Infinity, and an infinite Universe?

[Chandler Frank]

Continuing on from a multiple of debates that iclaudius and I have been having (going rather off-topic on various threads, as well as PM'ing) It has been decided to merge these into a new thread.

We have been arguing the case for and against:
Creationism and Evolution
An Infinite or Finite Universe
sort of the Existence of God also.

And we reserve the right to keep going off topic, for the Thread topic allows for it (less anyone objects?)

join in if you feel inclined so.

I will now post our latest rebuttals ...

[Chandler Frank]

Iclaudius

Quote by: Chandler Frank Thus in the same sense you have also proved that God exists. Your theory is flawed. You have proved that anything at all exists, you have proved that any two diametrically opposed point of view (not these two, as there can be crossover) could co-exist, though by your own logic again they could not. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure that out without an allegory. And I hope you'll drop it.

I haven't proved God exists, because (among many other reasons) God reflexively has the ability to alter laws of physics at will. This makes him an impossible possibility, therefore, even in the context of infinity, he doesn't exist. I was referring to all things physically possible being existent, and not extra-physical constructs.

I fail to see how diametrically opposite possibilities being simultaneously possible and impossible would disprove that the universe is infinite.

There is also the Second law of Thermodynamics to consider, which tends to a finite universe. The red shift and expansion of the universe point to a starting point at some time. (Although I have seen an interesting article on the fact that the universe may now be expanding, but rather light may be slowing down - quite interesting) As well as the Theory of the Big Bang, which is a theory posed to explain the finite universe.

The real problem with the second law of thermodynamics isn't that there's an inconsistency, it's that you don't understand it. If the universe is infinite, then there is infinite matter. In an infinite universe with infinite matter, everything has already reached dynamic equilibrium with respects to the 2nd law. All closed systems reacting correspond directly to other system(s), and their actions together balance each other out. In a closed system, yes, things tend to entropy, but in a system as vast as that which we speak of, these closed systems are a very small part of the picture.

As for the Big Bang, I don't remember saying I subscribed to it, and I don't see why I should rebut it, since you've already done that yourself.

read this link: A Theory of Small Evolution Sure, with your 'infinite universe' rubbish you can justify your claim once again, but then we get the same old story. This guy does a very good job at the scientific evidence. In fact I would challenge you to read the rest of his material, he knows his stuff, and does a much better job than I at articulating such stuff. (Also saves me time in reiterating many of the same arguments ) in particular read: The Mutation Problem Introduction to this Web Site (this is in fact the site with the light slowing down theory, also) Yeah, I know it's a long read, but it would be just as long a read should I explain the same theories...

Eh, I don't have the time or energy to read all that right now, but I'll get to it eventually. But regardless of what you think, the universe is infinite, and evolution does exist. If not here, then somewhere. I've read dozens of sites claiming to debunk evolution with supposed evidence, but I've yet to see compelling evidence not to believe the theory.

[Chandler Frank]

Chandler Frank

Quote by: iclaudius I haven't proved God exists, because (among many other reasons) God reflexively has the ability to alter laws of physics at will. This makes him an impossible possibility, therefore, even in the context of infinity, he doesn't exist.

the concept of infinity is not the be all and end all of all laws of physics. For example the concept of infinity does not mean that gravity is infinite (for it lasts as long only as the body from which it has come from, as the body may deteriorate even if the space around it were to persist)

Infinity is generally (I do not say this as an absolute) only attributed to space and time, where the expansion of the universe is "infinite" for it expands without boundaries - both temporally and spatially.

I was referring to all things physically possible being existent, and not extra-physical constructs.

God also is not constrained by these attributes (time and space) the only being that reaches beyond finity, it could be proposed that God, rather than be explained by infinity, be the definition of infinity? For what, fundamentally, is the difference between God and the concept of infinity?

I propose that the infinity concept is merely a scientific reaction to the unexplainable, to the indeterminate, to that which reaches beyond the bounds of physicality, in other words, God.

But I digress...

I fail to see how diametrically opposite possibilities being simultaneously possible and impossible would disprove that the universe is infinite.

Again, you are trying to rationalise the impossible (or improbable) by using infinity rather than God. Or even defining your theories on the God of infinity.

