Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 1:43 PM
265 online now:
dwise1, Faith, frako, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (8 members, 257 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 824,357 Year: 28,963/21,208 Month: 1,029/1,847 Week: 404/475 Day: 67/102 Hour: 13/3

 Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions

Author Topic:   Detecting God
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0

 Message 226 of 271 (577045) 08-27-2010 12:40 AM Reply to: Message 224 by jar08-26-2010 7:13 PM

Re: bye, bye, first cause.
 So the most likely outcome is just that, people propose a god and after testing the response will be, "Nope, that god don't hunt."

 This message is a reply to: Message 224 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 7:13 PM jar has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 229 by jar, posted 08-27-2010 9:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8

 Message 227 of 271 (577063) 08-27-2010 2:08 AM Reply to: Message 220 by Just being real08-26-2010 6:27 PM

Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Yes but don't you think that since we are discussing the infinite existing prior to the formation of the finite, that it is just easier to differentiate when we refer to the "universe," by meaning the finite portion of everything, rather than the infinite and the finite combined? If this is a stumbling block for you we do not need to define it this way. I was just trying to keep things easier is all.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that your definition doesn't work with your argument. And if you don't have a problem with that - then you have a problem.

quote:

Well, if we don't try and partly anchor our speculations in some observation, we end up chasing flying spaghetti monsters like my good buddy Dawkins.

By which you mean that if we don't make excuses to rule out possibilities that you don't like we might not reach the conclusion you want ?

quote:

And reaching for the ridiculous like that is not very helpful in these kinds of discussions.

Then I guess that we'd better throw out the idea of an anthropomorphic god that actually takes an interest in the happenings on Earth. That's more ridiculous than anything I've suggested. Or maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call possibilities "ridiculous".

quote:

So based on observation, "something finite" requires an origin from something else.

Does it ? Because there are some problems with that idea...

quote:

But no observation even on a small scale shows how a cycle of anything with finite components can exist in an infinite amount of space or time.

Are you sure of that ? It's certainly possible that our universe has an infinite future and there seems to be no clear reason why it does not.

quote:

This seems to demonstrate my point that no process (regardless of how strong it is) can survive with one of its links being finite.

But what if all the links are infinite ? Then your argument doesn't apply Remember this group of entities is proposed as an alternative to a single self-sustaining infinite entity.

quote:

I am not assuming there was ever a time when there was nothing, I am just saying finite things can not logically occupy infinite space or time.

And infinite things presumably can. So why can't the cyclicly-sustaining group of entities be infinite ?

quote:

Therefore I can only logically conclude that, there must have been a time when only something infinite existed.

And you would be wrong. Because logic doesn't demand that past time is infinite. And if past time is finite you can't conclude that there is anything with an infinite past - which seems to be the only use of "infinite" that you are interested in. (And if you mean "infinite" in any other respect, your whole argument is even less logical).

 This message is a reply to: Message 220 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM Just being real has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 231 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM PaulK has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 29800
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6

 Message 228 of 271 (577131) 08-27-2010 9:44 AM Reply to: Message 225 by Just being real08-26-2010 11:26 PM

Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Jbl writes:

 jar writes:No, not at all. What anyone believes is irrelevant when it comes to the reality of something.

Look at it this way. If I define a beast as some hideous 12 foot creature that walks up right like a man but has the head of a huge wolf, and that feeds on unsuspecting joggers in the woods, then my search for such an animal like that will probably not be very successful. However if I define it as any large hairy animal that is a meat eater, and occasionally stands up-right like a man, then I have just described a bear. A search for a "beast" like that would then probably be very successful.

Likewise if we don't have a general definition of what god is, before we go looking for him, we may over look what is real because we are looking for the myth. So even though our beliefs do not effect what is real, I personally think our definition of what we are looking for, effects what we accept as its fulfillment. It may very well be that that definition of god does not exist at all, and what ever is out there is yet un-titled, and wouldn't even be classed as "god." That wouldn't change its reality one way or the other. But in this thread we are trying to detect "god." Therefore what most people define as god, does seem to be an important factor in our search.

What you describe has been done and the result is that every god described so far has not been detected.

