Trent Horn tries to prove that God exists.
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.
Why does it have to be supported by scientific or tangible facts? And what criteria does the logical arguments for God's existence lack?
Well for openers they typically they don't exhaust the cases; a false dilemma. For example: ignoring the case of an eternal universe.
Trent actually does consider the case for an eternal universe. It just doesn't work if time doesn't have a starting point (or if there never was a t=0) as that would ultimately result in now never being able to happen.
That has simply not been proven nor established, wouldn't you concede though regardless, that is simply the assumption of a person trying to defend his position (which he is entitled to do) but is not qualified in the relative field.
That is pure bullshit Jon.
It was hard for me to understand at first too but it actually makes sense. Can you specify for me a natural phenomena or anything in nature that is infinite or can be infinite in both ways? That's because infinity does not exist in nature. It exists only as an idea in Mathematics but has no physical manifestation.
Temperature doesn't have an upper limit... but has a lower limit.
Luminous intensity has a lower limit - once you get absolute darkness, you can't make it darker.
Mass doesn't even have an upper limit but has a lower limit - 0.
Even the number of atoms in the universe has an upper limit, right now, we have a number - 10^80
Even the length (or say diameter of the universe) has a lower limit (when it was a single point)
Trent explains how time cannot have an infinite past you can just check that out. I'll parallel his argument with heat/temperature while not assuming that we know an absolute zero exists.
Say I have a material that increases temperature by 1 Kelvin if I add 1 calorie of heat to it and I observe this material at this time to be 300 Kelvin. If I add 1 calorie of heat to this material, I can measure it's temperature to be 301 Kelvin and so on and so forth. Now, if there was no absolute zero for temperature and I could go as low as -10,000 Kelvin or even lower without end, then it wouldn't matter how much heat I applied to this material, it would never be 300 Kelvin as I would have to apply an infinite amount of heat to this material and it would never be observed at 300 Kelvin. As it is, I was able to observe this material at 300 Kelvin. Therefore, there must be an absolute zero for temperature.
Replace Kelvin and heat with days, temperature with time, "300 Kelvin" with today... well, you get the picture.
Density of a black hole, electrostatic force at short range, gravitational force at short range, work required to escape from an astronomical body, the potential of any field also contains them. And sure, those sound like math stuff; but this is true for any value. You might as well ask where the number 7 exists in nature. Math is what we use to model the universe, and those models are absolutely stuffed with infinities.
No one knows the number of atoms in the universe; and anyone who tries to tell you they do is a snake oil salesman.
Desnity of a black hole and force at close range. Sure, they can have a large value. Maybe infinite. But you agree they have a lower limit at least? Meaning 0 force would actually be 0 force. 0 density would be 0 density. Just as 0 time would have 0 tim but could go on infinitely.
No. Consider the density of a blackhole: it is lim v->0+ of m/v; that has exactly 1 value; infinity.
That statement is a ridiculous tautology as far as I can tell.
These things you mentioned aren't actually infinite. They're very very large that we use infinite to denote that. Take the density of a black hole. For that to be infinite, one of two must be true. It's mass is infinite meaning it would have to have more mass than the entire universe (including the one that contains it) or the space it occupies is 0 (not a very small number, but 0).
As it stands the density of a black hole is just another very large number and it is easier to think of it as infinite.
Check my above post for the exact details of how it is infinite.
Yeah. None of those are truly infinite. They represent very very large numbers. Hardly infinite. As to 7, it's true that you can't find that in nature but you can easily imagine 7 stars or 7 planets. Infinity, however, isn't even a number. It's an idea which cannot exist in nature. We usually use infinity to define things which are very very large in value
No. Lim v->0+ m/v is infinite; it isn't "very large", it is divergent.
I would also strongly suggest watching Alex Mallpass on YouTube vs Matt Slick the apologist discussing the logic within the transadental arguement.
He completely destroys it...
Yes. You just gave me a mathematical equation. What does this represent in nature?
Sorry. I just realized this equation represents density. That's true again. But V only approaches zero. It cannot be zero. Just as density approaches infinity but isn't infinity
In GR, the volume of a (non-rotating) black hole is 0.
Why then did you use limits? When they need to be mentioned, limits imply that the value cannot simply be plugged into the equation.
