The Agnostic Thread

[heavycola]

(no "other universes/parallel universes" etc - I've yet to see any solid theories/evidence for these (though I admit I have been out of the Physics game for a while)

In general, theories of "parallel universes", etc, arise from atheists' desire to prove where matter and energy originated.

Not from cosmologists theorising about reality?

Anyways, point is, everything in this universe has to have an absolute starting point, yes, even energy, otherwise we violate a few laws of Physics and simple logical truths.

I think this is a logical fallacy (didn't you say god was a logical fallacy earlier - yes you did:)

Some of us refer to that logical fallacy as God.

A singularity (the universe at big-bang time) is where the laws of physics break down. To talk about 'before' it is meaningless. Time began with space. It represents a boundary beyond which we can't know anything, really. You could stick god on the other side if you wanted but it doesn't answer any questions and it makes no more sense than not having god on the other side.

aaaand furthermore: We are by far the most complex arrangements of matter we know of, and we can trace back through ever-decreasing levels of complexity back to the first hydrogen atoms a few seconds after the universe began. It took 3 billion years for something as complex as us to arrive, yet you believe the universe originated from a being MUCH more complex, necessarily, than us. It doesnae wash wi' me.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think this is a logical fallacy (didn't you say god was a logical fallacy earlier - yes you did:)

I also said existence is a logical fallacy, but I'm certainly not denying my own existence. Nor am I denying God's. Point is, the fact that anything exists at all isn't logical, for reasons stated several times in my past posts. We don't necessarily live in the logical universe which many atheists would presume that we do.

Not from cosmologists theorising about reality?

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a snipe, though it may have come out as such. Much like flashleg said, most parallel universe theories are just grasping at straws with no real evidence to back them up - pure speculation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's what they are.

A singularity (the universe at big-bang time) is where the laws of physics break down. To talk about 'before' it is meaningless. Time began with space. It represents a boundary beyond which we can't know anything, really. You could stick god on the other side if you wanted but it doesn't answer any questions and it makes no more sense than not having god on the other side.

The laws of Physics are one thing, but something being created by nothing isn't simply a violation of the laws of Physics, it's a violation of logic. Even if it came from a parallel universe, said universe must have come from something as well.

And nonetheless, the point still stands - flashleg propsed that we are the result of an infinitely decaying state of energy, but an infinitely decaying state of energy is impossible - a logical fallacy in itself.

aaaand furthermore: We are by far the most complex arrangements of matter we know of, and we can trace back through ever-decreasing levels of complexity back to the first hydrogen atoms a few seconds after the universe began. It took 3 billion years for something as complex as us to arrive, yet you believe the universe originated from a being MUCH more complex, necessarily, than us.

But the fact is, it has origins. No matter how complex they are, they are still origins, and origins indicate that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time, which means it came from SOMETHING. Everything comes from something (except logical fallacies such as infinite )

[WalrusesRN]

Alright continuing.

flashleg, to answer your final point, infinite / infinite is undefined. There's no way of telling what it is. It's not just "does not exist" (like 1/0, which = infinite = Does not exist), it's just "undefined", which means there's absolutely no way of figuring it out.

I feel like an idiot. I forgot that I learned in Algebra 2 that any number divided by zero is undefined. Are you saying I was taught wrong? And you didn't really answer the fact that infinite zeroes still equal zero and not 1, therefore 1/infinity does not equal zero, (and as I said before, the difference between zero and an infinitely small number is the difference between existance and non-existance

For the sake of argument until you take calculus, we'll make the following assumption: 1 divided by infinite is so small that for all intents and purposes we'll call it zero. But I do encourage you to think about the concept, because I can tell you with all certainty that 1/infinite = zero.

But like I said, no matter what you think of it, we'll just "treat" it as zero for the moment, because it's so incredibly small.

If you can explain to me how infinite zeroes equal one, then I will accept that anything finite/ infinity=0, but until then it is just infinitely small, which, as I say, is the difference between existance and non-existance, and should not be treated as if it doesn't exist when it does.

