/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3638641]

God, defined as the creator of the universe, does not exist. I'm going to show you how the universe came to be:

Universe has to have a beginning because it could not have existed infinitely in the past because an infinite past would make a present impossible. If it existed for 2 hours then it would have to wait two hours for it to exist in the present, if it existed for 2 billion years then it would have to wait 2 billion years for it to exist in the present. If it existed forever then it would have to wait forever for it to exist in the present, meaning that it would never actually exist in the present.

So nothing can have existed forever because it'd have to wait forever to exist in the present from its beginning meaning it would never actually exist in the present. Not god, nor the universe.

So if god couldn't have existed forever, then he must've been created. However, whatever created him couldn't have existed forever either, and must have also of been created. BUT, what ever created the creator of god must have ALSO been created because it couldn't have existed forever either. So what you end up requiring is an infinite amount of creators. However, if you had an infinite amount of creators to create god you would never actually get to create god because you'd always be creating yet another creator. Infinite regress.

How have I done?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638658]

nah.

the universe could exist forever, and any any single point in time, it is still 'the present'
saying 'oh, it's not possible to have reached this moment in time because we'd have been waiting forever' doesn't really work when you could say that at any time.

[cy No.3638656]

Congrats.
Now use some physics.

[Anonymous No.3638674]

God operates beyond human comprehension

[Anonymous No.3638677]

>>3638641
reverse universe theory shows how stupid your idea is.

[Anonymous No.3638679]

Pretty lame OP. Before the Big Bang theory (ironically for your purposes, developed by a Catholic clergyman) physicists actually preferred an infinitely old Universe. The status quo hated the Big Bang when it first came out because it provided an instant of Creation for God.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638689]

>>3638674
>i dunno
FTFY

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638695]

If God doesn't exist then why did Jesus die for our sins?

Christians: 1
Atheists: -9000

[Anonymous No.3638698]

>>3638674

stop making claims about the unknowable

[Anonymous No.3638710]

>>3638679
>>3638658
Let me say it in other words.

It's impossible for anything to have existed forever. The reason for this is because the present couldn't exist if the past was infinite. If the past was infinite you'd have to wait an infinite time to reach the present. Why don't you get this? If you wait an infinite amount of time to reach the present you'll never reach it.

I'm serious, what is your disagreement with this?

>>3638674
There are no limits of comprehension for this particular line of reasoning. It isn't like math where I'm adding numbers too big to calculate.

[Anonymous No.3638713]

>>3638695

It's quite simple, my little chickadee. Because John bribed Pilate and faked his death to get him out of trouble with the Jews. And your 'Testimony of the Martyrs' is out the window... because as you SHOULD know... John died of old age.

[Anonymous No.3638723]

>>3638641
Deities cannot exist (or don't deserve their name) because the definitions we give to them are inconsistent (such as being able to defy math or logic).

If you want a decent ontology that can explain why you exist, why you are conscious and doesn't require non-sense, take a look at these:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011122
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5434
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_Monism

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/Permutation.html

http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1zt/the_mathematical_universe_the_map_that_is_the/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/qr/timeless_causality/

If you're too lazy to read all the papers in detail, at least read the book ( http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html ).
The idea is quite simple, it only requires that abstract relations between abstract objects (such as numbers) continue to hold, and this is quite easy to show as long as you accept that the Church-turing thesis.

[Anonymous No.3638725]

>Universe has to have a beginning because it could not have existed infinitely in the past because an infinite past would make a present impossible
Assumptions, assumptions everywhere.

How about, the universe started 2 days ago, in the state as if it had been running for billions and billions of years? Bitches never heard of savestates.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638726]

>>3638710
>you wait
but you don't live forever.
an infinite amount of time passes, you are born, a finite amount of time passes, you are in the present. a finite amount of time passes, you die. and then there is an infinite aount of time still ahead.

tl;dr, you can still have a meaningful concept of 'the present' even with an infinite time period for the universe.

