My proof for God. Critiques please

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moonstruck888 said:
Then logic is wrong.

It would take an infinite number of steps to list every possible number between one and two. True or false?
Click to expand...
It’s your understanding of infinity that is wrong. Let’s use an example with something real instead of abstract. A one inch piece of wood which has 2 endpoints.

It cannot be cut into an infinite number of slices **in reality **because eventually the slices will get so thin that to slice them any further they would be less than the smallest space between the smallest sub-atomic particles of wood. The slices would have no substance at all and therefore not exist. There would be a finite number of possible slices.
 
momor said:
It’s your understanding of infinity that is wrong. Let’s use an example with something real instead of abstract. A one inch piece of wood which has 2 endpoints.

It cannot be cut into an infinite number of slices **in reality **because eventually the slices will get so thin that to slice them any further they would be less than the smallest space between the smallest sub-atomic particles of wood. The slices would have no substance at all and therefore not exist. There would be a finite number of possible slices.
Click to expand...
That is why I did not use that example. The absolute zero example works. The other example I could have used from within my own knowledge base is that of trying to propel an object with mass to light speed.

No matter how many steps you take, you are always an infinite number of steps away. The approach is asymptotic.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That is why I did not use that example. The absolute zero example works. The other example I could have used from within my own knowledge base is that of trying to propel an object with mass to light speed.

No matter how many steps you take, you are always an infinite number of steps away. The approach is asymptotic.
Click to expand...
You are trying to use theory and abstractions to define infinity because you cannot define the (possible finite) limits of your theory and abstractions. You claim there are infinite steps but you don’t know this, it’s really nothing more than a guess. If you confine yourself to reality you see that anything with an endpoint has by definition finite properties.
 
momor said:
You are trying to use theory and abstractions to define infinity because you cannot define the (possible finite) limits of your theory and abstractions. You claim there are infinite steps but you don’t know this, it’s really nothing more than a guess. If you confine yourself to reality you see that anything with an endpoint has by definition finite properties.
Click to expand...
These are not abstractions, but statements of fact and you and John Damien’s scienitific illiteracy is not my concern. The facts are there, take them or leave them, please yourself.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
These are not abstractions, but statements of fact and you and John Damien’s scienitific illiteracy is not my concern. The facts are there, take them or leave them, please yourself.
Click to expand...
Anyone who subscribes to “Young’s Theorem” has much to learn in the scientific realm IMHO. My logic tells me so. 😃
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That is why I did not use that example. The absolute zero example works. The other example I could have used from within my own knowledge base is that of trying to propel an object with mass to light speed.

No matter how many steps you take, you are always an infinite number of steps away. The approach is asymptotic.
Click to expand...
Such nonsense as this is akin to the drivel of Zeno’s paradoxes. This 2500 year old rubbish has not survived the test of time.

Not researching topics however, unfortunatly has.
 
JohnDamian said:
Such nonsense as this is akin to the drivel of Zeno’s paradoxes. This 2500 year old rubbish has not survived the test of time.

Not researching topics however, unfortunatly has.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you would know.

Quarks, Gluons? Remember?

You said that you don’t need to research a subject before you waffle at length about it.

On a serious note, I can assure you that Zeno would have known nothing about lightspeed or absolute zero, and clearly with you he’d be in good company.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
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.
Click to expand...
All you would need is a serious desire to find the truth, and the truth will come to find you.

.
 
Matter cannot be cooled down to absolute zero because of quantum effects; the lowest energy state of bosons such as helium 4 have a ground state energy. Although we can asymptotically approach 0K, we can not truly achieve it.
Many atheists and agnostics with whom I talked typically justify their position by asserting that religion and God are the excuses made to hate minorities, cause wars and torture, conquer people, and suppress free thought, etc. However, I bring up the point that the communist scientific atheism that was supposed to liberate people from the tyranny of religion brought forth murders, torture, discrimination, and suppression to those who wanted to continue in the ignorance of accepting God and religion. So even with “enlightened scientific atheism “, people can behave stupidly.
People forget that when Rome fell, and the barbarians invaded Europe from the 5th to the 11th centuries, it was the monasteries that kept learning alive. It is true that both the Muslims and Christians did many horrible things in the name of God. Is it a truly valid reason to deny the existence of God, or really blame these on the stupidity of humans? We must remember Judus betrayed Jesus, Peter denied he knew Him, and his trusted apostles abandoned Him as He was crucified.
 