I disagree. If there were an imperturbable barrier between all of the infinite universes, nothing could break through. This could probably only happen with a matter that couldn't be altered in any way or form, no matter what. I have no idea how this could happen, but hey, most of what we're talking about here we have no idea how it would work anyway, right?

But if you're an atheist, you MUST believe that it DID happen, and that something DID break through your barrier. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining where matter came from.

Not really. What I'm saying is that matter could have come from matter that came before that, which came before that, which came before that, etc.,etc. It forms a cycle. If there is an impenatratable barrier, then nothing could break through from parallel universes, if indeed they do exist. It could just as easily be that there is one infinitely large universe. You ask how the cycle got there. Honestly, who knows? But saying that something beyond our control created everything does not solve any questions, because we will just want to further understand this outside force and its origins. If we find its origins, we will want to find the origins of that, and the creator of that, and so on and so forth to infinity. The fact that there are things that we can't explain cannot be explained by saying, "it was done by a force we can't explain" when there is NO evidence that anything of the kind exists. Say that I accepted scientifically that God exists. That would only lead me to the questions of where he came from, and who created him, because, as you say, everything must have a creator. Saying that there is one exception to this rule does not make sense.

And besides, who are we to be setting laws for other universes? There's no way you can even begin to prove that universes don't interact somehow. And, given that there are infinite of them, I don't see why some of them couldn't. Remember, infinite includes ANYTHING you can ever possibly imagine. (My proof for why there must be an infinite amount of universes, presuming there is no God, come from my post about where everything came from).

But then again, we must remember that infinite is a logical fallacy.

You're right, I can't prove that multiple universes don't interact, but you can't prove that they do interact, or even exist. And saying that they have to exist because something had to create our universe does no make sense, because something would have had to created the universe that created ours anyway. That leads to an infinity of universes, but that doesn't even solve the problem, because for those infinite universes to be there, something had to create them. Besides, if your logic were correct than existance wouldn't exist, which is clearly not the case, so I think that either some of your arguments are splotchy, or logic cannot be trusted. (I personally think you must have some splotchy arguments)

But assuming we came from nothing isn't the only option. What if we came from the time cycle as explained before? Everything just comes from what was before it. No, beginning, no end, no spawning of existance, just existance. Even if we could explain how our universe came to be created, we would just start wondering how whatever created it exists, including parallel universes, and what created it.

Then you really must ask yourself, if everything really IS such a cycle, where did that cycle come from? If you're suggesting that it came from nothing, then you've got another logical fallacy on your hands.

Explaining where the cycle of existance came from does not explain how existance got there, because something else would have to exist to have created it. Besides, who is to assume that something can't come from nothing. None of us knows the nature of nothing. The closest we can get is space, and that can't be nothing because it is space and is subject to time and is part of our universe. The cycle would only be an empty solution, just the same way God or other supreme beings would be, as something would have to have created it.

Not so much. My meaning is that through all of these questions we've been analyzing, we've been coming out with one answer: existance is a logical fallacy.

We did not come about through any means which may be deduced logically. I really hate to break it to all the atheists out there, but we didn't. It always goes back to "infinity", which is a logical fallacy. That being said, the concept of a God logically fits into this illogical space in the puzzle. Something illogical.

Got to disagree there. My cycle theory if said that it has existed forever the way God does, is just as, if not more, likely.

And like I said, that "deduction", of sorts, combined with a personal spiritual awakening, can lead to religion. But again, that's a different thread.

I don't think you understood me. When I said impossibly large, I meant impossibly large. Impossible on the scale that it doesn't exist. Infinite. There's no calculator that can do that for you.

Then you did it by hand? How do you divide one by a number that is
impossible by hand?

[heavycola]

But the fact is, it has origins. No matter how complex they are, they are still origins, and origins indicate that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time, which means it came from SOMETHING. Everything comes from something (except logical fallacies such as infinite )

...except god?

[unriggable]

Does anybody in this thread really think that a sky daddy is watching over us and loves us all, but not enough to apparently makes some people 'disfunctional' ie homosexual?

