RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 12:24 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 12:35 pm by SteveII.)
(October 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Deesse23 Wrote:(October 9, 2018 at 8:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?
So then you are confusing the term 'uncaused' with 'indeterminate'.
Quote:SteveII Wrote:If there is a God, he exists necessarily.Fixed it for you. Now what information do we actually gain from your statement?
You should look up the term--it's important to know what the word means in a philosophical sense--otherwise you do what you do and have no clue of the meaning of the two sentences I originally wrote.
(October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html
And here are my posts that you could not address because you got in way over your head:
1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them.
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.
Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects.
1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present.
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.