[Anonymous No.3638727]

*Church-turing thesis holds

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638728]

>>3638713

If God doesn't exist then where did the Bible come from??

Christians: 500000
Atheists: 0

[Anonymous No.3638759]

>>3638728
Bible is not written by a prophet nor dictated by a prophet; thus it is not God's word, thus it is not reliable for divine subjects.

Christians: 0
Agnostics: complex-infinity

[Anonymous No.3638762]

>>3638726
>an infinite amount of time passes, you are born

You can't be born after an infinite amount of time. How is that not blatantly obvious to you? Seriously. Think. An infinite amount of time never finishes. Infinite means without end, forever, never ending.

[Anonymous No.3638771]

so then the universe doesnt exist since there was no creator you tard.

[Anonymous No.3638772]

>>3638762
Imagine a line. And imagine a point on that line. You are actually saying that the point can not exist because there are infinite points before it. How does that make sense to you?

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638780]

>>3638759

If there is no God then why are there a billion Christians?
Christians: 794994839824389
Atheists: -0

[Anonymous No.3638787]

>>3638780
hey, you're from /tv/ right?
Stop posting with Emma Stone pics, you confuse the hell out of me. (Because I do that already, but I don't participate in troll threads.)

[Anonymous No.3638788]

>>3638780
If there is a God then why are there Atheists?
Theism: 0
Agnostics: complex-infinity

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638790]

>>3638772
elegantly put. thanks.

[Anonymous No.3638798]

>>3638772
Actually not everyone thinks the Axiom of Choice is intuitive.
Personally I have no problem with time being infinite in past, but I favor theories which have low-complexity initial states.

[Anonymous No.3638799]

>>3638790
No problem friend.
Always helping bust someone's argument.

[Anonymous No.3638803]

What if the Universe is cyclical? i.e. after googolplex years or whatever the same exact state is again reached. While it is possible there exist initial states which can evolve into such a cyclical system, you wouldn't be able to prove the system ever actually originated from one of them.

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638802]

>>3638787

Yeah, I post mostly on /tv/. :3

It messes with me as well, I think I posted somewhere I didn't.

>>3638788

If God doesn't exist then why do people go to Heaven?

Atheists: 0
Christians: 10^10

[Anonymous No.3638808]

>>3638772
What I'm stating is that something cannot be done after waiting an infinite amount of time to do it. As for the line analogy...

You can't make a point after making an infinite amount of points, simply because you'd never be done making an infinite amount of points.

I don't know how to show you how completely oblivious to the obvious you're being right now.

[Anonymous No.3638809]

The preposition that mankind would be able to perceive God without directly being aware of his existence is untenable, because mankind can only perceive what it senses, and it can only sense what is physically tangible, either through touch, sight or smell.

[Anonymous No.3638817]

Time is a human notion. It is not applicable to the universe's creation. We have time because we can count one-mississippi, two-mississippi, outside of human perceptions it is meaningless. Understand that you will never understand infinity so long as you're alive.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638829]

>>3638808
yes but you are talking about trying to wait an infinite amount of time, which isn't possible obviously. time is only meaningful with reference to other points in time - 'before this, after that', etc.
it doesn't mean that time cant be infinite, it just means you cant have a reference point an infinite amount of time back to be waiting from.

[Anonymous No.3638834]

>>3638802
First there is no evidence for any Heaven.
Second I could construct you a 'Heaven' without any deities in there, merely by using an absolutely "godless" ontology as shown in >>3638723. I could also guarantee you this 'Heaven' will be countless times better and more concrete than anything promised in your holy book, also no sustainable 'Hell' (you have to be a pretty sick being to invent something like that).

Atheists: 0
Agnostics: 0
Christians: 0
Atheists and Agnostics 0 because they have nothing to do with a belief in an "afterlife" (someone can be an atheist and still hold such a belief if they can find a consistent belief that supports it, although neither could actually be certain about anything without evidence, which is fine). Christians also 0 because they made a bet which is wrong and not even attractive at that.

[Anonymous No.3638840]

What if you consider that...... the Big Bang doesn't need a cause?

