual infinity and potential infinity either
Quote:
If it is "going over my head" as you say, I'm curious to see who beside you Mr. todangst is "tall" enough to catch it...
Actually, in order for you to prove that it doesn't go over your head, you'd first have to demonstrate an understanding of what I told you, and then you'd have to demonstrate the error in my statements.
But you don't even attempt to do that. Because you can't. Because it's all over your head.
Now head over to wiki and look up potential infinity, and try to pretend that you knew it all along....
Your just repeating yourself...
Let's recap shall we:
You've denied A or -A is a tautology
You've denied A and -A is a contradiction
You've denied the VALIDITY(not soundness) of the cosmological argument, an argument whose validity is verified almost daily as a trivial exercise in mid-term logic classes around the world
You post a quote in attempt to deny A or -A, which isn't even RELEVENT to YOUR position, and which states EXPLICITLY and at the OUTSET that it offers choice between possiblities of the NATURE of a singularity; which further down you expound that Hawking's finite and boundless universe entails "...no need for a creator..." which is just a FLAT OUT LIE (I went and bought the Universe in a Nutshell - and though I am not finished, I fished to the index and looked for this mention of creation, creator, etc. AND COULD FIND NONE...you should be ashamed of yourself for implying Hawking wrote something about it at ALL)
And you copy and paste these things over and over again as proof...
All you've shown is that you can make up fantastical shit, copy articles from the internet, not understand what those articles are saying, copy and paste them over and over again, and pretend to have refuted something...
You just continue to show your ass...
Like I said, I'm not letting you get away with purporting nonsense and bullshit - which is the ONLY reason I continue to respond to you.
I know your type well - you think that if you just copy and paste just one last time...if you get the last word, maybe someone who comes along and reads this thread will think that, maybe..., perhaps ...you knew what you were talking about...
And look buddy, don't respond to the breakdown of what I said by telling me what I MEANT to say or what I SHOULD have said. AGAIN, what I said is what was MEANT to be said - nothing else. If you can't respond to the words and to the logic directly, as it is written - then you really have NO response. So, QUIET please...
- Login to post comments
Offline At the basis of the premise, if your "god" is limited to a point of time prior to our ability to observe, prior to plank time, then the "being" must be very weak to hide in this last refuge. Or he olny exisits in your mind with your skewed perception of real logic, "it must be true".
- Login to post comments
Offline Holy Shit, Chuckwu!!! I didn't think that anybody would ever say such a thing to the great Todangst...
In all honesty though, I agree with you. I may not believe in a creator per se, and the fact that the creator must take action to create this universe(implying time, and the whole arguement that we have discussed here coming into play once again) troubles me, the statement that the univers is infinite or it isn't is valid to me.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Offline All you've shown is that you can make up fantastical shit, copy articles from the internet, not understand what those articles are saying, copy and paste them over and over again, and pretend to have refuted something...
I know I'm wasting my breath again, but, what the hell... I've read _A Brief History of Time_, but not _The Universe in a Nutshell_. I need to read the latter, but haven't gotten around to it. And, to tell the truth, I've forgotten most of it. But, I do happen to remember something about the part of the book that Todangst is referring to. Imagine a number line, perhaps on piece of paper. It starts with 0, and extends on to positive infinity. Now, JUST REMOVE POINT 0! Every other point is still there, just not 0. Its called a "limit" in calculus. For every point greater than 0, you can find another point that is less than the first point and still be greater than 0.
So, in this case, there is no "rough edge" of 0, no boundry POINT, but a limit. I suspect that you might charge that this is some kind of "numerical slight of hand", a dodge to avoid point 0. Well, it works out mathematically.
Still, I must confess to not being 100% convinced myself that this is the entire answer, there are other theories, include those that do not have time beginning with the Big Bang. I'm the first to admit I have no qualifications to make any sort of educated opinion on the subject, I can only say that from a layman's perspective, I tend to suspect there is "something" more than our universe, whether it be multiple universes, or whatever. The oddity of the missing point 0, to my layman's mind, seems to imply that there is more to the story. So, in one small sense, I'm agreeing with the theist, even if I understand that I'm doing so mostly from ignorance.
But, if that missing point 0 really was THE HAND OF GOD, so to speak, well, he sure hid it well. Though there may be more than our current universe, it sure doesn't look like the creation of a deity to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your just repeating yourself...
Because you keep making the same errors.
And keep dodging the same points.
Let's recap shall we:
You've denied A or -A is a tautology
I've not denied that A or -A is a tautology. What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense... what you need to say is that either time has a beginning or it doesn't.
Again, you're not even able to follow the point before you. And you prove this by never even trying to respond to what I actually say.
So let's try it again. And you can just ignore it again and then whine about me repeating it
Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨
TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
Actually, this is WRONG. What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't... You can't say time 'stretches back infinitely'...." because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time, and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts the very idea of there being NO starting point!
Again, an infinite regress leads to a potential infinity, not an actual infinity
This is your error.
Please, I've only pointed out your error at least 3 times now. Can you please at least look up potential infinities vs actual infinities and correct your error now?
You've denied the VALIDITY(not soundness) of the cosmological argument,
I've shown that the cosmological argument that theists typically rely on commits a false dichotomy error. I've given you an argument from Lee Smolin that you don't even bother to respond to...
You just keep ignoring it. In fact, you now try to write it off entirely...
But the reality is this: you have no choice but to ignore it or try to write it off, because you can't possibly deal with it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Holy Shit, Chuckwu!!! I didn't think that anybody would ever say such a thing to the great Todangst...
Say what? A bunch of insults, driven by frustration over his inability to grasp a point?
That's not an argument.
His error is that he does not know the difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity.
In all honesty though, I agree with you. I may not believe in a creator per se, and the fact that the creator must take action to create this universe(implying time, and the whole arguement that we have discussed here coming into play once again) troubles me, the statement that the univers is infinite or it isn't is valid to me.
Ah, you're falling for the same error. Let me clarify the problem.
Our young friend is giving us a version of the Kalam argument. The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove! For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
The only way for a universe without beginning to end up presenting us with a dilemma is if you violate the very concept by giving it an implicit beginning...
I hope you see his error now.
See the error in his argument now? Once you do, you see he's given you a false dichotomy, and the argument falls to pieces.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline
All you've shown is that you can make up fantastical shit, copy articles from the internet, not understand what those articles are saying, copy and paste them over and over again, and pretend to have refuted something...
And all you show is an inability to actually respond to arguments.
Again, can you giive me an ontology for something that is not matter/energy?
Or will you just respond with more personal attacks?
Is the first cause's causal independance necessary - yes. But this follows from the fact that we KNOW that time does not extend backwards in the infinite (WE KNOW THERE IS A TIME ZERO - ATHEISTS USE IT IN ARUGUMENTS AGAINST RELIGION ALL THE TIME WHY DENY IT NOW?).
Actually, it's not necessary true that there is a time zero. I've given you Smolin's points on this, but you just ignore it.
Anyway, if there is a time 'zero' then we can't speak of any causes at all prior to our universe.
So again what is it going to be Atheist?
Do you accept an infinite regression?(absurd)
or
Do you accept that there is a first cause?(God)
Again, I've shown you why your infinite regression argument itself is absurd.... You've confused a potetial infinity for an actual infinity.
About all you do in response is launch personal attacks.
And finally:
$100 bucks to the first to prove this a false dichotomy....
Pay your money to Stephen Hawkings:
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.
This proves that your claim is based on a false dichotomy. Ergo your claim is refuted.
Again, you have failed to respond to these points. Because they are all over your head.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Chukwu wrote:All you've shown is that you can make up fantastical shit, copy articles from the internet, not understand what those articles are saying, copy and paste them over and over again, and pretend to have refuted something...
I know I'm wasting my breath again, but, what the hell... I've read _A Brief History of Time_, but not _The Universe in a Nutshell_. I need to read the latter, but haven't gotten around to it. And, to tell the truth, I've forgotten most of it. But, I do happen to remember something about the part of the book that Todangst is referring to.
Case, the guy's not able to follow it, so he has no choice but to write it off.
His complaint tells us about him, not me, or anyone else here... If there's a problem in my arguments, he can offer a refutation... not a whiny bunch of complaints.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, I'm sorry, am I the only one here that is actually able to imagine an actual infinity?
The whole cosmological argument is based, practically, on one statement: "A causal chain cannot be of infinite length." - why can't it be of infinite length ? Who said that it can't ? And how does he prove it ?
Chukwu seems to point out that opposers to intelligent design schemes also use a "starting point" (whatever was that caused the Big Bang) - that's cool, so what's up with that? I don't remember anyone ever saying that there was nothing BEFORE that.
This "point zero" in time is simply a convention because we DO NOT KNOW and for the moment CANNOT KNOW what happened before that. It's like year 1 C.E. - a simple convention, it offered no physical starting point for anything.
Related to your original post:
Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact.
Yes, the Universe has an age. This Universe. But we only define THIS Universe as the effect of the Big Bang. So yes, the Big Bang was a certain moment in time, from which we date this Universe. We have not dated the singularity before the Big Bang yet, though.
