[removed by moderator, read it here]
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
BTW If God exists, he is timeless and finite and so not subject to this argument...
Missed that on your first post, did we? LOL.
...*hands holding both sides of head*.... I think I just got an infinite headache from reading the OP.... *grooooan*....
This is just too funny...LOL.
"Hi folks… Infinite existence within time… is it possible?"
No, not the way you are phrasing it.
Based on your criteria, this is a great big NO.
Also, lolgod
So if you except that infinite existence is not possible, you must believe in creation Ex nihilo (from nothing). But if the natural creation of matter/energy is possible, with infinite time, matter/energy density would be infinite, which is clearly not the case.
So that establishes there is a start of time.
On God, if he exists, he must be timeless (because he created time) and finite (because infinity is impossible). So as I said above, the infinite existence arguments do not apply to God.
Jesus wept Dan, it's accept not except, I've lost count of how many times this has been pointed out to you.
That aside, you are using a an argument from ignorance fallacy yet again. Unless you can demonstrate objective evidence for a creator then all talk of a "creation" is meaningless.
"So that establishes there is a start of time."
How can anything start when time doesn't exist? It's had a point of origin, and that is as far as our current understanding of such concepts can go. None of this remotely evidences a deity, you might as well claim garden fairies did it and simply define them as you define the word deity, you've been told innumerable times that you cannot simply define something into existence, because it is irrational.
First, accept, not except.
Second, throughout your post you constantly make reference to a "being". Let's define that term:
be·ing
/ˈbēiNG/
noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings
1.
existence.
"the railroad brought many towns into being"
synonyms: existence, living, life, animation, animateness, aliveness, reality, actuality, essential nature, lifeblood, vital force, entity; esse
"she finds herself warmed by his very being"
antonyms: nonexistence
being alive; living.
"holism promotes a unified way of being"
2.
the nature or essence of a person.
"sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others"
synonyms: soul, spirit, nature, essence, substance, entity, inner being, inner self, psyche;
3.
a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
"alien beings"
synonyms: creature, life form, living entity, living thing, living soul, soul, individual, person, personage, human being, human, man, woman;
verb
1.
present participle of be.
Contextually, you're talking about #3. You even mentioned eye color which confirms that you're using #3 as your definition.
From there, you start trying to talk about creation theories and saying that I must accept creation Ex nihilo, which is not true.
Are you trying to kick off a cosmological argument?
Please demonstrate that my rejection of the idea of an infinite creature or entity (especially an intelligent one) establishes that there is a start of time.
Also, tell me how you think you're going to get away with special pleading, in this place.
Well for being or entity we can substitute a particle with a memory (this is a thought experiment) and then all my arguments hold as is - no such particle can exist. Even without a memory, 1, 3, 4, 5 still hold and we still do not have a valid particle. So the conclusion is that energy/matter cannot exist 'forever'; it has to be created somehow.
That implies creation Ex nihilo (from nothing). But if the natural creation of matter/energy is possible, with infinite time, matter/energy density would be infinite, which is clearly not the case. So that establishes there is a start of time.
"Well for being or entity we can substitute a particle with a memory"
No, you can't. That's directly in contradiction to the original parameters.
"Even without a memory, 1, 3, 4, 5 still hold and we still do not have a valid particle"
You're using the word "valid" incorrectly here. Also, this statement is completely wrong.
"That implies creation Ex nihilo"
It implies that you're full of shit.
The only thing all this establishes is that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about and even less idea how the rules of logic work.
Back to school, Scooter.
Your deterioration in language is symptomatic of someone losing an argument.
Its a thought experiment... I can have a particle with a memory if I want... the particle still has to be a valid particle for the infinite time model to hold together... and it demonstrably does not hold together.
Besides, infinite time does not even work for 'regular' particles without memories:
1. No coming into existence event, how can the particle exist if it never started existing?
3. Without innate attributes, a particle is just null and void. There must be some event (=time) at which the innate attributes (like mass of the particle) are established else it is not a particle. But no such time exists with infinite time. So its not a valid particle.
4. It’s a general contradiction of infinity that applies to equally to infinite particles. They experience time yet they do not have the concept of young or old… contradictory.
5. Demonstrates that an infinite regression in time is impossible... infinite regresses are needed for infinite time… events like particle collisions form infinite regresses... but again it's impossible.
7. It can be applied to events effecting the particle like collisions… no first collision, no 2nd, no collisions at all… no particle at all.
If energy/matter cannot have existed forever, they must have been created naturally which implies infinite energy/matter density (with infinite time). So time must be finite.
@Dan
"1. No coming into existence event, how can the particle exist if it never started existing? "
Please prove this statement. IMO it is incredibly flawed because (by your own words) your god is exempt from this "rule". Since we have established one exemption, then it is very possible there are other exemptions.
@Dan
You're adorable...
So you're trying to use "thought experiment" as your excuse to change parameters any time you want so that in the end you can say "SEE? GOD IS REAL!"
Bye, Felicia!
@doG
nono...This here's one of them "thought experiments". He can change them rules aaaaanytime he wants ta.
LOL.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Brilliant, if I thought any theists anywhere grasped irony I'd have that on a t shirt.
