- 29 Mar '07 17:56Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....

1) Existence (universe, everything etc) has to logically either be finite or not finite(infinite).

2) If it is finite then logically existence must have existed "from" (term used advisedly) nothing or stop existing at some point (become nothing) or both.

3) If not finite then existence must be infinite and possibly without beginning or end or both.

4) Logic dictates that we are forced to consider 2) or 3) as highly likely because it's an either/or situation.

5) The conclusion we can logically reach from this is that existence on some level or other is uncaused in some way and not reliant on another cause.

Could both Atheists and Theists alike try and answer reasonably and objectively based on logic. - 29 Mar '07 18:11

1) The first statement is logically true. Things are either A or NotA. However you should keep in mind that this can be different for different things. e.g. The universe could be infinite in space but finite in time. Each property of any thing must be finite or infinite, but there is no reason you can't mix and match. And infinity is a tricky concept, you have to keep things like limits and asymptotes in mind. A curve can infinitely approach 7 for example.*Originally posted by knightmeister***Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....**

1) Existence (universe, everything etc) has to logically either be finite or not finite(infinite).

Could both Atheists and Theists alike try and answer reasonably and objectively based on logic. - 29 Mar '07 18:17

2) If the universe/existance is finite in*Originally posted by knightmeister***Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....**

2) If it is finite then logically existence must have existed "from" (term used advisedly) nothing or stop existing at some point (become nothing) or both.

3) If not finite then existence must be infinite and possibly without beginning or ...[text shortened]... uld both Atheists and Theists alike try and answer reasonably and objectively based on logic.*time*, then yes, it must have existed from some time to another and can have endpoints. However, I'd like to point out again that things can be infinite but give the appearence of, and for all real purposes, be finite (the function that is infinitely close to 7).

3) I agree that things not finite are generally infinite. They don't have a begining or end point, but may be "bounded" to use a high school maths term.

4) Yes it is likely any given thing is either finite or infinite in any given dimension. - 29 Mar '07 18:26

5) I don't see how you draw this conclusion from the above, however I'd agree that the existance of everything must not have a cause, as the cause would be something and therefore would be part of the everything. I'd say causing yourself to exist is logically invalid and so that something would have to be uncaused.*Originally posted by knightmeister***Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....**

5) The conclusion we can logically reach from this is that existence on some level or other is uncaused in some way and not reliant on another cause.

Could both Atheists and Theists alike try and answer reasonably and objectively based on logic.

(I'd also say that virtual particles observed with the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation are certainly 'uncaused'.) - 29 Mar '07 18:28

So what would happen if you factored in time into this question and assumed that finite / infinite refered to time. Would the argument still stand in your opinion?*Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow***1) The first statement is logically true. Things are either A or NotA. However you should keep in mind that this can be different for different things. e.g. The universe could be infinite in space but finite in time. Each property of any thing must be finite or infinite, but there is no reason you can't mix and match. And infinity is a tricky conc ...[text shortened]... keep things like limits and asymptotes in mind. A curve can infinitely approach 7 for example.** - 29 Mar '07 18:30

I'd agree that the existance of everything must not have a cause, as the cause would be something and therefore would be part of the everything.UMBRAGE*Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow***5) I don't see how you draw this conclusion from the above, however I'd agree that the existance of everything must not have a cause, as the cause would be something and therefore would be part of the everything. I'd say causing yourself to exist is logically invalid and so that something would have to be uncaused.**

(I'd also say that virtual particles observed with the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation are certainly 'uncaused'.)

This is basically what I am saying in 5) , that at a fundamental level existence must be uncaused logically. - 29 Mar '07 18:33 / 1 editI think I basically agree with everything you said, I just needed to clarify a few things so my agreement can't be taken to mean things I do not agree with, I at least hope I acomplished that, but time will tell. And seriously keep asymptotes in mind when talking about infinity.
- 29 Mar '07 19:40

My asymptotes are kept in check with some cream I have , I can recomend it.*Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow***I think I basically agree with everything you said, I just needed to clarify a few things so my agreement can't be taken to mean things I do not agree with, I at least hope I acomplished that, but time will tell. And seriously keep asymptotes in mind when talking about infinity.** - 29 Mar '07 21:02

Sorry, but that argument is a complete and utter mess. Your terms are not clearly defined; I fail to understand the intended propositional content of some of your premises; and I fail to see how the argument is even logically valid -- that is, I fail to see how your conclusion follows logically from your premises. These are all just minimal considerations for my taking a proposed argument seriously.*Originally posted by knightmeister***Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....**

1) Existence (universe, everything etc) has to logically either be finite or not finite(infinite).

2) If it is finite then logically existence must have existed "from" (term used advisedly) nothing or stop existing at some point (become n ...[text shortened]... uld both Atheists and Theists alike try and answer reasonably and objectively based on logic. - 29 Mar '07 21:09

Thanks for giving it a chance! Blimey mate , I was just trying to keep it simple really. It wasn't intended to be a precise mathematical thesis. It might have been nice if you could have offered some specific constructive suggestions like Umbrage did instead of your negative tirade. Could you re-word any of them (in under 3,000 words please)?*Originally posted by LemonJello***Sorry, but that argument is a complete and utter mess. Your terms are not clearly defined; I fail to understand the intended propositional content of some of your premises; and I fail to see how the argument is even logically valid -- that is, I fail to see how your conclusion follows logically from your premises. These are all just minimal considerations for my taking a proposed argument seriously.** - 29 Mar '07 21:10

Clearly defining your terms would be a good starting point.*Originally posted by knightmeister***Thanks for giving it a chance! Blimey mate , I was just trying to keep it simple really. It wasn't intended to be a precise mathematical thesis. It might have been nice if you could have offered some specific constructive suggestions like Umbrage did instead of your negative tirade. Could you re-word any of them (in under 3,000 words please)?** - 29 Mar '07 21:13 / 1 edit

Ok let's say finite equals finite amount of time , if you like . Existence = everything that exists (I think I said this) . Infinite means a non-bounded or amount of time with no beginning or end. Anything else?*Originally posted by LemonJello***Clearly defining your terms would be a good starting point.** - 29 Mar '07 21:23

Knightmeister seems to have in mind something along the lines of Aristotle's unmoved mover.*Originally posted by LemonJello***Clearly defining your terms would be a good starting point.**

Is that so, knightmeister? Here's a link for you to check:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm