- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe evidence currently suggests that the universe had a begining, around 15 ish billion years ago. logic does not really come into it. quantumn physics is rarely logical in the way most people would mean it.
Why should the universe, for that matter? Just because our sense of logic demands it?
Originally posted by googlefudgeBig bang, big crunch ad infinitum...turtles all the way down again?
The evidence currently suggests that the universe had a begining, around 15 ish billion years ago. logic does not really come into it. quantumn physics is rarely logical in the way most people would mean it.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd you can't square a circle ,or find an absolute value or Pi , either. Nothing about a circle is relevant to this thread.And as far as infinite complexity thats precisely why god would need a begining.
Not even a circle has a beginning. Why should God, infinitely more complex, have one ?
Originally posted by googlefudgeask that to Hoe, he raised the spector of it.
why is something infinitely complex more in need of a begining than something that is not infinitely complex?
(ignoring for a moment any discussion about weather something can be infinately complex).
but its, simple, really 1 is less that 2 , zero is the least.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by frogstompunless you bring up the prospect of minus one. I may have missed something but I don't see how that answers my question. why does something that is infinately complex need to have a begining any more than something the has only finite complexity?
ask that to Hoe, he raised the spector of it.
but its, simple, really 1 is less that 2 , zero is the least.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOk maybe I should have said more likely to need a begining, however its more than intutively obvious that the more complex something is, the less likely it started out that way.
unless you bring up the prospect of minus one. I may have missed something but I don't see how that answers my question. why does something that is infinately complex need to have a begining any more than something the has only finite complexity?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by frogstompThat only aplies if it has a begining. if it has existed forever then it can be as complex as it likes and you don't need to worry how it began so complex as it didn't begin, it just allways was. you could infact argue that an infinately complex thing can't have a begining. If you say that the likely hood of something apearing after a given period of time is based on that items complexity then an infinately complex something will only apear after an infinate amount of time (ie never). and a finitely complex something can never gain enough complexity to become infinately complex unless it instantly gains infinate complexity, which we have just stated would never happen. by this reasoning if an infinately complex thing can exist then to exist it must have existed forever. unless an infinitely complex thing can spawn other infinatly complex items in which case the first infinately complex thing can't have a begining, however if you can create an infinately complex thing then there is no reason why you can't destroy them, which applies to the first infinately complex thing, and as it has to have existed forever and after forever there would be an infinate number of infinitely complex things which could all destroy the first infinately complex thing then the probability of it not being destroyed an infinately long time ago is zero. which means it can't exist forever, or have existed forever. in other words try not to use 'more than intuitively obviouse' and infinity in the same sentence. infinity is very rearely intuitive.
Ok maybe I should have said more likely to need a begining, however its more than intutively obvious that the more complex something is, the less likely it started out that way.
Originally posted by googlefudgeyeah, I could say that, but I wont because it's not true.
That only aplies if it has a begining. if it has existed forever then it can be as complex as it likes and you don't need to worry how it began so complex as it didn't begin, it just allways was. you could infact argue that an infinately complex thing can't have a begining. If you say that the likely hood of something apearing after a given period of tim ...[text shortened]... itively obviouse' and infinity in the same sentence. infinity is very rearely intuitive.
Infinite space, I can deal with, but not infinite complexity or power or any of the infinites applied to a being.
Originally posted by googlefudgebtw :: I didn't use them in the same sentence.
That only aplies if it has a begining. if it has existed forever then it can be as complex as it likes and you don't need to worry how it began so complex as it didn't begin, it just allways was. you could infact argue that an infinately complex thing can't have a begining. If you say that the likely hood of something apearing after a given period of tim ...[text shortened]... itively obviouse' and infinity in the same sentence. infinity is very rearely intuitive.