Do you agree that infinity +1 = infinity?
Infinity is not a number. What’s purple+1?
Calculon, consider this analogy: for every integer, there is another integer which is less than it. (e.g., -4 is less than -3, -5 is less than -4, -6 is less than -5, and so on). This stretches on infinitely. Yet, all the same, there is no least integer.
Why could it not be the same way with causality chains?
If it is not a number than how much time is infinite time?
How about if I have infinite apples, and I give you one more, how many apples do you have?
Incidentally, though I suspect I agree with Snarky_Kong on everything that matters, I hate the phrase “Infinity is not a number”, and, indeed, “____ is not a number” in general.
For my take on it, see this previous discussion of that phrase (which I’ve re-used before, particularly in this thread on trying to prove God’s existence with the argument that there could not be an infinite backwards chain without a beginning, which discussed many of the same ideas being discussed now).
I think the better response to “What’s infinity + 1?” would be “It depends. What system of numbers and arithmetic would you like to discuss this in the context of? There isn’t just one.”
Well yes, but I was trying to be succinct, and I’m not a mathematician so I figured I would leave the technical details somebody that is.
No problem. I do hate the phrase “___ is not a number”, but perhaps I came on too strong with that. Like I said, I think we probably agree on everything of substance, and I’m glad you’ve been making the points you have been. I just wanted to use the opportunity to also link to some related previous discussions.
JThunder has a habit of ignoring questions here…ALOT!
Oh yeah, for Snarky_Kong or anyone else:
Even if an infinite chain of causes is logically possible, does it mean anything in the context of Aquinas anyway? Since it appears that the universe has not existed for infinite time, can such a chain practically exist? Did the big bang have a cause, and if so, what was it?
Calculon.
Well, an infinite causal chain may fit within a finite time period (e.g., A at time 1 was caused by B at time 0.1, which was caused by C at time 0.01, which was caused by D at time 0.001, ad infinitum, all of which occurred between times 0 and 1 (inclusively), and thus within an interval of finite size 1)
He thinks he does, but he does so based on false assumptions.
And yet that’s all Aquinas has.
He’s wrong that everything needs a cause and he’s wrong that a casual chain can’t be infinite.
It’s not irrelevant at all. If Aquinas can’t prove a First Cause must be an omnimax God (or even a conscious enity), then he hasn’t proven God exists.
Because I’ve read the Summa, and he doesn’t. For whatever this is worth, I actually have formally studied theology. I once wrote a term paper on the Summa. If you’re really so certain that Aquinas drew the line from unmoved mover to Christian God, please cite the relevant passages. Show me what I’ve missed.
What you have to show is that quantum events can only happen inside this “environment” (i.e. this universe). The prevailing consenus is that quantum events cause universes, not the other way around.
Yes. It’s falsifiable. It you can prove it has a cause, then you’ve falsified it. It’s pretty simple. If it has a proven cause, then it can’t be said to be uncaused.
Sure they are. Why wouldn’t they be?
It’s NOT unfalsifyable. I’m baffled as to why you think it is. If you prove something had a cause, you prove it’s not uncaused. QED.
Matter didn’t “pop into existence.” The energy was already there. All it did was expand. From there it began to precipate into matter and to follow its own laws. There is no evidence of the laws of the universe being suspended for magical quantum events. This is all a huge appeal to ignorance. “You can’t prove dinosaur bones didn’t magically pop into existence” is about as lame as it gets.
Logic without empirical data provides no information. Logic is a method of processing information, not discovering it.
No. “Random” does not = "Any magical thing is possible. I don’t know where you got that idea.
This makes no sense whatsoever. You keep asserting that infinity chains are impossible but never give a reason why.
Because the “chain” is not a thing unto itself which requires an ultimate cause. It’s only a sequence of proximate cause. No event needs more than its own proximate cause. There is no maximum number of possible links on a casual chain. You can always add one more.
The problem for the theist is proving that they don’t. If you can’t eliminate natural explanations for the universe then you don’t need a sorceror. M-theory, Multiverse. String Theory, Brane theory – all have better explanatory power and are more compatible with Occam’s Razor than a magic, invisible sky wizard. Anyone who claims he can prove God exists must prove that all natural hypotheses are impossible/
I disagree that they’re poor. He’s nt as complet as he could be, but what he does say is sufficient to dispose of Aquinas 5 proofs.