Jbl writes:

 jar writes:And as you point out, we know of many novas and floods and rock slides and as a matter of fact, the preponderance of evidence is that is that things are not unique.

Yes, but again, the definition of something unique, is that which is unusual to the human experience. All of those other things you list are easily observed many times and therefore are not considered unusual to the human experience. But the same can not be said for the formation of the universe. We do not observe even one other universe being formed anywhere and therefore this one, is unique (unusual to the human experience). It is not logical to say that because there are many grains of sand on a beach that there must be many universes. We would have to observe at least one other one in order to make such a conclusion.

But no one has said "that because there are many grains of sand on a beach that there must be many universes."

You are simply making stuff up when you say that.

What has been said (and the difference is subtle perhaps) is that so far all the evidence shows that things we once though unique have turned out to be common. Therefore there is little reason to think our universe is unique.

Jbl writes:

 jar writes:Really? Have you kept up with the products and findings of the several super colliders? We have far more evidence there then we have of some god.

No actually its been a couple of years for me since I studied the whole quantum particles thing. Do you have a link that could catch me up on it?

Can do even better. Search out some posts by Son Goku and Cavediver.

Jbl writes:

 jar writes:I still have not seen any evidence of something that is infinite or even any need for such a thing. Is there any reason that it can't just be turtles all the way down?

I'm sorry my friend. You lost me with the "turtles" thing. It's probably just a joke I'm not privy to. I guess I don't communicate this very well. Let me try it again. I'm saying that if it is true that something can not come from nothing (and so far I am unfamiliar with anything that says it can) then since something now exists, this requires that something always has existed. The key word here is "always." Because if there were ever a time when there was nothing, and something can not come from nothing, then there would still only be nothing.

Secondly, if the observable universe is finite (most scientists agree that it is) then that means it had a beginning, and will likely have an eventual ending. This requires that something preceded the current universe and that this universe be the product of whatever that something is. Now at this point we can say another universe might have preceded this one to which was preceded by another and another. But since we are discussing finite matter, there must eventually be a beginning point to it all. So rather you espouse a multi-universe theory, or believe this is the first, you still end up with something being required to exist to get it all started. And that something must have always existed.

We define something that has always existed as infinite in nature. Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.

When learning, three tools are reason. logic and reality. Note that reality comes last. You can have an idea that is eminently reasonable, completely logical and still wrong. Reality comes last because in the end, it doesn't matter if your idea is reasonable or logical, if it is wrong it is wrong.

As I have tried to point out to you in the examples, there is no need for something infinite. Whatever that first cause was, there is no reason to suppose that it survived its first act. Just as with a star that goes nova or that stone that starts a landslide, the available evidence seems to show that causes often cease to exist.

There is no need or even a faint call for something infinite.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
 This message is a reply to: Message 225 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 11:26 PM Just being real has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 263 by Phat, posted 11-18-2017 7:38 AM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 29800
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6

 Message 229 of 271 (577132) 08-27-2010 9:45 AM Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate08-27-2010 12:40 AM

Re: bye, bye, first cause.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
 This message is a reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 12:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6

 Message 230 of 271 (577133) 08-27-2010 9:46 AM Reply to: Message 220 by Just being real08-26-2010 6:27 PM

Misrepresentation?
 Well, if we don't try and partly anchor our speculations in some observation, we end up chasing flying spaghetti monsters like my good buddy Dawkins. And reaching for the ridiculous like that is not very helpful in these kinds of discussions.

From this line you seem to be implying that Richard Dawkins is some sort of whacko, who was instrumental in proposing and advocating the flying spaghetti monster.

First of all Richard Dawkins is a very highly respected scientist. You may not agree with him, but a lot of people feel he has some very insightful views. His popular books on evolution are probably the world standard for explaining complex subjects in a way that many lay people can understand.

Dawkins uses the FSM as an example of all other supernatural and god like beings mankind has had in the past and will have in the future. Also, uses FSM in the same way as Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot.

quote:
"The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

Wolf, Gary (November 14, 2006). "The Church of the Non-Believers". Wired News.

