The Agnostic Thread

[OnlyAmbrose]

human imagination is infinite.

Proven by...? Sorry, but that's just philosophical nonsense.

also in mathematic infinity exists.let's look at natural numbers 1,2,3,4 and so on.there isn't a definite number of numbers belonging to that group.so you say it's an infinite group of numbers.it's quite simple.

Infinity does not mathematically exist as a number, but as a concept. It is not a real number, because it is not real.

yes.but there is something in that nothing - matter and energy

Your point? That matter and energy is finite. Even if space were infinite (which is not known), it would be an infinite amount of nothing. So what's your point?

[Simonov]

human imagination is infinite.

Proven by...? Sorry, but that's just philosophical nonsense.

history

also in mathematic infinity exists.let's look at natural numbers 1,2,3,4 and so on.there isn't a definite number of numbers belonging to that group.so you say it's an infinite group of numbers.it's quite simple.

Infinity does not mathematically exist as a number, but as a concept. It is not a real number, because it is not real.

what? how could you measure infinity with number which themselves represent highly definite values and there for used to describe something within set values. how can you describe infinite within set values? your logic is flawed here. there is a mathematic sign for infinite but infinite can't be a number or described by a number since it contradicts the concept of infinity itself,

yes.but there is something in that nothing - matter and energy

Your point? That matter and energy is finite. Even if space were infinite (which is not known), it would be an infinite amount of nothing. So what's your point?

wrong there is infinite amount of energy. yes atoms have been split and energy released measured but still in that process even smaller particles were emanated from nuclei and we still don't know what amount of energy they contain.

to conclude this discussion from human point of view there are many things that are infinite since we are limited as physical beings.

but still i agree with you that there is no perfect infinity. example there is definite number of stars in the universe. but we cannot measure that number so we describe it as infinite. infinite is used to describe something which is beyond our grasp of comprehension or something we cannot describe with our current knowledge.

ok now i partly admitted you're right but here comes the final blow and i believe you will agree with me about this (and thus admit there is infinity):
as Einstein once said:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

[OnlyAmbrose]

history

Ok, firstly, you can't expect to prove a point with a one-word response like that. That's even more philosophical nonsense.

Second, history is finite, and therefore the manifestations of human imagination are also finite, and therefore your one-liner doesn't prove anything.

what? how could you measure infinity with number which themselves represent highly definite values and there for used to describe something within set values. how can you describe infinite within set values? your logic is flawed here. there is a mathematic sign for infinite but infinite can't be a number or described by a number since it contradicts the concept of infinity itself,

That's basically what I said...

wrong there is infinite amount of energy.

Show me a source.

The law of conservation of energy states that there is a constant quantity of energy in the universe. Since infinity is not a quantity, stating that there is an infinite amount of energy would contradict this law.

we still don't know what amount of energy they contain.

So since we don't know how much energy they contain, we assume it's an infinite amount? That's ridiculous.

[Simonov]

history

Ok, firstly, you can't expect to prove a point with a one-word response like that. That's even more philosophical nonsense.

Second, history is finite, and therefore the manifestations of human imagination are also finite, and therefore your one-liner doesn't prove anything.

manifestations yes. i didn't claim they were infinite. still what you can imagine inside your head has no limit.

what? how could you measure infinity with number which themselves represent highly definite values and there for used to describe something within set values. how can you describe infinite within set values? your logic is flawed here. there is a mathematic sign for infinite but infinite can't be a number or described by a number since it contradicts the concept of infinity itself,

That's basically what I said...

then why do you insist on infinity being described with a number?

wrong there is infinite amount of energy.

Show me a source.

The law of conservation of energy states that there is a constant quantity of energy in the universe. Since infinity is not a quantity, stating that there is an infinite amount of energy would contradict this law.

look around yourself. counterattack:use up all energy to prove it's finite. first law of thermodinamics then actually proves my point. infinity is a quantity btw, just not a defined quantity. logic error!

we still don't know what amount of energy they contain.

So since we don't know how much energy they contain, we assume it's an infinite amount? That's ridiculous.

well i dare to assume that no matter to how small parts we split the matter there will be still something left. see infinity now?

ps if this discussion continues a bit longer i'll prove the last assumption from my previous post

[unriggable]

human imagination is infinite.

Try to imagine a 4-D universe.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Simonov, I'm really starting to question your understanding of mathematics and physics.

counterattack:use up all energy to prove it's finite.

Firstly, that's roughly the equivalent of me telling atheists to prove to me scientifically that there is no god. Ridiculous.

