10 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipBefore I watch that and make a whole new list of errors, is it in answer to any of my points, or is it an attempt to side track the discussion?
Christian apologist Greg Koukl of [b]"Stand to Reason" talks a bit about Quantum Physics and the Laws of Logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgqar64ggcc[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipI think the concept is that there was no forever and no traverse of it before there was time. But I could be wrong.
[quote] It concludes that conceivably (without logical contradiction) the universe came about as a result of the nth event in a beginning-less series of causally dependent events, (my words) thus there is no necessity to conclude that there is (or was) a first cause. It is just that the events that preceded the event that directly caused the universe, did no ...[text shortened]... ies of causal events was not an infinite series but had a start, then today could be arrived at.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Mar 13
5 edits
It concludes that conceivably (without logical contradiction) the universe came about as a result of the nth event in a beginning-less series of causally dependent events, (my words) thus there is no necessity to conclude that there is (or was) a first cause. It is just that the events that preceded the event that directly caused the universe, did no ...[text shortened]... ies of causal events was not an infinite series but had a start, then today could be arrived at.
I think the concept is that there was no forever and no traverse of it before there was time. But I could be wrong.
To me the phrase "a beginningless series of causally dependent events"
means an infinite regress with no beginning. If the series has no beginning and therefore extended infinitely.
Each event was dependent upon a previous event forever with no beginning. That is what I understood.
J P Moreland's example of a "borrowing lender" and an "owning lender" expressed the problem well to me.
Joe asks to borrow a ipod from Bill. Bill says "Sure. But I don't own a ipod. I can borrow one from Greg and I'll lend you that one." But Greg tells Bill "Sure. But neither do I own an ipod. I can borrow one from Steve and lend that one to you."
Well, this situation goes on and on and on and on. Each person asked for an ipod is a "Borrowing Lender". If this situation does not terminate with someone who OWNS an ipod, Joe will NEVER get an ipod.
There is an infinite regress of "Borrowing Lenders"
The only way Joe will ever get an ipod is if eventually someone comes across an "Owning Lender". Let's say that is Roy. Roy OWNS an ipod. Maybe he made it. Who knows? Anyway since Roy does not have to borrow an ipod because he owns one, then he can pass it down the series of borrowers and then Joe will finally get an ipod.
The series of "Borrowing Lenders" must terminate in a final "Owning Lender" or Joe will NEVER get an ipod.
Then J P Moreland transfers the situation to existence. One thing borrows its existence from a previous thing. And that previous thing borrows its existence from another previous thing. So on and so forth.
Things do change in form, ie uranium to lead, ice to water, etc. Each thing owes its existence to something previous. Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.
Moreland said that unless this series of Borrowing Lenders of existence terminate in a final Owning Lender of existence, nothing could exist.
The Owning Lender of existence must be something that is self existent which did not derive its existence from anything prior.
I believe the First Cause must be a self existent "Owning Lender" which could start the cascade of "Borrowing Lenders" of existence.
I believe that that Owning Lender of all existence is God.
10 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThat is simply not true. An infinite chain of borrowing lenders is perfectly possible, complete with ipod.
The only way Joe will ever get an ipod is if eventually someone comes across an [b]"Owning Lender". Let's say that is Roy. Roy OWNS an ipod. Maybe he made it. Who knows? Anyway since Roy does not have to borrow an ipod because he owns one, then he can pass it down the series of borrowers and then Joe will finally get an ipod.
The series of "Borro ...[text shortened]... ders" must terminate in a final "Owning Lender" or Joe will NEVER get an ipod.[/b]
Its just that you, and JP Moreland don't understand infinity.
Things do change in form, ie uranium to lead, ice to water, etc. Each thing owes its existence to something previous.
Here you are claiming perfect causation, which as we all know is not a proven fact and if anything, quantum mechanics suggests it is not the case.
Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.
Remember that you are talking of entities within space time. Applying this to space time as a whole does not necessarily follow. Further, when it comes to singularities, it also does not necessarily follow.
I believe the First Cause must be a self existent [b]"Owning Lender" which could start the cascade of "Borrowing Lenders" of existence.
I believe that that Owning Lender of all existence is God.[/b]
Now we get to the heart of it all. Its really just a religious belief you would like to back up with philosophy, even if you don't actually understand the philosophy, you will accept the results so long as they tie in with your religious beliefs. Also, you will ignore any counter argument made by atheists.
I can assure you (I have a degree in mathematics) that you and JP Morland are mistaken in both your arguments about infinity, and in your understanding of bounded sets. For the latter, let me ask you what lies South of the South Pole.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Mar 13
2 edits
That is simply not true. An infinite chain of borrowing lenders is perfectly possible, complete with ipod.
Its just that you, and JP Moreland don't understand infinity.
This to me sounds like a bare assertion of someone who is in denial.
Things do change in form, ie uranium to lead, ice to water, etc. Each thing owes its existence to something previous.
Here you are claiming perfect causation, which as we all know is not a proven fact and if anything, quantum mechanics suggests it is not the case.
I am not sure what you define me as stating is what I am saying.
