Are theists right in saying that 'infinity is god' ? I think infinity means 'no end' hence 'no god' ( as god=end for theists)

Infinity is infinity, its nothing what a human mind can measure. God is a human concept, originated due to fear, as one who looks after. Human concept of god can't be compared to infinity, which is physics and reality of nature.

Views: 497

Replies to This Discussion

W.L. Craig is the master of the non sequitor, He tries to connect dots where no connection exists. A fine example of the twisting and turning and noodling apologists try to employ to square the round hole. When looked at carefully you notice he is more trying to convince himself and his fellow Xtians than solidify a theory.

A good valid theory tries to both prove and disprove facts. Facts that WLC skirts around or dismisses when proved to be inconvenient. Using scientific language to further his nonsense only exposes him for the ignoramus he is.

To expose himself to debate with people who know what they're talking about seems rather masochistic to me, however it does seem to more than pay the bills for him.

Yeah, but rather than saying stuff about WLC, how about unpacking his argument?  What doesn't work about it?

It's not an argument. It's an argument by assertion, rhetoric, mutually exclusive and vapid. That's why it doesn't work. Any further need to expose it is a waste of resources.

And the worst assertion of them all (at least as far as WLC is concerned) is his "self-authenticating witness of the holy spirit."  We all have it, or so says Craig, and if we say we don't, then we must be in denial about it because EVERYONE HAS IT!

Sure we do, Bill, SUUUUUUUUUUURE we do.  Now be a good boy and take your medicine...

Any further need to expose it is a waste of resources.

That's an unwarranted judgement.

For one thing, some people are apparently convinced by this kind of thing, and they go around repeating it as proof of the existence of God. 

But it's hard to see logic in it.  His statement 1) is without proof, and I'm not even sure why someone would think it's true. 

Luara, people aren't convinced by that kind of thing.  No one became a Christian because of the first cause argument.

These sorts of arguments, and apologetics in general, are used to reassure the sheep.  They're post hoc rationalizations for people who came to their beliefs for irrational, emotional reasons.  They're used to prop up brainwashing.

people aren't convinced by that kind of thing.

Probably true that nobody or almost nobody is convinced BY such an argument.  Including WLC - he comes up with lots of such arguments and in the end says it's the Holy Spirit that has persuaded him. 

People do go around repeating such arguments as if they believed them, though. 

Perhaps out of a deference to authority, a belief that WLC must know what he's talking about, even if they don't. 

While I shouldn't use such absolute language, you got the point.  There are plenty of people who will do the most profoundly stupid things, but we shouldn't consider the 1% to be representative of the whole.

Even in those cases, though, can you really say that the first-cause argument convinced the person?  I think the most you could say is that a preacher giving a formal argument convinced the convert that he was one-uh them there in-tell-ecshuls, and that you should listen to his followup authoritarian appeals from the Bible.

People do go around repeating such arguments as if they believed them, though.

I'm sure that people actually believe them.  They just weren't convinced by the arguments, because they already believed in Christianity.  I'm splitting hairs a little, here.

They adopted the arguments and believe them, because they're looking for a rational foundation for something which doesn't have one.  These arguments are all post hoc, like I said.

Any sense of play about it, anyone? 

What can you make of it?  Craig brings up an interesting idea:  that you can't have time with an arrow from past to future, that goes on infinitely into the past.   

The brusque dismissals are what's a waste of time, because they are an obvious reaction. 

I'm sorry Laura but the arrow of time is hardly a WLC epiphany, and that he jumps on it to prove the existence of god, well I'll leave it with you to follow his logic and judge for yourself. There can be a hearty discussion of the nature and physics of the space-time continuum on this site, but to bring in Kaptain Kangeroo into the discussion because he also wants to conflate the god IS physics argument seems to cheapen the neighbourhood.

Luara, the problem is that it doesn't matter.

Okay, so demonstrate to me that an actual infinity is impossible.  Have you gotten one step closer to demonstrating the existence of your god?  No.

I already accept that the universe as we know it, probably had a beginning.  That isn't necessarily the beginning of everything, though.  We need to work on the math to model the universe before the expansion point of the Big Bang.

Plus, if you listen to Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, there was something before the Big Bang.  There just wasn't much in it.  I'd have to go listen to Krauss's universe-from-nothing talk again, before I could put together the details into something coherent.

If you do a search for "YouTube Lawrence Krauss a universe from nothing," you'll come up with a couple dozen versions of the lectures he has done all over the place.

I'll try taking a look at this, and see whether I can find any actual sense in it. 

Craig's claim is that time that comes with directionality, an "arrow" that defines past and future, cannot go back infinitely into the past. 

What does he mean by a "collection formed by successive addition"? 

"Forming by successive addition" implies something that happens in time.  So 1) and 3) are equivalent assertions. 

But what's the evidence for 1) and 3)? 

Suppose you think in terms of the "thermodynamic arrow of time", i.e. entropy was less in the past because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Then, at least if entropy is quantized and not negative, there has to be a time when entropy was at a minimum. 

Does that time qualify as the Start of Everything?  Not necessarily, because we don't know if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds at every place and time. Perhaps "before" that time of minimum entropy, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold any more. 

But that's adding considerations that Craig doesn't mention. 

It's true that the collection of past events in a human's memory is finite.  As finite beings, we can't have an infinite memory.  But he's trying to prove a lot more than that. 

Perhaps there are other ways to modify his argument into something that makes sense.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service