Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Mountain Man]

Neither is a potentially infinite physical existence. The concept of infinite regress could only apply to events and things within our universe, or as the case may be a multiverse or our physical existence greater than our possible multiverse, because it is defined as a closed set 'actual infinity.' Our physical existence is potentially infinite.

A potential infinite is not an actual infinite. For example, the distance between two points in the real world is potentially infinite -- you could, in theory, infinitely divide the distance by two, and then by two again, and so on without ever reaching the end -- but it is not actually infinite, otherwise it would be literally impossible to walk from one point to another.

To suggest that the universe has an infinite physical past is incoherent because that would require it to exist in a fixed state, and yet here we are at this moment in time, the end result of a countless, but not infinite, series of past events.

[Tassman]

Looks like my domino illustration went right over your head. In simpler language, since this is apparently what you require, it is impossible for a present event to be the result of an infinite series of past events because it is literally impossible for an infinite series of past events to ever elapse. Get it?

Aquinas argued that it is LOGICALLY impossible for an infinite series of past events to ever elapse; even he didn't argue that it's "literally impossible". His argument is merely a metaphysical argument, it is NOT a scientifically-based argument.

As for the Tassmoron's claims about the universe, he suggests that it was uncaused which logically implies that it has eternally existed, because something that exists but was uncaused is necessarily eternal. We also know that the universe exists in its current state as the result of a series of past events, but since it is impossible for an infinite series of past events to elapse then the universe by necessity cannot be eternal. Q.E.D.

The real flaw is Aquinas' assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of events) can extend infinity into the past (a classic argument from ignorance). There's good reasons to think an actual infinity is possible, and no empirical reason to think its impossible. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible. In short, the impossibility of an infinite series of past events, so beloved by you, cannot be shown to be true.

[Mountain Man]

Aquinas argued that it is LOGICALLY impossible for an infinite series of past events to ever elapse; even he didn't argue that it's "literally impossible". His argument is merely a metaphysical argument, it is NOT a scientifically-based argument.



The real flaw is Aquinas' assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of events) can extend infinity into the past (a classic argument from ignorance). There's good reasons to think an actual infinity is possible, and no empirical reason to think its impossible. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible. In short, the impossibility of an infinite series of past events, so beloved by you, cannot be shown to be true.

Because there's a significant difference between logically impossible and literally impossible, right?

It is logically impossible for me to be in the United States and Australia at the same time and in the same sense. It also happens to be literally impossible. It is logically impossible for someone to be a married bachelor. It also happens to be literally impossible. It is logically impossible for an event to occur and not occur at the same time and in the same sense. It also happens to be literally impossible. I could go on, but I think the point is made. In the same way, an infinite series of past events is both logically and literally impossible. Look at the domino example: there is no possible way for every previous domino in an infinite chain to fall over in succession. If you can think of a scientific way to prove that it is possible then I'd love to see it.

As for your assertion that energy can not be created, this is true within the confines of our finite universe, but that is a long way from proving that energy itself is literally infinite, or that its existence can not be attributed to a cause that is greater than itself.

[Roy]

Enter Ignorant Roy...

I'm ignorant? You're the one that thinks skin cells don't grow, claims Luke's census is both untestable and tested, thinks jury trials don't need other people, and hasn't mastered perspective yet.

Apply your argument about an infinite past being impossible to your god's actions (if you can, which I doubt) and see what happens.

[Mountain Man]

I'm ignorant?

And you continuing to promote a quote of mine that was deceptively taken out of context and burning other piles of straw isn't going to change that.

[shunyadragon]

A potential infinite is not an actual infinite.

Correct!!!!! The potentially infinite physical existence is not an actual infinity.

For example, the distance between two points in the real world is potentially infinite -- you could, in theory, infinitely divide the distance by two, and then by two again, and so on without ever reaching the end -- but it is not actually infinite, otherwise it would be literally impossible to walk from one point to another.

Need to check your definitions of math. What you describe is a closed set, and an actual infinity and not a potential infinity. In other words the actual infinity set would be defined by the distance between two points. This is not theory, and it is simply how infinities are defined in math.

To suggest that the universe has an infinite physical past is incoherent because that would require it to exist in a fixed state,

No, the Quantum World is potentially infinite and boundless without beginning nor ending.

and yet here we are at this moment in time, the end result of a countless, but not infinite, series of past events.

This would be a human construct. In reality time is not defined by any human defined divisions nor moments of time.

