8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[JDaniel]

Actually small numbers of quanta are permitted to come into existence for short periods of time by the uncertainty principle

tjm:

Where can I go to buy one of these UP’s? I want a good one, not one of those cheap ones that only produce “virtual” particles. I am willing to pay for the real thing!

(BTW, I live in Florida, if my location can help you locate a good retail UP store for me.)

jd

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But nothing does come from nothing!

First you want to argue against the existence of God by appealing to physical laws and saying that they can explain human existence and nothing outside them can or does exist; then you want to argue against physical laws and state that ‘nothing can come from nothing’ to support your argument against God’s existence.

That could be called cherry picking. When it suits you physical laws exist and are pre-eminent; then in the next breath physical laws don’t exist and we can accept ‘twelve impossible things before breakfast’ - as long as you think that it supports your ‘position’.

Inconsistent.

But the origin of the universe is unknown, prove to me there was ever nothing.

When have i EVER said “nothing outside them can or does exist”? If your going to debate with someone atleast debate with a view they hold.

 

[Fran65]

I’m sorry if I overstated your view on physical laws.

I don’t need to ‘prove’ anything to you. We’re discussing concepts and arguments. I think however that this discussion is becoming pointless and repetitive.

Good Night.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

A potentially infinite past.

In that case, I agree.

Its not a number.

I agree; infinity is not a number.

There is no ambiguity. You just refuse to understand, or worse, you are incapable of understanding.

I understand it perfectly well. I’ve just seen the term “infinite number" of events used frequently in the literature to refer to infinitely many events, so I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

What do you mean by infinitely many and what difference does it make? The fact is, when we speak about numbers we are always talking about a definite amount, and no amount of numbers can make up an infinite. So in principle, it is meaningless and impossible to apply an infinite number to the past if one cannot in general make up an infinite by addition. If you are saying that there is a potential infinite in the past then be clear about it.

No, I think there may have been infinitely many past events.

But if you are saying that there is an actual infinite, then you are saying that all logically possible numbers have been transversed and transcended before this point in time. But there is no such thing as all numbers for the simple fact that numbers cannot be completed, there is no highest number or numbers after which there is an actual infinity. Therefore you cannot have an actual infinite of numbers. Why is that difficult for you to understand? The Number is always going to be finite. Thus the universe is finite.

Saying that in an infinite past all logically possible numbers have been traversed doesn’t make any sense to me. For one thing, we’re talking about time, not numbers. However, if you assign numbers to time, there is no reason that you must have traversed all possible numbers to get to the present.

Who is speaking about integers? I’m talking about the objective past, not some mathematical concept that has only a tautological value in regards to the real world. The fact of the matter is, i have proven that its logically impossible to have an infinite number of events. The sooner you accept that the better for you.

Please don’t reply if you are not going to acknowledge this. As i fear that its just going to be more assertions which will prove nothing accept to irritate.

You have not proven any such thing.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If thats true, then it follows necessarily that the past is not infinite because of the numbers it contains, but it is infinite for some other reason that doesn’t involve any number of events. In other words, there is not an infinite number of events in the past.

I never said anything about the past containing numbers. I only said that I think it is possible for infinitely many units of time to have passed and for there to have been infinitely many past events.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well, we were talking about an infinite number of events in the past. And i was describing why it is impossible in principle. The past is something that is added to. It is therefore not meaningless to speak of past events in terms of numbers.

As I said before, I was using an “infinite number” of past events as shorthand for infinitely many.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Who is speaking about integers? I’m talking about the objective past, not some mathematical concept that has only a tautological value in regards to the real world. The fact of the matter is, i have proven that its logically impossible to have an infinite number of events. The sooner you accept that the better for you.

Please don’t reply if you are not going to acknowledge this. As i fear that its just going to be more assertions which will prove nothing accept to irritate.

Infinity can exist within closed sets.

But if you are saying that there is an actual infinite, then you are saying that all logically possible numbers have been transversed and transcended before this point in time. But there is no such thing as all numbers for the simple fact that numbers cannot be completed, there is no highest number or numbers after which there is an actual infinity. Therefore you cannot have an actual infinite of numbers. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Because you are wrong. In the last second we just traversed an infinite amount of numbers.