[Anonymous No.3638842]

>>3638808
Guess you better tell Newton and Leibniz that calculus is broken then.

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638865]

>>3638834

If there is no God then why do turtles exist

Christians: infinity
Atheists: HELL

[Anonymous No.3638878]

>>3638641

Op i will break it for you.

Infinite time means it has no beginning nor end. Like a circle thats how time goes, in a circle forever with no beginning and no end. The circle has no beginning nor end but still the circle has it's exact lenght.

pic related the circle

[Anonymous No.3638889]

>>3638865
> if <statement> then <unrelated statement>
Nice failure of logic. Enjoy being wrong, while thinking you're right.

[Anonymous No.3638886]

>>3638865
hmm i never considered it that way

i think i've seen the light

i'll be at my local church tomorrow

[Anonymous No.3638882]

>>3638817
Time being defined as things having sequence. Such as this happening before that and this other thing happening after that is something that all events are subjected to. Events either happen before, at the same time, or after other events. There is nothing exclusively human about that fact.

>>3638829
Ok I think we are getting a little incoherent/irrelevant here. My main point is that 'nothing could have existed forever' because if it existed infinitely in the past an infinite amount of time would have to pass for the present to occur. It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to finish. What is your disagreement with this, if any?

[Anonymous No.3638896]

>>3638772
>>3638790

You guys are morons with low IQ.
Ofcourse the point exists, but if u traveled along that line would you ever reach that point if the lines lenght is infinite?

[Anonymous No.3638900]

>>3638641
>begins sentence with axiom
>assumes axioms can be proven

...

>2011

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3638902]

>>3638882
well i agree that no single tangible thing can exist forever, but vague concepts like 'time' and 'the universe' perhaps can.

[Anonymous No.3638904]

>>3638882
>
Ok I think we are getting a little incoherent/irrelevant here. My main point is that 'nothing could have existed forever' because if it existed infinitely in the past an infinite amount of time would have to pass for the present to occur. It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to finish. What is your disagreement with this, if any?

that makes sense. It's like saying 0. ...0001 is an actual number

[Anonymous No.3638907]

>>3638878
Everything has sequence. It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE, for something to happen neither after, at the same time, or before something else. Everything that happens either happens after, at the same time, or before any other thing which happens.

That which happened at the same time or before everything else is the beginning.

It is impossible for time not to have a beginning. Anything that happens happens in relation to happening before, at the same time, or after other things that happen.

[Anonymous No.3638951]

>>3638907

>It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE, for something to happen neither after, at the same time, or before something else

pick any point on the circle, it satisfies your claim. It satisfies your claim in every point on it. And yet it has no beginning.

My point is

beginning(whatever that is) -------> end -----------> beginning---------> end

[EmmaStone !Rpe.QNO8Rg No.3638953]

>>3638886
>>3638889

>Use half a dozen obvious troll posts
>People take you seriously

Stay classy, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3638960]

>>3638907
Actually Einstein's theory of relativity states that progression of time isn't constant. So while two things might appear to happen at the same instant in one frame of reference, they may not in another frame. Of course, causality can't be violated, but time isn't as inflexible as you seem to think.

[Anonymous No.3638961]

>>3638902
Time is merely sequence. The word we use for the fact that things happen before, simultaneously, or after other things which happen.

The universe on the other hand, is merely the sum of all things. The universe is only that which comprises it, everything is part of the universe and nothing is not part of it.

Nothing, absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G can exist forever. Let me re-explain in slightlhy different words why:

If something existed forever an infinite amount of time would have to pass for it to exist in the present yet it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass because an infinite amount of time never ends!

[Anonymous No.3638970]

>>3638953
> admitting to trolling

[Anonymous No.3638984]

It's a common theory that time itself was also created with the big bang. Anything prior would have existed in a state without time, be that the cause of the big bang, a diety, etc. Without time, there is no cause and effect relationship and laws of physics don't apply.

