Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can there be an infinite past...

AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I dunno. Neither a finite past nor an infinite past make much sense to me. To steal a line from Graincruncher, both situations are "over my conceptual event horizon". Existence is a miracle, something godly, as far as I'm concerned.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 9:41:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nope, there's a nice little paradox in astronomy that disproves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 5:28:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
.... Or is it impossible? Discuss.

I personally find the whole notion of infinity to be incredibly abstract, well beyond my ability to really fully comprehend.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

How does that disprove it, simply because you can't count to infinity? Does the universe necessarily need to be 'countable'?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:30:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:24:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

How does that disprove it, simply because you can't count to infinity? Does the universe necessarily need to be 'countable'?

Well, I would say it does! If there is 1 of something, that presupposes that we can count that. If have two speakers in front of me, that presupposes that I can say "1, 2". Now even if there is nobody to literally count the number of past moments (assuming God does not exist of course), they should still hypothetically be countable if they existed in principle. Additionally, an infinite past assumes an "infinitith" number (one that you cannot add one too), however that implies a beginning due to the "boundary" implications! A beginning implies a finite past, so there is a clear contradiction there.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:34:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:24:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

How does that disprove it, simply because you can't count to infinity? Does the universe necessarily need to be 'countable'?

Basically, if the universe has an infinite past then there is no first moment and any moment will have one before it. That means no boundary to the past. An "infinitith" number that cannot have one added to the equation however, implies a boundary to the past (you cannot add "one more moment" to the equation). It seems logically contradictory to talk of an infinite past.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:50:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:34:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:24:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

How does that disprove it, simply because you can't count to infinity? Does the universe necessarily need to be 'countable'?

Basically, if the universe has an infinite past then there is no first moment and any moment will have one before it. That means no boundary to the past. An "infinitith" number that cannot have one added to the equation however, implies a boundary to the past (you cannot add "one more moment" to the equation). It seems logically contradictory to talk of an infinite past.

What is a 'moment'? Seems to me it's a measurement of things changing, which only works in comparison to other 'things', right? Take any moment, and compare it to 'nothing', 'no time at all', and it ends up infinitely long..

And then we have the question of what is 'nothing'? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence right? 'Nothing' seems to me a pretty extraordinary claim.. but I have never experienced it.. I don't see any empirical evidence for it, nor a priori evidence in fact. So therefore how can you believe that 'nothing' 'exists', when they are inherently contradictory terms, and how can you justify surrounding 'existence' with it?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 7:00:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If there's 'nothing' before and 'nothing' after something, it's either infinite or non-existent.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess? The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe. You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 5:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

If time begins, that implies there was a time it started.

You are applying the wrong concepts to understand your own question.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:00:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 5:47:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:19:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:04:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I give up. Tell me.

I don't think the idea of an infinite past makes much sense. It doesn't matter how many moments you want to add to the timeline from now if we were to count back; it is going to be a finite number. You can keep adding one, and it doesn't matter how many times you do it, now matter how big the number is, you could always add one more and it will be a finite number. This makes the idea of an infinite past seem impossible.

If time begins, that implies there was a time it started.

Yes.


You are applying the wrong concepts to understand your own question.

How so?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.


, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?


You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.


, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen. We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state? Yeah, what made it change states bro?


You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't. Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.

You don't understand the fallacy of your argument, do you? Let me give you an example... Being eatable is an attribute of steak, but if something is eatable that doesn't mean it has to be steak (it can be one of many other things that are eatable). Similarly, just because being infinite is an attribute given to God, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God.



, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen.

There are tons of sensible means by which the universe could have "arisen". Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins is based on quantum tunnelling, and does just that. Also, positing God is useless for an answer for the universe, because all you have done is present something else that needs an explanation. If God doesn't need an explanation, then why the universe?

We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Why do we have to deal with infinity?


Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state?

That's not what I said. It was a yes or not question I asked....

Yeah, what made it change states bro?



You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't.

How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.