Todangst - He's not following your arguments because he's not using the same definitions as you are. His conclusion is perfectly logical considering the hypotheses, it's just that the latter isn't exactly correct.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline If time has a point zero, then time to the present cannot be infinite. It can be infinite from time zero on, but at any point in time it is not infinite. However, if time does not have a point zero, if it is infinate in both directions, if time is simply a line, then there is no beginning or end, which does not seem to agree with current theories. And if there is no time zero because there is an asymptote or limit there, as someone suggested, I would contend that these concepts, like negatives or imaginaries, do not actually exist in the physical time.
I think that the major problem with the arguments is a faulty view of time. Right now, we are looking at time as a simple line, which is fine because this is how we percieve it; we always have a present, a past, and a future. However, that is not necesarily true. Many things that we have discovered through science have not been observed physically. If we were to look at time 3 or 4 dimensionaly, I doubt we would have these arguements.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Offline If time has a point zero, then time to the present cannot be infinite. It can be infinite from time zero on, but at any point in time it is not infinite. However, if time does not have a point zero, if it is infinate in both directions, if time is simply a line, then there is no beginning or end, which does not seem to agree with current theories. And if there is no time zero because there is an asymptote or limit there, as someone suggested, I would contend that these concepts, like negatives or imaginaries, do not actually exist in the physical time.
I think that the major problem with the arguments is a faulty view of time. Right now, we are looking at time as a simple line, which is fine because this is how we percieve it; we always have a present, a past, and a future. However, that is not necesarily true. Many things that we have discovered through science have not been observed physically. If we were to look at time 3 or 4 dimensionaly, I doubt we would have these arguements.
OK, your first paragraph was simply ignoring what I just said.
Second paragraph is just as flawed. A line is infinite at both ends. Two-dimensional time would mean that we have a temporal plane, which, to my knowledge, is just as infinite, but in 2 directions, 4 senses. Three-dimensional time, from my knowledge, again, is also infinite in 3 directions, 6 senses. Etc. So yes, we would still have the same arguments.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.
This is not the lowest denominator. Even if the universe was created by some being, it does not follow that this being is a god. There are many other possibilities. One is that this universe is a "computer" simulation designed by a very intelligent being that is not a god.
And even if the creator is a god, it does not follow that we owe it anything. So even if there is a god, why should I give a damn?
- Login to post comments
Offline And even if the creator is a god, it does not follow that we owe it anything. So even if there is a god, why should I give a damn?
I've already asked this question, and Chuckwu doesn't answer it. He just acts like he can't believe that we shouldn't care about a god that's not involved in human affairs.
- Login to post comments
Offline kmisho wrote:
And even if the creator is a god, it does not follow that we owe it anything. So even if there is a god, why should I give a damn?I've already asked this question, and Chuckwu doesn't answer it. He just acts like he can't believe that we shouldn't care about a god that's not involved in human affairs.
It's not about the morality of a god, or what we might owe it - its about it's existence.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Offline It's not about the morality of a god, or what we might owe it - its about it's existence.
I understand that. Chuckwu wants to limit the discussion to just the existence of god. That's fine considering that so many posts on this site end up off topic.
Let me rephrase the question to make it fit with the topic. Why should I care about god's existence if it's not a personal god, and it's not involved with the universe nor with human affairs?
- Login to post comments
Offline Why are you on this site then? Boredom?
If there truely is a creator of the universe, then all else - an afterlife, a human god, etc. - is possible. If I am to concede that a God is possible, than all that goes with it is possible as well.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Offline MrRage wrote:kmisho wrote:
And even if the creator is a god, it does not follow that we owe it anything. So even if there is a god, why should I give a damn?I've already asked this question, and Chuckwu doesn't answer it. He just acts like he can't believe that we shouldn't care about a god that's not involved in human affairs.
It's not about the morality of a god, or what we might owe it - its about it's existence.
Exactly.
I futilely attempted to demonstrate that earlier, it fell on deaf ears, tod succinctly resummarized with: "he's pointing out that assigning a role to 'X' does not provide an ontology for 'X'," I gave up, and the matter subsequently has been ignored for the rest of the thread until now.
There are (at least) two ways to approach his argument:
1) Get wrapped up in a discussion of time and infinite causal regress vs. "first cause"
...which is an interesting discussion of course, but I think
2) Point out that he has not provided an ontology for the supposed "creator"
...would be a much easier way to defuse the argument... if only the point were not flying over his head.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, Chuck?
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, I'm sorry, am I the only one here that is actually able to imagine an actual infinity?
The whole cosmological argument is based, practically, on one statement: "A causal chain cannot be of infinite length." - why can't it be of infinite length ? Who said that it can't ? And how does he prove it ?
It is merely assumed that it can't be infinite OR
One makes the self negating argument that an actual infinity must be crossed to reach our present time. But in order to create this dilemma, you have to contradict what an infinite regress is... you have to imply that there IS a starting point an infinite amounht of time ago!
This is the error of the Kalam argument.
Todangst - He's not following your arguments because he's not using the same definitions as you are.
It's not just definitions, although he certainly doesn't know the difference between a potential and an actual infinity. His real error is that he's not holding to the actual dichotomy: either there's a starting point or there isn't.
Instead, he's committing a false dilemma, because his argument implies that an infinite regress, without a starting point, has a starting point.
Just look:
#1 - Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
"stretches back infinitely" implies a starting point, an infinite amount of time ago.
His conclusion is perfectly logical considering the hypotheses,
His conclusion is utterly illogical, because it violates the very meaning of infinite regress. Again, take a look at this:
Our young friend is giving us a version of the Kalam argument. The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove! For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
The only way for a universe without beginning to end up presenting us with a dilemma is if you violate the very concept by giving it an implicit beginning...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Why are you on this site then? Boredom?
I'm not doing this out of boredom. I'm almost never bored.
I'm on this site because I don't have any friends right now to discuss these sorts of matters with.
If there truely is a creator of the universe, then all else - an afterlife, a human god, etc. - is possible. If I am to concede that a God is possible, than all that goes with it is possible as well.
This is what I'm driving at. Of course all of that is possible if there's a god. But Chuckwu's argument doesn't apply to knowing, for example, whether or not there's an afterlife. If you've founded the existence of god in reason, then certainly you wouldn't stop just at his existence. I would want to know if I'm going to live on after death in some form, or if god wants me to behave in a certain way, etc. Now we're talking about religion.
But if god just exists (or existed) and is not a personal being and/or is not involved in the universe (i.e. naturalism/materialism holds after creation), then in practice there's no difference in believing in this god and being a strong atheist. In this case Chuckwu shouldn't be that bothered about strong atheists, and this thread is just an academic exercise. (Don't get me wrong, I like academic exercises.)
- Login to post comments
Offline If time has a point zero, then time to the present cannot be infinite.
Right, and this is the dilemma that the Kalam arguments rests upon.
But to define something as an infinite regress is to say that there IS NOT starting point.
It can be infinite from time zero on, but at any point in time it is not infinite.
Yes. We can call this 'a potential infinity'
However, if time does not have a point zero, if it is infinate in both directions,
Yes. OR, it is a circle. This way, it can be finite, yet boundless.
if time is simply a line, then there is no beginning or end, which does not seem to agree with current theories.
Actually, Hawking's theory is a finite, but boundless approach. And Brane theory holds for an infinitely old megaverse.
So which 'theory' does this not agree with. You didn't cite any.
And please don't make the mistake of citing Big Bang theory, as Big Bang theory is NOT a creation account.
And if there is no time zero because there is an asymptote or limit there, as someone suggested, I would contend that these concepts, like negatives or imaginaries, do not actually exist in the physical time.
You would suggest it? Why, what's your argument?
I think that the major problem with the arguments is a faulty view of time.
The fatal flaw for the Kalam argument is that it contradicts what an infinite regress actually is, by holding that an infinite regress has a starting point.
Once you see that error, the argument falls to pieces.
Right now, we are looking at time as a simple line, which is fine because this is how we percieve it; we always have a present, a past, and a future. However, that is not necesarily true. Many things that we have discovered through science have not been observed physically. If we were to look at time 3 or 4 dimensionaly, I doubt we would have these arguements.
Again, the finite but boundless model, and Brane theory, both do precisely what you're talking about here.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I futilely attempted to demonstrate that earlier, it fell on deaf ears, tod succinctly resummarized with: "he's pointing out that assigning a role to 'X' does not provide an ontology for 'X'," I gave up, and the matter subsequently has been ignored for the rest of the thread until now.
There are (at least) two ways to approach his argument:
1) Get wrapped up in a discussion of time and infinite causal regress vs. "first cause"
The Kalam argument has already been refuted, so we can move on. The argument violates the definition of an infinite regress.
By the way, can any theist cite a cosmologist who's concerned with the Kalam argument?
2) Point out that he has not provided an ontology for the supposed "creator"
...would be a much easier way to defuse the argument... if only the point were not flying over his head.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, Chuck?
