Does Time have a Start?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Where did you get
∞ - ∞ = 0from? That was not one of arakish's "postulates":
See you took one of arakish's postulates and turned it into a contradiction, which proves one of the postulates is wrong. But you had to add a postulate of your own (
∞ - ∞ = 0) to get there. It might be that your postulate is the cause of the contradiction (in fact I know that it is).
X - X = 0
is some axiom of arithmetic... why are you arguing with common sense?
You already told us that infinity is not a number, so you can't be sure that arguments that work with numbers will work with infinity.
You need to either supply a proof for it, or label it as a postulate. That is how the game is played.
/e: also infinity - infinity is indeterminate in calculus, a subject you already endorsed, but are now disagreeing with. Check the link, it is the 4th one on the list.
Where did you learn math? Are you even in High School?
What are you talking about?
x - x = 0
holds for all x.
When you deduct ∞ from both sides of
How simple is that?
You might notice that Wolfram disagrees with you as well.
Common sense is notoriously unreliable when dealing with infinities. The mistake you made (∞ - ∞ = 0) is a common mistake by neophytes in the subject; and is commonly addressed in introductory calculus textbooks.
/e: And just so you know this isn't just my opinion:
x - x = 0
For all x. indeterminate forms is just a patchwork of bullshit to cover the fact that nothing works correctly with infinity.
∞ + 1 = ∞
Implies infinity is something, that when you change it; it does not change. Thats just plain nonsense.
If you believe that nothing works with infinity, why are you insisting x - x = 0 works with infinity?
x - x = 0 holds for all numbers.
But infinity is a concept, not a number.
*on knees*... *hands clasped tightly beneath chin*... *looking pleadingly skyward*.... Oh, sweet and precious eight pound nine ounce little baby Jesus! We come to you today to humbly beseech your divine powerfulness on behalf of our poor ol' Danny Boy. Dear perfectly innocent and magnificent tiny infant savior lying there in a bed of hay wearing only a tattered diaper looking supremely adorable, we ask that you use your magical miracle powers to reach out oh-so-gently and touch Dan's troubled brain so that he may generate a few extra brain cells that will allow the dear soul to finally grasp the infinity concept. Even though you are only a teeny-tiny little baby who is so amazingly adorable with your itty-bitty hands and feet kicking randomly in the air, we have faith in your Almighty Godliness and are more or less fairly somewhat confident in your powers to help our Danny Boy see the light. In your teenie-weenie precious name.... Amen.
*standing up*... *brushing dirt off knees*... Alrighty, folks. That should take care of our problem.
@ Tin-Man Re: "Prayer"
LMAOWF. Thank humans for the invention of Depends...
Now, only if prayer actually worked...
Time does not exist independently of Spacetime.
That may well be the case. It does not effect my argument though: I can change the axiom 'time is finite' to 'spacetime is finite' and the argument still holds.
How can you say that time within spacetime is finite if you need time outside spacetime in order to say that time within spacetime is finite?
Why do you need time outside spacetime? Time is a dimension like length. If you don't believe in infinity, its finite.
I didn't say I didn't believe in infinity.
If you travel forwards over the surface of the Earth, how long will it take you to reach the end?
For a sphere you have to designate the start and end point. Say the north pole. Then it takes a finite amount of time to reach the end. A sphere is in no way infinite. If spacetime loops back on itself that does not make it infinite.
Your question was "Does Time have a Start?".
Dan: "Time is a dimension like length."
Yet more proof. Time is actually dimensionless. Only humans give it dimensions.
Dan, have any of your claims been peer reviewed and published in a worthy scientific journal?
They haven't have they. They also disagree with known scientific facts contained within the explanation of The Big Bang Theory, which doesn't require or evidence anything supernatural in that Theory.
Well I thought I'd collect some feedback first.
My ideas do not disagree with any scientific facts - science does not know the cause of the Big Bang. It's clearly a very singular event IE not natural. The same arguments apply to Eternal Inflation - there would be infinite instances of inflation concurrently and infinite density should have been reached.
"Well I thought I'd collect some feedback first."
If one is investigating a topic, one goes to a forum or other location dedicated to that topic. I do not go to a forum dedicated to fly fishing to discuss welding.
Due to the contrary nature of opinions here, I get a good response from this site... that was the reason for raising it here.
But I will also take it up elsewhere also... its in the early stages at the moment
And when will the paper be published? The magical year of 2345?
You are already so far from being even imaginatively correct, you may as well just give up. We have completely destroyed, utterly annihilated, and totally demolished anything you have posted here. What do think actual scientists working in the field you are imagining are going to do?
"its in the early stages at the moment"
If this is what you call the early stages, then you shall utterly fail in your journal paper...
No-one has given a valid counter argument yet.
We don't need one. You are the one making the fallacious assumption. We have proven your postulate is false. We are not making any assertions, just proving you false.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
Give a valid counter argument leprechauns are not real.
Saying leprechauns as an idea is absurd does not count, we already tried to say that about your argument.
You are taking the commonly misunderstood human created measuring tool concept of "time", and trying to twist an: already lack of understanding, to fit in a "god" idea.
You are so committed to trying to rationalize the god concept, you fail to see even your rationalizations make no sense.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
Leprechauns are not real because they are magic and magic is not real.
God is not magic; he is a real viable entity without the traditional Omnipotent, Omnipresent etc... attributes. So you can't use arguments involving Leprechauns.
What??? Leprechauns aren't real???.... *worried look on face*... Ummmm, then who the hell was that short, weird looking little dude in a green jacket and funny hat that I stunned with a Taser to get that pot of gold that he was guarding???.... *wringing hands nervously*.... Oh, dear....
"God is not magic; he is a real viable entity without the traditional Omnipotent, Omnipresent etc... attributes. So you can't use arguments involving Leprechauns."
Again...proof that a god is real please. Leprechauns and god bowl on the sane lane so to speak, at the supernatural bowling alley...as the only thing that defines them, is myth.