Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Who Made God?

#941  Postby Wortfish » Oct 04, 2018 6:12 pm

Newmark wrote:
Still the same error, still the same stupid mistakes. You even contradict yourself in this post. Beginningless =/= endless. You simply (still) use exceedingly naive definitions to construct an incoherent model, which you then (still) attempt to shoot down.


Oh, really? If the universe has no beginning, then it doesn't matter how far you traverse back in time, you will never reach the non-existent beginning. So you wouldr journey back in time would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.


I see that you chose the "provide more examples of how untenable your so-called argument is" route. You have yet to substantiate why you think mathematics isn't applicable to this subject (other than the fact that it proves you wrong). But you go ahead, brave bold sir Robin, run away from answering questions, just like you always do...


Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment. That is why all your models of infinity are not applicable here.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 819

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#942  Postby Newmark » Oct 05, 2018 8:24 am

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still the same error, still the same stupid mistakes. You even contradict yourself in this post. Beginningless =/= endless. You simply (still) use exceedingly naive definitions to construct an incoherent model, which you then (still) attempt to shoot down.


Oh, really? If the universe has no beginning, then it doesn't matter how far you traverse back in time, you will never reach the non-existent beginning. So you wouldr journey back in time would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.


Huh. What an interesting argument to make, since you in your very next sentence reiterate your stated assumption that time is a casual chain which only progresses in one direction, which would mean that traversing backwards would be impossible, which would render your argument moot. This just highlights the lack of internally consistency in your arguments. For the record, no model that I have proposed is dependent on begin able to traverse backwards through time (whether such a thing is possible or not). All I've said is that we don't view time from the perspective of an absolute beginning, but rather that we are able to recollect and draw conclusion about past moments given our position in the present*.

I have already made clear what I consider to "endless" and "beginningless" to mean: lack of upper and lower bound, respectively. Please refrain from these strawmen and equivocations, and try to argue against my actual argument for once...

And you still haven't got how circular your argument is. "There must be a beginning, because otherwise you couldn't reach the beginning", paraphrased. Let's rephrase this a bit:
If Narnia doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter how far you walk, you will never reach the non-existent Narnia. So you would journey would be endless, i.e take forever without ever coming to an end.
Do you think that this is reasonable evidence for the existence of Narnia? Do you think that anyone that tried to go to Narnia (in whatever direction they thought would take them forward) would land somehwere with each step, or do you think that they would enter some sort of limbo of philosophical nothingness if they tried?

I see that you chose the "provide more examples of how untenable your so-called argument is" route. You have yet to substantiate why you think mathematics isn't applicable to this subject (other than the fact that it proves you wrong). But you go ahead, brave bold sir Robin, run away from answering questions, just like you always do...


Mathematics is not relevant here...because we are dealing with TIME where each moment stands in a causal relationship to the preceeding and forthcoming moment. That is why all your models of infinity are not applicable here.

Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.

* Given that you think that
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#943  Postby Wortfish » Nov 07, 2018 12:20 pm

Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.


Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred. But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other. One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended. That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand only in logical order and not in any temporal arrangement. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point. You don't need "special relativity" to get this.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 819

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#944  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 07, 2018 12:26 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.


Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred. But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

Saying someone else asserted the same thing you keep asserting isn't providing evidence or sound argument either Wortfish.
You need to demonstrate, not just assert.

Wortfish wrote:You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other.

How do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended.

Again, how do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other. Rather, they stand in logical order. Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point.

This is simply the 125213th mindless regurgitation of your intial and still unsubstantiated assertion.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29066
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#945  Postby Newmark » Nov 07, 2018 1:43 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.


Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred.

Kant, like yourself, didn't include the findings of modern mathematics in his speculations. Kant has the rather decent excuse of having been dead for better part of a century before Cantor published his ideas. What's your excuse?

But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.

Neither have I claimed that it would be, which you would have understood, if you were paying attention. Your reasoning would only apply iff there was an infinite sequence between any given points. Quite simply, you still haven't understood what you're arguing against.

You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other. One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended. That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other.
Rather, they stand only in logical order and not in any temporal arrangement.

This does not explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships", this merely re-asserts your statement. I've asked this before (so I hardly expect an intelligent answer), but what model do you think best describes a "casual relationship", and how does this model differ from a "logical order"?

Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point. You don't need "special relativity" to get this.

Given what has already been explained in this thread, this jumble of blind assertions and logical fallacies is simply astounding. But if you keep screaming it, maybe a pixie will come by and sprinkle some dust on it, and it will magically become true!
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests