Stanfords new definition of atheism

Thomas Eshuis · **#101** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 14, 2017 3:40 pm

Wortfish wrote:
pelfdaddy wrote:Wortfish,
1. The professional cosmologist problem: You are up against people who really do have a grasp of the nature of time, known physics and the requisite underlying mathematics. They have turned a number of hypotheses for how the universe could exist--independent from a supernatural being--into working models that are peer-reviewed and published for your reading pleasure. They admit freely that your objection presents a philosophical problem that "doesn't seem to make sense", but will also contend that it presents no actual problems for the science behind the various models. This does not show that any of these models is the right one, just that possibilities exist. You will admit--will you not--that your concept of time and infinity might be flawed, and that a more thorough study along with the requisite math skills could conceivably change your mind.

Yes, there are cosmologists who propose eternal universe models. However, they all suffer from the basic philosophical problem that proposing an infinite past means the present moment, however defined, is never reached.

You haven't demonstrated this.

Wortfish wrote: The only way I can see them try and escape this problem is if their model resets time (and entropic density) with every cycle of the universe (assuming they have a cyclical model). That way you would have a succession of beginning and ends. But such a process would have to be absolutely perfect if it is to recur forever.

Wrong, there is no problem in the first place. At least not until you can actually demonstrate, rather than blindly assert there is.

Wortfish wrote:
2. The armchair atheist problem: Since there is no direct evidence of God, apologists have, in the past, resorted to proving the reliability of the scripture. Now that this has failed, they have to resort to abstract arguments. One category of these arguments centers on existence itself; how did we get here in the first place? Simply declaring that we are not sure of the answer only means that we are not sure. It does not lead to the conclusion that imaginary entities with magical powers are therefore the only viable conclusion remaining. I know that's not exactly what you are saying, but...that's really what you're saying. If, from there, you go on to conclude that the universe was created by someone who hates pork, has a favorite tribe, and tells Bedouin shepherds to cut off the ends of their dicks, then we will know for certain what we already suspect--that none of this is really about infinity, or philosophy, or science.Right?

I am a little concerned by the armchair atheists here because they seem committed to an eternal universe, and the absurdity of an infinite past, and so are determined to deny an absolute beginning which would invalidate God as the creator of all. However, just because the universe has a definite beginning does not mean that God exists. It only means that God is possible.

Stop lying Wortfish.

Matthew Shute · **#102** by **Matthew Shute** » Aug 14, 2017 3:54 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:[

Wortfish wrote:To go from -∞ to 0 would take forever.

Still not given in evidence.

I see we have a serious problem here. Apparently, you don't think it would take forever if the distance extends...forever. I hope this is just a semantic issue rather than a logical one. Let's take a look at this line with positive and negative numbers:

You might suppose that we can extend the line both sides towards + and - ∞.

Of course he supposes that. The contrary assumption entails thinking that if you move far enough to the right, the line will terminate in a finite number that's the Biggest NumberTM possible. Tell me what that number is, and I'll happily multiply it by another number for you.

The problem arises that any point on the line, positive or negative, has an infinite number of preceding numbers. This renders our values meaningless since zero (the reference point) is as infinitely distant as -4.

-4 is a mere 4 integers away from zero. -210,407,000,279 is 210,407,000,279 integers away.

It also means that, if we were counting from - ∞ towards zero it would take forever for us to reach any negative integer. So, the whole thing becomes absurd when we don't have a beginning point.

Since ∞ is not actually a specific number on the number line, the idea of treating that as just another number on the line, and counting from it toward zero, is a nonsensical idea to begin with. There are infinitely many finite numbers on the line. Pick a specific one and start counting. If you take big enough steps, you'll get to zero eventually.

pelfdaddy · **#103** by **pelfdaddy** » Aug 14, 2017 3:55 pm

Wortfish,

Thanks for answering. Like I said, you seem to be doing a lot of work here.

I won't try to give you another entirely separate thread to keep up with. I only want to mention that, like it or not, cosmologists are not committed to eternal universe models. Some of the models are eternal and others are not. The point is, none of them are required to overcome philosophical objections. They only have to show that the models work. What remains is merely fodder for a fun conversation between people like you and me, but that conversation does not affect the progress of cosmology.

