Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take Back Our Country

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    When you make statements that are not supported by basic math, Seer, I'm going to call into question your grasp of basic math. There is no absurdity here. None. Your belief that there is is rooted in your misunderstanding of the concept of infinity.
    But infinity is not even math, it is an ideal, not a real thing. In real math 2 minus 2 doesn't equal 2. That is basic math, and infinities are nothing like that.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      But infinity is not even math, it is an ideal, not a real thing. In real math 2 minus 2 doesn't equal 2. That is basic math, and infinities are nothing like that.
      Seer, you continue to make arguments as if "infinity" is a number. 2 is a number. If you subtract 2 from 2, you have nothing. Infinity is not a number. It is a description of endlessness. The concept occurs in mathematics, philosophy, and many other settings. When you take an example like Craig's, you are arguing from mathematics. How can a library have an infinite number of books, and still have an infinite number of books if you remove five. Well, it can in the same way that you can have an infinite number of integers, remove all of the even ones, and still have an endless series. One series will have two times as many elements for any particular range within the series, but both will continue endlessly. Likewise, your hypothetical library will still have an endless number of books; it just won't have the five you removed.

      I have no idea how else to explain it to you. Perhaps someone else will have better words. But the principle is sound.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        But infinity is not even math, it is an ideal, not a real thing. In real math 2 minus 2 doesn't equal 2. That is basic math, and infinities are nothing like that.
        Actually...a new way of showing you the problem with the way you are approaching infinity (and the problem with Craig's argument) dawns on me.

        Consider the integer sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

        This is an infinite series of number (implied by the ...). There is always another integer after any integer you write.

        Now consider this series: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ...

        Like the previous one, it is also an infinite series because it never ends. Note that both of these series continue to infinity, but the second series is missing the first five numbers present in the first series. It is, in a sense, infinity minus 5, yet it is still infinity.

        The same holds true for Craig's library. Put the books on a long endless shelf. Number the books starting with the first one. What you now have is the integer series stretching off to infinity. Remove the first five books from the series, and the series STILL stretches off to infinity. It's just missing the first five books. The series are not equivalent, but they are both infinite.

        There is no contradiction here. Craig is making the mistake of treating infinity as if it is any other number. It isn't.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-30-2018, 07:27 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Here is the first of the Five Ways Tass - which of the premises can not be shown to be true?
          AGAIN: You have not responded to my post: "You may well believe that 'the Bible holds the oracles of God' and that you'd 'be foolish not to follow them', but other people have the same view of the bible and yet they have different interpretations of it. Wars have been fought over different interpretations. Thousands of Christian denominations have arisen as a consequence of differing interpretations of scripture." Waiting! (tapping foot)

          As for the ‘Argument from Motion (i.e. the Prime Mover): According to Saint Tom only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion. Maybe and maybe not (we don't know)...his inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world. However, the real flaw is his assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past. This is a classic argument from ignorance..
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            There is no contradiction here. Craig is making the mistake of treating infinity as if it is any other number. It isn't.
            Right infinity is not a number, it is not math, it is a concept that does not follow the laws of mathematics. Math formulas can be falsified, the concept of infinity can not if you are right. So there is reason to assume it exists or can exist in reality. Or that one could move through an actual infinity...
            Last edited by seer; 07-01-2018, 04:59 AM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              AGAIN: You have not responded to my post: "You may well believe that 'the Bible holds the oracles of God' and that you'd 'be foolish not to follow them', but other people have the same view of the bible and yet they have different interpretations of it. Wars have been fought over different interpretations. Thousands of Christian denominations have arisen as a consequence of differing interpretations of scripture." Waiting! (tapping foot)
              Get off your high horse Tass, you and I have been over this before - more than once! I mean where on earth would the New Testament justify war because of a different understanding of scripture? Men are wicked Tass, and most of these things are as political as religious.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Right infinity is not a number, it is not math, it is a concept that does not follow the laws of mathematics. Math formulas can be falsified, the concept of infinity can not if you are right.
                Infinity is not a number like any other number, but it does "follow the laws of mathematics." It just doesn't follow the laws as they apply to other numbers because infinity is NOT a specific number. Yet there are provable mathematical laws having to do with infinity. You might want to review them before you accept claims like Craig's claim.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                So there is reason to assume it exists or can exist in reality. Or that one could move through an actual infinity...
                If "move through" means "traverse the series," one can no more "move through an actual infinity" than one could complete counting an infinite series of numbers. Never-ending...remember?
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-01-2018, 06:59 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Infinity is not a number like any other number, but it does "follow the laws of mathematics." It just doesn't follow the laws as they apply to other numbers because infinity is NOT a specific number. Yet there are provable mathematical laws having to do with infinity. You might want to review them before you accept claims like Craig's claim.
                  Can you name another math equation that can not be falsified? And what exactly is the number of infinity? Oh wait, it isn't an actual number, it is a word, a concept. It is not real.

                  If "move through" means "traverse the series," one can no more "move through an actual infinity" than one could complete counting an infinite series of numbers. Never-ending...remember?
                  Yet you hold out the possibility that matter and energy moved through an infinite series of past events leading up to this universe. Which explains absolutely nothing, and could never be proven or falsified. Never mind that you would still have to propose a mechanism that could run this perpetual motion machine. Both these assertions are beyond science. And since we are beyond science, a single Creator would be much more parsimonious, than an infinite number of past physical events.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Can you name another math equation that can not be falsified? And what exactly is the number of infinity? Oh wait, it isn't an actual number, it is a word, a concept. It is not real.
                    Who on earth says the mathematics of infinity cannot be falsified? Do you know the basic mathematical principles governing infinity in mathematics? And infinity is not a specific number, but it can be mathematically manipulated according to known rules when it occurs in mathematics. Indeed, infinity is more about set theory than classic mathematics.

                    As for "real," I have no idea what "real" means to you. My wife is standing across the kitchen from me. The distance between us can be divided into an infinite number of lengths. That distance is real and that infinite number of divisions is also quite real. The and on the clock on the wall will traverse an infinite number of points as it circles the clock face. All of that is real. The time it took me to write these sentences can be divided into an infinite number of increasingly smaller units. The fact that I cannot physically measure them because (a) I lack equipment of such precision and (b) I can never complete an infinite series, does not mean it is not real.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yet you hold out the possibility that matter and energy moved through an infinite series of past events leading up to this universe. Which explains absolutely nothing, and could never be proven or falsified.
                    Which is why the best we can say is "we don't know." And I have no idea what you are trying to "explain."

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Never mind that you would still have to propose a mechanism that could run this perpetual motion machine.
                    Why do I need a "mechanism?" We already know that matter and energy exist, and they are interchangeable. One scenario physicists are looking at with renewed interest is the cyclical universe. If it were to be shown to be true, it would mean that matter/energy is itself eternal, and the universe has simply been collapsing and re-expanding forever. The fact is, we don't know this is true - and we don't know it isn't true.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Both these assertions are beyond science.
                    Maybe.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And since we are beyond science, a single Creator would be much more parsimonious, than an infinite number of past physical events.
                    Even if it is "beyond science," I do not fill holes in my knowing with "god did it." That is a classical "god of the gaps" argument. History tells us that these gaps are often (mostly? always eventually?) filled in by science, and the concept of god gives ground a bit more.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Get off your high horse Tass, you and I have been over this before - more than once! I mean where on earth would the New Testament justify war because of a different understanding of scripture? Men are wicked Tass, and most of these things are as political as religious.
                      What people justify from “the oracles of God” varies from person to person and sect to sect. So who’s got it right and how do you know? What do you do about those who, in your view, have got it wrong?
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Who on earth says the mathematics of infinity cannot be falsified? Do you know the basic mathematical principles governing infinity in mathematics? And infinity is not a specific number, but it can be mathematically manipulated according to known rules when it occurs in mathematics. Indeed, infinity is more about set theory than classic mathematics.
                        Ok so how can the CONCEPT of infinity be falsified?