Yes there is, one posits something that is unnecessary (God), and the other adheres Occam'z Razor and just assumes the nature exists.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 7:54:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.

You don't understand the fallacy of your argument, do you? Let me give you an example... Being eatable is an attribute of steak, but if something is eatable that doesn't mean it has to be steak (it can be one of many other things that are eatable). Similarly, just because being infinite is an attribute given to God, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God.

You remember I said I'm an agnostic, right? When I say "God" I refer only to the miraculous.



, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen.

There are tons of sensible means by which the universe could have "arisen". Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins is based on quantum tunnelling, and does just that. Also, positing God is useless for an answer for the universe, because all you have done is present something else that needs an explanation. If God doesn't need an explanation, then why the universe?

Yeah, no there isn't. And again, I'm saying the universe is God if not a personal God. It's all the same, insensible to us. We cannot comprehend infinity and we're stuck with infinity.

We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Why do we have to deal with infinity?

Because why did the universe change from your first state to its second state? And then you're falling into infinite regress yet again.


Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state?

That's not what I said. It was a yes or not question I asked....

Yeah, what made it change states bro?




You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't.

How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.

Yes there is, one posits something that is unnecessary (God), and the other adheres Occam'z Razor and just assumes the nature exists.

Occam's Razor isn't God, it's a guideline. Again, agnosticism is the position of the logician.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 7:58:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Forgot this bit. "It just happened" makes no more sense than "God did it". We're still lost.

Now if you were to provide some mathematical model for why there was more snow in one region or whatever, then I'd say that made sense if it did make sense, but there's no mathematical model to be presented to explain the existence of an infinite universe. And then by an infinite universe I mean a finite universe, too. Neither makes any sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 7:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.

You don't understand the fallacy of your argument, do you? Let me give you an example... Being eatable is an attribute of steak, but if something is eatable that doesn't mean it has to be steak (it can be one of many other things that are eatable). Similarly, just because being infinite is an attribute given to God, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God.

You remember I said I'm an agnostic, right? When I say "God" I refer only to the miraculous.

How would you specifically define "miraculous".




, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen.

There are tons of sensible means by which the universe could have "arisen". Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins is based on quantum tunnelling, and does just that. Also, positing God is useless for an answer for the universe, because all you have done is present something else that needs an explanation. If God doesn't need an explanation, then why the universe?

Yeah, no there isn't.

Yes there is, I just named one: Alexander Vilenkin's model. In this model the universe comes into being due due to quantum tunnelling. This explains the universe in a completely sensible fashion, and it is an entirely plausible scenario.

And again, I'm saying the universe is God if not a personal God. It's all the same, insensible to us. We cannot comprehend infinity and we're stuck with infinity.

Why are we stuck with infinity?


We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Why do we have to deal with infinity?

Because why did the universe change from your first state to its second state? And then you're falling into infinite regress yet again.

There is no infinite regress. We can say that the first state caused the second state, and the second state causes the third state. An infinite future has no logical or metaphysical problems, the thing people debate about is the coherency of a universe with an infinite past.



Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state?

That's not what I said. It was a yes or not question I asked....

Yeah, what made it change states bro?




You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't.

How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.

Yes there is, one posits something that is unnecessary (God), and the other adheres Occam'z Razor and just assumes the nature exists.

Occam's Razor isn't God, it's a guideline. Again, agnosticism is the position of the logician.

Assuming no good reasons or arguments have been made for a particular side which make it more reasonable to either be a theist or atheist; sure.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 7:58:22 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Forgot this bit. "It just happened" makes no more sense than "God did it". We're still lost.

It makes sense because something has to "just be the case" or else we have an infinite regress of explanations. Saying something has to "just be the case" makes the most sense it seems.


Now if you were to provide some mathematical model for why there was more snow in one region or whatever, then I'd say that made sense if it did make sense, but there's no mathematical model to be presented to explain the existence of an infinite universe.

I already named one. Also, what do you mean by an infinite universe? You mean infinite in the future, or past?

