The Agnostic Thread

[WalrusesRN]

Yes, there are an infinite amount of things you could do tomorrow. However, the time in which you may do them is limited.

If tomorrow was infinite, then an infinite amount of different things would happen. Given an infinite amount of time, everything MUST happen.

Though I must admit that I misspoke when I said that the probability of any one thing happening are zero. A better way of putting it would be that the probability of any one thing happening at a given moment are zero. Because that is one thing out of an infinite of things which could conceivably happen in an infinite timeframe, and one divided by infinite is mathematically zero. But the chances of them eventually happening are 100%, because given an infinite amount of time... an infinite amount of things must occur! And that infinite amount of things must therefore include anything we can think of.

Given that the universe, multiverse, or whatever-you-call-it-verse has existed for eternity (I'll explain that later), or that ANYTHING has existed for eternity, everything must have happened before now. Everything. Because it, whatever it (it being the Universe, or everything that exists in EVERYTHING, in the broadest sense of the word) is or was, has existed forever. And still, everything must continue to occur, forever, because even if this universe (the one we live in) ends, it's presumable that whatever else exists will carry on (it's a logical fallacy to assume that we came from nothing, which is why most atheists I've talked with resort to the theory of parallel universes to explain the existence of matter. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that's true).

In any event, infinite itself is a logical fallacy for this very reason. It's really a fascinating question no matter how you look at it, from a theist, atheist, or agnostic viewpoint: Where did matter come from? And where did the place that matter came from come from? And back and back and back. Yet... there can scientifically be no origin point. Infinite itself is a logical fallacy. Some of us refer to that logical fallacy as God.

Anyways, that was quite a ramble. Sorry if it didn't make much sense, I'm trying to put the long-considered philosophical musings of a teenager into writing. I would certainly appreciate a rebuttal.

I said before that the infinite possibilities of forces beyond our control allow infinite possibilities on Earth. I would also say that they allow anything to happen in any given amount of time. That would make the possibilities of tomorrow endless.

Your thoughts on the beginning of existance are intriguing, and I have thought about the kind of thing before. Doesn't the concept of infinity seem impossible? Take space, for instance. How can it go on forever? And yet, how can it end and have nothing beyond it? Time I am a little bit more skeptical on, because I think there are and infinite number of possibilities of things that could happen in the universe, so even though time has and will exist forever, existance has as many possibilities that something new could continue to happen surprisingly often (unless time repeats itself, in which case I will rejoice because a form of me will live on forever, but be severely put out because my head will have exploded from trying to figure out how).

Also, I don't understand how one divided by infinity is zero. If you could explain it, that would be nice. The way I see it is this: Imagine you have one pencil. Divide it half, and in half again, and again, and again. If you continue to divide it, you will get to icredibly small parts, like atoms, then subatomic particles, then quarks, then what? Zero? Nothing? I don't think so, I think that you will just keep getting smaller and smaller and get just what you had to begin with, 1/ infinity. The pieces will still be there (though admittedly, not to where we could use or even understand them). I don't think something can turn into nothing, no matter how many times it is divided.

Although I am enjoying the discussion, I do feel we're getting a bit off-topic and think we should return to the original points made in response to the question (namely the first paragraph of my post only), unless we still feel it is relevant to the argument, (I'm telling myself this as much as or more thananyone else).

[OnlyAmbrose]

I said before that the infinite possibilities of forces beyond our control allow infinite possibilities on Earth. I would also say that they allow anything to happen in any given amount of time. That would make the possibilities of tomorrow endless.

Good point, but one I'd answer with this- the statistical possibilities of the forces beyond our control affecting our universe are zero. One over infinite, remember? A period of time on this earth is infinitesimal (a number) compared to how long everything (again, broad sense) has been around (infinite). That's a real number divided by infinite, which is in fact zero.

Then again, though, you'd think that with an infinite of forces, one of them would have an effect on our length of time, however small. After all, there's zero, and then there's ZERO.