For you in one breathe to contend the existence of God because of His impossibility and the fact that He does not conform to physical rules, and then say that infinity itself is capable of such impossibilities - in fact basing the rest of your theories on the theory of infinity - is rather hypocritical.

The real problem with the second law of thermodynamics isn't that there's an inconsistency, it's that you don't understand it.

the 2nd law of thermodynamics has a problem with it because I don't understand it? Does the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics need to be proven by the complete understanding of little old me? Does my apparent unsatisfactory comprehension invalidate the law itself? I don't think so.

There isn't an inconsistency in this law! Where did you get that idea from?

The first law of thermodynamics states that:

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.

(Wikipedia)

The second law of thermodynamics (as interpreted by James Gleik (1997):

Everything tends towards disorder. Any process that converts energy from one form to another must lose some as heat. Perfect efficiency is impossible. The universe is a one-way street. Entropy must always increase in the universe and in any hypothetical isolated system within it.

(excuse the crude diagram)
(a) Law 1 states that the total level of energy is finite and constant (for a constant if immeasurable cannot be classed as constant in the traditional sense)
(b) Law 2 states that the usable level of energy decreases (entropy)
(c) The crossover here declares a starting point, for it is not possible (even in infinity, because of the physical rules you pointed out earlier) for the usable level of energy to outdo the total level of energy.
(d) The crossover here declares an ending point (a Big whatever-they-call-it (was it crunch?) for the Big Bang theorists) for it is not possible for any process in the universe to continue without usable energy.

If the universe is infinite, then there is infinite matter. In an infinite universe with infinite matter, everything has already reached dynamic equilibrium with respects to the 2nd law.

a circular argument relying on the infinite universe to be fact to prove this as fact, where, (in fact ) you have not proven the fact of the infinite universe yet.

All closed systems reacting correspond directly to other system(s), and their actions together balance each other out. In a closed system, yes, things tend to entropy, but in a system as vast as that which we speak of, these closed systems are a very small part of the picture.

a system that is closed is closed no matter how big that system is.
Even if you have a 100,000 square metre house, if the door is closed, the door is closed, and your access to the outside world is shut off.

(to be continued in a 2nd PM...)

[Chandler Frank]

Chandler Frank (continued ... )
(continued as promised...)

As for the Big Bang, I don't remember saying I subscribed to it, and I don't see why I should rebut it, since you've already done that yourself.

I am glad of that, may I ask what it is you do prescribe to instead?

Eh, I don't have the time or energy to read all that right now, but I'll get to it eventually.

Tell me when you do, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised

But regardless of what you think, the universe is infinite, and evolution does exist.

That is rather a grand statement for someone who testifies to needing such empirical evidence in order to believe certain other theories. Pigheadedness even.
And you tried to lecture me on my faith?

What would be your response if I was to say:

But regardless of what you think, God is infinite, and creation does exist.

Well?

If not here, then somewhere.

If your imagination is a place, then sure, I'll agree with your statement.

I've read dozens of sites claiming to debunk evolution with supposed evidence, but I've yet to see compelling evidence not to believe the theory.

I've read dozens of sites claiming to debunk creationism with supposed evidence, but I've yet to see compelling evidence not to believe the theory.

Again, such a hypocritical and pigheaded remark of yours there.

At least read the site. If you want to argue those theories as well, be my guest.
The most convincing fact on that site is the amount of evidence there is there, it is more than a single theory, and I believe you will be hard pressed to prove the majority of it wrong.

[Chandler Frank]

Iclaudius

Quote by: Chandler Frank What is truth? How do you define truth? How do you define reality? Am I really here, or is this just a product of my own imagination? Or the product of the imagination of another? Is truth relative or absolute? How do you define relative or absolute without relation to another absolute? Thus how do you define truth without relation to an absolute?

The thing is, even if you were products of your imagination, or someone's imagination, in order for you and your world to be imagined in the first place you and your environment must be physically possible on some level. And anything that is possible must exist, since the universe is infinite. Furthermore, even if what you experience isn't real, you do exist, somewhere. Infinite times. In infinitely varying degrees.

So, even if you are imagined, what you sense is, in a sense, true. Even if it was all generated by some mind, that mind would be subject to the same rules it would be operating under, constituting that the universe outside is subject to the same rules as the one you happen to be experiencing. Therefore, truth here must also be truth there. Thus, truth you sense really is truth.

Furthermore, truth is absolute and unwavering, and perhaps unknowable. It doesn't change; your perception of it does. This perception is called reality, and reality is made up of truths, experienced different ways.

I hope all this helps.

[Chandler Frank]

Chandler Frank

Quote:
And anything that is possible must exist, since the universe is infinite.
The main assumption you seem to rely on, and the main downfall of most of your arguments.
The universe is not likely infinite. For it to be infinite could cause a multitude of paradoxes, (given your comments on another thread on the fact that given infinity, anything and/or everything is possible) Infinity itself may be a paradox, in that being constrained to a world, (and I propose, universe) that is defined by finity, our perception cannot go beyond such constraints. Nor is it ultimately proveable, for to prove infinity from within the constraints of the finity which we live and, more importantly, experiment is theoretically impossible.

Quote:
order for you and your world to be imagined in the first place you and your environment must be physically possible on some level.
Not necessarily, for what imagination is based entirely on physical possibilities? Dreams, for example, at times take the memories, the desires and other things from the subconcious - concocting at times a 'physically' (based on the rules of our world - those that the mind knows it must conform to when awake) impossible vision and/or experience.

To take this slightly deeper (sorry I may have misunderstood your idea here, but bear with me)

This being the imagination basing it's existence upon the physical constraints of this world, an imagination somewhere must also base itself on some set of rules in order to imagine other rules.

Thus for an imagination to conceive anything at all in the first place it needs a concrete truth (that the mind itself takes as truth, not necesarily reality - but what is reality outside of your mind, for does not your mind tell you what that reality is?) to first base from in order to continue the imaginational construct - for example the mind must believe that the eyes show what is truly in front of you, what you 'see' in order to then conceive any 'vision' from there - thus you are constrained to the truth of vision, of a physical reality, of sight, smell, touch, sound.

All which could lie to you by themselves, but the apparent co-incidence of these 'senses' together points otherwise. (again your theory of infinity, and that given infinity, random chance turns to reality - this could happen, where these senses co-incide, though not physically (based on outside rules - which are not testable by the senses of man, because of this infinity of the universe and the random-becomes-reality theory))

What say you? I've gotta go so I'll finish my reply later...

[Chandler Frank]

Iclaudius


Quote:
Quote by: Chandler Frank View Post
The main assumption you seem to rely on, and the main downfall of most of your arguments.
The universe is not likely infinite. For it to be infinite could cause a multitude of paradoxes, (given your comments on another thread on the fact that given infinity, anything and/or everything is possible) Infinity itself may be a paradox, in that being constrained to a world, (and I propose, universe) that is defined by finity, our perception cannot go beyond such constraints. Nor is it ultimately proveable, for to prove infinity from within the constraints of the finity which we live and, more importantly, experiment is theoretically impossible.
I don't know where you took math, but you are criminally uninformed. Just because you can't sense infinity directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The universe must be infinite because of a basic mathematical truth; in order for any one thing to exist, everything must exist. For example, numbers 1-5 can't be the only numbers that exist, because their definition relies on a rule that constitutes numbers can go on forever. The distance between 1 and 2 is the same as the distance between 5 and 6. We have no reason to stop at 5 because we can keep counting. In fact, we MUST go on. Because you have established the rule of whole numbers, all possible whole numbers have been defined, and therefore numbers go on forever in accordance with this rule. Because numbers 1 and 2 are defined, every number in existence must be defined. And the same concept holds with the universe. If you exist, if something you see exists, then EVERYTHING exists. Read some Nietzsche, or at the very least do some research on wikipedia. What you have been told about infinity was disproved centuries ago.