And then by an infinite universe I mean a finite universe, too. Neither makes any sense.

Well, that just seems like a contradiction. I think you need to specify your terms.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 8:00:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 7:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.

You don't understand the fallacy of your argument, do you? Let me give you an example... Being eatable is an attribute of steak, but if something is eatable that doesn't mean it has to be steak (it can be one of many other things that are eatable). Similarly, just because being infinite is an attribute given to God, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God.

You remember I said I'm an agnostic, right? When I say "God" I refer only to the miraculous.

How would you specifically define "miraculous".

Insensible.




, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen.

There are tons of sensible means by which the universe could have "arisen". Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins is based on quantum tunnelling, and does just that. Also, positing God is useless for an answer for the universe, because all you have done is present something else that needs an explanation. If God doesn't need an explanation, then why the universe?

Yeah, no there isn't.

Yes there is, I just named one: Alexander Vilenkin's model. In this model the universe comes into being due due to quantum tunnelling. This explains the universe in a completely sensible fashion, and it is an entirely plausible scenario.

Detail it then, nice and succinctly please. God did it is also an entirely plausible scenario, I'd like some math.

And again, I'm saying the universe is God if not a personal God. It's all the same, insensible to us. We cannot comprehend infinity and we're stuck with infinity.

Why are we stuck with infinity?


We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Why do we have to deal with infinity?

Because why did the universe change from your first state to its second state? And then you're falling into infinite regress yet again.

There is no infinite regress. We can say that the first state caused the second state, and the second state causes the third state. An infinite future has no logical or metaphysical problems, the thing people debate about is the coherency of a universe with an infinite past.

Why did the first state cause the second state? Was there an in-built timer to the first state that just set it off someway along its infinite existence?



Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state?

That's not what I said. It was a yes or not question I asked....

Yeah, what made it change states bro?




You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't.

How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.

Yes there is, one posits something that is unnecessary (God), and the other adheres Occam'z Razor and just assumes the nature exists.

Occam's Razor isn't God, it's a guideline. Again, agnosticism is the position of the logician.

Assuming no good reasons or arguments have been made for a particular side which make it more reasonable to either be a theist or atheist; sure.

And no good arguments have been made, nor ever will.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 8:02:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 7:58:22 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Forgot this bit. "It just happened" makes no more sense than "God did it". We're still lost.

It makes sense because something has to "just be the case" or else we have an infinite regress of explanations. Saying something has to "just be the case" makes the most sense it seems.

Yeah sure. God did it, then. That makes sense by your standard, right?


Now if you were to provide some mathematical model for why there was more snow in one region or whatever, then I'd say that made sense if it did make sense, but there's no mathematical model to be presented to explain the existence of an infinite universe.

I already named one. Also, what do you mean by an infinite universe? You mean infinite in the future, or past?

Detail it.

And then by an infinite universe I mean a finite universe, too. Neither makes any sense.

Well, that just seems like a contradiction. I think you need to specify your terms.

I have done so in the previous post.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 8:04:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 8:00:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 7:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:32:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:08:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:03:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 2:21:26 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What sense is there in a finite past for you, RT? What caused the universe, say, even if there was no time before it as you like to profess?

I never professed that. I said it was possible that there was no "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which it was non-existent or out of being (either temporally or atemporally prior). If that's the case, the there can be no causally prior to the universe. Asking for a cause, assumes the universe needs one.

The infinitely old universe idea is to posit the universe as God

No it doesn't. The universe being infinitely old means just that, and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the concept of God.

Infinity is God, the infinite universe idea was conceived of in argument against the theist's "first cause".

Do you have a source to back up your claim that this was the idea's origin? Just because it is used in as a rebuttal to first cause arguments, doesn't mean that's where it came from. Either way, being infinite is just one of God's supposed attributes, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God. That is a logically fallacious argument.

Yeah I'm just guessing, it's irrelevant though. And then infinity is obviously a thing of godliness.

