Infinite Existence

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
terraphon's picture
"You did not read it properly

"You did not read it properly or did not understand it."

Or maybe you didn't posit it correctly or you didn't understand what the hell you're talking about...

"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."

Go get PhD's in Astro-Physics and Cosmology, then try again Sparky.

arakish's picture
Terraphon: "Go get PhD's in

Terraphon: "Go get PhD's in Astro-Physics and Cosmology, then try again Sparky."

I have told Dan this many times. It does no good. Additionally, Dan is self-proclaimed to have a Baccalaureate in Mathematics. I have one in Astrophysics: Celestial and Orbital Mechanics (Stellar System Formation). Yet, he claims I know nothing about the subject. Said my ability in math is that of a 3rd grader once. Yet he is the one who cannot realize the probability he always uses is multiplicative instead of additive.

LOL

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
1. Okay infinite existence

1. Okay infinite existence is not real - conceded
2. Infinite time is not real - conceded
3. Time had a start - conceded.
4. Therefore God (WHAT THE FK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?) How do you get here?

Devans99's picture
I don't claim that a start of

I don't claim that a start of time is absolute proof of God, merely evidence in favour of God's existence. Creating a dimension how exactly do quantum fluctuations achieve that? It seems likely that intelligence would be required to achieve it.

People are very black and white on this site... the question of God is all about shades of grey in my opinion. There is no absolute proof of God... merely evidence suggesting a high probability that he exits.

Cognostic's picture
@Dan

@Dan
"I don't claim that a start of time is absolute proof of God"

I did not say anything about whether or not you used any of your points to claim that a God exists. I merely conceded them all. NOW WHAT? Let's try it this way.

1. Okay infinite existence is not real - conceded - but it does not mean God exists
2. Infinite time is not real - conceded - but it does not mean god exists.
3. Time had a start - conceded. - but it does not mean god exists.
4. Therefore God (WHAT THE FK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?) How do you get here?

Sheldon's picture
"

"
I don't claim that a start of time is absolute proof of God, merely evidence in favour of God's existence. Creating a dimension how exactly do quantum fluctuations achieve that?"

So yet another argument from ignorance fallacy then.

"There is no absolute proof of God... merely evidence suggesting a high probability that he exits."

Kudos, you're still producing the belly laughs I see Dan, keep them coming I love a good belly laugh..

Randomhero1982's picture
I don't claim that a start of

I don't claim that a start of time is absolute proof of God, merely evidence in favour of God's existence

Please demonstrate the causal link that lead to a God.

arakish's picture
Dan: "I don't claim that a

Dan: "I don't claim that a start of time is absolute proof of God, merely evidence in favour of God's existence."

And I guess you pulled this shit from the toilet?

rmfr

dogalmighty's picture
"Hi folks… Infinite existence

"Hi folks… Infinite existence within time… is it possible?"

Truthfully, we don't know...as there are reasonable hypothesis that our universe is perpetual. If so, time would be perpetual. We just have no present means of measure of perpetual time.

"So if you except that infinite existence is not possible"

It depends on your description of existence. DNA exists from history, within us today. Subatomic particles are in our make-up. Hypothesis of a perpetual universe, support subatomic particle reuse.

"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."

This is where you fail in reason. Even though you stated as a supposition, your intent was obvious from get go...LOL.

You think it is reasonable that a god exists, without evidence. You think it is reasonable that a god invented time, without evidence.
As this is my first encounter with you, that's about all I can say...but you might want to go discuss reality with your talking donkey or snake.

Devans99's picture
Please re-read above... I've

[removed by moderator, read it here]

Cognostic's picture
1. The universe is not

1. The universe is not perpetual - conceded - I can not counter - I conceded.
2. Time was created - conceded - it is not evidence for God's existence.
3. Why 50% Just a random number? Okay - conceded - just to humor you
4. We did time already - conceded,
5. The universe is fine tuned - it's not but what the fuck I am on a roll - conceded
6. Something exists rather than nothing - FINE - conceded.
7. So 98% chance of a creator of the universe??????? WHAT???? How in the fuck did you get to a "CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE/"

At the very most, all you can assert is that the universe had a cause. You do not get to insert your God into the unknown. You do not get to assert "A Creator" or even that the Universe was "CREATED." There is nothing in anything you said that leads us to "A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE" NOTHING And that is even after I have conceded all your main points.

God of the Gaps FALLACY!
"Well what else could it be?" "Argument from Ignorance FALLACY"

Devans99's picture
Well I think both the weak

Well I think both the weak and strong versions of the anthropic principle are flawed so actually 5 is evidence of intelligence (and 4 too probably).

I did not assert a creator... I calculated a probability of a creator... so there may not been a creator I concede but the evidence seems to be in favour of a creator. A boolean prove of existence would be nice but no-one so far as come up with one despite 1000s of years trying, so calculating a probability is the best we can do currently.

Cognostic's picture
You calculated no probability

You calculated no probability at all..
5. The universe is fine tuned : therefore. intelligence did it.

NO! You have not ruled out a natural process. Now we have issues with 5 and your conclusion. Please demonstrate how you did away with natural causes.

7. Please demonstrate your creator God of the universe,

"What else could it be?" Argument from ignorance fallacy.

Devans99's picture
5. Well the multiple

5. Well the multiple universes (SAP) argument does not hold; the other universes are most probably like this one (IE life supporting so fine tuned too). And the weak anthropic principle (WAP) does not ring true; just because we must have life supporting conditions (because we are here) does not explain WHY we have life supporting conditions (the WHY is probably God).

Natural processes are not singletons... creation was a singleton therefore non-natural.

If creation was a natural process (and time was infinite) we'd expect infinite instances of creation (infinite Big Bangs) but there is only one instance of creation. Plus as I said before we'd have infinite matter density with infinite time and natural creations.

7. You have to define God... I define him as the being that created the universe... therefore he exists with a high probability by my argument above.

That might not be everyones definition of God I admit.I can't say he is omnipotent (just powerful enough to create the universe), omnipresent, omnipotent or omnibenevolent (but I can demonstrate he is benevolent).

Randomhero1982's picture
You calculated no probability

You calculated no probability at all..
5. The universe is fine tuned : therefore. intelligence did it.

NO! You have not ruled out a natural process. Now we have issues with 5 and your conclusion. Please demonstrate how you did away with natural causes

Well put Cog,

It's insane that something natural could not possibly bring forth the conditions to start the process of acceleration of the big bang... or even a prior state before hand could have...

No, it is more logically sensible to go with something that doesnt reside within the cosmos, doesnt conform to laws of nature and physics, is not testable, unfalsifiable etc....

This isn't even clutching at straws, its clutching a higgs boson.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "Start at 50% / 50% for a

Re: "Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
Start of time 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%
Why is there something rather than nothing 96.875% + 3.125% * 25% = 97.65625%"

What... The.... Fuck... did I just read???... *corner of right eye starting to twitch*....

Bad Santa's picture
Hey Tin-Man! Are you a long

Hey Tin-Man! Are you a long distance telepathic mind reader??? I just had the same thought! (scary)

and WTF is this??? I beg somebody explain it to me... me dumb (questioning myself????

I've given a strong argument that are universe is not perpetual...

David Killens's picture
"and WTF is this??? I beg

"and WTF is this??? I beg somebody explain it to me... me dumb (questioning myself????

I've given a strong argument that are universe is not perpetual... "

The explanation is that the pharmaceutical industry can crank out amazing drugs.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - Start at 50% / 50% for

Dan - Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition

You've tried this several times before, that is the balance fallacy.

If I told my boss that at 9:00 am, I'd be out of a job by 9:15 am, and probably escorted off the property by security by 9:20 am. It is absolute lunacy.

Devans99's picture
At what percent would you

At what percent would you suggest we start bearing in mind that we have (initially) admitted no evidence either for or against the proposition 'was the a creator of the universe'?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - At what percent would

Dan - At what percent would you suggest we start bearing in mind that we have (initially) admitted no evidence either for or against the proposition...

You don't need to be a mathematician to realize if you don't know the value of something, you shouldn't be assigning it values.

Devans99's picture
But I have to know the

But I have to know the probability of a creator to satisfy my curiosity. So I could assign:

0% - that would be showing a bias against there being a creator
100% - that would be showing a bias for there being a creator

So I assign 50%... equidistant between the two extremes.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - But I have to know the

Dan - But I have to know the probability of a creator to satisfy my curiosity.

Then you have a serious problem.

Listen, there are lots of values I wish I knew but I don't. Life sucks sometimes. What we don't do is just make shit up and then expect to be taken seriously.

Devans99's picture
Doing a probability analysis

Doing a probability analysis is one step removed from complete ignorance so it is preferable. It's as good as we get for most of life's questions: Could we be brains in vats? Can't say for sure one way or the other but we operate on the principle that we are not a brain in a vat and we do so due to probability.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Dan

@Dan

You've already been shown that your "rule" leads to contradiction. The fact that you continue to appeal to it after that is very troubling.

Devans99's picture
What rule and what

What rule and what contradiction are you referring to?

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Dan
Devans99's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

Yes and I explained that here:

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/dan-simple-probability...

The example given is a 'loaded question' - it contains inbuilt evidence that it is not a 50%/50% proposition.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Listen Dan, I don't like to

Listen Dan, I don't like to appeal to authority, but you seem unwilling to listen, so here goes:

I'm a professional mathematician. I work as a risk manager for one of the largest gaming (think casinos) corporations in the world. I've also taught this subject at university. Your notion of a 50/50 chance for something you know nothing about it just plain dumb, wrong, and obviously so; even to those who know next to nothing on the subject.

Why you are unwilling or unable to see that, I won't hazard a guess; but I hope this conversation jars you into some introspection, but sadly I'm doubtful that it will.

Devans99's picture
But 50%/50% is only the

But 50%/50% is only the starting point before evidence is admitted... I then adjust the numbers up/down in light of the evidence. Its perfectly valid maths.

BTW I have a 1st in maths.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.