Ed_CA said:
Matter cannot be cooled down to absolute zero because of quantum effects; the lowest energy state of bosons such as helium 4 have a ground state energy. Although we can asymptotically approach 0K, we can not truly achieve it.
Click to expand...
Thermodynamics refers to kinetic energy of molecules, not rest energy of subatomic particles. Absolute zero cannot be achieved, that much is true, but I never stated that absolute zero corresponded to some kind of zero energy state.

I was simply making a point that trying to refrigerate an object to absolute zero is, in theory, a supertask that would require an infinite number of steps, the rest energy of molecules that have zero kinetic energy notwithstanding. No object in the Universe can ever be cooled down to the point of having zero kinetic energy in a finite number of steps, which per se means no object can refrigerated to absolute zero.

What is pertinent to this discussion is that it is a working example of infinity that can be both represented by a bounded set and demonstrated by experiment.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
What is pertinent to this discussion is that it is a working example of infinity that can be both represented by a bounded set and demonstrated by experiment.
Click to expand...
I am sorry. It does not demonstrate an infinite number.

Either X task is possible with a finite number of tasks, OR
X task is not possible.

Actual Numerical Infinity does not exist in reality.
 
JohnDamian said:
I am sorry. It does not demonstrate an infinite number.

Either X task is possible with a finite number of tasks, OR
X task is not possible.

Actual Numerical Infinity does not exist in reality.
Click to expand...
An infinite number… lol… I never said there was a number infinity. I said that as a concept infinity can be demonstrated…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
An infinite number… lol… I never said there was a number infinity. I said that as a concept infinity can be demonstrated…
Click to expand...
The Concept of a man with a thosand heads can be demonstrated by merely thinking it. If it does not exist in reality it is meaningless nonsense.
 
JohnDamian said:
The Concept of a man with a thosand heads can be demonstrated by merely thinking it. If it does not exist in reality it is meaningless nonsense.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, since we are not talking about mere thoughts, but about facts, to wit: that asymptotic curves are infinite, your proviso is a non sequitir and you are wrong.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I agree. However, since we are not talking about mere thoughts, but about facts, to wit: that asymptotic curves are infinite, your proviso is a non sequitir and you are wrong.
Click to expand...
A curve is not a real material thing. A curve is a form present in material things. Material things are finite.

Ergo asymptotic curves are finite. I looked up a few pictures of them and see no evidence that they are infinite whatsoever. However, **if **you could supply evidence of one object that is an “asymptotic curve” that is infinite in reality I will of course, concede this point.

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
A curve is not a real material thing. A curve is a form present in material things. Material things are finite.

Ergo asymptotic curves are finite. I looked up a few pictures of them and see no evidence that they are infinite whatsoever. However, **if **you could supply evidence of one object that is an “asymptotic curve” that is infinite in reality I will of course, concede this point.

👍
Click to expand...
I have already supplied you with two.

👍

You’ve lost.
 
momor said:
However, since absolute zero cannot be achieved according to you it can hardly be an endpoint can it?
Click to expand...
I never said it could. I said it was an infinite number of steps away no matter how close you get to it. No end point. That stands to reason.

However, in mathematical terms it can still be demonstrated as a bounded set.

👍
 
I never said it could. I said it was an infinite number of steps away no matter how close you get to it. No end point. That stands to reason.
Click to expand...
Infinite steps away does not equate to infinite number in reality.

You do not understand the difference between real and potential things.

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top