Almost all of this goes flying so far over his head, that if he were ever able to latch onto it, he could use it to hang glide.
His last few posts were nothing more than personal attacks, borne of his frustration over his inability to respond..... I doubt things will go better if we go back to ontology, but I'm all for it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline One makes the self negating argument that an actual infinity must be crossed to reach our present time. But in order to create this dilemma, you have to contradict what an infinite regress is... you have to imply that there IS a starting point an infinite amounht of time ago!
So practically he's splitting an infinite chain into "lesser infinites" (for a lack of better term), that have starting and (possibly) ending point. If so, then yes, I see the error clearly.
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove! For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Yes, this does indeed fit in the error you mentioned above.
Was it him using Planck's minimum timespan as an argument? That would be very ironic.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:One makes the self negating argument that an actual infinity must be crossed to reach our present time. But in order to create this dilemma, you have to contradict what an infinite regress is... you have to imply that there IS a starting point an infinite amounht of time ago!So practically he's splitting an infinite chain into "lesser infinites" (for a lack of better term), that have starting and (possibly) ending point. If so, then yes, I see the error clearly.
Yes, this is his error. He compounds his error by assuming that I'm denying that A or -A is a dichotomy, and then railing away at how illogical that is, when in fact I'm holding that he's not giving us a proper dichotomy in the first place. The actual dichotomy would be 'either there is a starting point, or there isn't" and his range of options BOTH include a starting point, although he can't see it!
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove! For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Yes, this does indeed fit in the error you mentioned above.
Was it him using Planck's minimum timespan as an argument? That would be very ironic.
Thank you for seeing the error, glad several of us can see it clearly now.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Almost all of this goes flying so far over his head, that if he were ever able to latch onto it, he could use it to hang glide.
His last few posts were nothing more than personal attacks, borne of his frustration over his inability to respond..... I doubt things will go better if we go back to ontology, but I'm all for it.
Haha... perhaps you are right. 
Curiosity kills me like the proverbial cat though. I think, if there's ever a "militant ontologist" movement, I'll be rushing for the front-lines.
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:Almost all of this goes flying so far over his head, that if he were ever able to latch onto it, he could use it to hang glide.
His last few posts were nothing more than personal attacks, borne of his frustration over his inability to respond..... I doubt things will go better if we go back to ontology, but I'm all for it.
Haha... perhaps you are right.
He offered 100 dollars for someone who could refute his claim, and when it was refuted, his response was to rant about me cutting and pasting the argument.....
Never mind dealing with it.
Never mind that I cut and pasted it from.... my own essay!
He has no choice but to attack, the alternative is to concede that he doesn't grasp the problem
Curiosity kills me like the proverbial cat though. I think, if there's ever a "militant ontologist" movement, I'll be rushing for the front-lines.
Theists scrupiously avoid the ontological problem.... most because they don't grasp it, the rest, because they can't respond to it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I've not denied that A or -A is a tautology. What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense... what you need to say is that either time has a beginning or it doesn't.
Again, you're not even able to follow the point before you. And you prove this by never even trying to respond to what I actually say.
So let's try it again. And you can just ignore it again and then whine about me repeating it
Wow - this would be funny if I knew you weren't serious...
But I’ve had quite enough of disputing what is quite indisputable – so let me just SHOW everyone your ignorance. In the following I will give analysis of every statement in your “argument” and extract for everyone to see, the nonsense that you continue to spew…
You wrote, " I've not denied that A or -A is a tautology..."
and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE wrote, "...What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense..."
This shows a CATASTROPHIC misunderstanding of what logic is and how it is used. If you didn't know the meaning of "tautology" all you had to do was ask!
TAUTOLOGY - proposition that is true UNIVERSALLY (under EVERY interpretation - ALWAYS TRUE)
Now that you know let's go back and actually dissect what you said...
--You wrote, " I've not denied that A or -A is a tautology..."
So here you AGREE that a statement in this form - (A or -A) - is true under EVERY interpretation....
--You then wrote, "...What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense..."
And HERE, IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE you deny that a statement:
( Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨(or)
Time does NOT strech back infintely (-A) )
that is CLEARLY in the form (A or -A), makes any sense! You claim that (A or -A) is nonsense! So in the same paragraph you simultaneously contend that:
B: (A or -A) is UNIVERSALLY TRUE
&(and)
-B: (A or -A) is NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE
This (B & -B) is a CONTRADICTION! Since you've shown such a lack of understanding here, I'll define it for you:
CONTRADICTION - proposition that is FALSE UNIVERSALLY (under EVERY interpretation - ALWAYS FALSE)
AND THEN IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, YOUR TELLING ME WHAT I NEED TO BE SAYING!!! I'll quote:
"...what you need to say is that either time has a beginning or it doesn't."
Yikes…
At this point, it should be obvious to everyone reading that your complete ignorant of logic and consequently, how one validly constructs an argument - but let's continue, lest you accuse me of “ignoring” or "dodging" these invisible and incoherent "points"...
Chukwu wrote:Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨
TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
Actually, this is WRONG. What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't... You can't say time 'stretches back infinitely'...." because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time, and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts the very idea of there being NO starting point!
Again, an infinite regress leads to a potential infinity, not an actual infinity
This is your error.
So in your first statement here, “Actually, this is WRONG.”, you go back to denying the tautology you both affirmed and denied in your first paragraph…
In your second statement here, “What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't...”, you go back to telling me what I should say…
In your third statement here, “…because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…”, you suggest that time traverses itself??? I quote again, “…would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…” what does this mean?!?!? The cosmological argument says nothing about time traversing itself – so why are you? Human beings exist in time, cause/effect exists in time – time is ITSELF the measure in the comso.arg!! Its not traversing itself – and further, is CERTAINLY not REQUIRED to!
It should be QUITE obvious at this point to anyone reading that you’re also completely ignorant of what is commonly meant when one says “time”. The argument uses time in a linear sense – if one has a problem with this then they should refute the notion that cause/effect is a linear relation (asbsurd) – which you must think you’ve somehow done by purporting nonsense and contradiction as “points of fact”…
Nevertheless, we continue…
In your fourth statement here, “…and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” your stating that in order for “…time to traverse an infinite amount of time…” it would require “…a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” What?! So what your saying is, for time to traverse itself it must have started the traversing of itself at a point infinitely in the past…. WHAT IN FUCKS NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!
WHOA…as everyone who is reading this can tell, here, your “argument” has further denigrated into even more incoherent babble…
But, we must further press…
In your fifth statement here, “…which contradicts the very idea of there being NO starting point!”, you BRILLIANTLY conclude from contradictory and incoherent premises that your contradictory and incoherent “argument” somehow contradicts the “…very idea of no starting point…” What?!?! Can it get any worse???
Our man finds a way…
In his final statement here, “Again, an infinite regress leads to a potential infinity, not an actual infinity.” You invoke irrelevant terminology to shield your utter incompetence to those who didn’t take the time to read though the garbage you wrote. The cosmo.argument claims nothing, says nothing, and RELIES on nothing about “actual” or completed infinities. They are not needed to reach the conclusion that there is a first cause – in truth – the known fact that nothing MEASURABLE and MATERIAL can exist in total as infinity(can be a completed infinity) directly implies a BEGINNING of time and no known END. This is quite trivial – yet you can’t grasp it…
Oh wait there is one more…
You wrote, “…This is your error.”
No sir. My error was assuming you could string together coherent statements that form rational arguments…it is a mistake I won’t make again rest assured.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.This is not the lowest denominator. Even if the universe was created by some being, it does not follow that this being is a god. There are many other possibilities. One is that this universe is a "computer" simulation designed by a very intelligent being that is not a god.
And even if the creator is a god, it does not follow that we owe it anything. So even if there is a god, why should I give a damn?
Huh? If we are in a "computer simulation" as you propose - and "time" and the "causal chain" were both instantiated and initiated by some "computer programer" who created(programmed) the sim. - than OUR universe IS the simulation - the CREATOR of our UNIVERSE = GOD; so the "computer programmer" would be GOD...
Is this really so difficult? Call it whatever makes you laugh - the ideas behind the "variables" are the same....
Now - the question on whether you should care or not is one only YOU can answer... If its not important to you to acknowledge, attempt to understand, or wonder about the truth of the orgins of the creation of the universe (and hence your own origin) - than you probably do not care GOD exists...
However, the question on whether or not GOD is "praiseworthy" I think is impersonal - GOD is in my mind clearly praiseworthy. Let me qualify:
As the initator of the causal chain it follows that God is directly responsible for your be-ing. SO...if you accept that:
1. life is an oppourtunity
&
2. an opportunity given is worthy of praise
...than it follows that GOD - the entity responsible for "existence" is praiseworthy.
I accept both premises...I think most people do...
However...I will note that the above is not a "proof" of praiseworthyness - just a damn good reason to believe GOD is.
- Login to post comments
Offline You wrote, " I've not denied that A or -A is a tautology..."
and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE wrote, "...What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense..."
