Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

Klorophyll

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.[/quote]

But there is an order relationship that is fully analogous to the causal relationship. There is no 'jumping' in time any more than there would be for an infinite real line.

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.

Wrong. I am showing how the concept is not contradictory by showing how the apparent contradiction is resolved in the model. If you want to claim that there is a contradiction, you have to show *internal to the model* what the contradiction would be.

So, yes, *in this model* there would be an infinite amount of time prior to any event. That shows there is no difficulty 'getting here' in the model. You have to show how either the model is *internally* inconsistent or how it is shown to be wrong via observation. Among other things, you cannot *ASSUME* there is a start unless you *prove* there is such.

I have NOT defined a 'new start'. In fact, the model is relevant because there is no start at all.

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?

No, that would not be a valid objection. The obvious conclusion to an infinitely long childhood is that you had never been born. No contradiction, although given the finite lifetime of humans, I would doubt your veracity. There is no such limitation on the universe.

Similary, the universe/multiverse had to go through the purported infinite past -impossible.

Again, there would be nothing inherently contradictory to an infinite childhood *if* you were never born. The issue is NOT 'getting to adulthood'.

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.

NO, I am showing how *in that model* your objection fails. You have to show how *in that model* there is a contradiction. That is simple, classical, logic.

And the second you decide to pick your starting moment, you shifted from the real to the imaginary.

I didn't pick a starting point. That was the essential aspect of this model: THERE IS NO STARTING POINT.

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.

The statement 'there is a black swan' is *tested* by observation of many swans. if there is a representative sample of swans, then it is *reasonable* to conclude there are no such *until* one is observed. That is precisely how science works.

By the way, I have seen black swans. They were in the local zoo when I grew up.

if you want to be technical, there is no evidence of Thor. But more so, there is no way to test the existence *even in theory*. And *that* is what is most relevant. By being a statement that cannot be tested even in theory, it can have no valid truth value.

---