Secondly, atheists are not committed to an eternal universe. I suppose that some timeless set of conditions could give rise to a space fabric that expands and is affected by entropic properties that give time a directional arrow that begins at a definite point. But that really is the same thing as an eternal universe if we are discussing whether God is necessary.

I appreciate your saying that a definite beginning does not mean that God exists. Most of us here are simply saying that God is not necessary. Thus we are back to the OP; the proposed definition of atheism does a judo move in an effort to place the burden on those who are unconvinced by theologians. Your philosophical problem seems like an effort to make God--as you say--possible. If you rely upon the newly proposed definition of atheism, evangelism becomes easier. But based upon a correct definition, your work has yet to begin.

So I am inviting you to clear a local hospital of all children suffering from burns, lymphoma, etc. This will impress me.

Thommo · **#104** by **Thommo** » Aug 14, 2017 3:57 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Ok, so you're agreeing that your point is that every moment is unreachable from nowhere. That is correct, or to put it equivalently: every moment is reachable from every other moment, exactly like the situation you're not objecting too.

Thought experiment: If I take a metre long ruler and, hypothetically, eliminate the beginning such that the beginning is...nowhere. What happens? All of the points on the original part of the ruler will read...infinity.

Well, no?

Have you never seen a metre rule or something?

It's pretty obvious that this (which is exactly what you describe) does not have all points reading infinity.

Perhaps you should consider that you are hopelessly out of your depth and it's leading you to say a lot of rather silly things?

Wortfish wrote:This is because there is no beginning anymore to give the ruler finitude. It will, thus, take forever to make a measurement on any point along the ruler because the beginning (reference point) is nowhere. And so it is with moments in time. They would all have an infinite number of moments preceding them, making all of them, wherever they may be, unreachable. And this is clearly absurd.

This is just total nonsense. The second half doesn't follow from the first half, the last part doesn't follow from the preceding point and none of it agrees with what you previously said.

#1 If you remove the end point of a set which has infinite members but finite measure, you don't get a set with infinite measure, you get an open set.
#2 Removing an end point (which is excluding a finite subset from a set) means removing finitely many points, thus if you started with finitely many points you still have finitely many points and if you end up with infinitely many points then you started with infinitely many points. There is no change to the status of "being preceded by infinitely many points".
#3 Having acknowledged that you fucked up royally with "unreachable", you're now repeating the mistake. Every point on the ruler can be reached by a sequence of finitely many finite moves. And so it is with time - every point is reachable from every other point. To call that "unreachable" is just genuinely stupid.

Wortfish wrote:
That fatally undermines your objection.

No. It does not. It confirms it.

I really don't think you should revel in misunderstanding like this, it's quite ungraceful.

Thommo · **#105** by **Thommo** » Aug 14, 2017 4:00 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

I didn't ask you to repeat the antiquated and useless concept.

Yes, space might actually be discrete. Or it might not. That's not called "disproof" it's called "uncertainty".

You asked for an explanation of potential and actual infinites. You may get what you ask for.

I didn't though, did I?

Wortfish wrote:
I would ask why you think one moment of time is causally dependent on a previous moment of time (causality normally refers to events in time), but I am seriously suspicious that you simply haven't thought this through at all, so perhaps won't bother.

Well, in this case, we are actually referring to cycles of universes lasting 15 billion years. Please pay attention. Each cycle is dependent on the previous cycle which is why it amounts to an infinite chain.

Sorry, condescension is unbecoming when saying quite so many really, really stupid things.

Wortfish wrote:
It should take no great feat of intellect to understand that the ordered set of numbers (-1, -2, -3, ...) can stand in relation to the temporal sequence (1 year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago, ...) either.

Except that the temporal sequence involves the actual passage of time. To go from -∞ to 0 would take forever. In fact, to go from -∞ to any point would take forever. That is the absurdity of the situation.

Now who's not paying attention? I specifically pointed out that Rumraket's claim does not include the point -∞, and that this was one of the (rather dishonest) mistakes made by Bill Craig when he pretends that infinite past theories do so.

As someone pointed out this has nothing to do with the thread topic and I really don't see any prospect of you admitting to your numerous egregious failures so I think I'll bow out now.