[Anonymous No.3638994]

>Universe has to have a beginning because it could not have existed infinitely in the past because an infinite past would make a present impossible

Wrong.

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

[Anonymous No.3638992]

>>3638961

unless it went in a circle, that way it could last for a certain amount and then go on repeat, and that forever

[Anonymous No.3638997]

>>3638951
My point is this: >>3638961

What's your disagreement, if any?

[Anonymous No.3639002]

>>3638984
I'd rather liken it to this, you have a function, f:N->U
Someone then asks you what is f(-1), f(2.5), f(pi), f(cake). This is obvious non-sense as the function is not defined on that interval.

[Anonymous No.3639034]

>>3638994
>• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.

What does that have to do with my point?

• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

You're making the claim that time has no beginning yet you do nothing to prove it. Time, defined as the sequence of things, such as things happening before, simultaneously, or after other things, has a beginning in the sense that there was a thing or things that happened before everything else.

This is necessarily true because if there are are infinitely many things happening before this thing of me typing this reply to you, then I would never get to type this reply to you because an infinite sequence of things would have to happen before I did this thing of typing this reply to you and it's impossible for something (such as me typing this reply) to happen after an infinite amount of other things happening because more than an infinite amount of things would have to happen and more than an infinite amount of things can't happen because there is nothing greater than or more than an infinite amount of things.

>• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.

What does that have to do with my point?

>• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

What does that have to do with my point?

[Anonymous No.3639039]

>>3638997
>>3638997

time will never stop to exist

[Anonymous No.3639045]

>>3638951
Assuming the universe never collapses on itself, yes, but there's never going to be a point in the future where there has been "an infinite amount of time before it," as you're always able to reference to the big bang

[Anonymous No.3639051]

This board actually has a high female population, just incognito.

My reasoning? Men aren't little bitches. Everywhere I look someone is complaining about some EXISTENTIAL VIEW ON LIFE that doesn't agree with their particular taste, or decent threads that get imagesacked by some faggot who is being an elitest asshole. Men actually have some sense of honor and respect, where as women just simply want to have fun. If they're not having fun, they'll become the biggest bitches in the world, wherein you can heavily relate them to anyone on this board. If you've ever been in a semi-longterm relationship you would know what I'm talking about.

So yes, this board is populated mainly in women. But why do they guise themselves as men? Because they think they're being clever; they can bond with the guys without getting told 'tits or gtfo'. When in fact what they're -actually- doing is tricking -other- women into thinking their men. All that's going on here is women pretending to be men, to women pretending to be men, while the men lurk until something intellectual or respectable comes along and posts only then.

You cannot refute this deductive reasoning.
It is true, and there's nothing we can do.
This extra bit of bitchy flavor has become our current seasoning.
Understanding this may turn more than some blue.
Continue to browse with your ignorance and denial.
But go and see, for this board has become the woman's aisle.

[Anonymous No.3639054]

>>3639039
If there would be no conscious beings to judge that time 'exists', there would be no 'time'. Time is only a matter of our perception (of course, it exists as a relation between states, but the only way to know such a relation exists is to be conscious and be able to perform computation and thus understand what the relationship is).

[Anonymous No.3639062]

>>3639051

[Anonymous No.3639065]

>>3639034
>>3638994
">• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

You're making the claim that time has no beginning yet you do nothing to prove it. Time, defined as the sequence of things, such as things happening before, simultaneously, or after other things, has a beginning in the sense that there was a thing or things that happened before everything else.

This is necessarily true because if there are are infinitely many things happening before this thing of me typing this reply to you, then I would never get to type this reply to you because an infinite sequence of things would have to happen before I did this thing of typing this reply to you and it's impossible for something (such as me typing this reply) to happen after an infinite amount of other things happening because more than an infinite amount of things would have to happen and more than an infinite amount of things can't happen because....

- there is nothing greater than or more than an infinite amount of things.

- or rather, an infinite amount of things would never finish being done so I'd never get a chance to type this reply to you.

[Anonymous No.3639107]

>>3639051

go back to /fit/ troll

[Anonymous No.3639119]

OP,

You have a logical fallacy.

>If it existed forever then it would have to wait forever for it to exist in the present, meaning that it would never actually exist in the present

This statement right here has a big fallacy. From what point in time would you have to wait until it is present?

I assume you mean the "very beginning of the past", but such a thing doesn't exist if the past stretches to the infinite, so of course it'd never happen. You're starting at a point in time that does not exist, so of course it'll never reach the present. I can see where you're coming from- you're trying to turn the table around and look at the present from the origin. But if there is no origin, you cannot set your view there. After all, it doesn't exist, it just keeps going- and going- and going. You can only set your view from 2 hours point, or 2 billion years. But not- the actual infinite. That's impossible, as the numbers just keep going up the further you go.

So the universe can very well, in fact, have existed forever.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3639127]

>>3639119
that was what i was thinking, but you said it far better than i did. thanx.

[Anonymous No.3639131]

>>3639119

you have a fallacy in your brain, actually it's not a fallacy you just don't have the IQ to understand my post. SO

okay.jpg

[Anonymous No.3639152]

>>3639131

>I have no ways to refute you so I am going to call you names to insult you instead.

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.3639171]

>>3639131

Maybe your tiny brain can't comprehend my explanation that we're at one point in an infinite timeline where the past and future both stretch toward negative infinity and infinity, respectively.

I know exactly what you're trying to say. "If it existed forever, we'd have to wait forever to be here, meaning we'd NEVER be here!"

But that's assuming you start waiting at the very beginning. But that's wrong- your brain can't comprehend infinity and that there ISN'T a 'beginning' you can use to START waiting in the first place because it's INFINITY!

You're starting at a point that cannot exist. Go back to school and take your psuedo-science with you.

[Anonymous No.3639175]

>>3639119
Right now we are living in the present. The past couldn't be infinite because AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME WOULD HAVE TO PASS FOR US TO LIVE IN THE PRESENT. An infinite amount of time never finishes because an infinite amount of time has no end.

[Anonymous No.3639191]

>>3639175

>The past couldn't be infinite because AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME WOULD HAVE TO PASS FOR US TO LIVE IN THE PRESENT

STARTING FROM WHEN?
WHEN EXACTLY DO YOU START WAITING? THE VERY BEGINNING OF INFINITY? THAT DOES NOT EXIST YOU IDIOT, SEE >>3639171

[Anonymous No.3639217]

>>3639131
isn't me (The OP)

>>3639171
Ok so you currently believe that there is no point to start waiting from because the past stretches infinitely back into the past. I'll use other words to describe it then:

Either me typing this is the first thing to happen or something happened before it. If an infinite amount of things happened before it then I would never start typing this because something CANNOT be done AFTER an INFINITE amount of things are done because you'd NEVER finish doing an INFINITE amount of things because there is NO END to doing an INFINITE amount of things.

Please tell me you get it now?

[Anonymous No.3639249]

>>3639217

You keep using your same fallacy. Here, I'll point it out for you again.

>If an infinite amount of things happened before it then I would...

Before I even start- No. Stop treating infinity like a number, it's not.

Now, onto the meat of the fallacy.
> an infinite amount of things happened
When is the starting and ending points? Ending is present, obviously. But where (or when) exactly do you start counting? You're acting like there's some universal "beginning" to infinity at which you're using to start. Stop that. Use relativity instead.

[Anonymous No.3639269]

>>3639249
>>3639119

you're doing god's work

[Anonymous No.3639278]

>>3639249
>But where (or when) exactly do you start counting?

From the present. Then progressively into the past.

It's 6:22pm EST. If there is an infinite past then an infinite amount of time, starting from the present of right here now at this time (6:22pm EST), would stretch into the past. However, if an infinite amount of time truly stretched into the past from the current time, then we'd never reach the current time because an infinite amount of time would have to pass.