Does anybody for that matter believe in inferiorety?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I feel like an idiot. I forgot that I learned in Algebra 2 that any number divided by zero is undefined. Are you saying I was taught wrong?

No, you're not wrong. 1/0 doesn't exist, and it isn't defined - it's infinity.

Do you know what the graph y = 1/x looks like?



Now, look at quadrant I, near the y axis. As x gets very small, y gets very big. It's an inverse relationship.

In terms of Calculus, we could say that as x approaches 0 from the right, y approaches infinity.

The equation for this is expressed like this (forgive me for the low quality, it's homemade on microsoft word):



By the manner of solving a mathematical limit, this equation simplifies down to:



There you have it, proven by Calculus.

Because of this, we could say that if you reach x = 0, you would also reach y = infinite. You could also say it as if you reach y = infinite, you reach x = 0.

But that doesn't really matter, because infinite doesn't exist, so you will never reach zero. However, if infinity DID exist, it would reach zero.

Infinite is the same thing (in this particular case) as undefined.

That's the best I can explain it to you.

And you didn't really answer the fact that infinite zeroes still equal zero and not 1, therefore 1/infinity does not equal zero, (and as I said before, the difference between zero and an infinitely small number is the difference between existance and non-existance

I did, in fact. I said that you can't treat infinite as a rational number. some schools of mathematics treat 0 * infinity as 0... others treat it as undefined. It's not a rational number and the laws of mathematics don't apply to it.

If you can explain to me how infinite zeroes equal one, then I will accept that anything finite/ infinity=0, but until then it is just infinitely small, which, as I say, is the difference between existance and non-existance, and should not be treated as if it doesn't exist when it does.

Did my best. If it wasn't enough, wait for calculus, and just take my word for it right now.

Not really. What I'm saying is that matter could have come from matter that came before that, which came before that, which came before that, etc.,etc. It forms a cycle.

But then where did the cycle come from? Perhaps the most basic logical truth we know of is that everything has something that caused it... what caused the cycle to come to exist in the first place? And what caused that to exist?

If there is an impenatratable barrier, then nothing could break through from parallel universes, if indeed they do exist.

Who are you to say that there is an inpenetrable barrier? You can't just speculate on the existance of parallel universes and then set laws for them and expect that theory to hold any water.

And again, I don't buy into the parallel universe theory in the first place.

You ask how the cycle got there. Honestly, who knows? But saying that something beyond our control created everything does not solve any questions, because we will just want to further understand this outside force and its origins. If we find its origins, we will want to find the origins of that, and the creator of that, and so on and so forth to infinity.

Belief in God is essentially the same thing as belief in infinity.

Both are things which logically cannot exist, but one of them MUST in order for anything to make any sense at all.

Both of us, atheists and theists, are believing in something that logically does not exist. You're no more logical than us, when you get down to the root of it.

You're right, I can't prove that multiple universes don't interact, but you can't prove that they do interact, or even exist.

Hey, I sure don't believe they exist, but a lot of atheists do.

Then you did it by hand? How do you divide one by a number that is
impossible by hand?

I really think you've been missing the real meaning of infinity. It's not something you just do mathematical operations with because it doesn't exist. I explained it as best as I could at the top of this post.

But the fact is, it has origins. No matter how complex they are, they are still origins, and origins indicate that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time, which means it came from SOMETHING. Everything comes from something (except logical fallacies such as infinite )

...except god?

We've already established that God, like infinty, is a logical fallacy. Both of us believe in one, you just chose infinity over God.

[OnlyAmbrose]

(just a note, I edited in some graphics I made on microsoft word to help explain the mathematical concepts).