                        As for "real," I have no idea what "real" means to you. My wife is standing across the kitchen from me. The distance between us can be divided into an infinite number of lengths. That distance is real and that infinite number of divisions is also quite real. The and on the clock on the wall will traverse an infinite number of points as it circles the clock face. All of that is real. The time it took me to write these sentences can be divided into an infinite number of increasingly smaller units. The fact that I cannot physically measure them because (a) I lack equipment of such precision and (b) I can never complete an infinite series, does not mean it is not real.
                        Except you never actually reach infinity, you would just keep subdividing for eternity. What I mean concerning real, real physical infinities. The ability to subdivide does not tell us if physical infinities are real, or can be, and that is what we are discussing - and infinite series of past physical events leading up to this present universe.

                        Which is why the best we can say is "we don't know." And I have no idea what you are trying to "explain."
                        But you just said no one can move through an actual infinity, but some how matter and energy did move through a past infinity to reach this universe/point.

                        Why do I need a "mechanism?" We already know that matter and energy exist, and they are interchangeable. One scenario physicists are looking at with renewed interest is the cyclical universe. If it were to be shown to be true, it would mean that matter/energy is itself eternal, and the universe has simply been collapsing and re-expanding forever. The fact is, we don't know this is true - and we don't know it isn't true.
                        Yes, they have a lot of ideas, but again that is literally a perpetual motion machine, and it is right to ask what kind mechanism or laws could accomplish that, especially since on the face it violates the second law of thermal dynamics. And how can this ever be verified? Can you ever really know if this collapsing and expanding is past eternal with no beginning?

                        Maybe.
                        I just told you why a cyclical can not be demonstrated to be past eternal. And let me quote Alexander Vilenkin:

                        A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us.

                        One hypothesis about a cyclic universe avoids this problem of thermodynamics, though. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change.

                        That’s possible, but then our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either.

                        http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning


                        Even if it is "beyond science," I do not fill holes in my knowing with "god did it." That is a classical "god of the gaps" argument. History tells us that these gaps are often (mostly? always eventually?) filled in by science, and the concept of god gives ground a bit more.
                        It isn't the God of the gaps, it is the God of everything. It isn't a mere "gap" in knowledge, it is the whole show. And you are begging the question in favor of naturalism. So let me ask again, why wouldn't a single Creator would be much more parsimonious, than an infinite number of past physical events?
                        Last edited by seer; 07-02-2018, 07:12 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          What people justify from “the oracles of God” varies from person to person and sect to sect. So who’s got it right and how do you know? What do you do about those who, in your view, have got it wrong?
                          I would have to see what they understood the Scripture to be saying in light of the context, see if it holds up. And I don't do anything about those who get it wrong. We all get some things wrong, but if a man is sincere about understanding and following Scripture I believe, eventually, we will all be on the same page, even if that doesn't happen in this life. But I certainly have no justification, Biblically, to harm or war with those who see things differently.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Ok so how can the CONCEPT of infinity be falsified?
                            Something can be falsified by outlining a test that, if it fails, shows the concept to fail. In mathematics, if memory serves, it is done using calculus and the concept of limits. I cannot say I recall the formulas, but you can do it by either showing that there is an N +1 for every N, or by showing that an integer can be repeatedly divided by any other integer (except 1 or 0) without producing the value zero.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Except you never actually reach infinity, you would just keep subdividing for eternity. What I mean concerning real, real physical infinities. The ability to subdivide does not tell us if physical infinities are real, or can be, and that is what we are discussing - and infinite series of past physical events leading up to this present universe.
                            Two observations: first, if time was on one long continuum, every time you select in the past (let's use days) is actually a finite number of days from the present. There is no time you pick, no matter how far back you go, that isn't a finite distance from today. So there is really no problem.

                            Second: the argument fails because it falsely presumes a beginning. We cannot get to today because first we have to get to yesterday, but we cannot get to yesterday because first we have to get to the day before, and so forth. Because time stretches back to infinity, we cannot never get to today because....???? The argument searches for a beginning, but the point is that it is infinite. It has no beginning. It has always been, and will always continue on. We happen to be at this point on that continuum.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            But you just said no one can move through an actual infinity, but some how matter and energy did move through a past infinity to reach this universe/point.
                            And we haven't...we're still on it. Tomorrow - the next day - the day after - etc.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Yes, they have a lot of ideas, but again that is literally a perpetual motion machine, and it is right to ask what kind mechanism or laws could accomplish that, especially since on the face it violates the second law of thermal dynamics. And how can this ever be verified? Can you ever really know if this collapsing and expanding is past eternal with no beginning?
                            I do not know enough about physics to tell you how this "big bounce" model can be verified. But some time ago I did find a great discussion on the entropy problem here - and it is very readable.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I just told you why a cyclical can not be demonstrated to be past eternal. And let me quote Alexander Vilenkin:

                            It isn't the God of the gaps, it is the God of everything. It isn't a mere "gap" in knowledge, it is the whole show. And you are begging the question in favor of naturalism. So let me ask again, why wouldn't a single Creator would be much more parsimonious, than an infinite number of past physical events?
                            Actually, Seer, it is classic "god of the gaps." The fact is we do not know how the universe began. It is entirely possible we will never know. I certainly doubt we will know in my lifetime. Replacing "we don't know" with "god did it" is classic "god of the gaps." It is not something I do. I do not reject the single creator notion a impossible. I reject it as unreal. My basis for rejecting it is the array of contradictions that human notions of god are filled with, the tendency for gods to be "remarkably human," the evidence of history showing gods to be of human origin, the continual "god of the gaps" model, the lack of any experience of such a being in my life, and the list goes on. I do not hold a positive belief in a thing that a) cannot be shown to exist, b) I have no experience of, and c) is riddled with contradictions.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              And you think a biblical quote it going to mean something...? Not to mention it does not answer the question...
                              It means don't believe everything someone claims. If someone claims they are God or are talking directly with God, test them. Jesus claimed that God exists and that he had both seen and heard God reveal absolute truths to him. And he provided evidence that this was so, miracles and the resurrection. If some Televangelist tells me God is telling me that I need to give him money or God said he will bring him home, I will test him to see if God takes him home or not

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Something can be falsified by outlining a test that, if it fails, shows the concept to fail. In mathematics, if memory serves, it is done using calculus and the concept of limits. I cannot say I recall the formulas, but you can do it by either showing that there is an N +1 for every N, or by showing that an integer can be repeatedly divided by any other integer (except 1 or 0) without producing the value zero.
                                How could that possibly apply to infinity when it is not even a number, like you said?


                                Second: the argument fails because it falsely presumes a beginning. We cannot get to today because first we have to get to yesterday, but we cannot get to yesterday because first we have to get to the day before, and so forth. Because time stretches back to infinity, we cannot never get to today because....???? The argument searches for a beginning, but the point is that it is infinite. It has no beginning. It has always been, and will always continue on. We happen to be at this point on that continuum.

                                And we haven't...we're still on it. Tomorrow - the next day - the day after - etc.
                                Ok, after some thought I don't thing infinite regression is necessarily impossible. Whether it actually happened or not is another story.

                                I do not know enough about physics to tell you how this "big bounce" model can be verified. But some time ago I did find a great discussion on the entropy problem here - and it is very readable.
                                Well Vilenkin is a fore most authority on these issues. But my point is that even if you had a workable theory, you could never observe past universes. What if there were only ten crunches and rebirths before ours, five? A hundred? You could never say with any certainly that they were past eternal.

                                Actually, Seer, it is classic "god of the gaps." The fact is we do not know how the universe began. It is entirely possible we will never know. I certainly doubt we will know in my lifetime. Replacing "we don't know" with "god did it" is classic "god of the gaps."
                                No there is nothing "classic" about the god of the gaps argument. It is a fairly recent atheist meme. And atheist are not beyond filling in gaps with their materialistic assumptions, like with the fossil record, bio-genesis on earth, or the creation of the universe, etc


                                It is not something I do. I do not reject the single creator notion a impossible. I reject it as unreal. My basis for rejecting it is the array of contradictions that human notions of god are filled with, the tendency for gods to be "remarkably human," the evidence of history showing gods to be of human origin, the continual "god of the gaps" model, the lack of any experience of such a being in my life, and the list goes on. I do not hold a positive belief in a thing that a) cannot be shown to exist, b) I have no experience of, and c) is riddled with contradictions.
                                Your opinion is duly noted...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                163 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                380 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X