I am still waiting for a argument that causes me to doubt the effectiveness of the example.
Ie. "You and J P Moreland just don't understand infinitey" doesn't do that for me.
I don't think there are any actual cases of infinity except theoritically in the mind. A mathamatician said that. It was not a overt religious conviction.
Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.
Remember that you are talking of entities within space time. Applying this to space time as a whole does not necessarily follow. Further, when it comes to singularities, it also does not necessarily follow.
What you assert here - "Remember that you are talking of entities within space and time ..."
I will have to think on that. I am not sure it makes any difference. You are trying to couch my example on a pedestal of your own making so that you can try to knock it down.
I am very wary of agreeing with your one or two premises attempting to define the arguement. I am not sure you are not skillfully constructing a strawman argument of your own invention and then knocking that down.
I will think about your attempt to tell me what I am saying.
I believe the First Cause must be a self existent "Owning Lender" which could start the cascade of "Borrowing Lenders" of existence.
I believe that that Owning Lender of all existence is God.
Now we get to the heart of it all.
This is just your suspicion. This is your genetic fallacy. Because I said that I PERSONALLY believed that the First Cause was God, you want to dismiss a philosophical argument.
I admitted that this was my belief. There was nothing to hide. There was nothing slipped into the argument in a sneaky way.
The Borrowing Lender - Owning Lender is applicable to existence leading to a self existent God.
So far I see no reason why it could not be so other than some suspect attempts for you to tell me what I am really saying with phrases I am not sure about - "only entities in space and time" "singularities".
I'll look at your objections with the introducion of these phrases.
Its really just a religious belief you would like to back up with philosophy, even if you don't actually understand the philosophy, you will accept the results so long as they tie in with your religious beliefs. Also, you will ignore any counter argument made by atheists.
Hold it right there. If God exists that God is not the God of religion. If God exists that is the God of truth, the God of reality.
Crying "religion! religion!" does not impress me as ipso facto making the argument not legitimate.
I would ignore counter arguments that I thought were not efffective counter arguments.
I can assure you (I have a degree in mathematics) that you and JP Morland are mistaken in both your arguments about infinity, and in your understanding of bounded sets. For
The degree you have in Math does NOT assure me that you know the example is mistaken.
It is true that for every philosophical argument there is usually an equally opposite compelling philosophical argument.
That you disagree is no shock. But I'll need more than "I have a Math degree. Trust me that I know we'll end up with an argument in favor of my Atheism" is somehow more objective from you.
My degree was in Computer Science. Since you informed me of yours.
And I know that a theoritical infinite loop could be programmed. But any infinite loop algorithm in computer would have to start somewhere.
Maybe you could demonstrate the programming of an infinite loop on a computer which INFINITELY was looping in the INFINITE past.
That should keep you busy while I review "singularities" and the terms your saying, oh of course, make the example not valid.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipThe infinite loop stops when the power is lost. 😏That is simply not true. An infinite chain of borrowing lenders is perfectly possible, complete with ipod.
Its just that you, and JP Moreland don't understand infinity.
This to me sounds like a bare assertion of someone who is in denial.
[quote]
Things do change in form, ie uranium to lead, ice to water, etc. Each thing owes its ...[text shortened]... " and the terms your saying, oh of course, make the example not valid.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship"I believe that that Owning Lender of all existence is God.[/b]"
[quote]
It concludes that conceivably (without logical contradiction) the universe came about as a result of the nth event in a beginning-less series of causally dependent events, (my words) thus there is no necessity to conclude that there is (or was) a first cause. It is just that the events that preceded the event that directly caused the universe, did
I believe that that [b]Owning Lender of all existence is God.[/b]
Then it is not a beginning-less series is it?
The notion of a beginning-less series has to be abandoned, if this entity you call "God" is to start with the ipod (existence) in hand.
It does not have to be abandoned is, as I said, the following is held:
The roll-up of the preceding beginning-less series of events into God, is covered in Godel, Escher and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter, and referenced at:
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/Summer2009/ABjorndahl/extension.html
However this notion of God is somewhat less theologically satisfying to the traditional monotheist. It treats the entity "God" rather like we use the Greek letter "pi" to represent a number that cannot be fully extended. Actually, there is something appealing [edit: to me] about this.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipSo do you. So, lets see if you can justify your claim. Why is it impossible to have an infinite chain of borrowers?
This to me sounds like a bare assertion of someone who is in denial.
I am not sure what you define me as stating is what I am saying.
You stated "Each thing owes its existence to something previous." This is not known to be true.
I am still waiting for a argument that causes me to doubt the effectiveness of the example.
Ie. "You and J P Moreland just don't understand infinitey" doesn't do that for me.
The example is based on the knowledge that the human population is finite. In other words it tricks you into thinking the answer is obvious when in reality, if there were an infinite number of humans, then an infinite chain would, in fact, be possible.
I don't think there are any actual cases of infinity except theoritically in the mind.
So you start with a belief that there are no infinities, then think that that proves that there are no infinities? Sorry, but that is not good enough.
What you assert here - "Remember that you are talking of entities within space and time ..."
I will have to think on that. I am not sure it makes any difference. You are trying to couch my example on a pedestal of your own making so that you can try to knock it down.
Not at all. I am pointing out that it is a mistake to assume that what applies within the universe applies to the universe as a whole. This is especially true for any rule that is dependant on the laws of physics and the dimensions of the universe. For example if you are claiming the universe as a whole must have a velocity - this assumes that universe exists in a greater space time. Similarly causation is a property within space time and to talk of it outside the universe just doesn't make sense.
This is just your suspicion. This is your genetic fallacy. Because I said that I PERSONALLY believed that the First Cause was God, you want to dismiss a philosophical argument.
No, I gave good reasons for dismissing the philosophical argument, point by point. Here I am just pointing out that you don't actually understand most of the steps in the philosophical argument but nevertheless accept the result because it agrees with your personal beliefs.
It is true that for every philosophical argument there is usually an equally opposite compelling philosophical argument.
That is blatantly untrue.
And I know that a theoritical infinite loop could be programmed. But any infinite loop algorithm in computer would have to start somewhere.
No, it wouldn't. Not in an infinite space time. You simply cannot start with the assumption of finite spacetime then try to use it to prove finiteness.
Maybe you could demonstrate the programming of an infinite loop on a computer which INFINITELY was looping in the INFINITE past.
void printInt(SuperLargeSingedInt int){
println(int);
printInt(int+1);
}
One output today showed 42. It has been running forever. It can run forever into the future. Obviously it requires very large storage.
At no point in the past did it ever require an infinite integer, thus it never required infinite storage.
I hope you remember to go back and address all my other objections instead of picking on the only objection that requires a short course in mathematics to understand.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat a child believes does not have much effect on the belief of the parent, because the parents generally are more knowledgeable. Therefore, what you believe has no effect on me. 😏
So do you. So, lets see if you can justify your claim. Why is it impossible to have an infinite chain of borrowers?
[b]I am not sure what you define me as stating is what I am saying.
You stated "Each thing owes its existence to something previous." This is not known to be true.
I am still waiting for a argument that causes me to doubt the ...[text shortened]... ing on the only objection that requires a short course in mathematics to understand.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsyour analogy would only apply if the child was super intelligent and the adults had some sort of learning disability.
What a child believes does not have much effect on the belief of the parent, because the parents generally are more knowledgeable. Therefore, what you believe has no effect on me. 😏
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 13
4 edits
Maybe you could demonstrate the programming of an infinite loop on a computer which INFINITELY was looping in the INFINITE past.
void printInt(SuperLargeSingedInt int){
println(int);
printInt(int+1);
}
What is the content of the storage space called SuperLargeSingedInt ?
In what concievable hardware could the address of argument SuperLargeSingedInt actually be infinity ?
What is the binary representation of the contents of SuperLargeSingedInt which would represent infinity ?
You know that there is no way the request can actually be programmed or executed. At best you what you have done is provided some pseudo code of what such an alogorithm might look like.
Actually it is impossible for no machine has been running since the infinite past. Not even a supercomputer could execute this at a trillion calculations a second. It has to start. And there is a time stamp associated with when the first execution of the program took place.
In the example that I used about the Borrowing Lender of the ipod, let us say that it takes 1 minute a person to pass down to the next borrowing lender the ipod.
If the owning lender was 1,000,000 lenders back then it would take, say, 1,000,000 minutes to get from the owning lender to the final borrower.
Please tell me if there were no owning lender to start the lending, but the request continues for infinity with no one ever owning an ipod of his own, how many minutes would it take for the final borrower to receive the ipod?
If he asks for the ipod on March 16th 2013 what would be the date on which he received the ipod being that no one owns one of his own (No Owning Lender) ?
One output today showed 42. It has been running forever.
What computer has been running forever ?
Do you have access to a machine that was never not executing this little program ?
I would like to know the model of that machine for sure.
It can run forever into the future.
If it could that does not mean that it was running infinitely in the past.
And that one could be built that ran infinitely into the future is the stuff of hyper science fiction.
Besides any company that built a computer would never make one that could not be replaced by a better "state of the art" machine of a newer model.
This has to be your tongue and cheek answer to a task which is impossible to practically carry out.
Obviously it requires very large storage.
Even if you had a logical statement to ERASE the storage and start over again so that it could concievably be used endlessly, no machine could have been running without STARTING sometime.
The example is practically impossible to do, period.
Computers were invented not too long ago.
Any infinitely executing algorithm would have had to have been on a machine which never experienced design, engineering, construction, and plugging into an electrical socket or some source of energy.
This brings me to the point that actual infinities I have heard do not exist as far as we know. Infinity is a concept in the mind. We know for certain of no actual infinity in nature.
At no point in the past did it ever require an infinite integer, thus it never required infinite storage.
No computer with finite storage space could have been executing in the infinite past.
I hope you remember to go back and address all my other objections instead of picking on the only objection that requires a short course in mathematics to understand.
Right now I am reading this argument.