How was it tested? Evil spirits are not testable. In point of fact, it’s stil never been proven that evil spirits don’t cause disease. There’s actually just as much evidence that evil spirits cause disease as there is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. By the way, guess what famous person thought that evil spirits caused disease? Jesus.
Theology doesn’t try to prove its assumptions. It takes them as a given.
Either you haven’t read this thread very well or you don’t understand the burden. Aquinas never proved that everything needs a cause, nor did he ever prove that casual chains can’t be infinite. Those are HIS assertions. He is the one needs to prove them.
They’re wasting their time if they think it’s going to tell them whether God exists, yes.
What events do you think can be “studied?”
Claims are not evidence. In point of fact there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the metaphysical claims of Christianity and very little even for the non-supernatural historical claims. The theological claims of Christian mythology are no more supportable by evidence than Greek or Egyptian mythology. That is a fact.
Do you have to read a whole book about the care and feeding of leprechauns to know there’s no evidence that leprechauns exist?
Theology is not about proving the existence of God. Theology, strictly speaking, is discourse and extropolations about the nature of God or gods based on a priori assumptions. Augustine and Aquinas, for instance, assumed up front that the claims of the Gospels were true. they didn’t try to PROVE them true. They took it as a given. If everything in an argument stems from unproven assumptions, the argument has no persuasive value to anyone who doesn’t already share those assumptions.
Then you disbelieve for the wrong reasons.
This makes my case perfectly. You presume a priori that Christianity is true, tberefore you think you have a logical argument against Zeus. But you don’t. All you have is an arbitary choice of one mythology over another. You don’t actually have any evidence in favor of Christianity.
I will also add that the supernatural claims of Christianity ALSO contradict many things that are known to be true.
What evidence? If there’s a lack of evidence, then how can it be “studied?”
He’s right.
On this stuff, I agree that he overreaches, but it really has no bearing on the EOG stuff, that is all that really interests me.
As for my alleged prejudices against religious people – well I’m married to one, my kids go to church and I’m sending them to a Catholic school. I have no prejudice or animus towards religion as an institution or to people of faith. I do get my back up about people who have an axe to grind against atheists (the way the OP does), and I am psychologically compelled to take up the challenge if anyone claims to be able to PROVE their religious claims.
Theologians have little or nothing to add to the EOG debate. They take existence as a given, not as something to be proven.
Yes, he claimed “something had to make the first move, and that something we call God” and “there must have been a time when no physical things existed.”
If there is an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches.
We don’t know.
It’s not a quanity either.
One.
Sure. Find a cause. Those are, in fact the opposite style of problems; the former is a matter of finding a cause; the latter a problem of disproving something supposedly omnipotent and undetectable that doesn’t want to be found.
Nonsense. In one case you have a universe appearing in a randomized superdense state; in the other you postulate fake fossils spontaneously appearing in a fashion carefully arranged to fool scientists into thinking they are natural. The chance of the latter happening is ridiculously low.
No, not yet; but neither do they violate known physical law, which makes them more plausible than religion.
There’s nothing to study. No evidence, no proof; just empty and contradictory assertions.
They aren’t at all the same thing as religion. Art is subjective; religion is a claim about objective reality. Music is good if humans think it’s good; God either exists or does not, regardless of human desires.
Unsubstantiated claims aren’t evidence.
It’s not circular; there’s simply no evidence that theology is based on anything but lies and delusions. As I said earlier; you might as well insist that someone can’t call The Lord of the Rings fictional unless they know the details of the controversy over whether Balrogs have wings.
A serious distortion of what he says. His point is that the less personally dangerous believers excuse the excesses of the Phelps of the world by validating the bad reasoning such people use to justify their beliefs and attitudes. And by trying to make criticizing the fundamental irrationality of their beliefs taboo.
Because he thinks they are deluded. You know, like in the title. Because they have no basis for any of their claims, because their entire body of work is based on nothing, so everything they claim is so much hot air.