Yes, that is perfectly reasonably and in accordance with quantum mech.... bwahhhhh hahahahahhahahahaha....
Bloody nora...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"Hi folks… Infinite existence within time… is it possible?"
Given that time is dependant on the current state of the universe, and our current understanding of that universe is that it's current state had a point of origin prior to which time did not exist, and will therefore have an end, then no this claim seems unlikely, as the concept of infinity is meaningless without time as we understand it and as it exists within the temporal state of the physical universe.
The rest is just biased assumptions to define a deity into existence, (very) thinly disguised as a hypothetical question. You do this too often for us to miss it Dan.
can you demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity with the characteristics you here have assumed for it? If not then we might just as well speculate a leprechaun exists and define it similarly, for all the use such speculation in helping us understand reality. .
Interesting. Which version of pre-Big Bang physics did you pick that up from?
So your view is a start of time and a creation event 'prior' to that. I would point out that the creation event can't be of natural origin else we'd expect multiple instances of creation.
At a high level and without choosing between the different flavours of pre-Big Bang physics, I think a start of time (as demonstrated above) is a point in favour of the big G.
Re: "At a high level and without choosing between the different flavours of pre-Big Bang physics..."
What the-...*shaking head vigorously to uncross eyes*.... What in the unholy great name of fudge-covered fiddle-faddle is "pre-Big Bang physics"???... *looking around room suspiciously*... Oh! Okay! I get it now! Where are the cameras? This has got to be some sort of prank, right?... *checking behind pictures on the walls*...
Dan,
" I would point out that the creation event can't be of natural origin else we'd expect multiple instances of creation."
Don't you realize that the process of creation is an on-going event? New stars are being formed right now. Life forms on Earth are continually reproducing. Stars and planets are producing new elements. Creation was not a one-time event, it is a continous event.
New star formation takes place with pre-existing matter. By creation I refer to the original origin of such matter. Which appears to be the Big Bang. And the Big Bang is a singleton... natural events are always in the plural.
Dan,
"By creation I refer to the original origin of such matter. Which appears to be the Big Bang."
The Big Bang is a silly Catholic theory of creation. Intelligent people don't believe it. https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
@Diotrephes
I understand where your coming from by saying “creation is happening all the time”, but I’d have to say it confuses the conversation.
Creation would be the cause of all cause and effect while the “creation” you’re referring to is explained by cause and effect.
In creation I imagine a very simple effect which unfolds into/unto all cause and effect.
Edit:
The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory. Catholic’s would merely say that the theory and other theories considered at the same time suggest that it is probable that our universe had a beginning.
There is no such thing as pre-big bang physics. Unless you know something the scientific world is keeping quiet.
"So your view is a start of time and a creation event 'prior' to that."
Not even remotely my view, not have I said anything remotely like that, it doesn't even make grammatical sense.
"I would point out that the creation event can't be of natural origin else we'd expect multiple instances of creation."
What "creation event"? You have demonstrated no objective evidence for a creation or a creator. We know for an objective fact that natural events are possible, and exist, and that the physical universe exists. You're adding hokum superstition that you can't demonstrate any evidence for at all.
"At a high level and without choosing between the different flavours of pre-Big Bang physics, I think a start of time (as demonstrated above) is a point in favour of the big G."
You can think the moon is made of cheese, that doesn't make it so. When you have your assertions and "research" published in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal, and a world wide scientific consensus supports them I'll defer to what you think, until then I'm going to point and laugh...sorry but them's the rules...
It's also worth pointing out that science does not share your view that our current understanding of physics remotely evidences a deity or anything supernatural. So when you make claims in here that evidence from physics supports your view a deity exists...it's a lie.
Though by all means link a peer reviewed piece of research and the banner headlines that physics has evidenced a deity, as the world seems to have missed this, inexplicably.
Uhh, what just happened? I read the op and everything went black! It’s like a foreign language!
"Uhh, what just happened? I read the op and everything went black! It’s like a foreign language!"
You're just lucky I guess. My eyes are stinging from reading through that.
WHAT A BUNCH OF GOBBLDY GOOK?
There is nothing in the OP that even resembles a logical flow of thought. Seriously, their is nothing at all in that string of inane utterance that can be discussed. Can you clean it up? Are your "Characteristics" the same thing as your "Position for the existence of a god?" How do you get to characteristics without proving that there is such a being? Are we just playing the "What If" game? Basically what you have posted is an incoherent mess.
You did not read it properly or did not understand it. My argument is to disprove infinite existence and therefore infinite time.
So the idea is to establish there was a start of time - that rules out various heathen models of the universe - and allows us to focus more closely on a set of models for the universe that mostly include a God.
You cannot possibly postulate that a God is involved in any way shape or form.
Firstly, you haven't adequately demonstrated how you dismiss all possible alternatives, theories and models... this leads to a black and white fallacy.
Even if one was to concede that time was not infinite and something not known by current laws of physics and nature caused a 'first cause' or whatever you choose as 'creation', this still would not lead to your God or any other God for that matter.
All you could say with any shred of intellectual honesty and/or accuracy is that something happened that we do not know and probably could never know.
How can anyone be satisfied with an answer that has zero evidence, zero predictive power, untreatable, immeasurable is simply staggering!
Pages