[Riao]

I cannot contribute to this discussion very much. I just don't have the knowledge. I would like to ask OnlyAmbrose a question though: It seems to me that your theism stems from the infinity question (everything you wrote on page 4 of this thread). From what I understand, the logical fallacy of infinity is what drives you to the answer of a supernatural creator: It's the only answer to the real question of where did all this come from. (Also, what made you decide that the creator was the Christian God?) It is certainly a nice answer to the question. If I am correct in that assumption, wouldn't it make more sense to take the position of "to me that is the most likely answer?" Because this seems to me more of a debate about logical vs. illogical -- or what is the most logical answer to this very unanswerable question? Which brings me to this quote:

Which is why theism makes plenty of sense in the world to me, and agnosticism is just the people who don't want to fry their brains thinking any further about this kind of thing, which I can totally sympathize with by the by

I completely disagree with this statement. I am fully prepared to say that I don't have the knowledge to contribute to this conversation, however that does not mean that I am not interested in it, or hanging on every word that is written here. This is the most interesting conversation I have seen here in the CC forums. It just happens that I went in a different direction in my schooling and haven't had the opportunity really to discuss these things with other people. But presented with philosophical conversation such as this, I will fry brains until the end! (But I still think that a creator is only one answer of an innumerable number of possibilities).

Anyway, not to interrupt! Please... as you were.

[heavycola]

But the fact is, it has origins. No matter how complex they are, they are still origins, and origins indicate that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time, which means it came from SOMETHING. Everything comes from something (except logical fallacies such as infinite )

...except god?

We've already established that God, like infinty, is a logical fallacy. Both of us believe in one, you just chose infinity over God.

Come on man that doesn't work: I believe in infinity instead of god? I believe in imaginary numbers too, as mathematical constructs... and have we really established that god is a logical fallacy? why would you believe in one of those? I don't want to screw up the discussion but i just think there are a lot of strawmen being set up

[OnlyAmbrose]

It seems to me that your theism stems from the infinity question (everything you wrote on page 4 of this thread). From what I understand, the logical fallacy of infinity is what drives you to the answer of a supernatural creator: It's the only answer to the real question of where did all this come from. (Also, what made you decide that the creator was the Christian God?) It is certainly a nice answer to the question. If I am correct in that assumption, wouldn't it make more sense to take the position of "to me that is the most likely answer?" Because this seems to me more of a debate about logical vs. illogical -- or what is the most logical answer to this very unanswerable question?

Well that's not entirely the truth. I'm Catholic because I was born Catholic, raised Catholic, and later had a personal spiritual conversion which really made me trust in Catholicism.

I certainly didn't become Christian based on ponderance of infinity.

My purpose in this thread is to show that atheism is just as illogical as theism. I don't expect anyone to become a Christian without a very real and personal experience provided by the Holy Spirit. I do, however, think that through this thread an atheist could come to ponder that, perhaps, he could be wrong.

I completely disagree with this statement. I am fully prepared to say that I don't have the knowledge to contribute to this conversation, however that does not mean that I am not interested in it, or hanging on every word that is written here. This is the most interesting conversation I have seen here in the CC forums. It just happens that I went in a different direction in my schooling and haven't had the opportunity really to discuss these things with other people. But presented with philosophical conversation such as this, I will fry brains until the end! (But I still think that a creator is only one answer of an innumerable number of possibilities).

Oh, not to worry! That was a joke, hence the little winking smiley

[Riao]

@ heavycola

I believe what he is saying is that if a God exists, He would not be bound by the logic that we mortals are bound by. God is supernatural, so he doesn't necessarily abide by natural physical laws. God could be infinite.

[OnlyAmbrose]

But the fact is, it has origins. No matter how complex they are, they are still origins, and origins indicate that the universe has been around for a finite amount of time, which means it came from SOMETHING. Everything comes from something (except logical fallacies such as infinite )

...except god?

We've already established that God, like infinty, is a logical fallacy. Both of us believe in one, you just chose infinity over God.

Come on man that doesn't work: I believe in infinity instead of god? I believe in imaginary numbers too, as mathematical constructs... and have we really established that god is a logical fallacy? why would you believe in one of those? I don't want to screw up the discussion but i just think there are a lot of strawmen being set up

There is a very real difference between belief in i as an mathematical construct and belief in infinity as a reality.

Everything must have a starting point. It's only logical, for reasons I've gone over several times in this thread. However, without something which DOESN'T have a starting point, nothing can exist.

That leaves a few options, two of which are that everything has been around forever (infinity) and God (theism). Both are logically impossible, simply because they both involve something which has existed forever.