Quote:
Not necessarily, for what imagination is based entirely on physical possibilities? Dreams, for example, at times take the memories, the desires and other things from the subconcious - concocting at times a 'physically' (based on the rules of our world - those that the mind knows it must conform to when awake) impossible vision and/or experience.
What I was referring to was, it's impossible to imagine a tangible paradox that works itself out. If it does work itself out, it wouldn't be a paradox. Therefore, everything that you imagine has some grounding in "rules" of the physical world, and therefore, anything relating to the physical world is physically possible on some level, in spite of contradictions in the laws of physics. The very nature of infinity entails that even the impossible things become not-so-impossible under the right circumstances.

Quote:
To take this slightly deeper (sorry I may have misunderstood your idea here, but bear with me)

This being the imagination basing it's existence upon the physical constraints of this world, an imagination somewhere must also base itself on some set of rules in order to imagine other rules.

Thus for an imagination to conceive anything at all in the first place it needs a concrete truth (that the mind itself takes as truth, not necesarily reality - but what is reality outside of your mind, for does not your mind tell you what that reality is?) to first base from in order to continue the imaginational construct - for example the mind must believe that the eyes show what is truly in front of you, what you 'see' in order to then conceive any 'vision' from there - thus you are constrained to the truth of vision, of a physical reality, of sight, smell, touch, sound.

All which could lie to you by themselves, but the apparent co-incidence of these 'senses' together points otherwise. (again your theory of infinity, and that given infinity, random chance turns to reality - this could happen, where these senses co-incide, though not physically (based on outside rules - which are not testable by the senses of man, because of this infinity of the universe and the random-becomes-reality theory))

What say you? I've gotta go so I'll finish my reply later...
No. Your senses could indeed be lying, but any lies would result in sensory paradoxes, which would be physical manifestations of contradictory "laws." There are many "tricks of the mind," I won't dispute that, but most of them are obvious and do not obscure our understanding of the universe because we know that they are just that. Paradoxes created in the mind are not the same as hypothetical paradoxes, or concrete paradoxes, and it's usually very easy to distinguish them. Even if our perception were comparatively rife with inaccuracies, we'd be able to spot them and know the limitations of our perceptions, and on that level, build an accurate picture of what the universe is really like. And even if your senses were lying to you 100% of the time, those lies would still have to behave according to the logic defined by everything in the first place, because nothing that is illogical can exist in this universe. Because the paradoxes we speak of are contradictions in what your mind senses and what really is, there is a logic structure that sustains them. Simply by understanding the patterns of logic that dictate which sensory paradoxes are in action, and when, we would (and are) able to understand the reality of the universe. All impacts in previous statement apply here.

[Chandler Frank]

Chandler Frank

I don't know where you took math, but you are criminally uninformed.

Criminally as in I should be in jail? Because I am apparently uninformed?
Gosh, you and your absurd accusations.

Just because you can't sense infinity directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sounds like a faith statement to me.
Is not one of the main detractions of creationists (to bring that up again) the broad statements made without evidence? (eg. 'just because you can't sense God directly doesn't mean he doesn't exist')

The universe must be infinite because of a basic mathematical truth; in order for any one thing to exist, everything must exist.

You have said this already in multiple forms. (Another faith statement)
Just because a square peg exists does not mean a square hole must exist. The human mind perceives that a hole for the square peg to go into could be possible, (and thus the mind may choose to implement that idea into the creation of a square hole for the square peg to go into) The only place where the square hole must exist is in your infinity, which is automatically disqualified from being the cause, lest we create another of your circular arguments.

In fact, we MUST go on. Because you have established the rule of whole numbers, all possible whole numbers have been defined, and therefore numbers go on forever in accordance with this rule.

Numbers do not go on forever with this rule, they only go on as far as one is willing, or decides, to use them. The perception of all (infinite) numbers is there, but the reality is not demonstrated unless (once again) infinity is employed - creating another circular argument.

And the same concept holds with the universe.

A mere equivocation.
Just because the mathematical equation exists does not mean that it applies to the universe.

If you exist, if something you see exists, then EVERYTHING exists.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I would state it as:
If you exist, if something you see exists, then you can perceive that EVERYTHING [could exist].

The very nature of infinity entails that even the impossible things become not-so-impossible under the right circumstances.

