• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The universe is proof of god!

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you have a time line, any two points on that line have a finite amount of time from event A to event B. Infinity ins NOT a number. There is no event at infinity. Infinity is not a point on a time line. Infinity is an infinite set of points on a time line but each point is finite in relation to any other random point. Infinity is a set of possible numbers/events.


You are thinking of mathematical infinity, as in a set can contain an infinite set of numbers. When you say an "eternal" universe you are referring to a physical property.

A time line that includes infinity doesn't have two points. The first point indicates a beginning. An eternal universe would have no beginning point.

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time. If you propose an infinite history then you are negating the possibility of a present moment.

It sounds like you just negated the possibility that your God always existed.


(well, assuming one buys your weird treatment of time. But if _you_ believe that about the existence of the universe, then you must also believe that about the existence of your god. Hence, the moment of creation could never arrive because your god would be too busy counting backward on his timeline.)

So - what created your god, then?
 
I must say, it's kinda fun watching someone struggle to comprehend the concept of infinity. It is so difficult that he must make things up so that he can avoid its existence.

To be sure, contemplating infinity is a pretty amazing thought process. It's a new realm that doesn't work with any of our finite life experiences. We have to think in ways outside our finite box. Contemplation.
 
You are thinking of mathematical infinity, as in a set can contain an infinite set of numbers. When you say an "eternal" universe you are referring to a physical property.

A time line that includes infinity doesn't have two points. The first point indicates a beginning. An eternal universe would have no beginning point.

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time. If you propose an infinite history then you are negating the possibility of a present moment.

It sounds like you just negated the possibility that your God always existed.


(well, assuming one buys your weird treatment of time. But if _you_ believe that about the existence of the universe, then you must also believe that about the existence of your god. Hence, the moment of creation could never arrive because your god would be too busy counting backward on his timeline.)

So - what created your god, then?



What god? Did you think I was arguing for a god?
 
...............
......... An eternal universe would have no beginning point.
...........

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time....... .

Exactly... Damned, now you have it, finally.



Words games aren't going to validate your lack of comprehension.
 
Rabid disbelief? I can very well understand why someone well versed in modern physics doesnt accept the physically impossible concept ”god”.




I don't know of anyone that claims that God is physically possible. Krauss wanted to prove that God doesn't exist, which is outside the range of what physics can determine.

So ya', rabid disbelief.

Lot pf people claim that god intervenes, hear prayers etc. such a god is physically impossible.
But you maybe had some other definition?


I don't know of anyone that claims that the Christian God is a physical being. I assume they are asking a non-physical God to intervene in the physical world.
 
You are thinking of mathematical infinity, as in a set can contain an infinite set of numbers. When you say an "eternal" universe you are referring to a physical property.

A time line that includes infinity doesn't have two points. The first point indicates a beginning. An eternal universe would have no beginning point.

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time. If you propose an infinite history then you are negating the possibility of a present moment.

It sounds like you just negated the possibility that your God always existed.


(well, assuming one buys your weird treatment of time. But if _you_ believe that about the existence of the universe, then you must also believe that about the existence of your god. Hence, the moment of creation could never arrive because your god would be too busy counting backward on his timeline.)

So - what created your god, then?



Christians believe that their God exists out of time and is therefore timeless. The idea is that the being that created time couldn't be bound by it.
 
Christians believe that their God exists out of time and is therefore timeless. The idea is that the being that created time couldn't be bound by it.

Oh, okay.
The universe exists out of time and is therefore timeless. Our small ability to comprehend is the only thing that currently assigns time to it.


There.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know of anyone that claims that the Christian God is a physical being. I assume they are asking a non-physical God to intervene in the physical world.

Nothing non-physical interacts with anything physical in this universe.
Therefore, nothing non-physical exists in this universe.
 
Lot pf people claim that god intervenes, hear prayers etc. such a god is physically impossible.
But you maybe had some other definition?


I don't know of anyone that claims that the Christian God is a physical being. I assume they are asking a non-physical God to intervene in the physical world.
Non-physical god? What is that suppose to mean? You have no idea of what a god may be and yet you call a rational atheist ”rabid”?
 
But really, your idea of infinity math is incredibly flawed.
Infinity forward is not limited by infinity backward.
 
Christians believe that their God exists out of time and is therefore timeless. The idea is that the being that created time couldn't be bound by it.

Oh, okay.
The universe exists out of time and is therefore timeless. Our small ability to comprehend is the only thing that currently assigns time to it.


There.

The universe and everything in it is time bound. Time = Change. Time doesn't exist in the universe because we assigned time to it. We measure time by change.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know of anyone that claims that the Christian God is a physical being. I assume they are asking a non-physical God to intervene in the physical world.

Nothing non-physical interacts with anything physical in this universe.
Therefore, nothing non-physical exists in this universe.

I was pointing out a non-physical God, I wasn't claiming God existed. If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in a non-physical God.
 
Waiting...


I've provided multiple explanations. I've answered a few objections.

Provide a cogent counter argument.

You "explained" but did not prove.
Your "explanation" does not comport with physics.
So, please offer some proof besides, "nothing can have an infinite past because that stops time in a giant misunderstanding of infinite. Therefore nothing can have 'always been.' "

At least show us where you found this "proof" that nothing can reach the present if it has an infinite past. What physicist or mathematician developed the theory? Or did you develop the theory? If so, show the math, eh?
 
Lot pf people claim that god intervenes, hear prayers etc. such a god is physically impossible.
But you maybe had some other definition?


I don't know of anyone that claims that the Christian God is a physical being. I assume they are asking a non-physical God to intervene in the physical world.
Non-physical god? What is that suppose to mean? You have no idea of what a god may be and yet you call a rational atheist ”rabid”?


Yes non-physical god. Let me help you out. You aren't arguing against the existence of a physical god existing, unless you are arguing with yourself. You are arguing against a non-physical god existing.
 
The universe and everything in it is time bound. Time = Change. Time doesn't exist in the universe because we assigned time to it. We measure time by change.


Hawking has talked about the time binding of space - and it's possible permutations. He contradicts you.


...

I did find this nonsense... is this your "proof"?
https://www.godcontention.org/christian/zenos-paradox-and-infinite-regress

The short version of the argument goes like this... the definition of infinite is "endless". The definition of finite is "not infinite". Thus, anything that has an end is necessarily not infinite. Past time has ended. Therefore past time is finite. This is the beginning of a logical argument that demonstrates conclusively that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, unchanging, personal, uncaused first cause because of the logical impossibility of the contrary. It is the beginning portion of this argument, that past time must be finite, that is in question.

Zeno says it should be impossible to traverse an infinite number of halves, but it obviously isn't. I say it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of seconds. And I stand on that.

So doesn't Zeno's Paradox prove that my argument is idiotic?

Not by a long shot. In fact, when analyzed, Zeno's Paradox proves conclusively that my argument is absolutely correct.


LOLz this is good stuff. Infinity cannot exist because Math looked up in Dictionary.

In Zeno's Paradox, the reader is presented with the clever illusion that you must traverse an infinite number of halves. This is not true. Further, there is the implicit and deceptive suggestion in the paradox that the more halves you must traverse, the longer it will take you to get there. This is also not true. Both of these deceptions are simple category mistakes. We don't traverse halves. Halves are not a measure of distance. We traverse miles. We traverse inches. We traverse meters and centimeters. We don't traverse halves.

Notice that what we actually traverse in Zeno's Paradox above is sixty miles. Sixty miles is a finite amount. Notice further that even when we begin insisting upon going halfway first, and halfway to halfway before that, the number of miles doesn't change at all. It stays sixty miles, a finite amount. In fact, no matter how many times you slice it and dice it, as long as the number of slices is finite, it remains sixty miles.

If you travel at sixty miles per hour when driving from home to your office sixty miles away, you will get there in sixty minutes, or one hour.

If you must go thirty miles first, you will get to the halfway point in thirty minutes, and you will still get to your office in one hour:

30 minutes + 30 minutes = 60 minutes, or 1 hour

If you must go fifteen miles before you can go thirty miles before you can go sixty miles, the equation looks like this:

15 + 15 + 15 + 15 = 60 minutes, or 1 hour

If you must go seven and a half miles before you can go fifteen before you can go thirty before you can go sixty, the equation looks like this:

7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 7.5 = 60 minutes

Notice that no matter how many times you cut each portion in half, you do not change the final distance of sixty miles and you do not increase the amount of time it takes to traverse sixty miles. It always takes sixty minutes.