This shows a CATASTROPHIC misunderstanding of what logic is
No, I know what a tautology is, and how they are necessarily true. You're wasting my time here, and just proving how confused you are, by focusing on tautologies...
What I am telling you is that you are not giving me a tautology in the first place.
So again, I'm not denying that tautologies are true. I'm denying that your claim actually is a tautology.
-You then wrote, "...What I've done is deny that your claim that 'either time stretches back infinitely" or it doesn't, would make any sense..."
And HERE, IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE you deny that a statement:
( Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨(or)
Time does NOT strech back infintely (-A) )
that is CLEARLY in the form (A or -A),
No, it looks that way, but what you've really giving us is A and A1. Your options do not actually exhaust all the possibilities, even though , the way you word them, makes it seem as if you do...
Why?
Because there's another option.
Again, both of your options require a starting point:
Either time stretches back infinitely to a starting point an infinite amout of time ago
Or time stretches back to a starting point a finite amount of time ago
Here's a third option:
Or time doesnt' have any starting point at all.
And this is what an infinite regress actually is. A potential infinity, without a starting point. And this avoids the infinite regress problem as per the Kalam argument
And this is your error. There is a third option. And you keep missing it.
I'll quote Keith Parsons this time:
To say that the universe is infintely old, is to say that is has no beginning, not that it had a beginning and infinite amount of time ago.
- Keith Parsons
So in your first statement here, “Actually, this is WRONG.”, you go back to denying the tautology you both affirmed and denied in your first paragraph…
No. What I said was that I don't deny that "A and -A " is a tautology.
What I do deny is that you've given me a tautology in the first place.
Here, let me explain it for you again, so you can ignore it again. I I'll even edit the problems you had with it, so you can try to actually focus on the point this time:
You're giving us a version of the Kalam argument. The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
Do you agree with this?
The continue:
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove! For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Do you get it now?
And do you see why the concept of a potential infinity is key here?
Can you tell me why it is key to this argument?
Can you answer that?
And then prove that you actually get the point?
In your second statement here, “What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't...”, you go back to telling me what I should say…
Right, because this would correct your error. This would exhaust all the possibilities... and be a tautology. The way you phrase it, there is an implication that both options involve a starting point.
In your third statement here, “…because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…”, you suggest that time traverses itself???
What I am saying is that for an infinite regress to be a dilemma, time would need to cross an actual infinity, not a potential infinity, and this would require that time traverse an actual infinite span from a starting point an infinite amount of time ago.
And this contradicts what an infinite regress actually is...
I quote again, “…would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…” what does this mean?!?!?
It means that time has traversed an actual infinite. Which requires a starting point.
Which violates the concept of an infinite regress,
In your fourth statement here, “…and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” your stating that in order for “…time to traverse an infinite amount of time…” it would require “…a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” What?! So what your saying is, for time to traverse itself it must have started the traversing of itself at a point infinitely in the past…. WHAT IN FUCKS NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!
I figured it all went over your head.
What it means, for the 100th time, is that for time to stretch back "infinitely' is that it would require that there was a starting point and actual inifinite amount of time ago.
And this violate the concept of an infinite regress.
And this is your error.
You must say that it is a potential infinity, not that it stretches back to an actual infinity.
In his final statement here, “Again, an infinite regress leads to a potential infinity, not an actual infinity.” You invoke irrelevant terminology to shield your utter incompetence to those who didn’t take the time to read though the garbage you wrote.
It's pretty clear that you have to just write off this point, because you don't grasp it.
Yet this is the entire point before you - it involves potential and actual infinities! That you deal with the heart of my argument by completely dodging it, just proves that you don't grasp the argument.
And that's why you don't see your error.
If you bother to respond again, please begin by demonstrating knowledge of a potential infinity. The fact that you seek to dodge this point is very telling.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline However, the question on whether or not GOD is "praiseworthy" I think is impersonal - GOD is in my mind clearly praiseworthy. Let me qualify:As the initator of the causal chain it follows that God is directly responsible for your be-ing. SO...if you accept that:
1. life is an oppourtunity
&
2. an opportunity given is worthy of praise
...than it follows that GOD - the entity responsible for "existence" is praiseworthy.
I accept both premises...I think most people do...
I don't accept both premises.
1. What opportunity do enslaved children used to make pornography have?
2. Why is god praiseworthy for directly causing said children's enslavement?
This god also created opportunity for great evil. If god is to be praised for the good, god should be cursed for the bad.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh my GOD – this HAS to have come from either a child or an utter ignoramus…
But once again I will go through and expose your nonsense….
No, I know what a tautology is, and how they are necessarily true. You're wasting my time here, and just proving how confused you are, by focusing on tautologies...
What I am telling you is that you are not giving me a tautology in the first place.
So again, I'm not denying that tautologies are true. I'm denying that your claim actually is a tautology.
Ok – we FINALLY have a somewhat coherent claim that we can evaluate with logic…
You deny that:
Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨(or)
Time does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
…even though it is in the form of (A or –A), is a tautology
And you deny this because…
Your options do not actually exhaust all the possibilities, even though , the way you word them, makes it seem as if you do...
Why?
Because there's another option.
Again, both of your options require a starting point:
Either time stretches back infinitely to a starting point an infinite amout of time ago
Or time stretches back to a starting point a finite amount of time ago
Here's a third option:
Or time doesnt' have any starting point at all.
Once again, this shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding of logic…I’ll quote direct,
You first write, “Again, both of your options require a starting point:”
First off, BOTH OPTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A STARTING POINT! This is something you CONTINUE to attribute to the cosmological argument that is simply made up. Lets look again at both options and qualify this:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A) – here the option is that time HAS NO STARTING POINT AT ALL – ergo extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
2. Time does NOT stretch back infinitely (-A) – here the option is that time indeed HAS a starting point a measurable distance into the past– ergo NOT extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
So, #1 requires NO starting point and #2 does….
To quote you one more time, “Again, both of your options require a starting point:”
And I have just shown that ONLY ONE requires a starting point – so this statement is FALSE.
Just to make sure you understand: FALSE – not true.
Moving on, you write, “Either time stretches back infinitely to a starting point an infinite amout of time ago…”
Here, he put his fantastical made up bullshit in bold so we can more easily identify it – As I have already shown, the option I refer to as #1 HAS NO, and REQUIRES NO starting point! Why do you continue to put it in?! It is embarrassingly simple…infinite regression = NO STARTING POINT. I don’t know how else to illuminate this – it should be at this point trivially obvious.
You then write, “Or time stretches back to a starting point a finite amount of time ago”
Thus finishing a FALSE re-construction of what was clearly stated…
You then go on to suggest that there is indeed a “third option” to my (A or –A)…
“Here's a third option:
Or time doesnt' have any starting point at all.
Once again highlighting the spewed nonsense… Let’s evaluate:
Your claim is that, “…time doesnt' have any starting point at all.”, is a third option falling outside of both:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A)
or
2. Time does NOT stretch back infinitely (-A)
But it is clear that if time has no starting point, it extends INFINITELY! Remember? No? Here:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A) – here the option is that time HAS NO STARTING POINT AT ALL – ergo extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
WOW – so, “…time has no starting point…” is EXPRESSLY consistent with (A or -A). More specifically it is EXPLICITLY consistent with (A); infinite regression.
Let’s press…, you write,
And this is what an infinite regress actually is. A potential infinity, without a starting point. And this avoids the infinite regress problem as per the Kalam argument
And this is your error. There is a third option. And you keep missing it.
UH OH!!! In his first two sentences he breaks convention - he WRITES THE TRUTH (perhaps a Freudian Slip eh buddy?!)(partly in bold nonetheless!) IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT HE WROTE IN HIS PREVIOUS POST!!!
I quote first him here,
“And this is what an infinite regress actually is. A potential infinity, without a starting point…”
And then what he wrote previously,
“…You can't say time 'stretches back infinitely'...." because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time, and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts the very idea of there being NO starting point!
So in the first, you quite truthfully define an infinite regress to have NO STARTING POINT, and in the second you contend that an infinite regression somehow REQUIRES a starting point!!!
These are the man’s own words! I couldn’t possibly make this shit up…YIKES
Pressing forward, you quote Keith Parson who admittedly I know not – I do know that Keith has a grasp on infinite regression because his quote is quite right:
I'll quote Keith Parsons this time:
To say that the universe is infintely old, is to say that is has no beginning, not that it had a beginning and infinite amount of time ago.
- Keith Parsons
This quote’s consistency fits like an xtra-small condom with:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A) – here the option is that time HAS NO STARTING POINT AT ALL – ergo extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
Quite unbelievable that you somehow thought the quote was disaffirming…
In any case, you persist…
Here, let me explain it for you again, so you can ignore it again. I I'll even edit the problems you had with it, so you can try to actually focus on the point this time:
You're giving us a version of the Kalam argument. The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
Do you agree with this?
NO - I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS YOU KNAVE – THERE IS MUCH WRONG HERE. My qualification follows:
You're giving us a version of the Kalam argument.