Thus either infinity itself is a paradox, or the existence of a paradox is a paradox. Again you base everything on the assumption that this universe IS infinite.
Try arguing such without the (even unspoken) preamble of "if the universe is infinite" or "because the universe is infinite" because at the moment you are walking in circles.

I won't dispute that, but most of them are obvious and do not obscure our understanding of the universe because we know that they are just that.

You say that we are generally able to perceive the difference between reality and a mind-trick, then you say that theoretically EVERYTHING is possible. Thus theoretically the notion that we are all 'mind-tricked' and cannot perceive this difference is also possible.
If you are going to skip so happily between theoretical possibilities and realistic possibilities, I'm afraid your arguments aren't going to hold too much water.

Simply by understanding the patterns of logic that dictate which sensory paradoxes are in action, and when, we would (and are) able to understand the reality of the universe.

And here you assume that we can actually ascertain and understand these patterns of logic, in an infinite universe (as you propose it) it is perfectly possible that such patterns of logic are indeterminable by the human mind - in fact they could be relatively illogical, at least in relation to what else we may call logic.

[Chandler Frank]

Hmm... a little messy, but it has all the relevant material I think.

Shall we, Good Sir Iclaudius?
Sorry I know there is a fair bit of material for you to reply to. I think it starts with the diagram post.

[iclaudius]

Before I respond here (and I will respond), I must respond to the other statements made by Chandler, that are relevant to the topic. The related discussion may be found here.

[EDIT:] Ooops those statements are here as well. In that case, I'll be responding here with re-directive posts there. My bad.

[iclaudius]

Sorry about the lateness. I'll be gone for 2 weeks, and I figured now was as good a time as any. So here it is, flaws and all:

This section of rebuttal is found here.

Quote by: Chandler Frank the concept of infinity is not the be all and end all of all laws of physics. For example the concept of infinity does not mean that gravity is infinite (for it lasts as long only as the body from which it has come from, as the body may deteriorate even if the space around it were to persist) Infinity is generally (I do not say this as an absolute) only attributed to space and time, where the expansion of the universe is "infinite" for it expands without boundaries - both temporally and spatially.

This doesn't respond to anything I said. I reiterate my argument: Infinity is just a way of noting behavior; if that behavior is not constrained to the laws of physics (very few objects fit this definition, it's hard to tell what can and cannot, but God clearly doesn't if he can alter anything at will), it does not exist. Even in infinite space.

God also is not constrained by these attributes (time and space) the only being that reaches beyond finity, it could be proposed that God, rather than be explained by infinity, be the definition of infinity? For what, fundamentally, is the difference between God and the concept of infinity? I propose that the infinity concept is merely a scientific reaction to the unexplainable, to the indeterminate, to that which reaches beyond the bounds of physicality, in other words, God.

What? That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Furthermore, how am I supposed to debate against an amorphous blob of a concept, like God. If you want to pursue that argument, I want you to define God for me. Is he sentient? Does he live? Does he have a conscious will? Is he a free agent, or just part of the standard rules of regular agency? Can he, in fact, alter the laws of physics?

Also, just so we're clear, impossible constructs that can alter any universal laws at will (like God) do not become suddenly possible in the course of infinity; infinity simply re-defines certain laws of physics as it fulfills itself. Why is another matter entirely (and not something I'd like to explain if I can avoid). You don't use infinity to explain away the un-explainable because its behavior is entirely predictable. Take a college-level math class, then come back and debate.

Again, you are trying to rationalise the impossible (or improbable) by using infinity rather than God. Or even defining your theories on the God of infinity. For you in one breathe to contend the existence of God because of His impossibility and the fact that He does not conform to physical rules, and then say that infinity itself is capable of such impossibilities - in fact basing the rest of your theories on the theory of infinity - is rather hypocritical.

Hey Chandler, STOP STRAW-MANNING THE ISSUE. I said that our notions of impossibility are re-defined as infinity approaches singularity. There are a different set of rules on that level, but there ARE rules. I never said something so utterly stupid as to allow for the existence of a sentient being who can alter the universe at will. He is, again, not physically possible on ANY LEVEL. If he does not abide by any rules whatsoever except his, then his being isn't a possibility here, because everything in this universe must abide by the rules.

the 2nd law of thermodynamics has a problem with it because I don't understand it? Does the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics need to be proven by the complete understanding of little old me? Does my apparent unsatisfactory comprehension invalidate the law itself? I don't think so.

