My proof for God. Critiques please

[JohnDamian]

I can assure you, he’s quite right. There is an infinite set of numbers between any two numbers

That is the fallacy of equivocation.

Infinities in a mathematical sense only exist as potential infinites, and not actual ones.

An actual infinite cannot exist between two end points.

For a mathematical or potential infinite to become an actual one, it must be actualised as a real (and non-conceptual) thing. As this is impossible it would be wrong to state that an *actual *infinite set of numbers exists between any two numbers.

 

[wheels10]

Excellent. What height is he? What weight is he? What colour is he?

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. **45When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. **46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

 

[Moonstruck888]

That is the fallacy of equivocation.

Infinities in a mathematical sense only exist as potential infinites, and not actual ones.

An actual infinite cannot exist between two end points.

For a mathematical or potential infinite to become an actual one, it must be actualised as a real (and non-conceptual) thing. As this is impossible it would be wrong to state that an *actual *infinite set of numbers exists between any two numbers.

If you only give credence to the existence of real and non-conceptual things, then I don’t think philosophy is your bag my friend.

 

[Moonstruck888]

For a mathematical or potential infinite to become an actual one, it must be actualised…

Try cooling a bowl of water down to -273.15 degrees celsius and get back to me.

 

[JohnDamian]

If you only give credence to the existence of real and non-conceptual things, then I don’t think philosophy is your bag my friend.

Are you saying empiricism is not a philosophy?

And incidentally, an object of the mind is really distinct from an object in reality. An impossible object can be conceived by the mind, such as an actual infinite length.

I can formulate the words infinite size.

I can also formulate the words tallest shortest.

Both are equally meaningless.

Infinity exists as a mathematical concept and not a real thing – certain principles in mathematics do not apply to reality, as certain principles in reality do not apply in mathematics; such as dividing by zero.

Try cooling a bowl of water down to -273.15 degrees celsius and get back to me.

That is completely irrelevant.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That is completely irrelevant.

Translation: You don’t know what I mean by it.

To refrigerate something to absolute zero would take an infinite number of steps. In the real world, in real life. Demonstrably.

 

[JohnDamian]

Translation: You don’t know what I mean by it.

To refrigerate something to absolute zero would take an infinite number of steps. In the real world, in real life. Demonstrably.

And I thought absolute zero could not be reached. It is merely a potential and not an actual thing.

Please tell me, how is this relevant?

 

[Stylites]

Excellent. What height is he? What weight is he? What colour is he?

Infinitely formless and every color.

We say an apple is red when it absorbs all visible light spectrums except red, and reflect off the red visible light. Really, a so-called ‘red’ apple is every color except red, in the sense that it had absorbed all colors except red.

Even so, there is no physical light which can reflect off God, as He is transcendent to His creation. But He can be seen, observed and measured by the honest scientist. Superstitious and lazy scientists aren’t really interested in discovering the truth.

.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And I thought absolute zero could not be reached. It is merely a potential and not an actual thing.

Please tell me, how is this relevant?

It can be demonstrated that at -273.15 degrees celsius, particles would have no kinetic energy at all. You are splitting hairs over the infinity issue because the idea of infinity does not fit in well with your prejudices of the type of Universe you would like to live in.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Even so, there is no physical light which can reflect off God, as He is transcendent to His creation. But He can be seen, observed and measured by the honest scientist. Superstitious and lazy scientists aren’t really interested in discovering the truth.

Well, I am certainly not one of these types of people, so if you’ll just tell me what measurements and observations you are referring to, I’d be glad to carry them out.

 

[JohnDamian]

It can be demonstrated that at -273.15 degrees celsius, particles would have no kinetic energy at all. You are splitting hairs over the infinity issue because the idea of infinity does not fit in well with your prejudices of the type of Universe you would like to live in.

Anyhow, just because absolute zero causes a wavelength to be unrestricted it does not make it infinite.

Take for example, vaccuum continues unrestrictedly lengthwise, widthwise etc. - this unboundedness does not make it infinite.

Furthermore, an actual infinite cannot tolerate anything contrary to it; if it is indeed infinite in a particular genus (wavelength, steps etc.) it nessecarily means all steps would be this. Which is demonstrably not so.

You clearly don’t see the distinction between a potential infinite and an actual infinite.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Anyhow, just because absolute zero causes a wavelength to be unrestricted it does not make it infinite.

Take for example, vaccuum continues unrestrictedly lengthwise, widthwise etc. - this unboundedness does not make it infinite.

Furthermore, an actual infinite cannot tolerate anything contrary to it; if it is indeed infinite in a particular genus (wavelength, steps etc.) it nessecarily means all steps would be this. Which is demonstrably not so.

You clearly don’t see the distinction between a potential infinite and an actual infinite.

I never said absolute zero was infinite, I said that it would require an infinite number of steps to refrigerate something to absolute zero, in the same way that it would take an infinite number of steps to list every number between one and two.

Do you deny this?

As for your assertion of an infinite being unnable to tolerate anything, that implies an emotional response that does not and cannot exist.

