Ask about Atheism

[BraveHat]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

I see what you're saying. You are basically saying my argument is like taking a ray pointed left and trying to make out that it's infinity makes it a line.

Better yet, the very definition of a "physical object that did not begin to exist" could be "a physical object that had already done the work of waiting through an infinite amount of minutes". In which case, if we substitute that definition for it's term in the first premise of BH3, it becomes "If there is a physical object that has already done the work of waiting through an infinite amount of minutes, then it has to wait through an infinite amount of minutes before it can reach any particular minute" As you say, it's already been covered. Now it can reach a particular minute.

You are correct. Any reason underlying my intuition that it is impossible to finish waiting through an infinite number of minutes in the reverse direction seems not to be expressed in this argument. Rather it only suggests that's it's impossible to begin waiting through an infinite number of minutes in the reverse direction, which doesn't do my argument any good whatsoever.

I will cede this point, and try to see if there anything more to say tomorrow.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[bgg1996*]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

Another interesting question: If the universe is infinite in size, when did it become so?

[BraveHat]

If actual infinite is possible, is it possible for something to go from finite in size to infinite in size?

I'm sorry I haven't responded in a while, I have a lot going in my life right now. I will post an Infinity thread in Off-Topic so this thread can stay on topic....
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[extropalopakettle]

[Karsen]

[BraveHat]

[Zag]

[Scurra]

Whilst Zag is evidently being slightly sarcastic in his response, I have to say that I agree almost entirely with him.

And - quite seriously - I'd marry Zag before I'd marry you, Karsen. Even though your post implies that you are a Christian, and Zag is quite upfront that he clearly is not. It strikes me that you do not understand what "marriage" is at all. Then again, based on a recent thread, I am not at all sure I understand what it is either. But at least I have thought about it.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Zag]

Oh, Scurra! I didn't know you cared. ~blush~

[extro...*]

[BraveHat]

[Zag]

[BraveHat]

[Zag]

OK. I'll give you that one. But they're both* the sort of reasoning that led to the Inquisition, the Crusades, and every other evil thing done in the name of religion.

* In the one case, sickening intolerance, and in the other, mindless obedience and repetition (of the sickening intolerance).

[Chuck]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris walk into a bar and the bartender says "Hey, Guys. How'd the convention go?" and Richard Dawkins says "Great! We pulled it off without a hitch."

[BraveHat]

Ouch! R.I.P...
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Deception]

So, most atheists go about saying that:

If you cannot prove T, then not T, therefore I am right that not T.

However, atheism isn't simply "negation T", rather it is something completely different.

Christianity suggests Universe with attributes T.
Atheists suggest Universe with attributes K.

If Christians are forced to prove T, then why aren't atheists forced to prove K? (be warned, it will be extremely difficult for you to prove many things to me which you may find simple truths, such as your existence)

[Zag]

[Jedo the Jedi]

The problem is belief in God isn't based on evidence so much as faith. Incidentally, I've heard some atheists describing theirs as requiring a significant amount of faith as well. *shrug*

Also, Occam's Razor is not a proof; it just provides the first assumption. (I don't think you treat it as such, Zag, but I thought it was worth stating.)
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Zag]

Correct, it certainly isn't. The much closer thing to proof (though it still isn't) is the ability to predict future events successfully.

Occam's Razor is helpful in telling you where to look. Successful prediction is the test. But, given competing theories, both of which successfully predict, Occam's Razor is a good tie-breaker. (Actually, the more likely choice is to show how the theories are really the same. If they aren't, then it should be straightforward to figure out some experiment for which they will predict different results, and then try it.)

[Zag]

Let me give an example of the proper use of Occam's Razor.

It has been observed that large objects tend to accelerate towards each other, such that the acceleration of each object is proportional to the mass of the other object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

For example, we've noticed that the planets accelerate constantly towards the sun, and the moon accelerates constantly towards the moon. If we measure these accelerations, multiply by the square of the distance, and divide by the mass of the other object, we get the exact same number in all cases! In mathematical terms, we find that:

acc(earth towards sun) = G * mass(sun) / distance(earth to sun) ^2
acc(moon towards earth) = G * mass(earth) / distance(moon to earth) ^2
acc(venus towards sun) = G * mass(sun) / distance(venus to sun) ^2

etc. The exact same value of G every time!! And, if we measure very carefully, we learn that the Earth also accelerates towards the moon, proportionally to the mass of the moon. It turns out that the mass of the moon is so much less, we don't really notice it, but it's still true that
acc(earth towards moon) = G * mass(moon) / distance(earth to moon) ^2
The same damned constant G!

Now, I could conclude either A or B:

A: There is some part of the fundamental fabric of the universe causing a force of attraction between objects which is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
B: There is an omniscient being which pushes things towards each other. He is everywhere, pushing everything, and he does it according to that same formula, just because he wants to. Tomorrow he might decide to stop and the moon could fly away, or maybe crash into the Earth.

Can everyone here agree that conclusion B is ridiculously complex? Why introduce a being which thinks about all this? There's a simple rule, and it works, all the time. You can feel free to debate why that rule came into being, but don't introduce some sentience that is willfully enforcing the rule constantly, and it would stop working if he stopped his constant effort. That's just ridiculous.

[Deception]

I don't meet many atheists worth talking about their faith to, just as I don't meet many Christians worth talking about their faith to. Which, is why I like to post in your guys' threads, since you are much more educated on the topics. (nothing frustrates me more, by the way, then people being members of a faith which they cannot explain to me/defend in any integrable way; but hopefully that virus is simply carried in universities)

I agree Zag, that to introduce a being such as that would seem to do nothing more than over-complicate an otherwise simple matter. However, and I say this from an objective standpoint as I am not a believer of God, something being complex does not make it inherently wrong. You know that, of course.

Even so, I understand your position and logic perfectly, and can find no objective fault within. To me, it is not enough to simply take the simplest option as truth; I would rather consider the simplest option as most likely, and then continue to investigate other options (since there's an infinite number of other options, preferably in sets) until there is more satisfaction. Unfortunately, there seems to be no fruit worth harvesting, although that is through talks of atheism, Christianity, determinism and a few others. I know that I'll never be satisfied, but I can't place my flag in any group; I expect more than feasibly attainable in this era.

Anyway, other than the false dichotomy with A or B, I have no complaints. If I were to ask you to investigate further it would seem monotonous, and is probably pointless.

[extro...*]

[Zag]

[Zag]

[Scurra]

[Zag]

[extro...*]

[extropalopakettle]

[Zag]

[extro...*]

[Zag]

Short and sweet, since it keeps getting lost. What do you mean by the phrase "sentience exists everywhere"?

(Ok, I'm incapable of short and sweet. ) But, yes, I'm willing to commit that any computer that passes a Turning test is sentient. I predict the complexity would be at least one order of magnitude (maybe two) more complex than IBM's Watson. That Turing machine made from wood and rubber bands would be considerably larger than the solar system, and would have a cycle time of something like one cycle a decade, but for someone with infinite patience, they would eventually see the sentience.

[extro...*]

[Zag]

[extro...*]