Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 01:54 PM
Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I cannot parse this.

Are you saying the universe cannot be understood in any way but mathematically?

Seems that way so far.

But if you want to try and disprove quantum mechanics because feels, you, uh, go right ahead.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  Theoretically if the universe began at some point then the nothingness it came from was infinite, but if the universe was always here then it is infinite.

This is incoherent unless you define your terms. The universe did begin to exist in its present form at a certain time in the past. The conditions under which it "began" (using the term for simplicity's sake, despite the inapplicability of contingent interaction) cannot by any means be said to be "nothing", which is indeed not physically coherent as naively understood.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  We are in paradoxical situations where when the universe became something nothingness ceased to not exist, meaning it wasn't infinite to begin with but what was stopping nothingness from becoming something if nothing existed?

This is word salad hinting at a cosmological argumenet.

Hint: the cosmological argument is shit.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  It would mean potential can be nothingness that builds until it becomes something. Pretty simple Tongue

I'm afraid I don't follow.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
19-08-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 12:46 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:41 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Not sure what your quote is meant to prove (as it seemed more of a figure of speech than a declaration), but one obvious problem with what was said is that human stupidity will indeed come to an end...when the last human dies.

I came across some idea about walking across a room; if you halve the distance, then halve it again, you can keep halving endlessly to the point you would never bridge that distance. If that idea is bogus I'd like to hear why, other than the fact that indeed you can walk across the room.

Zeno's paradox. Valid under Euclidean geometry. The bane of Greek geometry, and much of the Greek philosophy (and Christian apologetic) based on it. Under modern mathematics, it's easily handled as a convergent series (one of the signature convergent series, even, the geometric series). Summing up an infinite number of things can result in something finite, if those infinite number of things trend towards the infinitesimal. Or they might not. Infinity is funky that way.

(Whether it works in actual reality, rather than a mathematical model of reality, depends on whether quantum space is a thing. My understanding is that quantum theoreticians agree that it is, but that precise-enough instruments to test the hypothesis don't yet exist. cjlr could tell you more about this than I, and probably correct me on the subject too.)

But there's the rub. Just because we have an infinity to work with, does not mean that the law of averages kicks in and makes something of virtual impossibility possible, simply because there are infinitely many instances where it might occur. It MIGHT play out that way, or it might not. Just because we've got infinitely many steps between one wall of the room and the other, doesn't mean that, oh, let's say a potato is somewhere along that path. It doesn't make it more likely that there's a potato there, or render an impossible potato into a possibility.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us looking for some other way of checking whether there's a potato there... which is what we would be doing if infinity had never come up. And using this as an argument for a god does the same thing. It leaves us looking for some other way to determine whether a god exists or not. Meaning that the infinity argument leaves us no wiser for having considered it, and that it has proven nothing.

EDIT: To address your point directly, an infinite universe does NOT imply infinite possibilities. We can have the heavy-math discussion if you really want to, provided that you know what an order of infinity is.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
19-08-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 01:48 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:40 PM)morondog Wrote:  Nothing to do with foundations of logic, early universe and paradox is "pretty simple". It's only simple to true believers.

Yes, I don't find this discussion relevant to anything, I'm just trying to work through some things. People were asking me questions that I don't really know, so I asked them questions back and they gave me math, if I have to learn math to understand this then they are out of luck, I'm not interested in math. So yes, I lose by default; infinity doesn't exist.

Asking questions is good.

Rejecting answers seems somewhat less productive.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
19-08-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 12:23 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  But the universe isn't infinite. So, there's that.

We have hit theoretical boundaries to the universe, I know that much.

No, you don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:03 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:46 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  I came across some idea about walking across a room; if you halve the distance, then halve it again, you can keep halving endlessly to the point you would never bridge that distance. If that idea is bogus I'd like to hear why, other than the fact that indeed you can walk across the room.

Zeno's paradox. Valid under Euclidean geometry. The bane of Greek geometry, and much of the Greek philosophy (and Christian apologetic) based on it. Under modern mathematics, it's easily handled as a convergent series (one of the signature convergent series, even, the geometric series). Summing up an infinite number of things can result in something finite, if those infinite number of things trend towards the infinitesimal. Or they might not. Infinity is funky that way.