This is extremely important. As long as the number of halves are not actually infinite, as long as we have not reached "the end of infinity", the distance remains sixty miles and the amount of time remains sixty minutes.

Note also as we approach an infinite number of halves, that the sections of distance decrease. 60 goes to 30, then 15, then 7.5, then 3.75, and smaller and smaller and smaller. As we approach an infinite amount of sections of distance, the size of each section goes toward zero. What this means is that if we could actually reach "the end of infinity", each section would have zero length.

Now, Zeno's claim is that since there are an infinite number of sections, we can never travel sixty miles. The reality is that if there could ever be an actualized infinite number of sections, we would be at the office before we even left our home. Take a look at what the equation would look like if there were a literal infinite number of halves:

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...+ 0 = 0 minutes.

It doesn't matter how many times you add zero to zero... you will never get sixty.

Thus, as long as we agree that it is impossible to get to "the end of infinity", the sixty miles from your home to your office will always be sixty miles. As soon as we claim that it IS possible to get to "the end of infinity", the distance from your home to your office becomes zero miles.

So, we see by analyzing Zeno's Paradox that it is obviously impossible to get to "the end of infinity". Of course, we shouldn't need to analyze Zeno's Paradox to come to this conclusion, because the definition of infinity is "without end". Just look it up in the dictionary.

See? If you divider the distance to your office by infinity, the length of your commute goes to zero!!

thus was born the name of the time machine in my next novel: The infinity divider drive.

But the point is, this man and anyone who believes him, are bad at math. I'll quote StackExchange for brevity and then you can go ask questions in the Math Forum here on TFT where you can try this out to your hearts' content. But basically

StackExchange said:
you could say that 1∞=0, so 1−1∞=1. But then, you're stretching the definition of division past breaking point - division as you know it isn't defined for infinity, so the answer is undefined. Otherwise you can quickly get yourself into a pickle and end up saying 1=2.

Arithmetic operators - add, subtract, divide, multipy, raise to the power of - are defined on a particular set of numbers: such as real numbers, or complex numbers.

The set you use for definition, will determine what you can and can't say meaningfully. Typically (but not always), infinity is excluded from that set.

So, yeah, don't try dividing by infinity to find god. He'll give you a zero in Math.

Infinity is not a number
 
Last edited:
But really, your idea of infinity math is incredibly flawed.
Infinity forward is not limited by infinity backward.



In an infinite timeline going forward we can stipulate a "now" on the timeline. From this point forward, time is eternal. There would not be an end point on the timeline however. In this case out timeline had a beginning unlike a timeline going backwards would have no beginning point.
 
Non-physical god? What is that suppose to mean? You have no idea of what a god may be and yet you call a rational atheist ”rabid”?


Yes non-physical god. Let me help you out. You aren't arguing against the existence of a physical god existing, unless you are arguing with yourself. You are arguing against a non-physical god existing.

You know, the "non physical god" who got Mary pregnant and set a bush on fire and grabbed Abraham's kid and replaced him with a kid.
THAT non-physical god.

- - - Updated - - -

But really, your idea of infinity math is incredibly flawed.
Infinity forward is not limited by infinity backward.



In an infinite timeline going forward we can stipulate a "now" on the timeline. From this point forward, time is eternal. There would not be an end point on the timeline however. In this case out timeline had a beginning unlike a timeline going backwards would have no beginning point.

Prove that with math please. You appear to be arguing Math By Dictionary.
And that is not valid.
 
Be very careful here, Learner. You are trying to use Math to make an argument, but you are using words instead of math. You should go pose this question in the Mathematics forum here. people better versed in Math than I am will show you your errors thoroughly.

But your proposition, that you can divide numbers by infinity and prevent time from moving ...
... is bunk.

In fact, why don't I do that for you and provide a link. Click here.

And then we can get back to whether the existence of the universe itself proves a god.
 
Last edited:
Non-physical god? What is that suppose to mean? You have no idea of what a god may be and yet you call a rational atheist ”rabid”?


Yes non-physical god. Let me help you out. You aren't arguing against the existence of a physical god existing, unless you are arguing with yourself. You are arguing against a non-physical god existing.
I asked what you ment with ”non-physical”.

- - - Updated - - -

Waiting...


I've provided multiple explanations. I've answered a few objections.

Provide a cogent counter argument.
You are making the statement. It is you that have the burden of proof.
 
Back
Top Bottom