I wonder whether or not that could practically happen, although I grant it could logically. The problem would be that as you reach the convergent time point the time between cause and effect becomes infinitely small, meaning that information from cause to effect must travel infinitely quickly. Since nothing travels faster than the speed of light, that would seem to limit just how small a time gap we could expect.
Calculon.
Well, the distances between cause and effect could be getting smaller at the same rate, in which case there would be no problems; the speed of transmission would not need to ever get very large…
I am going to have to ask for a cite.
No, your understanding of the scientific method is backwards.
Given a process of which there is something known, a number of theories may fit that data. We progress towards understanding which of those theories is the correct one by showing that other competing theories cannot be true because they contradict what is known somewhere.
Once we posit that something is uncaused however, it is impossible to prove definitely that that hypothesis is false. Even if we discover that there is another empirical relationship that explains the known data, it can be argued that that process only appears caused, where as really it is uncaused. Any set of data at all fits the explaination that something is uncaused, and so it can never be discounted.
But there is energy all around us now. If something as large as the universe can simply precipitate into matter, why not a few dinosaur bones. That would seem to be much more likely than a whole universe
False. Logic allows you to derive new information from what is known, not merely process it.
“Random” in the mathematical sense means not able to be predicted. If you say that events are random, you are saying that there is no way to predict the outcome, meaning that it could literally be anything.
Wrong. You can’t add any number to infinity.
I commend you for your faith
Of course without any evidence that these things exist why should I believe they have any explanatory power at all?
About 2 pages in which he doesn’t even refer to one other person talking about the arguments? One wonders what we did for the last 700 years until we had Dawkins to proclaim Aquinas wrong.
It is your inference that Jesus believed that illness was caused by evil spirits. He never directly stated that. I, and many other theologians say that the demon possession in the NT is one thing and mental illness is another.
Subjects are considered vacuous when it can be proven that they are incorrect. There is nothing wrong with studying something that may or may not be true. Until you can show that theology is necessarily wrong and that God definitely doesn’t exist, your views on theology is just anti-intellectual ranting.
Sorry I didn’t have time for a fuller reply
Calculon.
Perhaps if scientists thought like religious believers trying to excuse a falsehood that would be true, but it isn’t. If the preponderance of evidence shows that something has a cause, then it has a cause is the assumption that will be made.
No. It’s immensely, immensely, immensely less likely. An innately random process creating a disorganized mass of matter and energy is far more likely than such a process spontaneously creating a highly structured objected that conveniently happens to fit in with all the other fossil evidence on Earth. It’s far more likely that every vibrating atom in your body will happen to bounce in the same direction at once and smash you against the ceiling.
No, it doesn’t. Things can be random within limits.
First, you confuse trust and faith. It’s not faith to take what science says seriously, because it has a history of being right, sooner or later; religion requires faith because it has a history of being relentlessly wrong. Science is often wrong, especially when it begins work on a problem; but sooner or later it corrects itself and discovers the truth. Religion starts out wrong and stays wrong - except when backed into a corner and forced to admit to reality by science.
Second, unlike religion the various theories Diogenes refers to don’t violate physical law and are internally consistent, which makes them far more likely to “have any explanatory power” than the kind or illogical, physics-ignoring nonsense religion claims. Especially since as I said, religion is reliably wrong. Science may or may not be able to accurately answer a question; religion NEVER can.
And third, scientists most certainly plan to try to find evidence to prove or disprove these theories - the exact opposite attitude of what the believers have.
In other words, as believers typically do you want religion to have a special privileged intellectual position. All the evidence we have about how the world works overwhelmingly speaks out against God and religion; there’s no room for them. Your spirits and miracles and afterlives have no evidence for their existence, violate multiple physical laws - something that in most cases would be considered disproof. But not in the very special case of the coddled belief systems known as religion.
Yes, theology is “vacuous”. It’s based on empty assertions, and produces nothing but further empty claims. It’s by nature worthless, every last bit of it.
Oh, this is just rubbish. If I say a d6 die roll is mathematically random, I can still say a roll of pi is impossible. Unpredictable =/= “anything can happen”