Point being, atheists and theists both subscribe to logical fallacies. Just different ones.

[Riao]

Oh, not to worry! That was a joke, hence the little winking smiley

I know man. I did not take that the wrong way (I did not assume you were being condescending). I can see that you are very thoughtful in your responses, and of course your earlier posts suggest that you completely understand an agnostic point of view.

EDIT You mentioned in an earlier post , or suggested, that you are in your teens. Do you mind my asking how old you are?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Turned 17 a few weeks ago

anywho, i'm off to cross country practice, so I'll check back in here in 4 hours or so.

[WalrusesRN]

No, you're not wrong. 1/0 doesn't exist, and it isn't defined - it's infinity.

Do you know what the graph y = 1/x looks like?



Now, look at quadrant I, near the y axis. As x gets very small, y gets very big. It's an inverse relationship.

In terms of Calculus, we could say that as x approaches 0 from the right, y approaches infinity.

The equation for this is expressed like this (forgive me for the low quality, it's homemade on microsoft word):



By the manner of solving a mathematical limit, this equation simplifies down to:



There you have it, proven by Calculus.

Because of this, we could say that if you reach x = 0, you would also reach y = infinite. You could also say it as if you reach y = infinite, you reach x = 0.

But that doesn't really matter, because infinite doesn't exist, so you will never reach zero. However, if infinity DID exist, it would reach zero.

Infinite is the same thing (in this particular case) as undefined.

That's the best I can explain it to you.



I did, in fact. I said that you can't treat infinite as a rational number. some schools of mathematics treat 0 * infinity as 0... others treat it as undefined. It's not a rational number and the laws of mathematics don't apply to it.

I'm just going to let most of this stuff go over my head and learn about it later, but you say yourself that some schools of mathematics treat 0*infinity as 0 and others as undefined. So the basis of your argument hinges on an entirely different mathematical debate, no?

But then where did the cycle come from? Perhaps the most basic logical truth we know of is that everything has something that caused it... what caused the cycle to come to exist in the first place? And what caused that to exist?

To say that the cycle has always existed is more believable to me than an unexplainable supreme being, which has always existed. If we're going to say that anything can have existed forever (God included), then it is much more simple and much more likely that the cycle has always existed.

If there is an impenatratable barrier, then nothing could break through from parallel universes, if indeed they do exist.

Who are you to say that there is an inpenetrable barrier? You can't just speculate on the existance of parallel universes and then set laws for them and expect that theory to hold any water.

Why not? Do that over a long period of time, have it accepted by people, and that's what religion is, except most of those have much more radical theories. Who are you to say that there isn't one? I am just providing a way that infinite parallel universes could exist without interacting. I don't actually think such universes exist in the first place, so I really don't think the barrier exists either. It was just a rebuttal to your argument that infinite universes means that interaction between universes would occur.

And again, I don't buy into the parallel universe theory in the first place.

Belief in God is essentially the same thing as belief in infinity.

Both are things which logically cannot exist, but one of them MUST in order for anything to make any sense at all.

Both of us, atheists and theists, are believing in something that logically does not exist. You're no more logical than us, when you get down to the root of it.

Say that God did exist and Infinity did not. How would that be any less of an enigma than if infinity did exist? You would have to come to some form of an end to the universe, and then you would think to yourself, "Hmm, this doesn't seem right. There has to be something outside of this. There can't be absolutely nothing outside of this. There has to at least be space outside of this, or something." The idea of a finite existance is just as complex an idea as an infinite one. And to me saying that God just made things the way they are, and he will let us know what he thinks we need to know, does not actually explain anything. It's just an excuse to stop thinking about complex questions by basically saying, "God did it!" Whether or not infinity exists has nothing to do with whether God exists. I don't think he does, but he could exist in an infinite or finite universe. With both of the two options, finite and infinite, being impossible, it's impossible to NOT believe in something that cannot logically exist. However, slapping a lable on the question and saying "God made things the way they are," makes no headway toward any kind of rational thinking in this area; it only distracts people from the truth by providing them with misinformation.