"Lim v->0" would mean that V cannot equal 0 otherwise you would've said V=0. As I understand it, V=0 is simply used to simplify the calculations used in GR. Useful for calculations, sure. In any case, density wouldn't have an infinity in the negative "direction".
I've already said that time and heat may not have upper limits but they have lower limits. You state density of a black hole as not having an upper limit. But it still has a lower limit.
Going back to my point on time. I still haven't heard a case for how it's possible for our universe to not have a beginning at all.
I did say that!
I was very careful to mark it from right, not the left. From the left it would have negative infinity density.
It has an upper limit of infinity, and a lower limit of infinity.
Isn't it interesting that almost every sentence in your post was false (or at least fundamentally misguided)?
You simply say things aren't true without actually proving them.
When do we use limits? (I can't believe we're now talking about limits). Let's take the greatest integer function, f(x) = [x] and consider when x = 5.
f(5) = 5
But the "lim f(x) x --> 5 -" would actually be 4. Just as the limit of m/v as v --> 0+ = infinity, m/v when V=0 doesn't equal infinity, it doesn't have a value but we know that as the value of V gets closer and closer to 0, m/v gets closer and closer to infinity. I still stand by the use of infinities and 0 volume as being useful tools for calculations but not representative of the physical universe.
I do expect you'll just say "This is false" again without giving proof so I'll just stop here.
It should be painfully obvious, but OK:
Actually in the example I gave, the limit would not exist in that case. It would not be 5 as the value of the limit from the left and right are different. Simply plugging in the value does give 5 but basing the value on what the limit is from one side does not give the value of the function. In this case, if you're coming from the left, it would be 4.
So now you are contradicting yourself (remember you gave the answer 4 to the example problem before, now you are claiming that is wrong).
And the false statement (that forms the contradictions) is the one I quoted in this message. The limit does exist in the example you gave.
So many false statements.
Read back. In my example, the limit as x --> 5 (from the left thus the negative sign) would be 4. but when you approach it from the right, it would be 5.
What you did was conclude that m/v when v=0 is inifnite because when v --> 0 from the right it approaches infinity. I admit that in my example, x can equal 5 but I cannot deduce this from the limits just as you cannot deduce the value of m/v from the limits (from the left or the right) coz then you'd have to choose. Is it infinity or negative infinity? Another example of a limit where the limit could in fact equal a certain value but the actual value does not exist:
f(x) = x^2/x
lim f(x) as x-->0 would be 0. But plugging the value into the equation would give you an undefined result.
To be fair, it isn't exactly my work. This is a standard result in the field for almost 100 years.
You told us the limit does exist in your example. Then you told us it doesn't exist. Are you now saying it does exist again? It looks to me like someone doesn't know what they are talking about. BTW it does exist, and it is trivial. I think the real question is, as time -> ∞, how many more false statements about limits will you make?
I'm starting to doubt if you know what limits entail. It's one of the first topics in calculus and it's actually pretty easy to forget.
Going back to the time having an infinite past, review Trent's argument on it. Recall the part where he mentions flowers. It basically goes like this.
Today cannot happen if yesterday didn't finish. Consequently, tomorrow cannot happen if today doesn't finish. It can then be logical to say that before before today can occur, every subsequent day would have occurred in the past. Now, if there was an Infinite past, all subsequent days before today couldn't possibly have occurred because you'll never finish an infinite nimber of days before today...
But today did occur. Therefore, the universe has a finite past. (Notice that he doesn't mention the big bang at all in his argument)
I've taught the subject at university. You know I'm a mathematician right? No about of innuendo from you will erase the very wrong statements you've made about them.
You supposed that time is infinite, then immediately handicapped yourself to only consider finite sized time intervals, to get the results you wanted.
You teaching the subject at a university doesn't actually follow that you know what limits entail.
"You supposed that time is infinite, then immediately handicapped yourself to only consider finite sized time intervals, to get the results you wanted."
In logic, this is a tool we use where you prove event A by showing that event "not A" leads to a contraction. What is wrong with this method?
That was NOT a proof by contradiction. Yikes.
I find it strange that infinity is considered incomprehensible, but yet the complete nothingness that is required for a first cause is plausible.
So do I, considering I work with infinities every day.