NO – I gave a version of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. The Kalam argument is IN TURN a version of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. Wikipedia only works when you READ the articles…
Next,
The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
What?! The argument DOESN’T work like that Look again at the formulation of the Kalam cosmo.arg you have so fallen in love with (as copied from Wikipedia):
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: The universe began to exist.
* - Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Where in this argument is ANYTHING that refers to “…crossing actual infinities…”?!?! NOWHERE. Uh Oh, wait – Wikipedia offers basis for the second premise as follows:
The second premise is usually supported by the following argument:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
Nope – STILL NOTHING here that EVEN APPROXIMATES your claim on how the argument “works”.
To remind all reading this, you (todangst) says the argument works like this:
1. If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite.
&
2. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.”
And the argument ACTUALLY works by simply affirming that:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
&
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
Thus,
3. The universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
Once again you are EXPOSED ascribing words and ideas on an argument that neither NEEDS or RELIES on them – i.e. making up fantastical bullshit…
You continue…,
Oh dear! This argument assumes that very conclusion which is is presented to prove!
But sir, if the argument did this, it would be logically INVALID – but IT IS VALID – so this statement is FALSE.
You ramble on…,
For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Do you get it now?
So in the first sentence here, “For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now…”, You talk about “actual infinities” which the Kalam formulation EXPLICITLY denies exist (so talking about crossing them is an ABSURDITY)
And in the very NEXT SENTENCE you fire a blank from that pop gun you call a mind, I quote: “But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning…” So to AFFIRM that the Universe HAS NO beginning is the same as DENYING the OPPOSITE(“the Universe had a beginning…”)!!! SO YOU CAN DO DOUBLE NEGATION! EXCELLENT!
Your saying,
A = - (-A)
It is a logical truth that DOUBLE NEGATION FOLLOWS FROM THE LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE! (A or –A) For, if (A or -A) is NOT always true, than it does NOT follow that NOT (-A) is A as it could very possibly be some other value…
So here you have indirectly affirmed (A or –A) as indisputable truth on the way to your “point” … CHRIST
You unfortunately continue…
…; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Again, NO valid formulation of the cosmo.arg relies on the idea of an “actual infinity” or an “…[infinity that has] a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!” NONE – they in fact deny the existence of such – your making up this bullocks on your OWN ACCORD…
So NO you DOLT – I DON’T get your absurdities. In one breath you affirm and the next you deny – the next sentence you make shit up and the one after that you ascribe your fantasy to the argument…
What I DO get (that you don’t seem to) is that the cosmo.arg is VALID – period. When one claims an argument is SELF-REFUTING(as you continue to do) he is claiming that the argument is INVALID. So YOU are making claims against the VALIDITY of the argument when you say such nonsense. To even MAKE such a claim is to, as I have said previously, COMPLETELY AND CATASTROPHICLY misunderstand and misuse logic. If you live near a school/university – please PRINT THIS OUT AND VERIFY IT ALL WITH A PROFFESOR – Philosophy, Mathematics – shit – an undergrad in a logic class. In fact, nah… I would recommend that you get a book – but you’ve shown already that you cannot read for comprehension…
The following is further application of such misuse…
Chukwu wrote:In your second statement here, “What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't...”, you go back to telling me what I should say…
Right, because this would correct your error. This would exhaust all the possibilities... and be a tautology. The way you phrase it, there is an implication that both options involve a starting point.
Foolishness – THERE IS NO ERROR –SO WHAT ARE YOU CORRECTING? ANY STATEMENT IN THE FORM (A or –A) is UNIVERSALLY TRUE… You’re attempting to change my words and ascribe to the cosmological argument things that just are not there…And as has been shown A FEW times above, THERE IS NO IMPLICATION , NO EXPLICATION, that BOTH:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A) – here the option is that time HAS NO STARTING POINT AT ALL – ergo extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
&
2. Time does NOT stretch back infinitely (-A) – here the option is that time indeed HAS a starting point a measurable distance into the past– ergo NOT extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
“…involve a starting point…” As can be seen (A) EXPLICITY denies such a starting point!
Chukwu wrote:In your third statement here, “…because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…”, you suggest that time traverses itself???
What I am saying is that for an infinite regress to be a dilemma, time would need to cross an actual infinity, not a potential infinity, and this would require that time traverse an actual infinite span from a starting point an infinite amount of time ago.
And this contradicts what an infinite regress actually is...
Babble Speak – so, for (A or –A) to be a tautology it is necessary that “…time cross an actual infinity…”, an “actual infinity” whose VERY EXISTENCE is denied by the argument???? BULLOCKS – that you invented and ascribed… Further, you evoke YET AGAIN this idea of time “crossing” or “traversing” itself…another of your fantasies…
Chukwu wrote:I quote again, “…would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time…” what does this mean?!?!?
It means that time has traversed an actual infinite. Which requires a starting point.
Which violates the concept of an infinite regress,
Oh, so now time “traversing itself” is time “traversing an actual infinite…”, this nonsense is fine insofar as it has been acknowledged that the cosmo.argument DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INFINITIES!
Chukwu wrote:In your fourth statement here, “…and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” your stating that in order for “…time to traverse an infinite amount of time…” it would require “…a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago…” What?! So what your saying is, for time to traverse itself it must have started the traversing of itself at a point infinitely in the past…. WHAT IN FUCKS NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!
I figured it all went over your head.
What it means, for the 100th time, is that for time to stretch back "infinitely' is that it would require that there was a starting point and actual inifinite amount of time ago.
And this violate the concept of an infinite regress.
And this is your error.
You must say that it is a potential infinity, not that it stretches back to an actual infinity.
If the argument rests on the denial of completed infinities – why do you persist in ascribing IT’S infinite regression with YOUR completed infinites?! Perhaps, it is because you are a downright nincompoop obsessed with being perceived as wise…
Chukwu wrote:
In his final statement here, “Again, an infinite regress leads to a potential infinity, not an actual infinity.” You invoke irrelevant terminology to shield your utter incompetence to those who didn’t take the time to read though the garbage you wrote.
It's pretty clear that you have to just write off this point, because you don't grasp it.
Yet this is the entire point before you - it involves potential and actual infinities! That you deal with the heart of my argument by completely dodging it, just proves that you don't grasp the argument.
… The fact that you seek to dodge this point is very telling.
No sir, I didn’t write it off, I addressed it – It is irrelevant because the very argument in question RESTS ON THE DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INFINITIES – it is YOU that is ASCRIBING need, or want of appeal of “actual infinities” to the argument - PERIOD. If this is was your “entire point” as you say, then again sir, you HAVE NO POINT, and you should BE QUIET…
Ill paste it once more,
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: The universe began to exist.
* - Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Where in this argument is ANYTHING that refers to “…crossing actual infinities…”?!?! NOWHERE…
Wikipedia offers basis for the second premise as follows:
The second premise is usually supported by the following argument:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't accept both premises. 1. What opportunity do enslaved children used to make pornography have?
The oppourtunity to do A NEAR INFINITE number of things:
To escape, run to authorities, free thousands of likely enslaved kids, emigrate to france under caring foster parents, grow 'well' and become 'successfull'
or
To be killed by the enslaver after being raped and beaten
and every one of the near infinite # of possibilities in-between...
The oppourtunity is possiblity - the chance to have lived and died and done something at all...
2. Why is god praiseworthy for directly causing said children's enslavement?
He gave the child a chance at existence - come on now - this is trivial and you know it... I'm sure that after being called back for a final interview and having not gotten the job, you still tell the employer "thanks for the oppourtunity"... you don't curse him for causing you not to get the job...
If you won a sweepstakes for the chance to win a million dollars by kicking a field goal during half-time of the suberbowl - and missed - you would still be gratefull for the oppourtunity...and would perhaps tell the sponors so afterward...not berate them for you having missed an not won....
If you are grateful for such comparably trivial opourtunities - why wouldn't you in turn be gratefull for for the oppourtunity to LIVE??
And if you don't curse these enablers for your failure, why would you curse GOD who gave you the chance at a MUCH greater reward - a life lived...
- Login to post comments
Offline OK, so this was really really funny.
First off, BOTH OPTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A STARTING POINT! This is something you CONTINUE to attribute to the cosmological argument that is simply made up.
I think what Todangst wants to say, Chukwu, is that if you say "time stretches back" then it can only be understood as "you take the starting and ending points of time, you keep the ending time fixed and you pull the starting point backwards". To be frank with you, that's what "to stretch" literally means.
Todangst translates your problem as follows:
- time has a starting point, and up to the present point there are a finite ammount of seconds
- time has a starting point, and up to the present point there are an infinite ammount of seconds
So I hope now you understand what the problem is.
Perhaps if you would discard this argument and generate a new one, based on common understanding of terms and accepted definitions, factors and processes, you would have a greater success.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline You don't think the kid who was enslaved and raped would have prefeered to have not existed?