That leads us to another intriguing point, which really disproves the concept of an infinite amount of universes (or whatever else is out there- again, "everything" in the broadest sense of the term). If there truly were an infinite amount of forces beyond our control, then the fact is that some of them (some of infinite being just another infinite) would doubtlessly affect our universe. SOME of them have to - there's infinite of them after all.

In any event, none of them do. We'd be able to see at least one of them - in fact, we'd see infinite of them.

Now, remember, that a force beyond our control MUST have been responsible for our universe, be it God, a parallel universe, or an infinite other amount of possibilities - presuming we came from nothing is, again, a logical fallacy.

But since an infinite amount of things DON'T happen due to an infinite amount of forces beyond our control, that means there are NOT an infinite amount of forces beyond our control. Which means there are a finite amount of forces beyond our control. But uh oh, logical fallacy, because if the amount of things beyond our universe is finite, then it all must have had an origin in something which has existed for infinite, being in itself a logical fallacy. Again, some of us refer to that logical fallacy as God.

Also, I don't understand how one divided by infinity is zero. If you could explain it, that would be nice.

There are a few ways to define it (calculus included, but I'll try to avoid that), so I'll try a few.

1/1 = 1
1/2 = .5
1/3 = .3333...
1/4 = .25

They're all getting smaller. Put an incredibly large number in the denominator, and you'll get a VEEERY small number, but still not zero. However, put an IMPOSSIBLY large number in the denominator (and by impossibly I really mean impossibly, since infinity is by mathematical definition, impossible) and you get an impossible answer: zero.

That's as simple as I can make it, think on it enough and you'll get it. Or take calculus.

If you want another mind-bender, ponder this one: 1/0 = infinite.

unless we still feel it is relevant to the argument,

Meh, I think it's relevant. All this confusing philosophical nonsense really does lend weight to the Agnostic viewpoint that "you're all crazy leave me alone"

[WalrusesRN]

Good point, but one I'd answer with this- the statistical possibilities of the forces beyond our control affecting our universe are zero. One over infinite, remember? A period of time on this earth is infinitesimal (a number) compared to how long everything (again, broad sense) has been around (infinite). That's a real number divided by infinite, which is in fact zero.

Okay, but if Infinity really does go on forever, then everything would have to happen, including Earth being formed AGAIN, meaning history would have to repeat itself. Then, as time cycles through, since Earth and all events related would have to happen over and over again for all eternity, Earth actually has infinite time. I'm pretty sure infinity divided by infinity isn't zero.

Then again, though, you'd think that with an infinite of forces, one of them would have an effect on our length of time, however small. After all, there's zero, and then there's ZERO.

That leads us to another intriguing point, which really disproves the concept of an infinite amount of universes (or whatever else is out there- again, "everything" in the broadest sense of the term). If there truly were an infinite amount of forces beyond our control, then the fact is that some of them (some of infinite being just another infinite) would doubtlessly affect our universe. SOME of them have to - there's infinite of them after all.

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?

In any event, none of them do. We'd be able to see at least one of them - in fact, we'd see infinite of them.

Now, remember, that a force beyond our control MUST have been responsible for our universe, be it God, a parallel universe, or an infinite other amount of possibilities - presuming we came from nothing is, again, a logical fallacy.

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.

But since an infinite amount of things DON'T happen due to an infinite amount of forces beyond our control, that means there are NOT an infinite amount of forces beyond our control. Which means there are a finite amount of forces beyond our control. But uh oh, logical fallacy, because if the amount of things beyond our universe is finite, then it all must have had an origin in something which has existed for infinite, being in itself a logical fallacy. Again, some of us refer to that logical fallacy as God.

Don't really get what you mean about God. Do you mean in response to all the questions we've been analyzing, some just say, "God did it!" and forget about it?

There are a few ways to define it (calculus included, but I'll try to avoid that), so I'll try a few.

1/1 = 1
1/2 = .5
1/3 = .3333...
1/4 = .25

They're all getting smaller. Put an incredibly large number in the denominator, and you'll get a VEEERY small number, but still not zero. However, put an IMPOSSIBLY large number in the denominator (and by impossibly I really mean impossibly, since infinity is by mathematical definition, impossible) and you get an impossible answer: zero.

