RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 3, 2021 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: October 3, 2021 at 5:47 pm by R00tKiT.)
(October 3, 2021 at 4:29 pm)polymath257 Wrote: What 'wait'? From when to when?
Once again, you make a claim that is irrelevant to the point. An infinite amount of time has *already* happened at any point of time. So there is no waiting that needs to be done.
Think of the negative integers. There are infinitely many numbers before 0, but yet 0 certainly appears. And yes, the collection of numbers before 0 is an *actual* infinity.
Again, integers or numbers in general are absolutely not a valid analogy. There is no causal chain or temporal relationship between 1 and 2, 9 and 10, etc. They are imaginary constructs. The arrow of time, on the other hand, is not an imaginary construct, we can't jump between moments in time as we please, we have to go through Monday to get to Tuesday.
Above, you are simply begging the question, you assume that an infinite amount of time happened and then happily define a new start for yourself. Well, the entire discussion is about the logically impossible occurence of this infinite amount of time. If you assume that infinite past happened and then say no waiting is needed, you assumed your conclusion. Circular.
If I tell you I had an infinitely long childhood? Would you accept such a claim? Or would you simply retort: how did I get to adulthood, then?
Similary, the universe/multiverse had to go through the purported infinite past -impossible.
(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: EXACTLY. There is no start. it has always been running At any point of time you pick there has *already been an infinite amount of time that has passed*. No starting point is needed! There is no 'infinite wait' because an infinite past already occurred.
Any negative number you pick already has an infinite number of precursors. There is no start. And *that* is the point: there is no start, But that doesn't mean the system can't exist at all. And, in fact, the negative integers show that there is no *logical* contradiction involved.
As above, your statements about infinite wait are circular because you assume an infinite past already occurred. The contention is precisely that it cannot occur, you can't just brazenly assume its occurence.
And the second you decide to pick your starting moment, you shifted from the real to the imaginary.
(October 3, 2021 at 4:34 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Why is that? It seems to me that it can be applied to pretty much any hypothesis.
For example, mathematics is not an empirical endeavor. But testability and falsifiability is a part of it: the goal is to prove things from a recognized set of axioms. if the rules of deduction are violate, the claim (of a proof) is invalidated and the problem remains open.
In order to be a 'truth claim' at all requires that there be some collection of principles that allow one to discard falsehoods. That in and of itself is a form of testability. So, if I say that Thor exists, is there a way to show that wrong if, in fact, it is wrong? if not, then it can't even be said to have a truth value at all.
I don't think falsifiability can be extended to mathematics. Falsifiability in inherently linked to experiments, and there is no experiment in mathematics.
The assertion "Thor exists" is unfalsifiable, but unfalsifiable doesn't imply false, the best thing we can do is to be fair to Thor, and suspend judgement. There are many unfalsifiable assertions that turned out to be true, if one tells you that there is a black swan in a time when all known historical records of swans reported they are white, it's clear that the statement "There is a black swan" can't be falsified. You can't derive an experiment that rules out the existence of black swans,, and yet it turned out they are real.
(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Incorrect. The vast majority of people who believe in gods do so because their parents believed in gods.
That's not true I think. Believing in God comes naturally to many people, and it doesn't have anything to do with their parents' beliefs.
Children display a bias for teleological explanations:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296364/
(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If you want to assert that god guides evolution in any way... you can just point out the place where god touches the genetics.
Why? Why should I point out precisely where or how God intervened? You surely would agree that a deity can create a self sufficient world where genetics take care of things...
(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: and, if you want to insist on the appearance of this or that...that's fine too..but you'll have to do without the notion that the god hypothesis is not an empirically testable claim.
Now you're absolutely mistaken about this one. God (as in traditional belief systems) has purportedly rare direct manifestations in the material world, and may do so exclusively through miracles. Miracles are rarely occuring events by definition. An empirically testable claim has to be about repeatable, even reproducible phenomena. A divine miracle is not repeatable nor reproducible.
And because of that, the god hypothesis cannot be an empirically testable claim. This is a textbook category mistake. Ah.. and a nice attempt to strawman, also.