- Login to post comments
Offline Ok – we FINALLY have a somewhat coherent claim that we can evaluate with logic…
You deny that:
Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨(or)
Time does NOT strech back infinitely (-A)
…even though it is in the form of (A or –A), is a tautology
It's actually not a tautology because there is more than one kind of infinity. There are three options here, hence no tautology.
Actual infinities require a starting point. So both of your options here require starting points.
1) first kind of infinity: a completed infinity: Time stretches back infinitely - this appears impossible.
2) Time has a beginning, and is finite.
and third:
3) The second kind of infinity: Time does not have a beginning, nor does it stretch back in an actual infinity, but only in a potential infinity. A potential infinity is never an actual infinity. It's finite without a starting point.
And this is what an infinite regress actually is....
And this is your error.
Again, there are two types of infinities, and your tautology assumes there is only one.
This is your error.
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A) – here the option is that time HAS NO STARTING POINT AT ALL – ergo extending INFINITELY BACKWARDS.
This would lead to an actual infinity. In order for it to stretch back in an actual infinity, it would need a starting point an infinite amount of time ago - this creates the impossibility of this option being true, which forces the person to the finite timeline instead - and this is precisely the dilemma the Kalam argument is based on.
And the error is that an infinite regress is actually only a potential infinity.
Again, there are two types of infinity.
Let’s evaluate:
Your claim is that, “…time doesnt' have any starting point at all.”, is a third option falling outside of both:
1. Time stretches back infinitely (A)
or
2. Time does NOT stretch back infinitely (-A)
But it is clear that if time has no starting point, it extends INFINITELY!
Potentially infinitely... It can't actually strech back an actual infinity, because this would require a starting point.
And this is what an infinite regress actually is. A potential infinity, without a starting point. And this avoids the infinite regress problem as per the Kalam argument
And this is your error. There is a third option. And you keep missing it. Because you assume there is only one kind of infinity.
UH OH!!! In his first two sentences he breaks convention - he WRITES THE TRUTH
Actually, I've spoken the truth all along, it just goes over your head. You're missing that it can only go back in a potential, not actual infinity.
And you're missing that there are two types of infinity.
“And this is what an infinite regress actually is. A potential infinity, without a starting point…”
“…You can't say time 'stretches back infinitely'...." because for time to stretch infinitely would require that time traversed an infinite amount of time, and for this to occur, it would require that there was a STARTING POINT an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts the very idea of there being NO starting point!
So in the first, you quite truthfully define an infinite regress to have NO STARTING POINT,
Right. And I'm also telling you that an infinite regress is a potential infinity, that it never reaches an actual infinity, that it can't stretch back in an actual infinity.
An actual infinity requires that you implicitly add a starting point.... otherwise, there is no 'infinity' reached...
Two types of infinity. Hence your error.
and in the second you contend that an infinite regression somehow REQUIRES a starting point!!!
No, what I'm telling you is that your argument implies that there was a starting point if you hold that time regresses to an actual infinity. To cross an actual infinity, which is impossible, would require a starting point an infinite amount of time ago.
A potential infinity has no starting point, and never actually reaches infinity.
Two types of infinity.
You're giving us a version of the Kalam argument.
NO – I gave a version of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. The Kalam argument is IN TURN a version of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
What you are doing is giving a version of the Kalam argument.
The argument works like this: If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.
Where in this argument is ANYTHING that refers to “…crossing actual infinities…”?!?! NOWHERE.
Again, my point all along is that crossing an actual infinity is impossible, so it says right there, in bold: If one cannot cross an actual infinite
The Kalam argument is based on the impossibility of crossing an actual infinite. The argument is based on the concept: it refers to crossing an actual infinity as an impossibility.
So it refers to it!
The entire point all along is that crossing an actual infinity is impossible, BUT that in order to be an actual infinity, the infinite chain must have a starting point, hence the argument violates what an infinite regress actually is.
An infinite regress is actually a potential infinity.
And you don't know what a potential infinity is, hence your problem.
The second premise is usually supported by the following argument:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
Nope – STILL NOTHING here that EVEN APPROXIMATES your claim on how the argument “works”.
Actually, it's precisely what I just said! It relies on the impossiblity of an actual infinity!
Look. It begins thusly:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
An actual infinite cannot exist... as opposed to a potential infinite, which can exist.
This is the point I've made all along.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
i.e. an infinite regress is an actual infinite
And this is wrong. An infinite regress is only a potential infinity, because it has no starting point, so it never becomes an actual infinity. For an infinite regress to be an actual infinity, it would need a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago.
Hence Kalam fails.
1. If one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite.
&
2. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinity to get here, which is impossible.”
And the argument ACTUALLY works by simply affirming that:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
&
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
Thus,
3. The universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
Once again you are EXPOSED ascribing words and ideas on an argument that neither NEEDS or RELIES on them – i.e. making up fantastical bullshit…
Actually, what you just quoted is precisely what I argued above.
You've only exposed your reading comprehension difficulties here.
For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now. But to hold that the universe was without beginning is precisely to deny that the universe and time itself had a beginning; not to assert that it did have a beginning an infinite amount of time ago!
Do you get it now?
So in the first sentence here, “For only if you set out from a temporal starting position infinitely far removed from the present would you have to 'cross an actual infinity' in order to get where we are now…”, You talk about “actual infinities” which the Kalam formulation EXPLICITLY denies exist
That's the point. The Kalam argument holds that an infinite regress is an ACTUAL infinity, and that crossing an actual infinity is impossible, hence it didn't happen.
And I would agree that an actual infinite regress is impossible...
But the error is that an infinite regress is only a potential infinity, because a beginningless line can only be a potential, not an actual infinity.
And potential infinities are possible.
Again, two types of infinities.
Yet this is the entire point before you - it involves potential and actual infinities! That you deal with the heart of my argument by completely dodging it, just proves that you don't grasp the argument.
… The fact that you seek to dodge this point is very telling.
No sir, I didn’t write it off, I addressed it – It is irrelevant
Saying it is irrelevent is writing it off.
And it's the heart of the argument! There are two types of infinity, hence your claim contains three variables and cannot be a tautology!
because the very argument in question RESTS ON THE DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INFINITIES –
That's the point here! The Kalam argument denies that an infinite regress is possible, because it holds that an infinite regress is an actual infinity.
But an infinite regress is only a potential infinity, ergo this is the failure of the Kalam argument.
And this is why your attempt at a tautology fails... because your tautology refers to infinities, when there are two kinds of infinities.
The type refered to in your argument is a completed infinity: an actual infinity, (stretching back infinitely) which in turn requires an implied starting point.
So the entire point here rests on the distinction between an actual and a potential infinity.
There are two types of infinity.
Your response should focus solely on this. Your failure to do so indicates that you simply aren't able to see the problem.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline OK, so this was really really funny.
Quote:First off, BOTH OPTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A STARTING POINT! This is something you CONTINUE to attribute to the cosmological argument that is simply made up.I think what Todangst wants to say, Chukwu, is that if you say "time stretches back" then it can only be understood as "you take the starting and ending points of time, you keep the ending time fixed and you pull the starting point backwards". To be frank with you, that's what "to stretch" literally means.
Todangst translates your problem as follows:
- time has a starting point, and up to the present point there are a finite amount of seconds
- time has a starting point, and up to the present point there are an infinite amount of seconds
So I hope now you understand what the problem is.
Yes. That is his problem. Thanks for seeing it so clearly, like several others have.
His error is that in saying 'either time stretches back infinitely or it doesn't" is that there is more than one type of infinity.
There is actual infinity and potential infinity.
So both his options have a starting point, one openly declared, the other, hidden within the wording 'stretching back infinitely'
The actual infinity.
There is a third option: the second type of infinity: time has no starting point, and time only regresses back potentially infinitely....not in an actual infinity. This is what an infinite regress actually is...
So the error is that there are three terms in his tautology. And he can't see this, because he keeps running away from what a potential infinity is.
Perhaps if you would discard this argument and generate a new one, based on common understanding of terms and accepted definitions, factors and processes, you would have a greater success.
He first needs to figure out the difference between an actual and a potential infinity.
Actual infinities are infinite.
A potential infinity never actually reaches infinity....
And then he needs to figure out that he is giving a Kalam argument....
And then he needs to figure out that I've accurately described Kalam
And that I am correct in holding that it does rely on an actual infinity....
which he could see if he could only understand what he himself just cited from Wiki...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Why are you on this site then? Boredom?
If there truely is a creator of the universe, then all else - an afterlife, a human god, etc. - is possible. If I am to concede that a God is possible, than all that goes with it is possible as well.
Simply, it's called imminent critique. Arguing from interior of the opposing camp to show how it blows itself up.
Ironically, if I concede (outside of the method of imminenet critique) that there might be a god then I am also conceding (logically) there might not be a god at the same time.. since if "all things are possible with god" then it is possible there both is and is not a god at the same time. An example of just the sort of impossible thing a god would be able to accomplish...