[Roy]

And you continuing to promote a quote of mine that was deceptively taken out of context ...

You mean this?

A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

Not only was it not taken out of context, you even repeated the claim when challenged:

Your skin cells are alive, at least in their early stage, but they are not life since they do not have the attributes that science uses to describe life (they don't organize, adapt, self-sustain, metabolize, respond to stimuli, etc.). .

You've also changed your excuse. Previously you said this quote was non-controversial, implying that it's correct as quoted. Now you say that it's deceptively taken out of context, implying that it's incorrect as quoted. Make your mind up.

Nor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.

[shunyadragon]

You mean this?

A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

Not only was it not taken out of context, you even repeated the claim when challenged:

Your skin cells are alive, at least in their early stage, but they are not life since they do not have the attributes that science uses to describe life (they don't organize, adapt, self-sustain, metabolize, respond to stimuli, etc.). .

You've also changed your excuse. Previously you said this quote was non-controversial, implying that it's correct as quoted. Now you say that it's deceptively taken out of context, implying that it's incorrect as quoted. Make your mind up.

Nor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.

My problem infinite regression 'argument(?) is that it is an actual infinity concept and explains nothing beyond the defined closed infinity set that is referred.

[JimL]

My problem infinite regression 'argument(?) is that it is an actual infinity concept and explains nothing beyond the defined closed infinity set that is referred.

If an actual infinity is impossible, then wouldn't you say that precludes the existence of a god?

[shunyadragon]

If an actual infinity is impossible, then wouldn't you say that precludes the existence of a god?

An actual infinity is not impossible, but that's Craig's line. Actual infinities and potential infinities are simply part of science's problem solving descriptive math tool box for Methodological Naturalism. For example: Actual infinities are used to describe some attributes of Black Holes.

[JonathanL]

Apply your argument about an infinite past being impossible to your god's actions (if you can, which I doubt) and see what happens.

Nor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.

Your implication that MM would run into some sort of problem if he tried to apply his argument about an infinite past being impossible to God's actions simply betrays your ignorance about what theists mean when they say God is eternal.

From what he's written so far MM obviously doesn't believe God has existed for an infinite amount of time, so He couldn't possibly have been active for an infinite amount of time either. Most theists that have ever seriously considered what it means for God to be eternal have taken it to mean that there is no state of existence where God doesn't exist. According to classical theism time came into being with the creation of the universe. Before that God existed in a state of timeless eternity and depending on what camp of theism you belong to you either believe that God continued to exist in a timeless eternity even after creating the universe, or you believe God entered into time by His creative act. But in neither case did God exist, or act, in an infinite past.

Maybe before you call MM a coward you should consider actually studying a bit of natural theology to avoid putting your foot in your mouth like you did above.

[Roy]

Your implication that MM would run into some sort of problem if he tried to apply his argument about an infinite past being impossible to God's actions simply betrays your ignorance about what theists mean when they say God is eternal.

From what he's written so far MM obviously doesn't believe God has existed for an infinite amount of time, so He couldn't possibly have been active for an infinite amount of time either. Most theists that have ever seriously considered what it means for God to be eternal have taken it to mean that there is no state of existence where God doesn't exist. According to classical theism time came into being with the creation of the universe. Before that God existed in a state of timeless eternity and depending on what camp of theism you belong to you either believe that God continued to exist in a timeless eternity even after creating the universe, or you believe God entered into time by His creative act. But in neither case did God exist, or act, in an infinite past.

Maybe before you call MM a coward you should consider actually studying a bit of natural theology to avoid putting your foot in your mouth like you did above.

I seriously doubt that MM is capable of the level of consideration you describe. Not that it matters; MM is still a coward since he had the opportunity to show how his argument didn't apply to his god, but declined.

A question for you: if your god existed in a state of timeless eternity, how did the creation of the universe get triggered?

[JonathanL]

I seriously doubt that MM is capable of the level of consideration you describe. Not that it matters; MM is still a coward since he had the opportunity to show how his argument didn't apply to his god, but declined.

I think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.

A question for you: if your god existed in a state of timeless eternity, how did the creation of the universe get triggered?

By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.

[JimL]

I think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.



By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.

How can you argue that god exists outside of time when the evidence of physics is that there is no such thing as time?

[JonathanL]

How can you argue that god exists outside of time when the evidence of physics is that there is no such thing as time?

What exactly is this "evidence of physics" that point to the non-existence of time?