(October 1, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote:

(October 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're not following how the argument works why don't you just ask?

?

Also, I have another question which I already asked. What do you mean when you say 'god'? I just need to know, because a lot of time people use 'god' to describe the universe as we know it, basically, and all the arguing was then for nill.

---

(October 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Of course it doesn't. Who says it does?

The OP says:
"If actual, discrete infinites can exist in our world, then our universe can exist eternally, and does not need God to create it."

The key issue with the argument is not a proof or disproof of God's existence, but to use a method of abductive reasoning called "inference to the best explanation". The reason we make this appeal is because any answer to the question of the origin of the universe will have to be metaphysical, or at least transcend physical-reductionist explanations (I'll go into detail if you want to know why). The problem with available hypotheses here is that given everything we know, the evidence is underdeterminative, so the best we can do right now is infer to the best explanation.

Now given any physical-reductionist hypothesis we face a bunch of problems (too much to talk about here). What we can do, however is raise the probability of a non-theistic explanation that much higher in one single step: by demonstrating that actual infinities can occur in the physical world.

I know the title said "Disprove God", but the argument would do so only indirectly- by rendering a theistic explanation that much less probable compared to before. What the argument does do, directly, is increase the plausibility of a non-theistic hypothesis.

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One of the problems with believing that atheism is true is that we have no remotely plausible account of our universe.

One possibile way that avoids metaphysical problems involves the use of infinites.

If actual, discrete infinites can exist in our world, then our universe can exist eternally, and does not need God to create it.

That's the gist of the argument. But to develop this further, I need someone who is familiar enough in transfinite arithmetic and set theory to help me with a few issues first. If you're one of them, hit me up.

Obviously, you have been influenced by William Craig Lane's Kalam argument
that infinite regress is impossible thus creating a need for God to explain things.
For math involving infinity look up George Cantor.

Lane is wrong

Consider this, God creates heaven an hell, where souls for eternity suffer or live in eternal bliss. An experience of bliss or torment is a real thing. There can be an eternal series of real things, which Lanes claims is impossible.

God is supposedly eternal and omniscient and created the Universe. Being omniscient God would know before creation that he would create a Universe
at a given time. "In one year I will create". "In a thousand years I will create."
"In a billion years I will create." So we have an infinite chain of real things, God's knowledge of future creation of the Universe.

Contra Lane, infinite series of real things can and do exist, if his religion is to be taken seriously.

Lane claims an infinite series cannot exist because we cannot by addition get to infinity. But we are not adding or counting. We are not "traversing infinity" as Lane puts it. In an infinite series of events in time, any two events are in fact a finite distance in time apart from each other. So its not a problem.

These sort of Kalam inspired problems are pseudo problems.

Cheerful Charlie

---

(September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: All I've said is "The best, most effective non-theistic explanation of the universe would involve a metaphysical argument about infinity."

But since infinity is a mathematical concept, I want to run my intuitions by someone familiar with set theory and/or transfinite arithmetic.

If so, start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Canto...org_Cantor

You will have to put forth effort to understand the math and it won't be something you can do on a lazy weekend day. Note here Cantor himself thought about how infinities impinged on religion and philosophy.

And google for how some have argued Cantor's "diagonal method" disproves the possibility of an omniscient God.

None of this is really that new, but you won't get the full facts on a forum like this.
Forums really aren't good mediums for these sort of complex subjects.

Well we do know what started the universe.

David Lister started it with the jump leads from green midget.

Makes as much sense as "god" doing it.

(October 9, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One of the problems with believing that atheism is true is that we have no remotely plausible account of our universe.

One possibile way that avoids metaphysical problems involves the use of infinites.

If actual, discrete infinites can exist in our world, then our universe can exist eternally, and does not need God to create it.

That's the gist of the argument. But to develop this further, I need someone who is familiar enough in transfinite arithmetic and set theory to help me with a few issues first. If you're one of them, hit me up.

Obviously, you have been influenced by William Craig Lane's Kalam argument
that infinite regress is impossible thus creating a need for God to explain things.
For math involving infinity look up George Cantor.

Lane is wrong

Consider this, God creates heaven an hell, where souls for eternity suffer or live in eternal bliss. An experience of bliss or torment is a real thing. There can be an eternal series of real things, which Lanes claims is impossible.

God is supposedly eternal and omniscient and created the Universe. Being omniscient God would know before creation that he would create a Universe
at a given time. "In one year I will create". "In a thousand years I will create."
"In a billion years I will create." So we have an infinite chain of real things, God's knowledge of future creation of the Universe.

Contra Lane, infinite series of real things can and do exist, if his religion is to be taken seriously.

Lane claims an infinite series cannot exist because we cannot by addition get to infinity. But we are not adding or counting. We are not "traversing infinity" as Lane puts it. In an infinite series of events in time, any two events are in fact a finite distance in time apart from each other. So its not a problem.

These sort of Kalam inspired problems are pseudo problems.

Cheerful Charlie

---

(September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: All I've said is "The best, most effective non-theistic explanation of the universe would involve a metaphysical argument about infinity."

But since infinity is a mathematical concept, I want to run my intuitions by someone familiar with set theory and/or transfinite arithmetic.

If so, start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Canto...org_Cantor

You will have to put forth effort to understand the math and it won't be something you can do on a lazy weekend day. Note here Cantor himself thought about how infinities impinged on religion and philosophy.

And google for how some have argued Cantor's "diagonal method" disproves the possibility of an omniscient God.

None of this is really that new, but you won't get the full facts on a forum like this.
Forums really aren't good mediums for these sort of complex subjects.

I'm familiar with Craig's Kalam argument, but the idea that an infinite regress is impossible goes back thousands of years to Aristotle, almost 400 years before Christianity. To think it's Craig's idea is just nonsense.

But even if there is a hypothetical state (Heaven, Hell, a coffee-date with apophenia) that lasts eternally long, this is not an infinite and Cantor's set theory helps explain why. In set-theory the smallest infinite set is aleph-zero and contains infinite members. Ie, an actual infinite.

Meanwhile, what you are describing with an eternal state is not an actually infinite collection of events. It is better represented with a lemniscate. But in such a scenario, at any particular moment, only a finite number of events pass, and this is because we start counting from zero, and any particular point is a finite distance from zero.

So I'm not sure any of these objections go through from a mathematical perspective. But I'm sure there can be others.

Thanks for bringing up some meaningful discussion on this subject, though. Let me know if my responses make sense.

(October 9, 2013 at 5:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm familiar with Craig's Kalam argument, but the idea that an infinite regress is impossible goes back thousands of years to Aristotle, almost 400 years before Christianity. To think it's Craig's idea is just nonsense.

But even if there is a hypothetical state (Heaven, Hell, a coffee-date with apophenia) that lasts eternally long, this is not an infinite and Cantor's set theory helps explain why. In set-theory the smallest infinite set is aleph-zero and contains infinite members. Ie, an actual infinite.

Meanwhile, what you are describing with an eternal state is not an actually infinite collection of events. It is better represented with a lemniscate. But in such a scenario, at any particular moment, only a finite number of events pass, and this is because we start counting from zero, and any particular point is a finite distance from zero.

So I'm not sure any of these objections go through from a mathematical perspective. But I'm sure there can be others.

Thanks for bringing up some meaningful discussion on this subject, though. Let me know if my responses make sense.

No. God is described as existing eternally, and creating hell and heaven that will last eternally. That is, in eternity there are infinite things, souls experiencing states of consciousness, acts of torture or bliss. These are very real things. My having suffered a painful burn on a hot stove a year ago was a real thing. That it has healed and no longer hurts is also a real thing. My mortal life is limited, and such actions are limited in number. In an eternal afterlife, such actions are infinite in number.

God's infinity in time means he has infinite thoughts, actions, things. Real things.
Knowledge from all eternity when he would create the world and hell. And knowledge of the resulting infinite future acts of torment in hell.

Our real existence in a natural world is exceeding short and limited in comparison to our supposed existence in an infinite supernatural world to come.
Try rhetorically to tie Cantorian math only to a natural world will never do.

And the theological reasoning that attempts such a ploy is simply wrong.
Lane's apologism is false. And Aristotle certainly was dead wrong about a lot of things.

.

Hi Charlie,

God's existence prior to creation is described, at least by William Lane Craig, as "timeless", not "eternal". This is akin to being a moment frozen in time.

You make a good point in that hell and heaven are supposed to be "infinite", but there are two different mathematical uses of the word. The metaphysically plausible one (denoted by a lemniscate) would apply to heaven and hell, or even the eternal future, if you don't like such religious analogies.

The other kind of infinite is a completed set of infinite members, denoted by an alpha-null. This is what a past-infinite represents.

^and how would you express an infinite future in an explicit way? By using an alpha-null or...?

They're one and the same. Infinite = infinite.

(October 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ^and how would you express an infinite future in an explicit way? By using an alpha-null or...?

They're one and the same. Infinite = infinite.

By using ∞, not .

An infinite future is by definition always going to be an incomplete set.

So no, they are not one and the same. Do you think before you post?

(October 30, 2013 at 9:49 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ^and how would you express an infinite future in an explicit way? By using an alpha-null or...?

They're one and the same. Infinite = infinite.

By using ∞, not .

An infinite future is by definition always going to be an incomplete set.

Please elaborate.

Quote:So no, they are not one and the same. Do you think before you post?

I'm brave enough to question what I perceive as wrong, and humble enough to concede I don't know it all.

(October 30, 2013 at 9:23 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The other kind of infinite is a completed set of infinite members, denoted by an alpha-null. This is what a past-infinite represents.

That's Aleph-null or Aleph-naught, you moronic twit. It's always amusing watching some douche bag ramble on, pretending to know what he's talking about with respect to something which he doesn't know the fuck about.


Thanks Vinny, you're a bundle of yuks. Keep it coming, I'm running out of tequila.