You might want to read. Chasing for the ridiculous is very helpful in these conversations. Without it we cannot see the extent we are willing to go in order to justify and rationalize our own beliefs.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
 This message is a reply to: Message 220 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM Just being real has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 232 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 AM Theodoric has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010

 Message 231 of 271 (577151) 08-27-2010 10:47 AM Reply to: Message 227 by PaulK08-27-2010 2:08 AM

Re: What counts as detection?
 Then I guess that we'd better throw out the idea of an anthropomorphic god that actually takes an interest in the happenings on Earth. That's more ridiculous than anything I've suggested.

And I completely agree with this statement Paul...so long as no one can come along and give a logical reason to accept such a notion, then the idea would be a nonsensical as the other.

 Or maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call possibilities "ridiculous".

Well in principle I agree, but in keeping with my screen name here, lets face it... Dawkins just came up with the spaghetti monster to be intentionally ridiculous, in order to mock those who do hold to a belief in a god. I see that as kind of mean spirited. He could have just made his points without the sarcasm... but you know how good o'l Richard is. So when I quickly dismiss that notion as ridiculous, I think I am justified in doing so. But when we start talking about bubble theories and multi-universes, I honestly am not so quick, but rather I do so because I have yet to see anything "but" speculation and what I call "fun day dreaming" to support it. You might think that I am dismissing them because they don't agree with my conclusions, but to the contrary, I really think it would be neat to discover other universes and parallel dimensions and all that cool sci-fi stuff. But I am trying to keep it a little grounded to reality and stay close to what we have observed.

 Me: So based on observation, "something finite" requires an origin from something else. You: Does it ? Because there are some problems with that idea...

 Are you sure of that ? It's certainly possible that our universe has an infinite future and there seems to be no clear reason why it does not.

Well from all that I have read, astronomers and astrophysicists are saying that the evidence points towards the universe having a beginning point and are also saying that it is winding down. This means the universe is finite. By definition, something finite can not occupy infinite space or time. Don't you think that mathematics also seems to strongly support this?

 Remember this group of entities is proposed as an alternative to a single self-sustaining infinite entity.

I agree. It is possible that there is a "group" of entities that are infinite in nature. But they would have to at least operate in a self-sustaining closed loop system that did not require outside stimuli in order to exist. Say for example a trio functioning as one single unit. But at least one "something" infinite must exist in order for anything finite now to exist. Am I sensing your agreement on this point?

 So why can't the cyclicly-sustaining group of entities be infinite ?

Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I fully agree that they can. So long as all of the components of the cycle are infinite. If you have one component in the cycle being finite, then you can not have an infinite cycle. Follow me? And so far as I have read, this present universe is finite (with consideration for some infinite components) and therefore it wouldn't be part of an infinite loop would it?

 And you would be wrong. Because logic doesn't demand that past time is infinite.

Oh boy...now you've went and did it.
Well in the one sense that is true because at the big bang, matter, the space for matter, and time itself were all created. So in that sense there was no time before the big bang.

However in another sense, time is relative to the beholder. When I leave my dog chained up outside for the afternoon, to him its been a whole week where to me it was only a few hours. So we can logically talk about time existing before the big bang because we understand that it is relative to the present. When I say my grand father was born in 1909, I understand that date is relative to my present position in time.

So even though we discuss a time before there was time, we understand it is relative to our present, and therefore not at all illogical to do so. So in that sense logic does demand that time be infinite. There will always be one more second further back you can reference relative to where you are now, and there will always be one more second forward you can reference relative to where you are now. So when I say "infinite time," I am meaning relative to the now and my logic then would remain sound don't you think?

 This message is a reply to: Message 227 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2010 2:08 AM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 233 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 AM Just being real has responded Message 235 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 12:02 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010

 Message 232 of 271 (577158) 08-27-2010 11:07 AM Reply to: Message 230 by Theodoric08-27-2010 9:46 AM

Re: Misrepresentation?
 From this line you seem to be implying that Richard Dawkins is some sort of whacko, who was instrumental in proposing and advocating the flying spaghetti monster.

