Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyrdsmyth · 05-22-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
point taken. whenever i have said atheism, replace that with naturalism.

Fine. I can see you really aren't interested in engaging with the specific points I have made. So, go ahead... change your terms and run. But originally you said 'atheism' didn't you? And, after all, this is the "Existence of God" forum, isn't it? Is an examination of whether 'naturalism' is rational even on topic here?

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deke

1. And in all possible worlds there is no possibility of there being a rational number x, such that, x^2 = -1 (as we define those terms). But this didn�t stop humans from coming up with an idea to resolve this apparent �impossibility�.

2. Similiarly, it would seem to humans that in all possible worlds there is no possibility of there being effect without cause � in this case, we�re pondering what/who caused the effect of the universe existing. And so we came up with the idea that God is the cause�impossibility resolved.

3. Paradox: What is infinity plus 1? (since infinity is impossible to specify, the question is impossible to answer).

4. That we live in a seemingly causal universe and that the universe exists is a paradox. How can a thing exist without a beginning? The concept of God is a nifty resolution to this paradox, but that�s all (in this sense of the word).
MHO,
Deke

1. if "x^2 = -1" (i have no idea what this is) exsists in at least one possible world (ours), then obviously it is not a logical contradiction. so by virtue of what you are saying, is it possible to someday understand what a square circle is?

2. who ever said anything about god?

3. it is impossible to anwers because you can only get self contradictory anwers. infinity plus one equals infinity. you are increasing by one, yet you are not increasing at all=self contradictory.

4. in other threads, atheists often refer to theists as appealing to the "god of the gaps". it seems like you are appealing to the "paradox of the gaps". if something is irrational or down right contradictory, you seem to use the "paradox" as your "nifty resolution".

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Fine. I can see you really aren't interested in engaging with the specific points I have made. So, go ahead... change your terms and run. But originally you said 'atheism' didn't you? And, after all, this is the "Existence of God" forum, isn't it? Is an examination of whether 'naturalism' is rational even on topic here?

you have a good point, i messed up by saying atheism, and maybe it is not the right forum. maybe the moderator can switch this thread over to the philosophy forum if you would like. a sincere mistake on my part. and, there are already plenty of threads on the rationality/irrationality of god. maybe when i am done with this one i can take a serious look at theistic options. i would like to thoroughly examine naturalism first. is naturalism not a good place to start?

is the falseness of theism your strongest reason for accepting naturalism? it seems like theism is obliterated rather handily on the other threads, so this doesnt seem like a strong reason on your part to accept naturalism. but i'm sure you have other reasons for accepting naturalism, which is what i am interested in talking about.

Deke · 05-22-2003, 03:39 PM

Thomaq writes: if "x^2 = -1" (i have no idea what this is) exsists in at least one possible world (ours), then obviously it is not a logical contradiction.

In simplest terms, (i)(i) = -1. The �i� stands for �imaginary�. As it turns out, this concept is actually used frequently in engineering to resolve otherwise unsolvable equations.

But �i� is not real, it�s a means to an end � it is meaningless to say, �I have 10i dollars, or 5i fingers�. Similarly, God is a means to the end of resolving the paradox of the universe existing. We can say, �God created the universe� to resolve the paradox in our mind, but this doesn�t make God real.

Thomaq: who ever said anything about god?

You did - in your opening post when you asked how �atheists� deal with the apparent dilemma of a causal universe existing. If your question does not involve the concept of God, why call out atheists?

Thomaq: in other threads, atheists often refer to theists as appealing to the "god of the gaps". it seems like you are appealing to the "paradox of the gaps". if something is irrational or down right contradictory, you seem to use the "paradox" as your "nifty resolution".

I�m not appealing to anything. You asked in your original post how certain people deal with the apparent dilemma of the universe being both existent and causal. My answer was, this isn�t a dilemma to me since the question is rooted in the more fundamental question of infinity. And since we currently cannot comprehend infinity in a meaningful way, I don�t think it�s possible to comprehend a meaningful resolution to the paradox/contradiction/whatever you want to call it, of an existent and causal universe.

I did however, go further and conceded that �God� is indeed a nifty resolution, but I added that this doesn�t make God real.

MHO,

Deke

Unbeliever · 05-22-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
and if this is the case, then you can not say that the big bang "happened".

scientists have estimated the age of the universe to be approximately (x) amount of years old, have they not?

is there not a finite amount of moments that have existed?

Why not? We can say that the first instant occured some 13.7 billion years ago (the latest estimate, BTW), which is the same thing. I don't see a problem here, because each and every one of those moments existed within the universe.

I also don't see a problem with the idea that a finite number of moments have existed. During every single one of those moments the universe also existed. I just don't see any "dilemma" here at all.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deke

1. In simplest terms, (i)(i) = -1. The �i� stands for �imaginary�. As it turns out, this concept is actually used frequently in engineering to resolve otherwise unsolvable equations.
But �i� is not real, it�s a means to an end � it is meaningless to say, �I have 10i dollars, or 5i fingers�. Similarly, God is a means to the end of resolving the paradox of the universe existing. We can say, �God created the universe� to resolve the paradox in our mind, but this doesn�t make God real.

2.You did - in your opening post when you asked how �atheists� deal with the apparent dilemma of a causal universe existing. If your question does not involve the concept of God, why call out atheists?

3. My answer was, this isn�t a dilemma to me since the question is rooted in the more fundamental question of infinity. And since we currently cannot comprehend infinity in a meaningful way, I don�t think it�s possible to comprehend a meaningful resolution to the paradox/contradiction/whatever you want to call it, of an existent and causal universe.
MHO,
Deke

1. because the (i) is undefined, it is not a logical contradiction.
2. i made a mistake which i have admitted several times, but i have no problem saying it again. i should not have said atheism, i should have said naturalism. and further i probably should have started the post in the philosophy part of this forum. i humbly and sincerely apologize. just to be clear, going forward, i am interested in talking about naturalism only. if my mistake is beyond repair, maybe i will start this thread over in the philosophy forum with the correct terms clearly stated.
3. is this your stance?:
A. the answer to the question of whether or not the naturalist explanation of the universe is rational or irrational is rooted in the fundamental question of infinity.
B. we cannot currently comprehend infinity in a meaningful way
C. therefore we do not know whether or not the naturalist explanation of the universe is rational or irrational.

if this is your position (let me know if i got it wrong, i'm not interested in building a straw man), then certain things follow.

B1.the way that we currently understand infinity leads to logical contradictions. such as; infinity plus one equals infinity (to increase quantity but end up with an unchanged quantity)=a logical contradiction.
so
A.
B1.
C1.therefore, based on our current comprehension of infinity, the naturalist explanation of the universe is "currently" irrational. it will remain irrational until more is learned and we are better able to comprehend infinity.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unbeliever
Why not? We can say that the first instant occured some 13.7 billion years ago (the latest estimate, BTW), which is the same thing. I don't see a problem here, because each and every one of those moments existed within the universe.

I also don't see a problem with the idea that a finite number of moments have existed. During every single one of those moments the universe also existed. I just don't see any "dilemma" here at all.

an earlier quote from you
"To say that "A thing began to exist" presupposes that there was a time, prior to its existence"

i would answer, to say that something is 13.7 billion (or so) years old, is to say that its beginning was 13.7 billion years ago, therefore it does have a beginning. how is saying "the first instant occured" different from saying "a thing began to exist"

Llyricist · 05-22-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

if an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could, when would i sit down?

Well if people never actually started sitting down (i.e. they have been sitting down for an infinite time into the past) you could sit down at any time and have an infinite number of people sit down before you did.

See your basic premise in this question carries an implicit message that there is a time when people started sitting down for you to have to wait for an infinity of them to sit. infinity has to go in BOTH directions. It's a one way infinity that creates problems

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
You can say a particular thing existed, or will exist, because we have a relative point of view of that particular thing. But you cannot say the universe existed because the universe is everything, its the absolute all. There isn't anything relative to the universe to which to compare an existence or non existence with because of what the universe is by definition.

so what is it that occured approximately 15.7 billion years ago?

99Percent · 05-22-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
an earlier quote from you
"To say that "A thing began to exist" presupposes that there was a time, prior to its existence"

i would answer, to say that something is 13.7 billion (or so) years old, is to say that its beginning was 13.7 billion years ago, therefore it does have a beginning. how is saying "the first instant occured" different from saying "a thing began to exist"

Again, the problem is that you see the universe a separate entity, something that can be related to something else. The universe doesn't work that way. Its everything. So it really doesn't make sense to say "the universe began."

Since the universe is everything, the absolute all, it is self caused. The 13.7 billion years given for the universe is merely a time frame relative to the current time as it passes now. A second after the big bang is still an eternity compared to the billionth of a second after the big bang. In a trillion trillion years, a future civilization might think that 13 billion years is merely an instant, etc.

Regarding infinity, I believe it doesn't exist concretely, only in the abstract.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2003, 03:39 PM	#144
Deke Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CA, USA Posts: 42	Thomaq writes: if "x^2 = -1" (i have no idea what this is) exsists in at least one possible world (ours), then obviously it is not a logical contradiction. In simplest terms, (i)(i) = -1. The �i� stands for �imaginary�. As it turns out, this concept is actually used frequently in engineering to resolve otherwise unsolvable equations. But �i� is not real, it�s a means to an end � it is meaningless to say, �I have 10i dollars, or 5i fingers�. Similarly, God is a means to the end of resolving the paradox of the universe existing. We can say, �God created the universe� to resolve the paradox in our mind, but this doesn�t make God real. Thomaq: who ever said anything about god? You did - in your opening post when you asked how �atheists� deal with the apparent dilemma of a causal universe existing. If your question does not involve the concept of God, why call out atheists? Thomaq: in other threads, atheists often refer to theists as appealing to the "god of the gaps". it seems like you are appealing to the "paradox of the gaps". if something is irrational or down right contradictory, you seem to use the "paradox" as your "nifty resolution". I�m not appealing to anything. You asked in your original post how certain people deal with the apparent dilemma of the universe being both existent and causal. My answer was, this isn�t a dilemma to me since the question is rooted in the more fundamental question of infinity. And since we currently cannot comprehend infinity in a meaningful way, I don�t think it�s possible to comprehend a meaningful resolution to the paradox/contradiction/whatever you want to call it, of an existent and causal universe. I did however, go further and conceded that �God� is indeed a nifty resolution, but I added that this doesn�t make God real. MHO, Deke

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.