 

[momor]

I never said absolute zero was infinite, I said that it would require an infinite number of steps to refrigerate something to absolute zero, in the same way that it would take an infinite number of steps to list every number between one and two.

Do you deny this?

Logic denies it. A true infinite cannot have an endpoint.

 

[JohnDamian]

I never said absolute zero was infinite, I said that it would require an infinite number of steps to refrigerate something to absolute zero, in the same way that it would take an infinite number of steps to list every number between one and two.

Do you deny this?

Yes.

There is an unbounded amount of numbers potentially between each number. However, that can never reach an infinity, because 1+1+1 etc. never equals infinity.

If you think otherwise, when does a finite number become infinite, say I start counting the decimil digits inbetween 1 and 2… when do I reach infinity, after 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000009999999 or after 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000019999999?

**You tell me, when do I reach infinity? **(I have shortened the number of zeros for practicalities sake)

As for your assertion of an infinite being unnable to tolerate anything, that implies an emotional response that does not and cannot exist.

Fire cannot tolerate being not-fire. This is the law of noncontradiction.

I cannot both be totally dead and totally not-dead, using the same definition for dead. Being totally dead I would not tolerate being partically not-dead. etc. Philosophy jargon.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Logic denies it. A true infinite cannot have an endpoint.

Then logic is wrong.

It would take an infinite number of steps to list every possible number between one and two. True or false?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes.

There is an unbounded amount of numbers potentially between each number. However, that can never reach an infinity, because 1+1+1 etc. never equals infinity.

Evasive as ever. It would take an infinite number of steps to list every possible number between one and two.

Incidentally, the set of numbers between one and two is bounded. More than or equal to one and less than or equal to two.

If you think otherwise, when does a finite number become infinite, say I start counting the decimil digits inbetween 1 and 2… when do I reach infinity, after 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000009999999 or after 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000019999999?

**You tell me, when do I reach infinity? **(I have shortened the number of zeros for practicalities sake)

Never. Is never good for you?

Fire cannot tolerate being not-fire. This is the law of noncontradiction.

What you mean is that fire cannot not be fire. Tolerance is a human state of mind, it has no place in a logical absolute.

 

[JohnDamian]

Never. Is never good for you?

So you will never actually reach it… So it is not an actual infinite… Are you conceding that it is merely potentially infinite because it is unbounded?

What you mean is that fire cannot not be fire. Tolerance is a human state of mind, it has no place in a logical absolute.

tol·er·ate
   /ˈtɒləˌreɪt/ Show Spelled[tol-uh-reyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2.
to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3.
Medicine/Medical . to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4.
Obsolete . to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.

Seriously, pettifogging? The use of the word tolerate was correct.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So you will never actually reach it… So it is not an actual infinite… Are you conceding that it is merely potentially infinite because it is unbounded?

You’re confused my friend. It is not unbounded. The set of numbers between one and two is a bounded set where x is more than or equal to one and less than or equal to two.

And how do you imagine that it follows that because you’ll never reach it that it is not an infinite?

tol·er·ate
   /ˈtɒləˌreɪt/ Show Spelled[tol-uh-reyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2.
to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3.
Medicine/Medical . to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4.
Obsolete . to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.

Seriously, pettifogging? The use of the word tolerate was correct.

It’s a silly way of putting it. Infinities cannot vouchsafe nor withold permission.

 

[JohnDamian]

You’re confused my friend. It is not unbounded. The set of numbers between one and two is a bounded set where x is more than or equal to one and less than or equal to two.

The number of decimal places is unbounded, one could continue inserting numbers without any hinderance after the decimal place. Obviously some boundaries exist (such as one could not write elephant instead of numbers) but sensibly the amount of digits after 1. is unrestricted.

And how do you imagine that it follows that because you’ll never reach it that it is not an infinite?

We have a word for an unbounded thing that cannot be reached, it is called a potential infinite. Rather than an actual infinite. You see, there is a difference. If I shot a rocket into space and it passed orbit, it would continue in such a way as to make it potentially infinite. However, no matter how many billion trillion^zillion miles it went, it would not have traversed an actually infinite number of miles.

It’s a silly way of putting it. Infinities cannot vouchsafe nor withold permission.

Oh my… But a totally dead person cannot:

“allow the existence”

Of “totally” or “partially” not-dead within himself.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The number of decimal places is unbounded, one could continue inserting numbers without any hinderance after the decimal place. Obviously some boundaries exist (such as one could not write elephant instead of numbers) but sensibly the amount of digits after 1. is unrestricted.

I agree, but in mathematical parlance the set would be called a bounded one. I just wanted to clear that up.

We have a word for an unbounded thing that cannot be reached, it is called a potential infinite. Rather than an actual infinite. You see, there is a difference. If I shot a rocket into space and it passed orbit, it would continue in such a way as to make it potentially infinite. However, no matter how many billion trillion^zillion miles it went, it would not have traversed an actually infinite number of miles.

I really don’t see why that distinction is important. I can’t reach the clouds in the sky. Does that mean that they’re potential clouds?