[Anonymous No.3639306]

>>3639051
If you think this post is anything other than a display of immature, boyish dislike for pretty girls who give them boners then you're a complete fucking idiot. Have fun never getting laid for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.3639353]

For the record, i Like pretty girls.

and i think OP just proved that the creator is a fractal being..... Whoa.

[Anonymous No.3639359]

>>3639278

Again, you're using the same fallacy over and over.
And the irony is you've already answered your own question in the OP.
Here, I'll point out your fallacy, AGAIN, and show you how you yourself solved it.

>From the present. Then progressively into the past.
Just to clarify, you're setting the present, 6:22pm EST. And the past at which you start with, the 'beginning' or the 'origin' of the infinite timeline. Notice you did not give me a number- it's because infinity is a --concept--. You're trying to give me an impossible number.
By the way, "progressively into the past", isn't a point of view.

__________
How you solved it.

you would never actually get to create god because you'd always be creating yet another creator. Infinite regress.

This is how you solved your own riddle. You create another creator before that. And another one before that. This is where you're getting it. You go from right now (6:22 EST) to 10 minutes ago. Then from 10 minutes ago to 10 billion years ago. And from there to 10 trillion years back. You can keep going and going TOWARD (negative) infinity.

What YOU'RE trying to say is, from the POV of negative infinity, the present is infinite and therefore unreachable. However. making negative infinity the POV is impossible because you cannot reach the end of (negative or positive) infinity for you to make it the POV, so your argument of the present being impossible holds no merit, as you're trying to take impossible stance.

[Anonymous No.3639380]

>>3639359
>>3639249
>>3639119

[Anonymous No.3639396]

>>3639359
I changed to the POV of the present
>>3639278
"It's 6:22pm EST. If there is an infinite past then an infinite amount of time, STARTING from the present of right here now at this time (6:22pm EST), would stretch into the past."

BTW do you have aim(we can talk faster there)?

If we use the present as the point of origin which it is because neither of us is living and typing in any time but the present, then we can deduce that an infinite past is impossible.

Us typing this right now at the present time would be impossible if an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME would have to pass for us to begin typing this because we'd have to keep on going back to see where it all began and we'd never reach a beginning.

IF you don't have aim go to aim.com and download it seriously this back and forth slowly is getting tiring.

PLEASE TELL ME YOU GET IT NOWWWWWWW!?

[Anonymous No.3639445]

>>3639359
Your posts are very interesting. Please, never just lurk this board.

[Anonymous No.3639465]

>>3639396
>an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME would have to pass
from the point of view of the moment of creation, which is an infinite amount of time in the past, something by your reasoning unreachable.

The only way I see you could correct your reasoning is by finding two infinite concepts of time with different cardinalities and using the smaller as your reference. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.3639470]

>>3639396

Again, you're treating infinity like a number. Stop that.

Look at this chart very closely. MUST pick a real number for your POV and at the point at which you're looking at. Know that the POV and that point can also be mirrored. You cannot do this with infinity- as your POV is similar to looking into a halloway that has no end. You cannot make the "ending" to this endless hall your new POV. You must have a real number for that.

[Anonymous No.3639483]

>>3639465
>>3639470
I'm not sure which one of you is the one i've been debating with all along but I don't see an aim screename in either of your posts.

Waiting for you to reply here is too tiring. Please get aim.

[Anonymous No.3639500]

>>3639483

check the email field.

[Anonymous No.3639515]

>>3639500
It says that your offline. This is getting annoying. Can you please just fucking get aim already. It's free of cost and easy to download.

[Anonymous No.3639523]

>>3639470
> Again, you're treating infinity like a number. Stop that.
I'm not the one you're debating, but infinity can be treated as a number: as an ordinal. There are many ordinals as well.

