Does Science Support Atheism?

[warpspeedpetey]

everybody be nice, i havent had a chance at him yet!

 

[Touchstone]

I’m still shocked. That you would even believe any scientist that does not understand the meaning of infinite. I don’t care who they are, I will assert that they are stupid. Infinite is ONE, or, in mathematics, it’s ZERO. Infinities, plural, is perhaps the most contradictory contradiction in existence.

jd

Here’s a little bit of Cantor to consider here. Cantor named his first transfinite number “omega” (“ω”) – the set of all integers. From there, he applied recursive enumeration: ω + 1 = ω U (ω), then ω + 2 = ω + 1 U (ω) + 1, and so on, producing ω2, another completed infinite set. From there, the process becomes formulaic: ω2, ω3, ω4, ω5… completes as ω^2. ω^2, ω^3, ω^4, ω^5… completes as ω^ω. And thus, a recipe for an ever-widening tree of ordinal, infinite numbers!

From that point, Cantor was ready for the big discovery of his career, the discovery that ordinals could be assessed for their cardinality, using 1:1 correspondence tests between the sets. Applying that test, it turns out that natural numbers and real numbers have different cardinalities.This produced the famous “diagonalization argument” which showed that the set of all subsets of a set is provably of a higher cardinality than the cardinality of the set itself.

I don’t know what to make of your idea that “infinite” is ONE, or zero. Maybe that’s theological language on the subject I’m just not familiar with. But as a matter of formal thinking, transfinites have been essential for all sorts of practical advances – set theory is the work product of Cantor’s efforts, and the theory of topological manifolds stems from the insights described above.

Lastly, for now, Cantor was a Lutheran, IIRC (too late to go Googling tonight, I stand to be corrected if I’m mistaken, here), but Cantor got most of his support and encouragement from the RCC, and was closely involved with a famous Thomist, who worked with Cantor to try and save Thomist ideas of infinity (i.e. God’s infinity is somehow a different and unique kind of infinity). The result was a kind of “refashioning” of “infinity” as a theological term, making way for “transfinites” as formal descriptiions of infinite collections. And that is fine for theology, but bad for Aquinas, as the complaint against infinite regress is one that runs afoul of actual infinite sets – the set of “regressions” you might say, to put it back on Aquinas.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

OK, let’s make sure we are clear. Aquinas gets special intellectual consideration because he’s a saint, here? Fine, if that’s the rules. I wasn’t aware. I’ve been proceeding under the assumption that his ideas stand or fall on their own merits. If Aquinas is correct because of his status in the Church, that pretty much short-circuits any thoughtful conversation. Better to know that up front!

Allow me to replay your own words:

Yes, and that’s all you are doing – saying it. You might as well tell me Aquinas asserts that the sky can’t be blue, and you agree. What’s the problem with infinities, again? I’m not committed to a case of infinite regress, but I’m disciplined enough to know it can’t be summarily dismissed. So I might as well play fast and loose with the axioms like Aquinas, and say it must have been infinite regress, because, well, like Aquinas, it simply must have been!

Two things: first, you grossly disrespected a Saint, and, now continue to disrespect him. That is clear from both of your statements. Second, you have grossly spun my words, thus disrespecting me. Is there no hint of modesty, or, respect, in you? Are you sitting there grinning at what you think you’re getting away with? Do you think that by insulting our Saints and by insulting us you are somehow better for it? Do you realize that we are supposed to be charitable towards you? That we are bound by this requirement? Do you realize that we are to pray for you? And, we are bound by this requirement? If you were in my home, I’d put you over my knee for your discourtesy. I am sorry if that’s the way you were brought up.

I generally prefer to explain things in my own voice (as should be clear from my posts), but I’ll put a passage in here from the Encyclopedia Brittanica on this:

If you want to talk about Cantor, the philosophy of infinity and transfinite numbers, that might make a great thread. It’s a subject I’m quite interested in.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia; pay special attention to the bolded words.

The infinite, as the word indicates, is that which has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard, however often applied; it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition, not exhausted by successive subtraction of finite quantities.

Though in itself a negative term, infinity has a very positive meaning. Since it denies all bounds – which are themselves negations – it is a double negation, hence an affirmation, and expresses positively the highest unsurpassable reality. Like the concepts of quantity, limit, boundary, the term infinity applies primarily to space and time, but not exclusively, as Schopenhauer maintains. In a derived meaning it may be applied to every kind of perfection: wisdom, beauty, power, the fullness of being itself.

The irony!

“Transfinite” is a term deployed to describe and classifiy infinities.

In a theoretical sense only. Show us an “infinity”. Show us a bunch of “infinities”.

