Request: Math expert to prove God doesn't exist.

[StuW]

On a side note, there's a good book by Rudy Rucker, an american mathematician and computer scientist that tries to explain infinity and aleph-n to the layman in the form of OOBE's and pot smoking.. so something for everyone on the forum The book is called White Light (mobi's available on request )

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

By using ∞, not .

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

Please elaborate.

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.

You're right. I shouldn't be mean.

The difference between the two is that one is a complete set and the other is incomplete.

For example, if we have an infinite future from now to the infinite future, we will never actually get to the infinite future. It will be a limit toward which we will move closer, but never arrive at. This is what the lemniscate refers to. To think of it practically, at any moment in time that you choose between now and the infinite future, only a finite amount of time has passed.

This will never be a true infinite, no matter how much actual time passes, so you never actually get to infinity.

On the other hand, a completed set of infinity is a collection that is meant to be actually infinite, ie, a completed set of infinite objects.

[Mothonis]

Well then, oh enlightened one, do point out where you asked us to prove atheism.


Suffice to say, no, I have not looked into it. Does that make your asshole tingle?

I didn't you dipshit.

Ask a grown up to read you the OP.

Swearing, how very christian or whatever bullshit,of you. Your also a coward because you still wont tell anyone what you believe.

[CapnAwesome]

and for your next trick can you use math to prove bigfoot isn't real?

[feeling]

One of the problems with believing that atheism is true...

With asinine openers like this, the rest of your thread is no doubt a waste of breath.

Idiot.

[Belac Enrobso]

Chemists are physicists, physicists are mathematicians, and mathematicians are gods. Biologists however, are just biologists.
Haterz gonna hate.

[Angrboda]

Uh.....

[houseofcantor]

You're funny.

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

So! No, doesn't follow, and, what's a "god?"

Suppose you have a sphere, where the south pole is defined as singularity. Now picture time moving forward, and particles propagating from singularity outwards along the surface of the sphere. We stand south of the equator observing the physical universe. Now imagine the north pole being a single photon in a universe where every single photon is beyond the light horizon of every other photon. Spin the sphere to reverse the poles and repeat - ad infinitum. Which is my take on Penrose's cyclic universe, a model I like to think of when I think of these things.

Which makes god a universe where every single photon is beyond the light horizon of every other photon, is that what you mean?

There's all kinds of problems, here, the most basic being, well, being human. We are evolved to simulate future and process entropy as linear time - these things may not be real. Accurately describing the canvas on which the universe is painted may be equivalent to the tree-climbing fish-thing.

BBT is a model, it is not an event that has antecedents, it is a causal reversal of thermodynamical processes. To speculate on what happened before or what caused it is similar to me asking you what you had for breakfast on May 13, 1762. Such is beyond your chain of causality, and chains of causality are how we derive such models.

[Whateverist]

One of the problems with believing that atheism is true is that we have no remotely plausible account of our universe.

If this is all he has to motivate our concern, he has nothing.

The other big problem with this is the wrongheadedness of the "believing atheism is true" phrasing. What he is dodging is the use of the phrase "unless we believe in god ..". As if postulating a magic genie could possibly amount to a 'plausible' account of the universe.

A Vinny, you work so hard to amuse us. You're like our very own fool.


Edited to point out the thoroughness of Vin's construction here. Notice how he sets himself up with semi-expert status while asking for someone with even more expertise. In this way he can try to keep posters motivated to impress him. They must teach this in Apologetics 1A and in any accredited school of flim flammery.