My appology if that's the impression you got. No such implication was intended. I was merely referring to his comments in his 2006 article about "Why there almost certainly is no God." Besides this I am unaware of anything I said that in any way disrespected him. Though you are correct that I don't think I have a lot in common with him. You seem spring loaded to charge in and defend him, but I assure you Theodorc, I meant no attack to begin with. Just an idle reference.

 This message is a reply to: Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 9:46 AM Theodoric has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 234 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 11:54 AM Just being real has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8

 Message 233 of 271 (577159) 08-27-2010 11:07 AM Reply to: Message 231 by Just being real08-27-2010 10:47 AM

Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

And I completely agree with this statement Paul...so long as no one can come along and give a logical reason to accept such a notion, then the idea would be a nonsensical as the other.

Well you clearly haven't got that far. Even if your argument worked, it doesn't get so far as a hands-off Deist God.

quote:

Well in principle I agree, but in keeping with my screen name here, lets face it... Dawkins just came up with the spaghetti monster to be intentionally ridiculous, in order to mock those who do hold to a belief in a god.

Well aside from the fact that as far as I know Dawkins didn't invent the FSM, we also have the fact that the possibilities you want to reject aren't made up to mock anybody. They're simply serious suggestions that your argument fails to consider. So I don't think that you are acting in keeping with your handle at all.

quote:

If past time is finite, then everything must be finite in the only sense your argument seems to use (temporally finite in the pastward direction). Which leads to all sorts of problems - such as everything requiring a cause.

quote:

Well from all that I have read, astronomers and astrophysicists are saying that the evidence points towards the universe having a beginning point and are also saying that it is winding down. This means the universe is finite. By definition, something finite can not occupy infinite space or time. Don't you think that mathematics also seems to strongly support this?

Well you're wrong, because the "winding down" refers to "heat death" (maximal entropy). If the Universe is "open" (and last I heard it probably was) it will go on expanding for ever. It's just that it will reach a point where practically nothing will be happening.

quote:

I agree. It is possible that there is a "group" of entities that are infinite in nature. But they would have to at least operate in a self-sustaining closed loop system that did not require outside stimuli in order to exist. Say for example a trio functioning as one single unit. But at least one "something" infinite must exist in order for anything finite now to exist. Am I sensing your agreement on this point?

No, you're sensing YOUR agreement with what I originally said.

quote:

However in another sense, time is relative to the beholder. When I leave my dog chained up outside for the afternoon, to him its been a whole week where to me it was only a few hours. So we can logically talk about time existing before the big bang because we understand that it is relative to the present. When I say my grand father was born in 1909, I understand that date is relative to my present position in time.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about a literal limit to past time. And it could well be that there is no time before the Big Bang.

quote:

So even though we discuss a time before there was time, we understand it is relative to our present, and therefore not at all illogical to do so. So in that sense logic does demand that time be infinite. There will always be one more second further back you can reference relative to where you are now, and there will always be one more second forward you can reference relative to where you are now. So when I say "infinite time," I am meaning relative to the now and my logic then would remain sound don't you think?

Firstly maybe when you talk about "time before time" you don't literally mean it but that is a damn poor way to do logic. Secondly begging the question is not valid logic. Your argument that past time is infinite starts by assuming the conclusion - logic says bad boy, no cookie, go to the back of the class to that one.

 This message is a reply to: Message 231 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM Just being real has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 237 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM PaulK has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6

 Message 234 of 271 (577171) 08-27-2010 11:54 AM Reply to: Message 232 by Just being real08-27-2010 11:07 AM

Re: Misrepresentation?
 You seem spring loaded to charge in and defend him, but I assure you Theodorc, I meant no attack to begin with. Just an idle reference.

Are you implying something.

The reason I called in question what you stated, was because the whole line seemed out of place for the whole conversation. Your premise seems ridiculous and your attempt to bring Dawkins in to strengthen your argument seems to have been intended to make his comments seem controversial. His comments are no more controversial than what Bertrand Russell stated a half century ago.

quote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Edited by Theodoric, : quote

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
 This message is a reply to: Message 232 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6

 Message 235 of 271 (577175) 08-27-2010 12:02 PM Reply to: Message 231 by Just being real08-27-2010 10:47 AM

 Dawkins just came up with the spaghetti monster to be intentionally ridiculous, in order to mock those who do hold to a belief in a god.