Cantor’s work (and you can find further refinements to his axiomata in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC), for example) applies formality to the idea, and produces frameworks for both variable infinity and actual infinity. Gauss had declared a century before that “infinity” is just a “way of speaking” – which is problematic for Aquinas’ claim in its own right – but Cantor brought forward the idea of the completed, infinite set. And IIRC, his conclusion was that “Christianity now has for the first time the true theory of infinity”.

Except that it does not correspond to two things: (1) the definition of the word from its derivation, and, (2) reality. With mathematics, heck, we can just change the language if we want to. We can ascribe any definition we want to, for convenience sake. Whole number theory, cardinal number theory, and set theory, are great for receiving the right change, or, constructing mathematical “models”. But, mathematical models of what? All kinds of theoretical possibilities? You confuse theoretical with actual. What was the compelling reason why the definition was arbitrarily changed for mathematics? Hmmm?

It all becomes clear with more and more exchange.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about “infinity” - note the bolded words that quite support what I am saying:

Infinity (symbolically represented with ∞) comes from the Latin infinitas

or “unboundedness.” It refers to several distinct concepts – usually linked to the idea of “without end” – which arise in philosophy, mathematics, and theology.[1]

In mathematics, “infinity” is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: “an infinite number of terms”) but it is a different type of “number” from the real numbers. Infinity is related to limits, aleph numbers, classes in set theory, Dedekind-infinite sets, large cardinals,[2] Russell’s paradox, non-standard arithmetic, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real numbers and the absolute Infinite.

Note the “**larger than all finite numbers” **distinction there. Obviously, the people that wrote that are in the crazy conspiracy to undermine your claims here! Oh, and don’t forget the “not finite” part. That’s a problem for what you’re claiming here, too.
Irony, I tell ya!

Keep talking. Keep being disrespectful. Please.

Let me know if you want to spin up a thread on this, and we can cover this in detail, and you will really show us how much tomfoolery I’m up to here.

-TS

We already have a pretty good idea of what you’re up to.

jd

 

[Squishy]

Let me know if you want to spin up a thread on this, and we can cover this in detail, and you will really show us how much tomfoolery I’m up to here.

-TS

Not sure if its worth starting up a thread or not, but can you link to some reading material. Some of what is being said is going right over my head and i would like to find out what on earth you are talking about.

 

[Leela]

Leela, who’s trying to be contrary here? You know what “supernatural” means. Months ago, you tried to convince me that thoughts were exigencies above the natural realm.

I’ve never believed that thoughts are supernatural. I do believe that thoughts exist.

An absurd pair of statements. If what you are saying was true, then the numbers of adherents to Christianity would be in the 400 million to 500 million range and atheism would be in the 4 billion range, not the other way around.

The numbers of believers are not the issue. The issue is why they believe what they believe. Few would tell you that they believe in God because the existence of God has been proven. On the contrary, I always hear that belief in God requires faith. If the existence of God were a settled issue, believe in God would not require faith.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Ugh. Well, Bertrand just called from the grave and wants to know what caused the First Uncaused Cause. And he’s serious. Simply labeling a thing “uncaused” doesn’t make it so, right? If every thing that is a thing has a cause, what caused your Prime Mover?

Same old same old. This was answered in post # 246.

You’re going to have to do better than keep repeating Bertrand Russell.

 

[Leela]

Oh, Leela, why don’t you just pick one and write up a refutation then?

jd

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae#The_Argument_from_Degree

"The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle "

First of all, someone could simply doubt that there are varying degrees of perfection in the universe. Or note that something could be perfect for one purpose and useless for another. Why would any one thing need to be perfect in every way some things to be better than others for specific purposes? Or this proof could be refuted by pointing out that “perfection” could be replaced by just about anything, like “stinkiness” for example:

Varying degrees of stinkiness may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfect stink.
Therefore stinkiness must have a pinnacle

As a proof for God this argument may not be the pinnacle of stinkiness, but it sure stinks.

Best,
Leela

 

[Squishy]

Touchstone

Ugh. Well, Bertrand just called from the grave and wants to know what caused the First Uncaused Cause. And he’s serious. Simply labeling a thing “uncaused” doesn’t make it so, right? If every thing that is a thing has a cause, what caused your Prime Mover?

Same old same old. This was answered in post # 246.

You’re going to have to do better than keep repeating Bertrand Russell.

Do you honostly believe what you wrote, is a reasonable explenation why god does not need a ‘first cause’ It doesnt make any sense at all.

The First Cause argument is incredably weak, i would be surprised at many people outwith faith who look at it and say ‘eurika’ Its nothing more than comfort food.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The First Cause argument is incredably weak, i would be surprised at many people outwith faith who look at it and say ‘eurika’ Its nothing more than comfort food.

ok then, please tell me where its weak?