(Whether it works in actual reality, rather than a mathematical model of reality, depends on whether quantum space is a thing. My understanding is that quantum theoreticians agree that it is, but that precise-enough instruments to test the hypothesis don't yet exist. cjlr could tell you more about this than I, and probably correct me on the subject too.)

But there's the rub. Just because we have an infinity to work with, does not mean that the law of averages kicks in and makes something of virtual impossibility possible, simply because there are infinitely many instances where it might occur. It MIGHT play out that way, or it might not. Just because we've got infinitely many steps between one wall of the room and the other, doesn't mean that, oh, let's say a potato is somewhere along that path. It doesn't make it more likely that there's a potato there, or render an impossible potato into a possibility.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us looking for some other way of checking whether there's a potato there... which is what we would be doing if infinity had never come up. And using this as an argument for a god does the same thing. It leaves us looking for some other way to determine whether a god exists or not. Meaning that the infinity argument leaves us no wiser for having considered it, and that it has proven nothing.

EDIT: To address your point directly, an infinite universe does NOT imply infinite possibilities. We can have the heavy-math discussion if you really want to, provided that you know what an order of infinity is.

No, that heavy-math discussion will not be necessary; now you say it I think I understand; there cannot be infinite possibilities because only things that are possible are possibilities, not everything is possible under any given circumstances. For example; two possible things may be impossible to coexist(if that makes any sense). But thanks for the explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 01:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  Are you saying the universe cannot be understood in any way but mathematically?

Seems that way so far.

But if you want to try and disprove quantum mechanics because feels, you, uh, go right ahead.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  Theoretically if the universe began at some point then the nothingness it came from was infinite, but if the universe was always here then it is infinite.

This is incoherent unless you define your terms. The universe did begin to exist in its present form at a certain time in the past. The conditions under which it "began" (using the term for simplicity's sake, despite the inapplicability of contingent interaction) cannot by any means be said to be "nothing", which is indeed not physically coherent as naively understood.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  We are in paradoxical situations where when the universe became something nothingness ceased to not exist, meaning it wasn't infinite to begin with but what was stopping nothingness from becoming something if nothing existed?

This is word salad hinting at a cosmological argumenet.

Hint: the cosmological argument is shit.

(19-08-2014 01:35 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  It would mean potential can be nothingness that builds until it becomes something. Pretty simple Tongue

I'm afraid I don't follow.

I mean what is potential? Does it have to be anything or can it just be the possibility of something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:23 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  We have hit theoretical boundaries to the universe, I know that much.

No, you don't.

I heard quantum theorists came up with an estimation of how big the universe is, so yes; I don't know personally, I was told people know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 12:46 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:41 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Not sure what your quote is meant to prove (as it seemed more of a figure of speech than a declaration), but one obvious problem with what was said is that human stupidity will indeed come to an end...when the last human dies.

I came across some idea about walking across a room; if you halve the distance, then halve it again, you can keep halving endlessly to the point you would never bridge that distance. If that idea is bogus I'd like to hear why, other than the fact that indeed you can walk across the room.

It's not bogus. The confusion is not accounting for time.

If one moves across the room at constant velocity, the time to cross each geometrically smaller distance is itself geometrically smaller. The room gets crossed.

If one moves the geometrically smaller distances in constant time, the velocity gets geometrically smaller, the room never gets crossed, but one gets infinitesimally close.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-08-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:21 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you don't.

I heard quantum theorists came up with an estimation of how big the universe is, so yes; I don't know personally, I was told people know.

Est of bigness != theoretical limit.

Theory = kinda... like model. Est of bigness is physical measurement. Theoretical limit would be for example if they say something like "based on the measured value of the cosmological constant and the standard model of physics, universe can't be bigger than X".

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 01:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:48 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  People were asking me questions that I don't really know, so I asked them questions back and they gave me math, if I have to learn math to understand this then they are out of luck, I'm not interested in math.

Well... that's hardly a crime. Quite a lot of physical understanding can be had from qualitative stuff. But... if you want to resolve paradoxes like Zeno's... maths is necessarily gonna be involved.

(I've never quite bought the lines that people try to feed me about Zeno, even *after* going through quite a lot of maths. That boy was onto something. Sharp guy.)

He was converging on the concept of infinite series - he just didn't quite get there. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: