RE: Four proofs of the nonexistence of God
July 19, 2017 at 2:43 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2017 at 2:47 pm by Mister Agenda.)
Steve:
1: You can't tell the difference between an event and a physical object? Seriously? Check the definitions of the words. One difference: a physical object can be affected by physical forces, a past event can't be changed by any force. No matter what, it will always have happened.
2. What Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates is that an actual infinity of physical objects is counterintuitive. No one has come up with a logical proof that it's impossible, which is what I asked for. Counterintuitive things have turned out to actually be the case before. I think such a thing is highly improbable, but I'm not arrogant enough to state that it's flat-out impossible based on a thought experiment and my intuitions.
3. You should have preceded that with a proof that only rational things can exist. Quick: How long is a Planck Length divided by two?
3.1 Why do you bother replying if you're not going to pay attention to what I say? I clearly stated my personal opinion that there is a first cause. Your interpretation of my motivation is obviously false and it would be as reasonable of me to conclude that your motivation to misrepresent me involves dishonesty. But the law of charity prompts me to presume that your complete misunderstanding of my motivation was innocent. And my motivation is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my positions. Appealing to my motivation makes it seem like you are trying to cover up awareness that you know your position is weak. But that itself would be an appeal to motivation, irrelevant to whether you position is rationally justified or not.
In short, insinuating or stating that a person's motivation for a statement in a reasonable discussion is anything but that it's what they think is true, is poor form.
3.2 Another 'thing' that could be timeless is 'nothing'. I can't think of anything that doesn't actually exist that can't reasonably be described as timeless. Spaceless too,
1: You can't tell the difference between an event and a physical object? Seriously? Check the definitions of the words. One difference: a physical object can be affected by physical forces, a past event can't be changed by any force. No matter what, it will always have happened.
2. What Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates is that an actual infinity of physical objects is counterintuitive. No one has come up with a logical proof that it's impossible, which is what I asked for. Counterintuitive things have turned out to actually be the case before. I think such a thing is highly improbable, but I'm not arrogant enough to state that it's flat-out impossible based on a thought experiment and my intuitions.
3. You should have preceded that with a proof that only rational things can exist. Quick: How long is a Planck Length divided by two?
3.1 Why do you bother replying if you're not going to pay attention to what I say? I clearly stated my personal opinion that there is a first cause. Your interpretation of my motivation is obviously false and it would be as reasonable of me to conclude that your motivation to misrepresent me involves dishonesty. But the law of charity prompts me to presume that your complete misunderstanding of my motivation was innocent. And my motivation is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my positions. Appealing to my motivation makes it seem like you are trying to cover up awareness that you know your position is weak. But that itself would be an appeal to motivation, irrelevant to whether you position is rationally justified or not.
In short, insinuating or stating that a person's motivation for a statement in a reasonable discussion is anything but that it's what they think is true, is poor form.
3.2 Another 'thing' that could be timeless is 'nothing'. I can't think of anything that doesn't actually exist that can't reasonably be described as timeless. Spaceless too,
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
