The existence of God

Originally posted by LemonJello
Perhaps I was not clear, but I am not disputing that you can specify two members of the extended reals that yield the result you want (say, minus-infinity and zero). Rather, my point is that in the context of the original argument, it is probably excusable on the part of the objector if he takes this to be some sort of ad hoc stipulation.

To the exten ...[text shortened]... what you mean when you say that adding a beginning defeats the original purpose of the argument.

With you now, yes twhitehead was doing exactly what you describe, which was slightly frustrating as I found myself drawn into defending an idea I'm not committed to...

I think I get the problem with the argument now. Its purpose is to show that time must have begun at some point. Although the proponent may not realise it they have assumed the extended real numbers describe time, but they cannot as they cannot rule out the real numbers doing that - the idea being to establish a contradiction along the lines of 'otherwise we can't get to now and it is now'. So by adding this point at minus infinity the proponent is insisting on a starting point and begs the question. The argument needs to rule out the normal real numbers to do what the proposer is hoping for.

Although the original form of the argument seems not to work, I'm not sure it cannot be modified so that it does. Although the time between any specific points is finite, this interval can be made arbitrarily large, so although it takes so long to get to now I can always find a prior time where it takes longer and can keep doing that ad infinitum. Problem is I can't get my head around whether that's a problem for a model of the universe that stretches back indefinitely or not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, the original claim was along the lines of "God necessarily exists because the universe had a beginning, things which begin must be caused, and without God there is no first cause.", so I'm entitled to "what if's" to knock down the certainty of the premises. On physics grounds alone eternal inflation is no more or less likely than the standard Big Bang theory.

Sure not at all suggesting you don't have the right, but think of what you are doing and why
you are doing it! Trying to find a reason to date the universe beyond what is dated to avoid
a cause really all your doing. You do not like the implication so obviously there has to be
something else.

The big bang is not a cause of everything since what (banged) in the Big Bang had to
have come from ....

Originally posted by JS357
That is a "popular" science website. It's a pretty good one, but popularizers of science speak in the vernacular of their audience. Scientists are people too and may believe lots of things that are or aren's about science, but as that site states, BB is a theory.. It's not the same kind of belief as, say, a belief based on the Bible.

A belief is not limited to the Bible it is just what we do with things we believe but cannot
prove. That said the Bible is just a part of what people go, as they do with science and
other things.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet when asked to provide evidence for this, you cannot.

[b]... and I have every right to do so until you actually do tell me what you believe.
I have done so, multiple times.

And you dodging my question about what you believe (and calling me a liar) is just building my case.
This post of yours is nothing but a dodge of yours because you don't have the balls to admit you lied.[/b]

I still think you don't know what you believe about what happened before the big bang. You saying you have no beliefs proves that. Because if you did know what you believed you would have beliefs. Claiming to have no beliefs about a topic clearly demonstrates that you actually don't know what you believe.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I still think you don't know what you believe about what happened before the big bang. You saying you have no beliefs proves that. Because if you did know what you believed you would have beliefs. Claiming to have no beliefs about a topic clearly demonstrates that you actually don't know what you believe.

You are confused. You just can't stand the fact that I don't hold a belief on the matter so you must invent a belief for me then claim I don't know that I hold that belief. Ridiculous!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Trying to find a reason to date the universe beyond what is dated to avoid a cause really all your doing. You do not like the implication so obviously there has to be something else.

I see no evidence to support that charge. He is disputing the claim that some people have made that they know that the universe had a beginning. He has not claimed to know that the universe does not have a beginning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confused. You just can't stand the fact that I don't hold a belief on the matter so you must invent a belief for me then claim I don't know that I hold that belief. Ridiculous!

In my opinion, 'lack of belief' is really an attempt to avoid facing and defending the problems in your atheistic position. If you say you have no position by saying you lack belief, then your position is not open to attack and examination; and then you can quietly remain an atheist.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In my opinion, 'lack of belief' is really an attempt to avoid facing and defending the problems in your atheistic position.

That is a ridiculous opinion.

If you say you have no position by saying you lack belief, then your position is not open to attack and examination; and then you can quietly remain an atheist.
Holding beliefs for which you have no evidence is irrational in my opinion. That you hold such beliefs and that they make you open to attack, is your own fault. That others are more rational, is what is upsetting you. But it is not a good reason to try and invent beliefs for them, nor is it a reason to blatantly lie about them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a ridiculous opinion.

[b]If you say you have no position by saying you lack belief, then your position is not open to attack and examination; and then you can quietly remain an atheist.
Holding beliefs for which you have no evidence is irrational in my opinion. That you hold such beliefs and that they make you open to attack, is your own f ...[text shortened]... good reason to try and invent beliefs for them, nor is it a reason to blatantly lie about them.[/b]

The fact that you refuse to accept evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence, it simply means you don't like where the evidence is leading and you decide to reject it. Hawking said all the evidence shows that the universe has not always existed. So in your mind is he also a liar?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The fact that you refuse to accept evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence, it simply means you don't like where the evidence is leading and you decide to reject it. Hawking said all the evidence shows that the universe has not always existed. So in your mind is he also a liar?

See my post at the bottom of page 11 for a summary of the evidence. There is no empirical evidence to distinguish between eternal inflation and the universe starting with the Big Bang. Hawking does not contradict this statement in his article.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The fact that you refuse to accept evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence, it simply means you don't like where the evidence is leading and you decide to reject it. Hawking said all the evidence shows that the universe has not always existed. So in your mind is he also a liar?

Why must I explain things to you multiple times, and then you turn round and lie about what I have said?

No, in my mind Hawking is not a liar. In my mind, you have not understood what he has said. In my mind, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Further, in my mind this post of yours is nothing short of avoidance and an attempt at distracting from the fact that you cannot handle the facts that I do not have faith and that you cannot admit that you are a liar.

When you have apologised for lying about me, then perhaps we can go into the detail of what Hawking said.

>twhithead gets blither-trolled by Fetchmyjunk<

more on this at 11

Originally posted by divegeester
>twhithead gets blither-trolled by Fetchmyjunk<

more on this at 11

🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why must I explain things to you multiple times, and then you turn round and lie about what I have said?

No, in my mind Hawking is not a liar. In my mind, you have not understood what he has said. In my mind, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Further, in my mind this post of yours is nothing short of avoidance and an attempt at distracting from t ...[text shortened]... have apologised for lying about me, then perhaps we can go into the detail of what Hawking said.

So when Hawking said "the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning" I was supposed to understand "there is no evidence that the universe had a beginning"? Talk about abysmal reading comprehension...

You say there is no evidence, Hawking says there is evidence. So one of you is lying. You just said Hawking is not a liar so that means you are the liar. That's settled then.

Originally posted by DeepThought
With you now, yes twhitehead was doing exactly what you describe, which was slightly frustrating as I found myself drawn into defending an idea I'm not committed to...

I think I get the problem with the argument now. Its purpose is to show that time must have begun at some point. Although the proponent may not realise it they have assumed the extend ...[text shortened]... nd whether that's a problem for a model of the universe that stretches back indefinitely or not.

Although the time between any specific points is finite, this interval can be made arbitrarily large, so although it takes so long to get to now I can always find a prior time where it takes longer and can keep doing that ad infinitum.

Yes. That still wouldn't suggest there is an infinite traversal required between any two specific points, but perhaps you could make some argument in the limit that suggests an infinite traversal would be required after all. But what would follow from this? Presumably, through this reasoning, one could intend to show that it is impossible to traverse from the present moment all the way back through a beginningless past. Provisionally for argument's sake, let’s suppose this line of reasoning is successful in showing that. Then, the relevant question here is this: does it then follow that it is likewise impossible to traverse the opposite direction from a beginningless past to the present moment? After all, that would seem to be the key missing premise to be able to then conclude that the past must have some beginning. Unfortunately, there seem to be several points of asymmetry with respect to the two directions that suggest the answer may be no.

First, there is the asymmetry of starting point. One direction specifies a beginning point, the present moment. The other direction does not, since it is on supposition beginningless. One may think the success of the argument against traversing back through the past hinges on always being only a finite measure away from the beginning; but, of course, that's not applicable to the opposite direction.

Second, there is the asymmetry of ending point. One direction has it, whereas the other does not. One may think the success of the argument against traversing back through the past hinges on the idea that one can never reach the end of what has no end; but, of course, that's not applicable to the opposite direction.

Third, there is another relevant sort of asymmetry. For the traversal from the present back through the past, each successive point en route only implies a finite measure has been traversed; whereas, for the other direction, it doesn't (or presumably doesn’t if the intent above was to show that it requires an infinite traversal). One may think that the success of the argument against traversing back through the past hinges on the idea of the impossibility to transition from finite traversal to infinite traversal on the basis of successive steps; but that’s not applicable to the other direction.

So, I agree that is an idea worth exploring. But, even if initially successful, it doesn't seem like a clear path to the ultimate conclusion you would want.