Rumraket · **#106** by **Rumraket** » Aug 14, 2017 4:01 pm

Yeah I'm out, this guy wouldn't recognize logic if it was trying to drill into his eyeballs.

Thommo · **#107** by **Thommo** » Aug 14, 2017 4:04 pm

Fallible wrote:Any possibility of a split of the derail, mods?

I apologise, I never should have intruded. My bad.

Fallible · **#108** by **Fallible** » Aug 14, 2017 4:09 pm

Not your fault.

pelfdaddy · **#109** by **pelfdaddy** » Aug 14, 2017 4:11 pm

With respect to those who disagree, it does not seem that there is a derail taking place. The newly proposed definition of atheism represents a burden-shifting move, and the members here who are parrying thrusts with Wortfish are illustrating how Wortfish's apologetic reasoning is designed to take advantage of this.

At least...that's what I thought.

Thomas Eshuis · **#110** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 14, 2017 4:24 pm

pelfdaddy wrote:With respect to those who disagree, it does not seem that there is a derail taking place. The newly proposed definition of atheism represents a burden-shifting move, and the members here who are parrying thrusts with Wortfish are illustrating how Wortfish's apologetic reasoning is designed to take advantage of this.

At least...that's what I thought.

While there is some truth to that, with each gish gallop Wortfish engages in we get farther from the OP of this thread.

Wortfish · **#111** by **Wortfish** » Aug 14, 2017 4:40 pm

Thommo wrote:
It's pretty obvious that this (which is exactly what you describe) does not have all points reading infinity.

OK. Let's take this in baby steps. Apologies if this appears patronising but I have no further resort.

1. The beginning of the ruler (calibrated in cm) is the reference point for all other points on the ruler.
2. If I measure something to be 4cm this means that there is a distance of 4cm from the beginning (0cm).
3. Do you follow so far? :cheers:

4. Now do away with the beginning. Good! :clap:

5. Now go back to the point reading 4cm.
6. Has it changed? :silenced:

7. No!? Really?

8. OK. Measure again from the beginning.

9. You can't find the beginning? :shock:

10. I guess this is because the beginning no longer exists since you removed it. :shifty:

11. OK, if there is no beginning, I guess we need to correct the ruler. :ask:

12. All points on the ruler are now rendered infinite because there is no beginning.
13. That's right. 4cm is now ∞, 3cm is now ∞, 5cm is now ∞.
14. So we now have an infinitely long ruler where every point reads infinity!
15. Hoorah!!! :drunk:

Every point on the ruler can be reached by a sequence of finitely many finite moves. And so it is with time - every point is reachable from every other point. To call that "unreachable" is just genuinely stupid.

How do you reach a point an infinite/endless distance away with a sequence of finitely many finite moves? Did you have a different conception of what endless means? Maybe you do. Infinity is not some really big number, it is endless.

Thomas Eshuis · **#112** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 14, 2017 4:50 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
It's pretty obvious that this (which is exactly what you describe) does not have all points reading infinity.

OK. Let's take this in baby steps. Apologies if this appears patronising but I have no further resort.

Stop lying Wortfish.
And stop trying to poison the well with disengenuous remarks about your interlocutors capabilities.

Wortfish wrote:
1. The beginning of the ruler (calibrated in cm) is the reference point for all other points on the ruler.

There's no such thing if the ruler is infinite.

Wortfish wrote:
2. If I measure something to be 4cm this means that there is a distance of 4cm from the beginning (0cm).

Wortfish wrote:3. Do you follow so far?

If it wasn't so disgusting your incredible arrogance and misplaced condescension would almost be funny.

Wortfish wrote:
4. Now do away with the beginning. Good!

Oh look, more pathetic flaming. :roll:

Wortfish wrote:
5. Now go back to the point reading 4cm.
6. Has it changed?
7. No!? Really?
8. OK. Measure again from the beginning.

You're conflating measuring the start of an object with starting at the start of an infinite ruler, which does not exist.
4 cms is a clearly defined length that can be measured in multiple ways on a ruler.
As long as the length between the bars is 1 dm, you can use any length of a infinite ruler that has 40 bars on it.
Just like you can measure 4 cms on a regular ruler, not just by starting at 0, but also by using any part of the ruler that's 4 cms in length. 20-24 for example.