That's as simple as I can make it, think on it enough and you'll get it. Or take calculus.

If you want another mind-bender, ponder this one: 1/0 = infinite.



Meh, I think it's relevant. All this confusing philosophical nonsense really does lend weight to the Agnostic viewpoint that "you're all crazy leave me alone"

As for the rest I'll just take calculus in a year. But it seems to me that the only way to divide 1 by an impossibly large number is with a calculator. I hope this isn't true because I might not believe it when I learn it.

1/0 isn't much of a mind bender to me, unless I think about it too much. How many zeroes are in one? Well, let's see. 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 . . . to infinite will still equal zero. Hmmm, but as far as you get it will never equal one, only zero. Peculiar. Maybe 1/0 should be undefined. Ah, well, I'll learn about that some other time. Enough of this for tonight, I need to get to sleep.

[WalrusesRN]

couldn't get to sleep, mind was wandering, just thought I'd post this real quick. 1/infinity can't equal zero because zero times infinity equals zero, not one. I think I just either proved Ambrose or some property wrong. Explain if I'm wrong. Now I'll try to go to sleep again. If you believe in something, pray to it that I don't get insomnia. Much appreciated, he/she doesn't like to listen to people who don't believe in him/her anyway.

[flashleg8]

Very good debate here. Enjoyed reading all those posts Ambrose Riao etc.
I'm too busy at work today (and likely busy at the weekend) so I don't have time to critic any of the above posts in detail.

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.

To Walrus, you are entirely correct (in my opinion) to assert that the word virtually must be used before zero in these cases, because of course event do occur. I believe walrus is correct to raise the point that zero is an impossible number also (in relation to the infinity equation) this is why mathematics breaks down at this point and statistics become useless.

Last point to Ambrose and Riao- you mentioned time being finite in response to a point (I forget which), first time is relative and second, time could indeed be infinite (in your logical infinite universe). The time someone has to eat his dinner (I think it went) could be infinite. In an infinite world one possible outcome is that Walrus has infinite time thus can do all possible infinite options at once (is infinity/infinity = 1? If so this is the only possible outcome [Walrus is God ] or is infinity/infinity=infinity? In which case this is still the only possible outcome [as all others are statistically 0] or is infinity/infinity =0? In which case no options can occur again and poor Walrus goes hungry!).

[OnlyAmbrose]

I do not accept this though. Although the universe is infinite, I do not believe that matter is infinite within the universe.

Oh no, neither do I. Which is why you must ask yourself - where did this finite matter come from? Because if matter is not infinite, it MUST have an origin- such is the nature of finite things (if you have no origin you are clearly infinite).

This brings us to the Big Bang, etc. This whole "singularity" thing. However, the Big Bang does NOT answer where matter came from - only how it came to be in the state which it is in now.

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.

This brings us to another point which puts a lot of atheists at a loss. We've already established that matter is finite, and that it must have come from something. But if it must have come from something, that something can't have been matter itself (because we're talking about the absolute origins of matter in this universe). Therefore, what matter came from must have been something... immaterial, as it were.

Therein lies the problem - man finds the infinite nature of the universe so impossible to comprehend that at the edges all logic breaks down.

Alright, I'm really going somewhere with this one:

There's a reason why. Infinite can't exist within logical boundaries. 1/0 = infinite, but it also equals DNE (does not exist), because infinite does not exist. If you get an answer at infinite in a math problem, you have surpassed the very boundaries of existence.

Which poses a great problem to atheists. No matter how you think it, the atheist position on where everything (broad sense of the term again) came from must be that SOMETHING has existed forever - but that something can't be God. The simple fact of the matter is that it's a logical truth that every effect must have a cause. Everything must come from something.

That being the case, as an atheist you have to think as follows: matter came from a parallel universe, which came from something else, which came from this, which came from that, which came from such and such... back and back and back into infinite.

But infinite does not exist! Existence is a logical fallacy!

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'll post more later, in response to walrus and the rest of flashleg's post, at the present i have to leave for work)

[OnlyAmbrose]

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.

couldn't get to sleep, mind was wandering, just thought I'd post this real quick. 1/infinity can't equal zero because zero times infinity equals zero, not one. I think I just either proved Ambrose or some property wrong.

You're thinking of infinite in rational terms - it's NOT a rational number, and shouldn't be treated as such.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't really get what you mean about God. Do you mean in response to all the questions we've been analyzing, some just say, "God did it!" and forget about 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.

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.

But it seems to me that the only way to divide 1 by an impossibly large number is with a calculator. I hope this isn't true because I might not believe it when I learn it.

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.

Maybe 1/0 should be undefined.

But it's perfectly defined: it does not exist. Which is why it's infinite.

But all the mathematical stuff is moot. For our purposes, we'll just treat 1/infinte as zero.

[AlgyTaylor]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (one of Arthur C. Clarke's "laws" of prediction)

Charles Darwin, at the end of his books, wrote something along the lines of:

A savage who has never seen a sailing ship before would be unable to understand how something so huge and heavy could float on water, and so would amaze him and he would treat it as incomprehensible magic. This doesn't mean that it is.


Something along those lines anyway. Great man,

[flashleg8]

In responce to your last post Ambrose, your grasp of mathematics is above mine and it's been instructive your infinity discussions. I think you hit the nail on the head when saying that another way to express infinity is "not defined" (in respect to mathematical equations).

So I'll leave the field to you on the maths side *my head hurts!*

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.

This brings us to another point which puts a lot of atheists at a loss. We've already established that matter is finite, and that it must have come from something. But if it must have come from something, that something can't have been matter itself (because we're talking about the absolute origins of matter in this universe). Therefore, what matter came from must have been something... immaterial, as it were.

&

Which poses a great problem to atheists. No matter how you think it, the atheist position on where everything (broad sense of the term again) came from must be that SOMETHING has existed forever - but that something can't be God. The simple fact of the matter is that it's a logical truth that every effect must have a cause. Everything must come from something.

That being the case, as an atheist you have to think as follows: matter came from a parallel universe, which came from something else, which came from this, which came from that, which came from such and such... back and back and back into infinite.

I think I can group these together. For the first point, according to the Big Bang Theory (which I subscribe to) all matter for the universe was created from a single point of matter, infinitely dense (not infinity please no more infinity...). You correctly question where this matter came from, now using Einstein’s equation E=mc2 we know that mass and energy are related.
I would present that this mass was therefore created from pure energy. Now where did the energy come from you ask? (I heard you in advance). Well this is indeed the tricky part. The energy is potential energy, similar to the energy created in electrons states, energy in a high state, unstable state will "seek" to find a low, stable state - at this point releasing energy (which could convert to mass). The universe did not exist before this (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), and time did not exist either (in the way we know it). The high energy phase could not remain stable and so decay took place from one state to another – we (the universe, space and time) were the result of that decay to a stable state. It was a state of potential. Pure energy, not affected by the laws of time and space. Thus there was no before, before that – because there was no time and no space. Just as there is nothing outside the expansion from the big bang – no space, no time, no other universes.

[OnlyAmbrose]

(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.

The high energy phase could not remain stable and so decay took place from one state to another – we (the universe, space and time) were the result of that decay to a stable state.

Ahh... but here we have another problem.

If the energy was in a constant state of decay, and existed forever, then once again we must deal in infinites (sorry).

If energy existed an infinite amount of years ago, but has been constantly decaying since then, then it would have decayed fully an infinite number of years ago. There's a major flaw in the argument that energy has always existed simply because of the second law of thermodynamics.

If energy has existed for an infinite amount of time, but was always in a constant state of decay, then it would have decayed fully an infinite number of years ago.

Hope that makes sense. Now we're moving out of mathematics and into Physics. Thermodynamics, here we come!

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.

[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"]