 

[JDaniel]

Infinity can exist within closed sets.

Because you are wrong. In the last second we just traversed an infinite amount of numbers.

You might want to try arguing that with this guy:

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/infinity_is_not_a_number.php

jd

 

[reggieM]

Hello reggie. I don’t know whether or not if you have been following my debate (if you can call it that) with evil atheist, but have i said anything that is not understandable or consistent or reasonable to the extent that evil atheist should fail to recognize the truth in it?

No, it has been perfectly reasonable and clear as I see it.

 

[JDaniel]

But the origin of the universe is unknown

CD:

What about the Big Bang scientific theory? Also, perhaps by the end of this year, if it is determined that Higgs fields really do exist, this will give even more certainty to the standard model big bang theory, won’t it? Doesn’t this stuff tell us something about the origin of the universe?

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970922g.html

prove to me there was ever nothing.

Although we may be able to make decent conjectures about the origin of the universe since the first Planck epoch, we, for obvious reasons, have no earthly idea what was on the back side of the singularity. It is generally accepted that nothing existed before the singularity, since we have been unable to observe anything. Unlike the Big Bang and the measurements of red shifts, where historical energy and matter can be observed"moving" away from the position of the singularity, the absence of anything exterior to the outermost “skin” of the singularity indicates that there was nothing there.

Wouldn’t this be a significantly probable proof for nothing?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I never said anything about the past containing numbers. I only said that I think it is possible for infinitely many units of time to have passed and for there to have been infinitely many past events.

Evil:

What is “a unit of time?”

Also, what is a past event?

jd

 

[anEvilAtheist]

CD:

What about the Big Bang scientific theory? Also, perhaps by the end of this year, if it is determined that Higgs fields really do exist, this will give even more certainty to the standard model big bang theory, won’t it? Doesn’t this stuff tell us something about the origin of the universe?

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970922g.html

The version of the Big Bang theory that we actually have evidence for deals only with what happened after Planck time. Future discoveries, particularly those dealing with quantum gravity could give us a much better idea of what happened before that point and whether the natural world has a finite past.

Although we may be able to make decent conjectures about the origin of the universe since the first Planck epoch, we, for obvious reasons, have no earthly idea what was on the back side of the singularity. It is generally accepted that nothing existed before the singularity, since we have been unable to observe anything.

I wouldn’t say this is generally accepted based on what I’ve read. Do you have any evidence that this is the scientific concensus?

Unlike the Big Bang and the measurements of red shifts, where historical energy and matter can be observed"moving" away from the position of the singularity, the absence of anything exterior to the outermost “skin” of the singularity indicates that there was nothing there.

Wouldn’t this be a significantly probable proof for nothing?

jd

Do you have any link with more information about this? I have not heard of this as evidence of a finitely old universe before.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Evil:

What is “a unit of time?”

seconds, minutes, hours, etc.

Also, what is a past event?

jd

An event that has already taken place. We are unable to participate in such events unless we were somehow able to go backwards in time.

 

[JDaniel]

I agree; infinity is not a number.

No, I think there may have been infinitely many past events.

Above your last sentence, you said you agreed that infinity is not a number. Then you contradict yourself by saying that “there may have been infinitely past events.” Do you think that by leaving the word, “number,” out of that sentence that it will somehow escape our attention, or mean something completely other than what it says?

“…infinitely many past events” = an infinite number of past events – nothing more and nothing less.

Logically, if infinity is NOT a number than it cannot be said there is an infinity of past events. If what you are saying were true, event creation would now be stopped, motion would be stopped, and, time would be no longer. We would have reached an infinity (infinite number) of past events. But, as we can plainly see, time is still being measured and events are still occurring and receding into the past.

Infinite number = infinity – nothing more and nothing less.

If we have not reached infinity, i.e., if we have not reached the point of having an infinite number of past events, then more events can be added to the collection or, set, of past events, correct? Isn’t that what is occurring? Aren’t events still being added to the collection, or set, called “past events”? If so, then we have not reached an infinity of past events yet. At an infinite number (infinity) of past events, no more events can be added as no more events can possibly take place or happen. It is the same as saying that there are a dozen eggs in the egg container and all 12 places already contain an egg. No more eggs can be added.

There are only two types of infinity: actual infinity and potential infinity (except, of course, the car - I forgot about the car - darn it!). But, back to reality.

Time is not a real thing. It is merely a measurement. It is the measure of motion. No motion - no time. No time - no motion. Time, as the measure of motion, is a continuum since its beginning so long as there is motion. We measure time with a clock of some sort, mechanical, electrical, or atomic. Time is meaningful to us as it supplies us with a reference for traversing space.

Since time is a mathematical continuum, and since time has yet to reach infinity, it can be added to. Thus we are still measuring the passage of time, so to speak.

Space is the expanse, or medium, between two or more mobile objects. Space requires at least two such objects, in the universe because, like motion, it is relative.

Saying that in an infinite past all logically possible numbers have been traversed doesn’t make any sense to me. For one thing, we’re talking about time, not numbers. However, if you assign numbers to time, there is no reason that you must have traversed all possible numbers to get to the present.

Of course there is. An infinity of numbers is the set of all possible real numbers, which of course, cannot exist. Number does not exist. Number is merely predicated of that which exists. Number is predicated of Being. Number exists only as it qualifies Being, such as, there are two Beings, or things. Take away the things or, beings, and you take away number. It is a mental construct referring to quantity of being.

As number does not exist, neither does an infinite number exist. Does the potential for there to be an infinite number of things out there exist? Yes - as you will always be able to add (or subtract) one, two, three, or more from the collection of things, thus the collection is not infinite but only potentially infinite. What do we call incredibly large numbers, numbers to big to count? They are called trans-finite numbers and that’s too bad. Because, Georg Cantor and the other set-theory guys usurped the word for their purposes thus confusing everyone else.

jd

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Above your last sentence, you said you agreed that infinity is not a number. Then you contradict yourself by saying that “there may have been infinitely past events.” Do you think that by leaving the word, “number,” out of that sentence that it will somehow escape our attention, or mean something completely other than what it says?

I mean exactly what it says. Infinity is not a number, so it is more accurate to characterize the possibility as there having been infinitely many events. Does infinity being an unbounded quantity of something instead of a specific number of things somehow prove that it cannot exist? It doesn’t matter whether you call it a number or say infinitely many, you still have to show that it cannot exist in reality.

“…infinitely many past events” = an infinite number of past events – nothing more and nothing less.

Logically, if infinity is NOT a number than it cannot be said there is an infinity of past events. If what you are saying were true, event creation would now be stopped, motion would be stopped, and, time would be no longer. We would have reached an infinity (infinite number) of past events. But, as we can plainly see, time is still being measured and events are still occurring and receding into the past.

Why do you think that having had infinite past events would mean that there could not be future events? I really see no reason at all to believe this.

Infinite number = infinity – nothing more and nothing less.

If we have not reached infinity, i.e., if we have not reached the point of having an infinite number of past events, then more events can be added to the collection or, set, of past events, correct? Isn’t that what is occurring? Aren’t events still being added to the collection, or set, called “past events”? If so, then we have not reached an infinity of past events yet. At an infinite number (infinity) of past events, no more events can be added as no more events can possibly take place or happen. It is the same as saying that there are a dozen eggs in the egg container and all 12 places already contain an egg. No more eggs can be added.

This is not correct. You are viewing infinity as if it were a specific number, even though it is not a specific number. For example, if we numbered the events relative to the present day, there could be infinitely many past events that are numbered with the negative numbers and infinitely many future events which are numbered with the positive numbers. There is nothing that precludes there from being future events merely because there have been infinite past ones.

There are only two types of infinity: actual infinity and potential infinity (except, of course, the car - I forgot about the car - darn it!). But, back to reality.

Time is not a real thing. It is merely a measurement. It is the measure of motion. No motion - no time. No time - no motion. Time, as the measure of motion, is a continuum since its beginning so long as there is motion. We measure time with a clock of some sort, mechanical, electrical, or atomic. Time is meaningful to us as it supplies us with a reference for traversing space.

Since time is a mathematical continuum, and since time has yet to reach infinity, it can be added to. Thus we are still measuring the passage of time, so to speak.

Okay, but you still haven’t established that you can’t progress through time if the past is infinite.

Space is the expanse, or medium, between two or more mobile objects. Space requires at least two such objects, in the universe because, like motion, it is relative.

Okay.

Of course there is. An infinity of numbers is the set of all possible real numbers, which of course, cannot exist.

Um, I’m pretty sure that the set of all even numbers and the set of all negative numbers are two other examples of infinitely many numbers. It need not be the set of all real numbers as you assert.

Number does not exist. Number is merely predicated of that which exists. Number is predicated of Being. Number exists only as it qualifies Being, such as, there are two Beings, or things. Take away the things or, beings, and you take away number. It is a mental construct referring to quantity of being.

There are many schools of thought on this, but I’m okay with going along with your view of numbers as mental constructs.

As number does not exist, neither does an infinite number exist. Does the potential for there to be an infinite number of things out there exist? Yes - as you will always be able to add (or subtract) one, two, three, or more from the collection of things, thus the collection is not infinite but only potentially infinite. What do we call incredibly large numbers, numbers to big to count? They are called trans-finite numbers and that’s too bad. Because, Georg Cantor and the other set-theory guys usurped the word for their purposes thus confusing everyone else.

jd

What do you mean by “As number does not exist, neither does an infinite number exist”?

 

[TheWhim]

Dear CharlesDarwin,

For example how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? Well there are an Infinite amount. Lets assign every one of those mumbers a period of time. Well we know the time gap is going to tend to zero, but mathematically it will never reach zero, for i can add an infinite amount of decimal points. However that infinite amount of numbers did pass in the last second.

In adding an infinite amound of decimal points, you are adding parts that are progressively smaller. Therefore, all the points in the set are not of an equal measure but tend to become smaller…and smaller… and… - In consequence this model does not apply to the argument we discuss here. The amounts of time or the events we talk about are of equal duration, points or spans of an equal measure. A day is always 24 hours. A day does not converge towards 0 hours. Thus we can say that today would have never been arrived at if such an infinite set of equal parts(like days) had to have been actually traversed.

Infinity can exist within closed sets.

See above.

Well, I know that my presentation may appear a bit clumsy. To give a more professional outlook on the matter I’ve conflated and pasted here two extracts of answers by Dr. Craig, copied from the following links: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6189 and reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5732

*“But the kalam argument against traversing an actual infinite concerns a series composed of intervals which are of equal duration, not progressively shorter duration. So what is the point supposed to be?”
“This way of putting the argument is somewhat akin to Zeno’s argument that before Achilles could cross the stadium, he would have to cross half-way; but before he could cross half-way, he would have to cross a quarter of the way; but before he could cross a quarter of the way, he would have to cross an eighth of the way, and so on to infinity. Therefore, Achilles could not arrive at any point. Zeno’s paradox is resolved by noting that the intervals traversed by Achilles are potential and unequal. Zeno gratuitously assumes that any finite interval is composed of an infinite number of points, whereas Zeno’s opponents, like Aristotle, take the interval as a whole to be conceptually prior to any divisions which we might make in it. Moreover, Zeno’s intervals, being unequal, add up to a merely finite distance. By contrast, in the case of an infinite past the intervals are actual and equal and add up to an infinite distance.” * [my emphasis]

Hope this helps.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Dear CharlesDarwin,

In adding an infinite amound of decimal points, you are adding parts that are progressively smaller. Therefore, all the points in the set are not of an equal measure but tend to become smaller…and smaller… and… - In consequence this model does not apply to the argument we discuss here. The amounts of time or the events we talk about are of equal duration, points or spans of an equal measure. A day is always 24 hours. A day does not converge towards 0 hours. Thus we can say that today would have never been arrived at if such an infinite set of equal parts(like days) had to have been actually traversed.

See above.

Well, I know that my presentation may appear a bit clumsy. To give a more professional outlook on the matter I’ve conflated and pasted here two extracts of answers by Dr. Craig, copied from the following links: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6189 and reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5732

“But the kalam argument against traversing an actual infinite concerns a series composed of intervals which are of equal duration, not progressively shorter duration. So what is the point supposed to be?”
"This way of putting the argument is somewhat akin to Zeno’s argument that before Achilles could cross the stadium, he would have to cross half-way; but before he could cross half-way, he would have to cross a quarter of the way; but before he could cross a quarter of the way, he would have to cross an eighth of the way, and so on to infinity. Therefore, Achilles could not arrive at any point. Zeno’s paradox is resolved by noting that the intervals traversed by Achilles are potential and unequal. Zeno gratuitously assumes that any finite interval is composed of an infinite number of points, whereas Zeno’s opponents, like Aristotle, take the interval as a whole to be conceptually prior to any divisions which we might make in it. Moreover, Zeno’s intervals, being unequal, add up to a merely finite distance. By contrast, in the case of an infinite past the intervals are actual and equal and add up to an infinite distance." [my emphasis]

Hope this helps.

There are two ways to look at it, as i pointed out in earlier posts. As we add more decimal points the time gaps get smaller the, in other words as the number tends to infinity the time tends to zero.

An easier way to explain this would be interest on money. Say you had £100 in the bank and you left it there for an infinite amount of time. Although the money would grow and grow, the actual value you could reach by todays standard is a set amount, provided the value of money increases at a fixed rate. Its very simple to work this value out using recursive relationships (forgive me i am wrong aboiut the method, its been a few years since i worked with them ). Anyway. So much like the distance, or time scale. We end up with a maximum possible value.

The problem is in practice we never actually reach that maximun value, we tend towards it. Then we add in to the equation the fact that time is not a constant, and time does not exist separately from space and we quickly see that it is pointless to think of time as some constant as being proposed by the author of this thread.

This is why i pointed out right at the start infinity can be problematic with applied to time, sometimes to the stage it is pointless.

 

[TheWhim]

we quickly see that it is pointless to think of time as some constant as being proposed by the author of this thread.

MindOverMatter never proposed such a thing. Since then both JDaniel and I have written about the relativity of time with the intention of actually defending MoM’s conclusion. - There’s got to be a misunderstanding here.

This is why i pointed out right at the start infinity can be problematic with applied to time, sometimes to the stage it is pointless.

That’s why we believe in a finite universe.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

MindOverMatter never proposed such a thing. Since then both JDaniel and I have written about the relativity of time with the intention of actually defending MoM’s conclusion. - There’s got to be a misunderstanding here.

That’s why we believe in a finite universe.

Yes there may well be, i may have picked up something incorrectly.

My position is as follows… I would agree that our universe back to the point of the inflatioin of space time is finite, however as before that point is unknown it is pointless to talk about infinity and time as we perceive it. Also as the cosmos/universe includes all, then anything outside the universe as we perceive it is still technically past of the cosmos. Therefore if is pointless to speculate about the finiteness of the cosmos, as at this point in time we dont have the knowledge to do so.

 

[Fran65]

AnEvilAtheist,

You keep denying that you are talking about number when discussing infinity and then replace that term with the term ‘many’. To quote:

Infinity is not a number, so it is more accurate to characterize the possibility as there having been infinitely many events

Are you aware that the definition of the term ‘many’ is an indefinite large number of? Or are you hoping that we don’t know what that term means?

CD,

Anything outside the universe is still technically past (part?) of the the universe?

If you can’t see the logical problem with that statement then it’s difficult to proceed!
Do you know the definition of the term ‘universe’? Everything that exists anywhere.
If it’s part of the universe - it can’t, by definition, be outside the universe.

MoM, JD and Whim have fully answered your (AnEvil & CD) objections to my satisfaction and I find it perplexing, and bemusing, that you both still profess a lack of understanding of those explanations.