You're right, I can't prove that multiple universes don't interact, but you can't prove that they do interact, or even exist.

Hey, I sure don't believe they exist, but a lot of atheists do.

Well that's a completely different discussion then
[quote="Walrus"]

[Riao]

Turned 17 a few weeks ago

Just ... Cannot .... I mean .... how can....

Wait let me rephrase .....


DUDE!!!!

[WalrusesRN]

Turned 17 a few weeks ago

Just ... Cannot .... I mean .... how can....

Wait let me rephrase .....


DUDE!!!!

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

[Jehan]

I'd just like to say to Ambrose re: the coin toss/infinity answer. You are starting to win me round slightly - I believe you are right, I suppose, to correct me that each of the unlikely possible outcomes could occur give an infinite number of tosses. By extension of your logical argument there could indeed (and must in fact) be gods of all shapes and sizes existing, somewhere in the infinite universe. I do not accept this though. Although the universe is infinite, I do not believe that matter is infinite within the universe. I prefer to subscribe to the "expanding balloon" model. In which case the universe we know expanded from a single point and time and space do not exist beyond the sphere of the balloon. Therein lies the problem - man finds the infinite nature of the universe so impossible to comprehend that at the edges all logic breaks down.

i said i wouldn't join in but this is far and away my favourite contemplation in physics, dimensions and the edge of the universe and such, i have so many questions that will probably be never answered that its ridiculous, i also subscribe to a expanding balloon type universe, although i would like to know why the expansion is accelerating , i was also thinking about dimensions expanding and such from the point of the big bang where they would have been infinitely curved to form this point of infinite density, the universe has no reason to have infinite mass, only that it came from a point of zero volume which makes sense since no spatial dimensions existed therefore you only have a point. but really, if the expansion of the universe comes down to dimensions expending then what's to say we would notice the expansion at all, if time slows down or speeds up its of no consequence to us at all, we would not notice since we are defined by time, likewise if the dimensions expand or contract is there any way we could measure this? i mean the rulers we use would expand or contract by the same amount so here's the question, how is the universe in expanded form any different from the universe in point form, lets take the hypothetical situation that there was a ruler in the point before the big bang, the big bang occurs the dimensions expand, but a person observing the ruler would have no way of telling that the universe is expanding since everything expands with it, so the situation for the observer hasn't really changed at all if the expansion is a result of expanding dimensions, unless of course matter and light are effected differently by those dimensions. So this leads me to consider how the universe expands and whether it expands into an already expanded space-time, obviously from the previous discussion if the expansion is due to the expanding dimensions we cant notice the expansion at all, so i was thinking that somehow the dimensions already exist and that the matter expands into it, but my argument is then flawed since i can only explain a point of infinite density by having the dimensions start off unexpanded, or infinitely curved, so the question remains does the universe expand due to dimensions expanding, or does it expand into already existing dimensions, and then you can consider the question of what is at the edge of the universe, if the universe is bounded by the limits of the dimensions then we should expect there to be literally nothing at all outside the universe and all that we can observe would exist inside its bounds, but then if the universe is expanding into pre-existing dimensions then one could theorise that something could exist there and the boundaries of the universe are the light sphere of the big bang.

also walrus you need to study limits, we use them to try and work with numbers that aren't defined.
And heavycola, i agree with applying occams razor to what comes before the big bang only if what lies before the big bang has no observable effect on what comes after, can we be sure of this? i mean if the big bang is explained by something that existed before the singularity expanded, then maybe some sort of quantum theory of gravity could explain the events before it.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I have to leave again until about 1 in the morning, but I have time to respond just to this:

I'm just going to let most of this stuff go over my head and learn about it later, but you say yourself that some schools of mathematics treat 0*infinity as 0 and others as undefined. So the basis of your argument hinges on an entirely different mathematical debate, no?

No, it doesn't. 1/0 is still infinity and 1/infinity is still 0. You won't find any school of mathematics which argues that.

But you can't treat infinite like you would a normal number - algebra isn't designed to deal with it. Calculus, on the other hand, is. Which means that 1/infinity can equal zero even though infinity*0 doesn't equal 1.

