(May 13, 2016 at 3:38 am)robvalue Wrote: There's nothing logically absurd about infinities, or infinite regress. In fact, they're incredibly simple.

It may or may not be the case that any such phenomena exists in reality. Trying to say it can't happen because you can't imagine how it can happen doesn't demonstrate anything. Asking someone else to prove it can happen doesn't demonstrate it can't happen.

I think that it comes down to the question, do we have good reasons to believe that a actual infinity or infinite regress cannot exist..... I think we do. The question then becomes is there reasons to believe that they do. If new information becomes available then this is subject to change.

[/quote]

I would say you literally can't demonstrate these things can't happen. Which is why science does not go around trying to disprove pointless unfalsifiable claims. Science doesn't need to battle religion, or any other kind of woo. Hiding behind the argument from ignorance just shows you have nothing.

I've shown my video about a hundred times now, but some people don't seem to get it. If you have no evidence, you're relying on your premises being 100% accurate and exhaustive. That is an impossible task to demonstrate, I would say. "Close enough" is not good enough. "Probably true, according to me" isn't good enough. You're simply speculating about a theoretical world in which those things are universally true, and for which no other facts interfere with the conclusion. And that's if the arguments even work, which most often they don't.

This is why science brings testing in after a hypothesis has been formed, not as part of speculative, extrapolated premises from which to draw conclusions. No one bases their belief on this bullshit. Well, I hope they don't. This is all rationalisation to make the believer feel more comfortable about beliefs they already have. And it doesn't work on non believers, because they don't need it to work, and so can examine it objectively and see the gaping problems with it.
[/quote]

You seem to be describing inductive reasoning. I would point out, as you are arguing against it, that the cosmology that has been discussed here in this thread is largely theoretical. And evolution which has been discussed, is largely inductive and relying on the premises and assumptions to be true. Even the testing in science that you reference makes assumptions, such that what was true before will be true again. That science will not all of the sudden change on them.

(May 13, 2016 at 9:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that it comes down to the question, do we have good reasons to believe that a actual infinity or infinite regress cannot exist..... I think we do.   

How -can we-?  The entire problem of infinite regress is that it's a question unanswerable by reference to reason. Tell me how you've arrived at reasons, regarding a proposition immune to reason, by reason's own standards?

(May 13, 2016 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Can a gorrilla disassemble a chevy big block?
-If there is a beginning of time, the answer must be yes
-or we wouldn't be asking the question "why is there something rather than nothing"

How did you come to that conclusion?

(May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually, my understanding is; that is part of the argument for a personal cause or one capable of intention. And if time is relational to the physical world, and not separate, then also for a non-physical cause. 

Time is inextricably relational to the physical world, you'll get no dispute from me there. I'm curious about the jump you made to a "non-physical" cause. I'm unfamiliar with the concept of non-physical. What properties make up such things?

(May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: can a non-physical entity act outside of time.

Again, please give an example of what this is and how you know it to be true.

 

(May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: the evidence points to a beginning of time

I'll agree with you again there.   

(May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Otherwise we wouldn't be asking the question "why is there something; rather than nothing".

I think this is where you and I are probably going to differ. I'm not sure that is a valid "why-type" of question. I think a lot of people get hung up on this.

(May 13, 2016 at 9:19 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 13, 2016 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Can a gorrilla disassemble a chevy big block?
-If there is a beginning of time, the answer must be yes
-or we wouldn't be asking the question "why is there something rather than nothing"

How did you come to that conclusion?

That -is- a wonderful question....isn't it.......

Quote:can a non-physical entity act outside of time.  However, if the evidence points to a beginning of time, then I think that the answer has to be yes.   Otherwise we wouldn't be asking the question "why is there something; rather than nothing".

...now I'd go even farther, and ask how you came to string those sentences together in the first place? What relationship do you think they have to each other...what is the means of inference you would use to go from any one of them, to any other?

If anyone has a chance to transition away from their religious beliefs, it is through moments exactly like this; but the catalyst for the transition is having the marbles to dissect that little alarm that goes off in your head when the dots aren't lining up. Critical thinking is a habit that needs practice, and this is as good a place as any to get in some reps!

(May 13, 2016 at 8:27 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 13, 2016 at 8:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I've never seen anyone giving a reason for this.... Usually just general hand waving, and appeal to very small things or vague references.   Thought maybe by the way you where talking, you knew something that I didn't.

It would be like me saying to you:  "Well RR, if you can't explain the mathematical equations behind special relativity to me then I don't have to believe that gravity exists."  

Kind of silly, don't you think?

Except for when I'm being Poe, and demanding that the same requirements that others put forth they hold up to as well. I don't believe that we need to understand something in order to believe it. 

I'm just asking for the reasons that this claim is being made.   Then I will compare the reasons with what others say.  I think that the principle of causality is fairly foundational to science, and that the reason for denying it is more ideological than anything.

Hate to be debbie downer, but I doubt anyone is going to transition away from their religious beliefs on account of any of this...lol.   Been here too long, know better.   

Wholeheartedly, emphatically, unconditionally agree with you on this one RR.  We don't seem to need to understand something in order to believe it. We might, however, need to understand the thing we believe to accurately communicate it to others or form a logical predicate for it's truth or existence. Hi-five?

Clearly you don't have to understand it to believe it, since no one can tell me what actually differentiates a god from a non-god.

I believe all scientific theories are probably very accurate, regardless of whether I understand them. This is because I do understand the scientific method, and I know it has been used in all cases. I can only directly believe the ones I have some understanding of though, in any meaningful way.