Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:30 am
Then you can tell us how big it is.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Then you can tell us how big it is.
Because the way to KNOW that an ontology is finite is to finish counting all of it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:31 amWhy would it follow that I could?
Non-sequitur. The decisive refutation to the idea of the infinite age of the universe is the absolute impossibility of there being a causal chain of infinite length. And infinite means "eternally uncountable," obviously.
What proof-system are you going to present your impossibility-proof in?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:34 am Non-sequitur. The decisive refutation to the idea of the infinite age of the universe is the absolute impossibility of there being a causal chain of infinite length.
For somebody who insists you understand logic/maths you don't even know what "uncountable" means.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:34 am And infinite means "eternally uncountable," obviously.
Sure. let me help you help yourself. What's first real number before 1?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:34 am It's actually my attempted refuter, like yourself, perhaps, who needs to do the counting-back.
This is not actually correct. Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang except a quantum state, in classical physics this would be explained in terms of a singularity. There were no gases or plasma prior to the Big Bang, all of these "things" (as you call them) were created after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the creation of time and space, as explained by the inflation period.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:02 amThe BB is not actually the creation of space. The theory holds that "things" existed prior to the BB, such as gases and plasma. So it's not the original explanation of the universe, meaning "all things that ever existed," just a latter stage of it.
But it won't matter anyway. An infinite causal regress is both mathematically and empirically impossible, so it's impossible as evaluated by either of those two ways.
We now have mathematical proof that the Big Bang was caused by a quantum fluctuation. We also know that we live in a flat universe. The outermost galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light. At the moment the evidence points to a universe that will expand forever.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:14 pmIn order for God to have created the Universe it has to be finiteSkepdick wrote:
WHY do you think its a problem ?
An infinite Universe removes the need for any creator and so cannot be accepted
So his objection is therefore metaphysical rather than scientific or mathematical
An infinite God is causeless and so conveniently does not require any explanation
Nothing you will say will convince him of the fallacy of such an irrational position
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what happened before the Big Bang or if there was a before
The current laws of physics break down at that point and what is needed is a theory of quantum gravity
There is no scientific reason as to why the Universe cannot be infinite
But at the moment there is no way to determine whether or not it is
In general terms a problem is something that cannot be solved but that actually needs to be solvedSkepdick wrote:
I am not looking for a particular scientific conception of a problem
I am looking for a general / qualitative one
What is a problem outside of the scientific framework ?
This is false and demonstrably so too as an infinite set can be either countable or uncountableImmanuel Can wrote:
And infinite means eternally uncountable obviously
A quantum state is not a "nothing."
The request that I should "count" was not mine. It was put upon me by Skepdick, if you look back.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:22 amThis is false and demonstrably so too as an infinite set can be either countable or uncountable.Immanuel Can wrote:
And infinite means eternally uncountable obviously
Well, I did say except for a quantum state. However, I take your point, I should have chosen my words a little more carefully.Immanuel Can wrote: A quantum state is not a "nothing."
Funny you should say this, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A Universe From Nothing." Within the quantum world causality does go out the window.Immanuel Can wrote: So even if we postulate just that, we get a "something" that needs explanation. Why that "something" behaved in the way it is said to have done, in the absence of any materials, time, space or laws needs accounting. That is, unless we're back to postulating the absurd idea that an absolute "nothing" suddenly created everything, and causality is out the window.