Again you continue to misrepresent. It was shown very clearly to you that Dawkins did not "come up with" the FSM. No matter how many times you assert this it will not be true. I also do not think he is mocking as much as trying to present an intellectual exercise to show what he thinks are ridiculous beliefs. If you feel that is mocking that is your issue. For Dawkins and many others of us, it is solely an intellectual exercise that shows that a belief in the supernatural is the same whether it is the christian god, FSM, IPU or faeiries at the bottom of the well.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
 This message is a reply to: Message 231 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM Just being real has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 236 of 271 (577220) 08-27-2010 5:15 PM Reply to: Message 225 by Just being real08-26-2010 11:26 PM

Re: bye, bye, first cause.
 Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.

This is not true...

You as a human being are finite, which means you had a beginning, your birth. But that which made you is also finite, and they had a beginning as well.

At no point in the human experience do you require that something which is finite in nature needs something infinite to create it. Where you find that is in religion, the basis, I assume, for any notion of infinite celestial beings.

Question is, are you finite? As a human, you are, but when you die and decompose you take on another form. Your atoms live on to do something else.

Likewise, is the universe finite in the sense that it ends, period? Or, like you, does the universe take on another form that is not it's current form?

Currently, theoretical physicist agree on the latter. And by what other method of investigation do you arrive at another answer, if not by only applying religious faith?

- Oni

 This message is a reply to: Message 225 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 11:26 PM Just being real has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 238 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM onifre has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010

 Message 237 of 271 (577339) 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Reply to: Message 233 by PaulK08-27-2010 11:07 AM

Re: What counts as detection?
 ...logic says bad boy, no cookie, go to the back of the class to that one.

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but this comment came off kind of pompous. I'd like to ask you if we couldn't try and keep the tone of our discussion more respectful? Thanks.

 Well you clearly haven't got that far. Even if your argument worked, it doesn't get so far as a hands-off Deist God.

No, you are absolutely correct, I haven't. Nor have I intended on getting that far...yet.

 Well aside from the fact that as far as I know Dawkins didn't invent the FSM

Ok...I get it everyone! Dawkins is not the inventor of the term flying spaghetti monster. Is it really that important? But I do think he is the most "prominent" and notable public figure to use the term recently.

 we also have the fact that the possibilities you want to reject aren't made up to mock anybody. They're simply serious suggestions that your argument fails to consider. So I don't think that you are acting in keeping with your handle at all.

But Paul, didn't I already address the fact that I reject those other possibilities for purely lack of observational reasons? If there are no observations to support them, can you please explain what makes them "serious suggestions?"

 Which leads to all sorts of problems - such as everything requiring a cause.

But if everything we have observed thus far does require a cause, I am unclear as to how that is a problem?

 Well you're wrong, because the "winding down" refers to "heat death" (maximal entropy). If the Universe is "open" (and last I heard it probably was) it will go on expanding for ever. It's just that it will reach a point where practically nothing will be happening.

I don't see where that conflicts with my conclusion that the universe is finite? If it had a beginning, and will have a "practical" ending, how is that not finite?

 Firstly maybe when you talk about "time before time" you don't literally mean it but that is a damn poor way to do logic.

That's your opinion and I respect that, though I disagree. I can only conceive of things in ways that relate to my own experiences and I think most people are the same way. Again even when we judge the age of our faithful dog we tend to do so as it relates to us. I have a dog named Ginger who was born in my house 13 years ago. That makes her around 91 in "people years."

 This message is a reply to: Message 233 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 AM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2010 2:23 PM Just being real has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010

 Message 238 of 271 (577340) 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Reply to: Message 236 by onifre08-27-2010 5:15 PM

Re: bye, bye, first cause.
 You as a human being are finite, which means you had a beginning, your birth. But that which made you is also finite, and they had a beginning as well. At no point in the human experience do you require that something which is finite in nature needs something infinite to create it. Where you find that is in religion, the basis, I assume, for any notion of infinite celestial beings.