To prove that 1/infinity = zero, we can apply calculus in the same way we did for the 1/0. We will apply a "limit at infinity."

Look at the graph of 1/x again.



Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

In terms of equations, we get this: (again, forgive me, home-made)



Which simplifies to this:



Just like the one on the previous page, it's proven by Calculus.

Anyways, gotta run, see y'all later.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just a note, more graphics added.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Ya im Agnostic to

[Riao]

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

No. I haven't been for quite a while.

Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

But if x is infinite, y will never actually reach zero. So doesn't this actually show that 1/infinity /= 0? Perhaps I just can't wrap my head around this. (I've been struggling to figure out the concept of dividing any number into an infinite number. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then I didn't take calculus).

[Jehan]

i'm not sure it could make straight sense, the human mind can't comprehend infinity, so it shouldn't be able to comprehend a manipulation of infinity, or a process which results in infinity, but his graph does show what he is talking about, the strict definition of this limit would be that we can make y as small as we want, by making x sufficiently large, which translates to the limit as x approaches infinity is zero, likewise we can make y as small as we want, by taking x sufficiently close to zero, it comes down to the delta epsilon definition of limits, we're not talking about algebraically being zero, we're talking about calculus and limits, even though i just said all that i still can't really comprehend this, i just know that its the case.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

No. I haven't been for quite a while.

Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

But if x is infinite, y will never actually reach zero. So doesn't this actually show that 1/infinity /= 0? Perhaps I just can't wrap my head around this. (I've been struggling to figure out the concept of dividing any number into an infinite number. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then I didn't take calculus).

y will never reach zero, but then, x will never reach infinity. Because... infinity doesn't exist!

infinity = does not exist

You will NEVER find an x-value great enough to make the y-value zero! NEVER! Because no matter what number you pick, there will always be another number that is bigger. Because... infinity is a logical (and mathematical) fallacy!

[Neutrino]

But if you're an atheist, you MUST believe that it DID happen, and that something DID break through your barrier. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining where matter came from.

And besides, who are we to be setting laws for other universes? There's no way you can even begin to prove that universes don't interact somehow. And, given that there are infinite of them, I don't see why some of them couldn't. Remember, infinite includes ANYTHING you can ever possibly imagine. (My proof for why there must be an infinite amount of universes, presuming there is no God, come from my post about where everything came from).

But then again, we must remember that infinite is a logical fallacy.

Actually, it isn't. It is anything you can imagine, under the constraints of applicable rules. The only reason the Coin-Flower example works is Quantum Theory (Everything is unpredictable on small scales, but tends to become more predictable the larger it gets, but never fully shakes off the unpredictability and so will occassionally do something really odd) As Walrus said, it is not unfesable that there is a barrier seperating the various universes and so no unpredictability will allow one universe to influence another (with the exception, maybe, of gravity).

all matter for the universe was created from a single point of matter, infinitely dense

What make you say this? Matter before the Big Bang couldn't be infinitely dense because there wasn't an infinite amount of it. It may have been confined to an infinitely small space, but to the best of my understanding this still dosen't make a finite amount of matter infinite.

There's a major flaw in the argument that energy has always existed simply because of the second law of thermodynamics.

What makes you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics has always existed?

Just to lend credence to Flashleg's argument: as long as there are fewer than 2 particles in a universe, no time and/or space is possible, for what is space but a measure of the distance of these two particles from eachother and what is time but a way of sorting a list of possible configurations for the particles? If the universe existed with nothing but energy in it for an infinite amount of time (even tough there was none), eventually something, whether pure chance or outside influence caused two particles to be created and so space and time were created.

To who it may concern (I can't be bothered to find the appropriate post/s): What would make you think that infinity/infinity = 0/1? To the best of my knowledge (I like that phrase ) infinity/ infinity = infinity. If you had infinitely many things and you gave them to infinitely many people, each person still gets infinitely many things. Once something becomes infinity, you can't un-infinitorise it, not matter how hard you try.

I only hope that my home made and only partly understood theories made sence to the rest of you