Secondly, your grasp of physics is way off.

It's impossible to "use up" all energy because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Law of Conservation of energy.

Show me ONE reliable source which states that there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. I'd be more than interested to check it out.

But there is no such source because infinite DOES NOT EXIST!

manifestations yes. i didn't claim they were infinite. still what you can imagine inside your head has no limit.

How can you even claim to know that?

well i dare to assume that no matter to how small parts we split the matter there will be still something left. see infinity now?

True, but what's left will be progressively smaller, and the amount of energy will APPROACH a real number, just never reach it. It will look very much like a y = 1/x graph, as I showed earlier. It will be as x -> infinity, y -> k, where k is a real number. It will NOT be as x -> infinity, y -> infinity.

Here's a good way to put it.

Let's say you have a sandwich. You split your sandwitch in half and eat half of it. The next day, you split your remaining part in half and eat that half. And so on, and so forth for infinity.

Does that mean you got an infinite amount of energy from your sandwich? No, the amount of calories contained in a sandwich remains constant. You just got a finite amount of energy over an infinite period of time.

[Simonov]

human imagination is infinite.

Try to imagine a 4-D universe.

i don't have to. time is fourth dimension.

[unriggable]

human imagination is infinite.

Try to imagine a 4-D universe.

i don't have to. time is fourth dimension.

No it isn't. If it's true than all the material that passes from one snapshot to the next isn't the same since matter can't be in two places at once.

[Simonov]

human imagination is infinite.

Try to imagine a 4-D universe.

i don't have to. time is fourth dimension.

No it isn't. If it's true than all the material that passes from one snapshot to the next isn't the same since matter can't be in two places at once.

it isn't completely the same. it's "older", it could have changed energy status from time point a to time point b. ex.stationary energy could have transformed into kinetic E if we dropped the concerning object.

see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

[OnlyAmbrose]

I somehow feel ignored.

[Simonov]

I somehow feel ignored.

sorry man.didn't want to.just i was only briefly online before so i didn't have time to respond.but now i will think of something.

[Simonov]

Simonov, I'm really starting to question your understanding of mathematics and physics.

uh-huh. low punches. i'm not expert in physics but i am well familiar with the basics. and one thing i've learned from studying natural sciences is that not is certain as it appears to be.par example thought that wave and mattercan be the same was considered outrageous yet know we now that photons show both corpuscular and wave traits

counterattack:use up all energy to prove it's finite.

Firstly, that's roughly the equivalent of me telling atheists to prove to me scientifically that there is no god. Ridiculous.

Secondly, your grasp of physics is way off.

It's impossible to "use up" all energy because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Law of Conservation of energy.

Show me ONE reliable source which states that there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. I'd be more than interested to check it out.

But there is no such source because infinite DOES NOT EXIST!

i just wanted you to show the absurd of your own demand: "Show me the source of infinite energy" if i knew i would be immensly rich probably.

manifestations yes. i didn't claim they were infinite. still what you can imagine inside your head has no limit.

How can you even claim to know that?

i don't and i can't prove it. i believe this. the same way you believe in god. you believe in god. i believe in man and his abilities. btw i believe that was the true message of new testament - to equal the man and god in person of Jesus Christ.

well i dare to assume that no matter to how small parts we split the matter there will be still something left. see infinity now?

True, but what's left will be progressively smaller, and the amount of energy will APPROACH a real number, just never reach it. It will look very much like a y = 1/x graph, as I showed earlier. It will be as x -> infinity, y -> k, where k is a real number. It will NOT be as x -> infinity, y -> infinity.

Here's a good way to put it.

Let's say you have a sandwich. You split your sandwitch in half and eat half of it. The next day, you split your remaining part in half and eat that half. And so on, and so forth for infinity.

Does that mean you got an infinite amount of energy from your sandwich? No, the amount of calories contained in a sandwich remains constant. You just got a finite amount of energy over an infinite period of time.

yes but only because our gastrointestinal tract is limited.if it could preform nuclear fusion of sandwich paticles we could live forever with just energy from one sandwich. -this is a joke btw-

i personally don't know if infinity exists or not. and i can't prove either but so can't you. therefore i declare myself agnostic on this subject.

[OnlyAmbrose]

i personally don't know if infinity exists or not. and i can't prove either but so can't you.

Empirically, no, I can't prove it, but logically, I'm correct.

Belief in infinity violates the most basic law of logic: cause and effect. Why? Because anything that is infinite never had a cause.

[unriggable]

But see simonov that doesn't line up with this: In two dimensions a one dimensional shape can be bent to connect two otherwise distant points to one another. Same goes for two dimensional shpaes in 3d space. But time, if it was the fourth demension, would not allow two distant points in 3d to connect. Therefore it doesn't make snese,

[Simonov]

i personally don't know if infinity exists or not. and i can't prove either but so can't you.

Empirically, no, I can't prove it, but logically, I'm correct.

Belief in infinity violates the most basic law of logic: cause and effect. Why? Because anything that is infinite never had a cause.

ahh now we come to this! why there has to be a cause for everything? it's more philosophical then scientific question. scientists search for causes but assuming there has to be a cause for some events (especially outside physical world of matter and energy) would be against impartially that scientist have to have to be trustworthy. some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe, you believe otherwise and i respect your choice. but you're no more right then me and it's not well-based to say you're logically right. anyways logic has changed, logic has proven to be wrong during history, logic is based on what one can perceive (who proved your perception of the world is correct - if you wore sunglasses all your life you would think there is no such thing as colours) - so why is your logic superior to others? i forgot what was the cause of this post - perhaps there wasn't one? my thoughts are in quite a mess right now so i'll stop while i still have my sanity and prevent myself from writing more bollocks like this. thank you for listening! so long! ta-ta! weeee! i see shiny colours!

[Simonov]

But see simonov that doesn't line up with this: In two dimensions a one dimensional shape can be bent to connect two otherwise distant points to one another. Same goes for two dimensional shapes in 3d space. But time, if it was the fourth dimension, would not allow two distant points in 3d to connect. Therefore it doesn't make sense,

black holes? they are supposed to be something like this as i remember. space can be bent according to some. but will just have to wonder about that for quite some time.

[OnlyAmbrose]

some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe

Sorry, I can't debate with someone who can't agree on the most fundamental logical assumptions.

If you don't think that every effect must have a cause, then I don't think we can really discuss the nature of reality.

[Simonov]

some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe

Sorry, I can't debate with someone who can't agree on the most fundamental logical assumptions.

If you don't think that every effect must have a cause, then I don't think we can really discuss the nature of reality.

just study quantum mechanism a little a you'll find that many things can't be explained with your logical causality.

as Hindu said:"Cause is the effect concealed, effect is the cause revealed"
"Effect is same as cause only."

[unriggable]

some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe

Sorry, I can't debate with someone who can't agree on the most fundamental logical assumptions.

If you don't think that every effect must have a cause, then I don't think we can really discuss the nature of reality.

just study quantum mechanism a little a you'll find that many things can't be explained with your logical causality.

as Hindu said:"Cause is the effect concealed, effect is the cause revealed"
"Effect is same as cause only."

There is a cuase for everything, and everything is explainable. We may not know the truth, that doesn't make it causeless.

[Simonov]

some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe

Sorry, I can't debate with someone who can't agree on the most fundamental logical assumptions.

If you don't think that every effect must have a cause, then I don't think we can really discuss the nature of reality.

just study quantum mechanism a little a you'll find that many things can't be explained with your logical causality.

as Hindu said:"Cause is the effect concealed, effect is the cause revealed"
"Effect is same as cause only."

There is a cuase for everything, and everything is explainable. We may not know the truth, that doesn't make it causeless.

you see. you can't prove that. you believe that. there are so many blind followers of logic and science nowadays.

[OnlyAmbrose]

you see. you can't prove that. you believe that. there are so many blind followers of logic and science nowadays.

This is interesting. It's the first time I've been criticized for using logic to forward my viewpoint.

Though you do have a point which I can agree with- we are blind followers of logic. Which is essentially what my point in this entire thread was: there is as little "logic" to the atheistic viewpoint as there is in the theistic one.

[daddy1gringo]

bump

[Iliad]

bump

NECROMANCER!

[got tonkaed]

i think its perhaps worth mentioning that whatever the logical arguments for theism are....probably dont bother the observers outside of a particular faith tradition. Its the inevitable outcome that occurs when this logical abstraction gets brought into a very real and much less logical expression which occurs in a particular faith. Its very diffcult to remain on the logically abstract level and adhere to particular faith without a large amount of mental gymnastics. Im certainly not saying its impossible, but on the level of logic that i imagine, the type of creator which is discussed is of relatively low import in the practical sense of things....its when things are brought to a particular faith tradition (and often removed more from logic) that many people take issue with what results.

[daddy1gringo]

bump

NECROMANCER!

Hey, what can I say, I'm a Christian; I believe in the resurrection of the dead It was on pg 6 btw.