Nice job dodging my explanation for the law's behavior. For the record, the inconsistency I was talking about was between the 2nd law and your stupidity. Next time, try actually reading the post.

a circular argument relying on the infinite universe to be fact to prove this as fact, where, (in fact ) you have not proven the fact of the infinite universe yet.

Hey, nice rebuttal to my statement with thorough and disproving logic.

Oh, wait...

Turns out not. First off, you say that the argument is circular reasoning, but you provide no evidence and you don't tell me how it applies here, or even how my statement is wrong. Well, Chandler, forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Your statement is impact-less because you have demonstrated nothing. You're calling my argument names, not debating. Next time, try actually backing your claim up, rather than writing off huge sections of debate by (wrongly) employing empty and non-applicative fallacies to my solid case. Second, if you knew what a circular argument was, you'd know that this isn't it. Just so we're straight, I'll explain it to you: a circular argument begins with the intention of proving notion Y, and supposes that if X was true, Y must also be true. It assumes again that because Y is true, X must also be true, and loops like that interminably. (Wikipedia example: "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists.")

The singular argument is different. I used the example of the number system. It will do here, as well: If two numbers exist, they must all be defined because the law between them constitutes a relationship that is non-terminable. Therefore, if they exist, all numbers exists. This law has individual working parts that affirm each other. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it. If you don't understand this, then you are either truly clueless or willfully ignorant. It is ok to admit you're wrong, you know.

a system that is closed is closed no matter how big that system is. Even if you have a 100,000 square metre house, if the door is closed, the door is closed, and your access to the outside world is shut off.

Irrelevant; you have not addressed the issue. Closed systems are not infinite, and your response ignores essentially everything I had to say.

[iclaudius]

This section found here.

Quote by: Chandler Frank I am glad of that, may I ask what it is you do prescribe to instead?

And who said I didn't subscribe to it? I merely noted that I didn't have to defend something I never brought up.

Tell me when you do, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised

I haven't finished them yet, but I will...

That is rather a grand statement for someone who testifies to needing such empirical evidence in order to believe certain other theories. Pigheadedness even.

Yeah? Good thing I didn't "testify to needing" direct evidence to attest to anything in order to believe something. Otherwise, I might be in trouble (and maybe even pigheaded). No, in the real world -- the one not fabricated by you, that is -- I am perfectly happy accepting theories that leave no evidence unaccounted for. That is the major function of the scientific theory, after all.

And you tried to lecture me on my faith?

Yes, Chandler, I'm trying to lecture you on your faith. That's why I signed up. I have no concerns other than to be self-righteous and preachy with respects to your faith, being that you, an anonymous internet poster, are the most important thing in my world. Great detective work, skippy, you really have me pinned down.

What would be your response if I was to say: [But regardless of what you think, God is infinite, and creation does exist.] Well?

I'd nod my head and wonder how you came to this conclusion and could state it so concretely with no evidence. Then I'd remember that religion is faith, and the spirit testified (or should have testified) to you, and I wouldn't pursue it further. Then I'd continue my reply to your statements, supplying proof for the argument that the universe is infinite (and subsequent impact that evolution does exist) with the work of generations of mathematicians each thoroughly smarter than both of us. And I'd explain why my scientific statements have nothing to do with your constant comparison to religion because they have been fundamentally proved, both by me and thousands of other people, whereas religion relies on faith, salvation, and the like. Why do you ask?

If your imagination is a place, then sure, I'll agree with your statement.

Irrelevant; you still haven't told me why the argument is wrong, or even that it's wrong. All you've said is, "it's circular," which is an incorrect analysis, and not necessarily a fallacy. And no, imagination is not a place.

I've read dozens of sites claiming to debunk creationism with supposed evidence, but I've yet to see compelling evidence not to believe the theory. Again, such a hypocritical and pigheaded remark of yours there.