This however does not mean that an universe with infinite states/time cannot exist. What the other person seems to be debating is that he cannot imagine an universe without an initial state (even if it goes infinitely into the future), so he can only imagine [0,inf). There is of course no real problem with (-inf,inf) if you just stop for a second and take the 3rd person view of the universe, however I would prefer theories which have an initial state mostly for aesthetical reasons and those relating to some other beliefs (thinking digital physics of being more likely than physics involving infinitesimals and hypercomputational oracles, on the other hand if you consider your first-person view as that of all possible computations of digital universes that support you, it could allow infinite time going in both directions, although time loses its meaning without a conscious being being embedded in it - it's just a relationship between states if time if quantized or merely a differential equation representing infinitesimal changes if you prefer uncomputable universes).

[Anonymous No.3639524]

>>3639515
I do not trust AIM, it's easy to exploit other's PC's with the way the programs connect the computers.

I insist you get MSN instead if you wish to continue.

[Anonymous No.3639542]

>>3639524
[e-mail]

I 'invited' you or whatever , I requested you via msn.

[Anonymous No.3639547]

>>3639542

Give me your msn address.

[Anonymous No.3639549]

>>3639547
>>3639542
[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.3639554]

>>3639523
I should have also added to this that the problem of
> Infinite regress.
when applied to deities exists because you consider the act of creation (the act of creation of "universe", the act of creation of "deity", etc). If you just assume existence always exists, such as mathematical relations always exist as long as the same set of axioms is used. The notion of creation itself is faulty, it should be "discovery" (see: Plato's forms, although I don't necesarilly subscribe to the complete plenitude, just the arithmetical one for now (others may be included as well, but I ascribe them lower probabilities (in the bayesian sense))). This doesn't mean the concept of ``God'' isn't faulty (omnipotence being its worst problem), just that there is a problem with the other concepts you have implied in them ("creation", "time").

[Anonymous No.3639567]

You're wrong. If you look at the laws of probability, all events have a chance to occur. Even God, have a tiny chance to occur. Therefore, God could exist.

[Anonymous No.3639569]

>>3639515
Why the fuck would you be so obsessed with using a quicker method of conversation when you never evolve your argument past it's contradictions, giving you the same response over and over?

The only conceivable reason is pride, but this place is anonymous, so that would make you a massive retard.

You are still relying on using the -inf point of time as your point of view, only in the last iteration of your argument, you approach it from the present as if that was possible, only to say that you can't approach the present from -inf.

If this is correct, your argument still doesn't hold because in that case -inf is not a valid point of view since it cannot be approached.

Let me spell it out one more time so you won't cry about slow response when you ask one to repeat oneself again. If you cannot approach the present from -inf you cannot approach -inf from the present, making it an invalid POV.

[Anonymous No.3639572]

>>3639567
No. That's like saying that given enough time 0=1. It cannot ever be that as it's against the definition of arithmetic.
When you define whatever it is that you're talking about you will be able to say exactly if it can or cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.3639573]

>>3639567
Impossible things have no chance of existing.

[Anonymous No.3639594]

PrePhd math and logician here.

Infinity can't be grasped, if you think you have then you done something wrong.
Infinity is real though.
But we can't make assumptions and expect to be right.

The whole: "God exists because universe, infinity blah or God doesnt exist because universe, infinity blah" is erroneous.

But am atheist and not an agnostic.
Thats another story though.

[Anonymous No.3639610]

>>3639567
Yes a God could exist, as well as could have gone out of existence, after having existed for a while.

[Anonymous No.3639620]

>>3639567
>anything is possible, thus god
How about an anti-god, preventing any god from ever existing? But then gods could not exist, meaning your definition of the laws of probability is shit

[Anonymous No.3639628]

>>3639594
> Infinity can't be grasped, if you think you have then you done something wrong.
What does 'grasp' mean? You can only define and understand a definition.
> The whole: "God exists because universe, infinity blah or God doesnt exist because universe, infinity blah" is erroneous.
Half-agree. God is just an inconsistent concept when given too strong properties (thus does not exist as anything but a concept). When given lesser properties which are consistent, it could very well exist, but it might not be worth the title (or worship).

[Anonymous No.3640024]

>>3639567

God, as in the creator of the universe god?
If the universe had already existed forever, then there's no room for god to create it, as there was always a universe in any point in time.
If this is the case, God is impossible.