Wortfish wrote:
9. You can't find the beginning?
10. I guess this is because the beginning no longer exists since you removed it.
11. OK, if there is no beginning, I guess we need to correct the ruler.
12. All points on the ruler are now rendered infinite because there is no beginning.
13. That's right. 4cm is now ∞, 3cm is now ∞, 5cm is now ∞.
14. So we now have an infinitely long ruler where every point reads infinity!
15. Hoorah!!!

If it is your goal to throuroughly humalite yourself, keep going on like this.

Wortfish wrote:
Every point on the ruler can be reached by a sequence of finitely many finite moves. And so it is with time - every point is reachable from every other point. To call that "unreachable" is just genuinely stupid.

How do you reach a point an infinite/endless distance away with a sequence of finitely many finite moves? Did you have a different conception of what endless means? Maybe you do. But that's irrelevant.

Mazille · **#113** by **Mazille** » Aug 14, 2017 4:52 pm

Fallible wrote:Can someone tell me how we got here from a definition of atheism?

Thommo · **#114** by **Thommo** » Aug 14, 2017 4:59 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
It's pretty obvious that this (which is exactly what you describe) does not have all points reading infinity.

OK. Let's take this in baby steps. Apologies if this appears patronising but I have no further resort.

1. The beginning of the ruler (calibrated in cm) is the reference point for all other points on the ruler.

Wrong.

Wortfish wrote:2. If I measure something to be 4cm this means that there is a distance of 4cm from the beginning (0cm).

Wrong.

Yeah seriously, you might not be able to tell how far is between the 90cm and 94cm points on a ruler with the beginning removed, but I assure you this failing is uniquely yours.

I have to admit that I do find it genuinely hilarious that you can talk down like this is the simplest of the simple that only a drooling moron could get wrong, before immediately getting it terribly, terribly wrong in an incredibly obvious way. I can only assume you're worried we all have an opinion of you that is too high.

Wortfish · **#115** by **Wortfish** » Aug 14, 2017 5:00 pm

pelfdaddy wrote:Wortfish,
I won't try to give you another entirely separate thread to keep up with. I only want to mention that, like it or not, cosmologists are not committed to eternal universe models. Some of the models are eternal and others are not. The point is, none of them are required to overcome philosophical objections. They only have to show that the models work. What remains is merely fodder for a fun conversation between people like you and me, but that conversation does not affect the progress of cosmology.

I agree. Not all cosmologists are committed to eternal universe models. Some think it has a beginning, others that it had a beginning prior to the beginning of the present configuration. Some cosmologists prefer eternal universe models because of problems arising from quantum mechanics and because they need to explain how the universe began and what caused it. But whatever ingenious math they contrive to support their model, the viability of the model is not just scientific but also logical.

Secondly, atheists are not committed to an eternal universe. I suppose that some timeless set of conditions could give rise to a space fabric that expands and is affected by entropic properties that give time a directional arrow that begins at a definite point. But that really is the same thing as an eternal universe if we are discussing whether God is necessary.

I think many atheists like the idea of an eternal universe because it means there can be no eternal God. Fine. But you have to deal with the logical problems that arise from having an infinite past. You can't just refuse to deal with them.

I appreciate your saying that a definite beginning does not mean that God exists. Most of us here are simply saying that God is not necessary. Thus we are back to the OP; the proposed definition of atheism does a judo move in an effort to place the burden on those who are unconvinced by theologians. Your philosophical problem seems like an effort to make God--as you say--possible. If you rely upon the newly proposed definition of atheism, evangelism becomes easier. But based upon a correct definition, your work has yet to begin.

Well,if the universe is eternal and self-contained, then God does become unnecessary. But I'm not trying to make God possible. I am trying to dismiss an infinite past as illogical and impossible. I am also trying to convince everyone that eternity refers to something outside of time. That may create space for God to exist, but it doesn't demonstrate his existence. It merely is consistent with it.

So I am inviting you to clear a local hospital of all children suffering from burns, lymphoma, etc. This will impress me.

Well, I care for stray cats who have every right to roam on the earth as I do.

OlivierK · **#116** by **OlivierK** » Aug 14, 2017 5:03 pm

Thommo wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
It's pretty obvious that this (which is exactly what you describe) does not have all points reading infinity.

OK. Let's take this in baby steps. Apologies if this appears patronising but I have no further resort.

1. The beginning of the ruler (calibrated in cm) is the reference point for all other points on the ruler.

Wrong.

Wortfish wrote:2. If I measure something to be 4cm this means that there is a distance of 4cm from the beginning (0cm).

Wrong.

Yeah seriously, you might not be able to tell how far is between the 90cm and 94cm points on a ruler with the beginning removed, but I assure you this failing is uniquely yours.

I have to admit that I do find it genuinely hilarious that you can talk down like this is the simplest of the simple that only a drooling moron could get wrong, before immediately getting it terribly, terribly wrong in an incredibly obvious way. I can only assume you're worried we all have an opinion of you that is too high.

Not only that, but having "removed the beginning", then the beginning is what Wortfish is trying to reach in finitely many many finite steps, not some point still on the ruler. The fail is total.

Wortfish · **#117** by **Wortfish** » Aug 14, 2017 5:07 pm

Thommo wrote:
Yeah seriously, you might not be able to tell how far is between the 90cm and 94cm points on a ruler with the beginning removed, but I assure you this failing is uniquely yours.

Oh, you can measure 4cm between 94 and 90cm. But how do you measure between 90cm and the beginning point (0cm) which no longer exists? Remember that the values on the ruler refer to distances between them and the start that has now become infinitely distant (if you weren't aware of this). 90cm = 90cm from the beginning. 94cm = 94cm from the beginning.

OlivierK wrote:Not only that, but having "removed the beginning", then the beginning is what Wortfish is trying to reach in finitely many many finite steps, not some point still on the ruler. The fail is total.

Er...no. By removing the beginning, the ruler becomes infinite because the beginning is now infinitely distant. THIS-IS-NOT-ROCKET-SCIENCE.

OlivierK · **#118** by **OlivierK** » Aug 14, 2017 5:10 pm

Wortfish wrote:Er...no. By removing the beginning, the ruler becomes infinite because the beginning is now infinitely distant. THIS-IS-NOT-ROCKET-SCIENCE.

How is the beginning infinitely distant? Didn't you remove it? It's gone, it's not a point on the ruler anymore, by your own admission.

Wortfish wrote:9. You can't find the beginning?
10. I guess this is because the beginning no longer exists since you removed it.

Pick a point that's actually on the ruler, even one waaaaaaaay down there, and try again.

Wortfish · **#119** by **Wortfish** » Aug 14, 2017 5:19 pm

OlivierK wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Er...no. By removing the beginning, the ruler becomes infinite because the beginning is now infinitely distant. THIS-IS-NOT-ROCKET-SCIENCE.

How is the beginning infinitely distant? Didn't you remove it? It's gone, it's not a point on the ruler anymore, by your own admission. Pick a point that's actually on the ruler, even one waaaaaaaay down there, and try again.

By removing the beginning, you make the ruler infinite because the beginning is now....nowhere. The ruler just extends forever. All points on the ruler, which Thommo doesn't want to admit, are marked as distances from the beginning. Since the beginning is infinitely distant, it follows that all points on the ruler must be rendered infinity, even points where there is a finite distance between them (like 94cm and 90cm). This is ABSURD. Come on folks, dismiss this infinite past nonsense.

Thomas Eshuis · **#120** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 14, 2017 5:20 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Yeah seriously, you might not be able to tell how far is between the 90cm and 94cm points on a ruler with the beginning removed, but I assure you this failing is uniquely yours.

Oh, you can measure 4cm between 94 and 90cm.

Then your 'argument' false apart.

Wortfish wrote: But how do you measure between 90cm and the beginning point (0cm) which no longer exists?

You've answered your own question.

Wortfish wrote: Remember that the values on the ruler refer to distances between them and the start that has now become infinitely distant (if you weren't aware of this). 90cm = 90cm from the beginning. 94cm = 94cm from the beginning.

Wortfish wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Not only that, but having "removed the beginning", then the beginning is what Wortfish is trying to reach in finitely many many finite steps, not some point still on the ruler. The fail is total.

Er...no.

Yes.

Wortfish wrote:By removing the beginning, the ruler becomes infinite because the beginning is now infinitely distant.

Again, either incredibly obtuse or a pathetic troll.

Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Who is online