Irrelevant; I never claimed to debunk creationism. All I'm doing is showing you that you're not debunking evolution or evolutionary theory. (And I'm showing you some other things, too.) Furthermore, a hypocritical remark would be one wherein I failed to adhere to a moral code delineated by myself. Being that this has absolutely nothing to do with morals, your comment falls under the heading of "non-applicative." Did you mean "contradictory remark"? As for pigheaded, no I'm not. If you believe that having read all of my response, you're mistaken, trolling, or just trying to make me lose it.

At least read the site. If you want to argue those theories as well, be my guest. The most convincing fact on that site is the amount of evidence there is there, it is more than a single theory, and I believe you will be hard pressed to prove the majority of it wrong.

Chandler, if you don't think I'm a responsible and reasonable man by now, you probably won't ever. But I will read the articles, and not because I want to prove them wrong, but because I'm genuinely interested. I fully accept that I could be wrong; I have been wrong even on this site. But if I am wrong here, you haven't shown me. If these sites convince me, I'll let you know. I wasn't saying it was worthless, I was saying that I've probably heard them before. And if I have, then I probably won't be convinced. I hope that you approach this debate with the same attitude I do, because there's nothing worse than being caught in an endless cycle of reiterating arguments and kicking each other around.

[iclaudius]

This section found here.

Quote by: Chandler Frank Criminally as in I should be in jail? Because I am apparently uninformed? Gosh, you and your absurd accusations.

Don't be a dick, Chandler. Jargon, slang, the idiom, and most every other means of communication that don't adhere to the exact lexicography of things are just as legitimate a method of communication as any. Your picking apart stuff like this is stupid, pointless, and ineffective as argumentation. It doesn't help that you didn't even interpret it correctly. For the record: because I did not specify whose criminal action it was, you (and the reader) are left to assume that this burden of guilt is the responsibility of whomever prevented you from learning. That the first thing to come out of your mouth is a witless (and premature) defense, I am left to assume that you feel... shall we say... guilty?

Sounds like a faith statement to me. Is not one of the main detractions of creationists (to bring that up again) the broad statements made without evidence? (eg. 'just because you can't sense God directly doesn't mean he doesn't exist')

Judging by the level of misinterpretation/misunderstanding in virtually every statement you've ever made to me, I'm not surprised you read that as a statement of faith, and that you've decided the faith of this statement is on the level of your faith in religion. Thing is, everything requires some degree of faith, but that comparison is non-applicable because I supply specific proof for its existence. (See before.) Furthermore, I would never use "you can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist" as an argument against it; I merely ask that creationists do not front religion as a scientific enterprise. Unless you can cite me as specifically stating something like this, this statement has no impact on our discussion. Furthermore, it's misleading; your implicative comparison to religion isn't fooling anyone. They are still completely different.

You have said this already in multiple forms. (Another faith statement) Just because a square peg exists does not mean a square hole must exist. The human mind perceives that a hole for the square peg to go into could be possible, (and thus the mind may choose to implement that idea into the creation of a square hole for the square peg to go into) The only place where the square hole must exist is in your infinity, which is automatically disqualified from being the cause, lest we create another of your circular arguments.

Everything is a faith statement. The only "faith" I have is the faith that the facts I have observed and the logic I present are not fallible. Your argument that it is circular means nothing unless you can tell me why this is bad for my case. Because it relies on itself? In fact, that it is circular is entirely the point. It's singular theory -- the entirety of everything is one giant self-reflexive statement. Your statement is essentially sunk because my circular argument has punched a bunch of little circular holes in it.

Numbers do not go on forever with this rule, they only go on as far as one is willing, or decides, to use them. The perception of all (infinite) numbers is there, but the reality is not demonstrated unless (once again) infinity is employed - creating another circular argument.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH.

Wait, wait....

WWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA.

Whew. You say that numbers only go as far as we are willing to acknowledge them, but what determines what the value, placement, name, etc. of this new number? Already present rules defined by two numbers being existent. Since these rules do not specify where numbers stop, it is possible to count forever. This does not depend upon us counting; rest assured, they would still be factual concepts even if we hadn't founded mathematics. Oh, and their reality is everpresent. They are a symptom of a greater rule that governs and defines everything.

A mere equivocation. Just because the mathematical equation exists does not mean that it applies to the universe.