- Login to post comments
Offline Huh? If we are in a "computer simulation" as you propose - and "time" and the "causal chain" were both instantiated and initiated by some "computer programer" who created(programmed) the sim. - than OUR universe IS the simulation - the CREATOR of our UNIVERSE = GOD; so the "computer programmer" would be GOD
Yes, the computer program would be god BY DEFINITION. But this computer programmer could have eaten children in his spare time before he died of cancer about a billion years ago.
Don't lie to me and try to make me think that this is the KIND of god you are talking about. By any normal definition, this god of ours is not a god.
- Login to post comments
Offline Chukwu wrote:Huh? If we are in a "computer simulation" as you propose - and "time" and the "causal chain" were both instantiated and initiated by some "computer programer" who created(programmed) the sim. - than OUR universe IS the simulation - the CREATOR of our UNIVERSE = GOD; so the "computer programmer" would be GODYes, the computer program would be god BY DEFINITION. But this computer programmer could have eaten children in his spare time before he died of cancer about a billion years ago.
Don't lie to me and try to make me think that this is the KIND of god you are talking about. By any normal definition, this god of ours is not a god.
Right. And he's still not dealt with the ontological mess that comes with giving a 'god' positive attributes of any kind.
But then again, he's so confused about what an infinite regress actually is: a potential infinity, that I don't think he's really up to the task of working out his ontological dilemma....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Give me an ontology for something that is not matter/energy
Then you have a problem. If your first cause is natural, then you've not solved your problem at all.
Actually, it's not necessary true that there is a time zero. I've given you Smolin's points on this, but you just ignore it.
Anyway, if there is a time 'zero' then we can't speak of any causes at all prior to our universe.
Again, I've shown you why your infinite regression argument itself is absurd.... I've also shown you why cosmology does not have to hold to your dichotomy... it's a false one.
Again:
Pay your money to Stephen Hawkings:
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.
This proves that your claim is based on a false dichotomy. Ergo your claim is refuted.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Dude, seriously, you have to stop staring into a mirror as you type, it's confusing....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I knew I was wasting my breath. I'm quite certain I've read more than you, on both sides. I've read stacks of apologetics, and I've read stacks of skeptical books. Go fuck yourself.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
After reading your post several times - really trying to understand, extract and distill your challenges - the only challenge that has any basis in any actual scientific truth is your attack on 3 above (which of the premises, is really the only one that outside of formal presentation requires explanation...) Let me qualify:
I dismiss your challenge on 1, partially because any of a number of formulations of this argument avoid cause/effect ambiguity by adding "contingency/dependancy" claims or stipulate cause/effect by refering to the state of COMING INTO be-ing. Further, unless you outright deny cause/effect relation at the quantum level(absurd - go visit the particle-accelerator at CERN and tell their physcists that...) it is of no consequence to that premise. My formulation wasn't a rigorous one in any case and I think I made that clear. The rest of your challenges (except on 3 above) follow from 1 - so they are dismissed in turn.
Now as to 3 - you first write, "...This is simply a temporal version of Xeno's paradox...", I reply "No it isn't..."
Each of Xeno's paradoxes refer to the seeming inablity to traverse a FINITE distance since when traversing one always must arrive at half the distance from one's goal, thus always having a half-distance left to traverse... The cosmological argument's dealing with infinity is quite different in that in an infinite regression, cause/effect need only be traced linearly to grow WITHOUT BOUND. The only thing similar between the two is the use of the word "infinity" - thats about it.
You further write, "Calculus clearly solves this by allowing us to have ever-shrinking times between consecutive events, converging to a point which is a finite distance in the past...", I reply "No it doesn't..."
Actually, it doesn't even solve Xeno's problems... You're refering to the infintesmal, which from the day of its inception was a red-headed stepchild mathematically - its very definition a bane to mathematical logic (i.e. the smallest number greater than zero?). It has been "defined" out of mathematics for some time - it is really only taught to first year calculus students as a conceptual device - the more rigorous definition being saved for later Analysis classes.
BTW, thanks for deflecting the 'he' controversy - well said even if it is a halfway jab at my expense...
Returning to another of your comments,
Again, energy is QUITE physical - your definition being the one given mainly to first-year students of Classical Mechanics (and also the one used when Newtonian mechanics are invoked no matter what year, etc.) it is certainly not the "scientific" definition. These "energys" are good at describing aggregate and change-in-aggregate energy in a system. Quantum-ly energy exists in "packets" - also, see that a photon, being massless, does NO work, yet is a physical expression of energy.
This - in all seriousness - no offense whatsoever intended - reads as rubbish...
I've shown it to some friends of mine - they can make NO sense of it...I was really begining to think I was missing something egregious, I read it seriously; and a FEW times - still nothing...
I mean - its somekind of denial of the law of excluded middle - but you obviously dont mean it in that way... I thought I "got" Hawking's book...perhaps I didn't...
...Nope - thats not it...
...Yikes - Can ANYONE - give a rational, unbiased weighing in on this?
My points are clear - everything I said was said the way it was intended to be said...
If it is "going over my head" as you say, I'm curious to see who beside you Mr. todangst is "tall" enough to catch it...
Exactly.
Ok. I'll play along.
This thing that caused the Big Bang which you call a god exist.
Now what? What does it matter? Why should we care? What does it have to do with us?
Acutally, I do deny that cause and effect can be meaningfully separated on the quantum level. I do not deny a) the level of determinism and predictability that exists in quantum b) correlation of events in quantum nor c) that one "event" may predictably influence another "event". What I do deny is that when there is interaction which could be described as "cause" and "effect" there can be a clear distinction drawn between the identity of the "cause" and the identitfy of the "effect".
Actually, none of the rest of my points depend on this objection, they all assume that it has been satisfactorily resolved. I can see how most of my number 4 point can be rejected out of hand and my point 2 wasn't really an objection so much as a restatement of your point, but you still have left two things totally unaddressed:
1) Why must the first cause be singular? Why not multiple independant first causes?
2) Why must the first cause(s) continue to exist after its (their) initial effect?
Actually, this is exactly Xeno's paradox. Xeno's paradox is essentially the following:
One cannot traverse a finite distance since there is an infinite sequence of points one must pass through on the way.
Your fundamental misunderstanding in the implicit dichotomy of "either there are no infinite-length temporal chains or the universe is infinitely old" is the same:
One cannot have a finitely aged universe with an infinite causal chain since the infinite causal chain gives us an infinite sequence of points to pass through on the way back.
Xeno concluded that you could not reach the goal since the distance must be infinite and you concluded that an infinite causal chain means the universe is infinitely aged in the same way.
Calculus solves this quite solidly by proving that sums of infinite sequences can still be finite.
I am amazed at how many errors and old information are in this statement. The major ones:
1) I am not referring to the infinitessimal at all, I am referring to the fact that infinite series can sum to finite values. Solving Xeno's paradox is done by noticing that the sum of 1/2n is finite. Your underlying dichotomy can be falsified by providing any similar sequence - any infinite sequence which converges monotonically on a finite point.
2) The infinitessimal was not thought of negatively at or soon after its inception.
Newton and Leibniz each independantly developed calculus. Newton's development centered around rates of change in graphical curves and Leibniz's centered around use of the infinitessimal as either entity or placeholder for differentiation. Both methods got the same results, but the mathematical community at first preferred the method of Leibniz since it seemed more rigorous. Newton's implementation of calculus only gained precedence when it was couched in the later rigour of analysis by Weierstrass.
3) While the original definition of the infinitessimal (the greatest number greater than zero works fine for a bad definition) is rather incoherent I agree, it is not used that way today. The modern definition of an infinitessimal (<technical>used in nonstandard analysis and model theory - in particular in examples of o-minimal structures extending the real field</technical>
is "x is considered infinitessimal if it is greater than 0 and less than every positive rational number" (note: rational number = fraction). While I cannot speak to the use of the infinitessimal in instruction to first-year calculus students, I can say with certainty that it is far from a bane to logic (though I had heard of it beforehand, I first saw it actually used within the context of a course in mathematical logic) and while it is not used commonly in math it is far from eschewed (nor treated purely as a conceptual device).
Once you lose your notion that numbers are actual things and studying math is somehow studying reality, it is easy to realize that "there are no infinitessimals" and "there are infinitessimals" are equally consistent axioms which can be added into field theory.
You are welcome, but if I put a jab in there it was entirely unintentional.
Actually, while it is true that the photon has no mass it does have momentum and it does perform work. The photon is still a wavicle (as one friend of mine so succinctly named them), not "energy" but it does transfer energy from the wavicle emitting it to the wavicle absorbing it. Calling it "a physical expression of energy" is simply a way of stating that the electrical (for example) energy in an electron sitting in one valence shell is transformed into the kinetic energy of the photon's momentum as the electron drops to a lower-energy valence. When the photon is reabsorbed later, its kinetic energy will once again be transformed into electrical potential energy by exciting an electron into a higher energy valence shell.
Energy itself remains an abstraction of the patterns exhibited by transmitter particles such as the photon as the termination of their motion excites wavicles (such as electrons) to change their state with respect to other wavicles (the nucleus and remaining electrons of whatever atom of which it happens to be a part).
Wow - there is a lot that is wrong here - and a couple of interesting objections sprinkled in. The majority of what is wrong is explicit and can be easily resolved by referring to any of a number of texts, or perhaps a few websites - I hesitate to do this sort of "referencing" simply because YOU should (should I go out of my way a SECOND time to correct you when all of the information is out there?) - but seeing as how you dismiss logic and my words with such a glib and pseudo-authoritative tone, I can’t help but to quote a few textbooks in the slim hopes that it will end this back-and-forth for good. Ill save your meaningful objections for the end.
This is NOT the way the cosmological argument presents infinite regression at all – this is your own work. The cosmo.arg’s presentation is that both of the following statements cannot be true:
1) The universe has a finite age.
&
2) The universe has an infinite age.
This is all it claims – and this is a logical tautology. Since cause/effect OCCURS IN TIME, it follows that an infinite regression of cause/effect DIRECTLY assigns an infinite age to the universe. This is the reason that “…One cannot have a finitely aged universe with an infinite causal chain…”, there is NO appeal to sequences of points, etc.
Zeno’s paradox (there are a few but the one your referring to is the “Dichotomy” as related by Aristotle) concerns itself with traversing a FINITE distance. In “Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes” by Brian Bunch and Dr. Phillip S. Jones, it is so written:
“The Dichotomy paradox concerns a traveler who is to walk a certain distance. First, he or she must walk half the distance, then half of what remains, then half of what remains, and so forth. It is clear that there will always be half of the remaining distance to go at any point during the walk. Thus, the person can never complete the walk…” (pg. 196)
This paradox in no way applies to the cosmo.arg for the infinite regression occurs linearly; there is “no place to get”. Zeno is quite irrelevant. But even still, you devastatingly misunderstand what is going on with Zeno…
Yes, some infinite series converge to a finite number, including the one represented by traversing halves (1 + .5 + .25 + … + (.5)^n + …) – but as was pointed out by Aristotle, if you count each part of the journey, you never “reach the end of the counting”:
“That is, the parts [each number in the series] can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers…” (pg.197)
So in order for the traveler to get to his destination, there would need to be a termination with the natural numbers…and there isn’t.
First, if you weren’t referring to the infinitesimal, you should’ve been seeing as how an integral calculus is the basis on which modern (Einsteinian) understating of space-time firmly rests upon. The following from “Calculus”, by James Stewart:
“…The definition of an integral that is in use today is due to Riemann…[his] broad concept of space and geometry turned out to be the right setting, 50 years later, for Einstein’s general relativity theory…” (pg. 379)
Second, assuming that you still don’t understand Zeno’s paradox - let me correct this without appeal to any of the above.
If the cosmological argument can be falsified by providing an infinite series that corresponds to time aggregation and converges on some finite number – than the cosmological cannot be falsified on these grounds. For, the infinite series that corresponds to time is equivalent to the series (1 + 1 + 1 + … + (1)^n + …). This obviously converges to no finite number. Further, if one were to try to parallel Zeno’s Dichotomy temporally using seconds – they would STILL be unsuccessful – for the fundamental unit of time is generally regard as a “Planck Time” (which I will refer to as ‘P’) would eventually be reached upon attempt to further divide the second, and the series would then again grow WITHOUT BOUND. If you need to see it: (1s + .5s + .25s + … + (.5s)^n >= ‘P’ + … + ‘P’ + ‘P’ + …)
Thanks for the unneeded and irrelevant history lesson…however…
I couldn’t even FIND a reference that even approximates your above claim about historic acceptance of infinitesimals:
“…Since the time of Newton and Leibniz, mathematicians had used the infinitely small with great results, but considerable criticism. Mathematicians did not have a rigorous explanation of why their methods worked until the middle of the nineteenth century, at which point explanations were introduced that eliminated the concept of the “completed infinitely small”, or infinitesimal, from formal mathematics. The infinitesimal continued to be used informally for many years. Finally the idea was dropped. At that point, in the twentieth century, Abraham Robinson reintroduced the infinitesimal to mathematics on a new basis. Most mathematicians, however, prefer to use methods that avoid infinitesimals…” (pg. 111 of aforementioned book)
“…The understanding of infinitesimals was a major roadblock to the acceptance of calculus and its placement on a firm mathematical foundation.” (from the Mathworld website : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinitesimal.html )
In your first paragraph – you first paraphrase what I managed to say in one sentence, then you attempt to confuse two distinct definitions…
You said, “While the original definition of the infinitessimal (the greatest number greater than zero works fine for a bad definition) is rather incoherent I agree, it is not used that way today.” I said, “..it has been “defined” out of mathematics for some time” – you said the same thing – only, with more words.
You then said,
“…The modern definition of an infinitessimal (<technical>used in nonstandard analysis and model theory - in particular in examples of o-minimal structures extending the real field</technical>
is "x is considered infinitessimal if it is greater than 0 and less than every positive rational number" (note: rational number = fraction). While I cannot speak to the use of the infinitessimal in instruction to first-year calculus students, I can say with certainty that it is far from a bane to logic…”
This is as if I was saying that the ‘modern’ definition was given to first-year students, or as if I HAD EVER referred to the ‘modern’ definition. It is clear from what I wrote that I was referring to the definition that had been, as I wrote, “defined out” of mathematics – not some ‘modern’ definition. That you could confuse the two implies that you either don’t understand the ‘modern’ definition, don’t understand how exactly the ‘modern’ definition is different from the original definition, or was trying to somehow muddy and confuse what I clearly conveying.
Saying that a photon has momentum does not imply that it can do work – it just doesn’t follow. If the ‘work’ you speak of is a force applied through some vector distance, and force is abstracted as a mass(energy) acceleration, saying a photon has momentum is equivalent to saying that a photon has velocity – p=mv=Ev . What you need to show is that the photon has (can impart on other photons) an acceleration – which I expressly deny. Photons invariably travel at the speed of light if I am not mistaken, and accelerations are changes in velocity, if again I’m not mistaken…
Straight to the point, Einstein’s energy equation explicitly ties energy to the physical – I’m sure you know of which equation I speak…
Energy is QUITE physical.
As for claims relevant to God,
You say you deny cause and effect but then in a, b, and c, go on to describe EXACTLY what is meant when one says cause and effect. So it isn’t clear that you deny cause/effect (which by a, b, and c you too believe is absurd), and it isn’t clear what exactly you deny…
What?! If the rest of your claims rest on the assumption of resolution by your objection – then it follows that they EXPLICITLY depend on the objection…Wow.
Interesting questions, but ones that have been raised before.
1. By multiple independent first causes you can be referring to two scenarios:
A) The multiple first causes each independently contributed to the initiation of ONE causal chain…
Or
B) The multiple first causes each independently started their own causal chain…
I posit that A) is just a restatement of a polytheistic claim and is in no way rejected or counter to the cosmological argument. This group of entities can collectively be known as God since each is partially responsible for the creation of the universe – all the cosmological argument shows is that there is indeed such a thing as “Creator of the universe”
I posit then that B) does NOT follow from the cosmological argument. While a causal chain can be traced back to its originator, it cannot speak as to a causal chain that doesn’t converge to the same origin (is part of the same chain). So while I can show this universe has a creator, I can’t show that there are other universes, and further, that these universes have creators. The cosmological argument does not seek to show the existence of parallel universes nor does it seek to show they do not exist. It simply does not speak on the matter.
I am happy for you that you have your own personal definition of " god"
"God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe."
let me get this strait. God must exist, because IF he exists he must be the creator of the universe..
just listen to what you are saying? You are basically saying we don't have all the answers, so someone must, and therefore god exists..
you don't think we have heard these arguements.............
-g0at
My dog thinks I am god, and I don't want them knowing better. The cats are unsure, but cats are cats...
I don't take any offense at all. A dog wouldn't be able to make sense of it either.
If you understood the point, you'd not have made the error in the first place. Again, your error is that your argument implies that an infinite regress has a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago.
I am not surprised that none of your friends know the difference between and actual infinity and potential infinity either
Actually, in order for you to prove that it doesn't go over your head, you'd first have to demonstrate an understanding of what I told you, and then you'd have to demonstrate the error in my statements.
But you don't even attempt to do that. Because you can't. Because it's all over your head.
Now head over to wiki and look up potential infinity, and try to pretend that you knew it all along...."Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I notice you missed this post:
Give me an ontology for something that is not matter/energy
Then you have a problem. If your first cause is natural, then you've not solved your problem at all.
Actually, it's not necessary true that there is a time zero. I've given you Smolin's points on this, but you just ignore it.
Anyway, if there is a time 'zero' then we can't speak of any causes at all prior to our universe.
Again, I've shown you why your infinite regression argument itself is absurd.... I've also shown you why cosmology does not have to hold to your dichotomy... it's a false one.
Again:
Pay your money to Stephen Hawkings:
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.
This proves that your claim is based on a false dichotomy. Ergo your claim is refuted.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'