You don't understand the fallacy of your argument, do you? Let me give you an example... Being eatable is an attribute of steak, but if something is eatable that doesn't mean it has to be steak (it can be one of many other things that are eatable). Similarly, just because being infinite is an attribute given to God, that doesn't mean that if something is infinite, it has to be God.

You remember I said I'm an agnostic, right? When I say "God" I refer only to the miraculous.

How would you specifically define "miraculous".

Insensible.




, the finite universe idea needs some God, or cause, outside of the universe.

Why should we believe this?

Because the universe arose. How did it arise? No reason, just did? Uh.....

Why does God exists? No reason, he just does? Uh....

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about godliness. There are no sensible means by which the universe could have arisen.

There are tons of sensible means by which the universe could have "arisen". Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins is based on quantum tunnelling, and does just that. Also, positing God is useless for an answer for the universe, because all you have done is present something else that needs an explanation. If God doesn't need an explanation, then why the universe?

Yeah, no there isn't.

Yes there is, I just named one: Alexander Vilenkin's model. In this model the universe comes into being due due to quantum tunnelling. This explains the universe in a completely sensible fashion, and it is an entirely plausible scenario.

Detail it then, nice and succinctly please. God did it is also an entirely plausible scenario, I'd like some math.

You can just read the math in the paper itself:

http://mukto-mona.net...


And again, I'm saying the universe is God if not a personal God. It's all the same, insensible to us. We cannot comprehend infinity and we're stuck with infinity.

Why are we stuck with infinity?


We are stuck dealing with infinity even if the universe (or material existence rather) is something finite.

Why do we have to deal with infinity?

Because why did the universe change from your first state to its second state? And then you're falling into infinite regress yet again.

There is no infinite regress. We can say that the first state caused the second state, and the second state causes the third state. An infinite future has no logical or metaphysical problems, the thing people debate about is the coherency of a universe with an infinite past.

Why did the first state cause the second state?

Possibly because it's inherent within the nature of the state to do so, and there could be no other way. If there could be no other way, then asking "why is it not some other way?" would be insensible. We just don't know.

Was there an in-built timer to the first state that just set it off someway along its infinite existence?

Perhaps something like that, why not?




Also, what do you mean specifically by "arose". Do you mean, at first there was no universe, then a universe exists?

Oh, the universe was just always there but in a primary state?

That's not what I said. It was a yes or not question I asked....

Yeah, what made it change states bro?




You can't just say "It just happened" and expect us to think you're making sense. There is no sense.

How doesn't make sense?

Huh?

*How doesn't it make sense?

Because it doesn't.

How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Not much difference between "It just happened" and "God did it" dude.

Yes there is, one posits something that is unnecessary (God), and the other adheres Occam'z Razor and just assumes the nature exists.

Occam's Razor isn't God, it's a guideline. Again, agnosticism is the position of the logician.

Assuming no good reasons or arguments have been made for a particular side which make it more reasonable to either be a theist or atheist; sure.

And no good arguments have been made, nor ever will.

How do you know "never will". For all we know, someone could prove or disprove God with a simple irrefutable argument tomorrow.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:10:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 8:06:22 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 8:02:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2013 7:58:22 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 6:48:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How doesn't it though? This is just a bare-assertion fallacy.

Forgot this bit. "It just happened" makes no more sense than "God did it". We're still lost.

It makes sense because something has to "just be the case" or else we have an infinite regress of explanations. Saying something has to "just be the case" makes the most sense it seems.

Yeah sure. God did it, then. That makes sense by your standard, right?

This depends on how you define God.



Now if you were to provide some mathematical model for why there was more snow in one region or whatever, then I'd say that made sense if it did make sense, but there's no mathematical model to be presented to explain the existence of an infinite universe.

I already named one. Also, what do you mean by an infinite universe? You mean infinite in the future, or past?

Detail it.

I linked you the paper itself.


And then by an infinite universe I mean a finite universe, too. Neither makes any sense.

Well, that just seems like a contradiction. I think you need to specify your terms.

I have done so in the previous post.