No, it's not a "mere equivocation." If it's an equivocation at all (it's not; the rule is tailor-fit to an explanation of everything), then it is the equivocation. Your classifying it as such does not diminish the impact of the argument. And all equations, no matter how rebellious, correspond to some action in this infinite universe. I believe I've already demonstrated this in these posts, though.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I would state it as: If you exist, if something you see exists, then you can perceive that EVERYTHING [could exist].

I would restate this as: "Whoops! I relied on a fundamentally unprovable assertion and ridiculed myself in public because I forgot to do my research concerning fundamental laws of mathematics."

But again, we've been over this issue in this post session, so...

Thus either infinity itself is a paradox, or the existence of a paradox is a paradox. Again you base everything on the assumption that this universe IS infinite.

No... that things which seemed impossible previously suddenly become less than impossible only indicates that our perception of rules is flawed. For someone who fronts that "perception lies" argument so often, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on it. We see so much and understand so very little. That's what I was saying.

Try arguing such without the (even unspoken) preamble of "if the universe is infinite" or "because the universe is infinite" because at the moment you are walking in circles.

Try arguing without fallible non-argumentation and fantastic lengths of non-applicative reasoning. That's the reason we're walking in circles, Mr. Frank.

You say that we are generally able to perceive the difference between reality and a mind-trick, then you say that theoretically EVERYTHING is possible. Thus theoretically the notion that we are all 'mind-tricked' and cannot perceive this difference is also possible.

When I was talking about things being possible, I was specifically referring to physical phenomena, and not contradictory, faulty logical "possibilities." Your supposed possibility and what I spoke of are entirely different things.

If you are going to skip so happily between theoretical possibilities and realistic possibilities, I'm afraid your arguments aren't going to hold too much water.

Yeah? And if you're going to disregard the dimensions of the debate, and skip merrily through logical barriers, I bet you could make it seem like it didn't make any sense at all.

As a sidenote, there is no difference between "theoretical possibilities" and "realistic possibilities." All possibilities are realistic. And my argument does hold water (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

And here you assume that we can actually ascertain and understand these patterns of logic, in an infinite universe (as you propose it) it is perfectly possible that such patterns of logic are indeterminable by the human mind - in fact they could be relatively illogical, at least in relation to what else we may call logic.

What evidence do you have that says we can't?

[Nathan Struth]

THe universe can't be infinite, nor can time... Here's why it 's a very simple proof.

Definition:1. Time is used to represent change.
2. Infinity divided by anything = infinity.

Axioms:1. Infinity cannot be divided by infinity in this scenario.

If the universe is infinite, then you cannot divide it! Or else by def. 2 you would get an infinite quoetient. But don't try to say infinity / infinity because of Axiom 1.

Try to refute this proof I made it myself. I got help from Spinozas Ethics pt. 1 and 2.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Nathan Struth THe universe can't be infinite, nor can time... Here's why it 's a very simple proof. Definition:1. Time is used to represent change. 2. Infinity divided by anything = infinity. Axioms:1. Infinity cannot be divided by infinity in this scenario. If the universe is infinite, then you cannot divide it! Or else by def. 2 you would get an infinite quoetient. But don't try to say infinity / infinity because of Axiom 1. Try to refute this proof I made it myself. I got help from Spinozas Ethics pt. 1 and 2.

The present mathimatics and cosmology of the nature of existence recognizes actual infinites which work well in the present models for the nature of our universe and the non-universe that surrounds it. Yes, infinity cannot be divided, but in the present models for cosmologies of existence they are not trying to divide actual infinities in time and space. There are basically variations of two models cosmologists use for our universe. The first is that the universe is finite in both time and space and began in a singularity that expanded to our present state and will end either by contraction to another singularity or it will disapate into a th non-universe I will call th Infinite Matrix (IM). The second model invlves a cyclic universe that expands and contracts in a cyclic manner and is infinite in time, yes, present mathmatics and cosmology allows for infinite time. Both of these models fit within various multiverse models that in turn exist within the IM. The IM is basically an infinite matrix in time and space with infinite matter and energy. Universe from exist and end within this IM according to the laws of the IM.