Hi Oni,
I'm glad you joined the discussion. Even though everything we have experienced thus far is finite as you said, don't you think tracing everything back to its logical origins will eventually lead you into some very big problems if you try to stick with purely finite causes? It is true that in a sense the atoms that make up my body will still exist when I die. But the energy potential that was once there will be gone. So for all practical purposes, me and my atoms are very finite. But beyond all of that, science seems to strongly suggest that these "atoms" were not always here, but rather do have a beginning. Its not mathematically possible to have an infinite number of purely finite beginnings. Therefore logically we have to conclude that because anything finite exists, something infinite must exist that was the original first cause of the finite.

 This message is a reply to: Message 236 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 5:15 PM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 251 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 12:25 PM Just being real has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8

 Message 239 of 271 (577389) 08-28-2010 2:23 PM Reply to: Message 237 by Just being real08-28-2010 7:06 AM

Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but this comment came off kind of pompous. I'd like to ask you if we couldn't try and keep the tone of our discussion more respectful? Thanks.

Could you please, please try to use logic correctly ? Or at least not claim that logic says things that it plainly does not ?

quote:

Ok...I get it everyone! Dawkins is not the inventor of the term flying spaghetti monster. Is it really that important? But I do think he is the most "prominent" and notable public figure to use the term recently.

By which you mean a single mention in the concluding section of a reasonable length essay. Is it really that important to attach his name to it when we aren't even discussing him or his arguments ?

quote:

But Paul, didn't I already address the fact that I reject those other possibilities for purely lack of observational reasons? If there are no observations to support them, can you please explain what makes them "serious suggestions?"

No, that wasn't all that you were saying and I am quite free to refute the other points as well.

But the lack of observational evidence cuts both ways. We don't have any observations supporting the existence of aself-sustaining infinite being either. In fact we have no observations of anything before the Big Bang (and we can't) - nor do we even know if there was a time before the Big Bang. So we are dealing with speculations without observational support whichever way you cut it.

quote:

I don't see where that conflicts with my conclusion that the universe is finite? If it had a beginning, and will have a "practical" ending, how is that not finite?

It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.

quote:

That's your opinion and I respect that, though I disagree. I can only conceive of things in ways that relate to my own experiences and I think most people are the same way. Again even when we judge the age of our faithful dog we tend to do so as it relates to us. I have a dog named Ginger who was born in my house 13 years ago. That makes her around 91 in "people years."

Except of course, we have the real possibility that past time is finite. And it it is then your argument doesn't work at all. And if it isn't then you have the problem that either our universe is infinite in the pastward direction too, or it is embedded in a spacetime that is.

 This message is a reply to: Message 237 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Just being real has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 240 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 3:49 AM PaulK has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010

 Message 240 of 271 (577481) 08-29-2010 3:49 AM Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK08-28-2010 2:23 PM

Re: What counts as detection?
 Could you please, please try to use logic correctly ? Or at least not claim that logic says things that it plainly does not ?

Well Paul, if you were just looking for people who all agree with you and think like you then I wouldn't go to a web site entitled "Creation VERSES Evolution" if I were you. The very name implies debate...right? And if so then in a debate you will meet people who you think have really "whacked" logic. But don't you think its more productive to just tell them why you think there logic fails then it is to belittle them or to beg them to think like you? But that's just me...

 But the lack of observational evidence cuts both ways. We don't have any observations supporting the existence of aself-sustaining infinite being either.

Well lets examine that claim and see if its true shall we?
Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.
Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.
Have we only observed finite things exist in a finite number? Yes.
Therefore must the thing/s that always existed be infinite? Yes.
If the infinite thing/s ever existed when no finite things existed, must it/they be self-sustaining (or at least group sustaining)? Yes.

There you have observation coupled with logical conclusion demonstrating that some-thing/s infinite and self-sustaining must exist.

Please feel free to demonstrate any observations coupled with logical conclusions that support a bubble or multi-universe theory.

 It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.

FINITE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite
1.having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.Mathematics . a.(of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted. b.not infinite or infinitesimal. c.not zero.
3.subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE on earth.

 This message is a reply to: Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2010 2:23 PM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 241 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2010 4:10 AM Just being real has responded Message 242 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 9:46 AM Just being real has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next