[Juichiro]

(Original post by AFE95)
Now I'm very fond of science, but i do feel could science explain the reason how God(s) created the universe and not why he/she/it couldn't? Maybe not for theism but for deism?

Please be civil and answer respectfully and nicely whether you be theist, atheist, Deist or agnostic

FYI: Deism is a belief that a creator made the universe but has no role in the workings of it i.e no miracles or divine interventions

Assuming he does not exist, how can you prove the noexistence of something?
Assuming he exists, it depends on whether or not He lets himself be known.

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by aurao2003)
And what would you define as scientific progress? The basic problems of injustice, sickness, racism, war, poverty, affordable housing (Should I go on) still stare us daily in the face.

Science and critical thinking have and continue to improve all those issues.

There has been some improvement. Yet, we can not afford to feed the whole world with all our scientific discoveries.

Yet. But we can afford to feed a lot more than a century ago.

Life has been improved but what of the quality? So called eradicated diseases are making a comeback.

You differentiate between 'life improvement' and 'increased quality of life'? That's an odd one.

A small number of previously managed diseases are making a come back. The health of humans has improved dramatically thanks to scientific progress.

Science has played a devastating role in the destruction of the human race and defacing of our planet.

Not as devastating as religion. At the very least, the good role:bad role ratio is higher for science for religion.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What does that have to do with his statement?

atheism is without God, and I'm asking how can you have objective morality without God.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Good bloke)
But he hasn't, has he?

hasn't he how, have you been to heaven to see?

Because society deems it to be. Your gods seem to like it, which tells us somnething about them and you.

So if society decided it was alright to murder babies and it was common practice, would you?

Really, how does he? Like I said, back your claims up? If it were so, freeing slaves wouldn't have been encouraged.

I'm going on holiday now. I expect you will be going round in circles when I get back.

care to explain how my argument is "circular"? how about you actually show me how my argument is so instead of continually making claims without backing them up.

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Good bloke)
So what? The only one we can see at the moment is the one we inhabit.

yes, and if the singularity had existed forever or there was an infinite cycle, we would not get here because of the infinite regress, but we are here so this is a testimony that those theories are false.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Yes it is alcoholic... Otherwise it's called non- alcoholic wine, or Shloer or whatever other branded wine- like soft drinks there are.

oh really it is alcoholic, so im assuming you've tasted this wine because thats how you know. oh right, yeah I forgot they sold shloer in the arabian desert 1400AD, how silly of me.

if heaven is like nothing we've seen nor experienced before, even we will be a new creation in heaven that is unfamiliar to us, logic would dictate that this is a simile.

[ackbar]

(Original post by King-Panther)
yes, and if the singularity had existed forever or there was an infinite cycle, we would not get here because of the infinite regress, but we are here so this is a testimony that those theories are false.

This is the first time I have heard of the infinite regression argument and find it fascinating. I think I may finally be beginning to understand it, but need a little help to refine my thought exercise.

A) Infinite Regression can not exist
By your own argument we have established this.

B) God(s) is eternal, infinite, has always existed and will always exist.
If A is true than logically B is also true.

C) The universe was created at some point and is finite with a beginning and an end.
Again a statement built on your infinite regression argument.

D) God(s) Created the universe
If A,B, and C are true than logically D is true.

E) There was a time before God(s) created the universe.
Again logically if the universe was created, there was a time when the universe did not exist correct?

F) God(s) waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.
Uh Oh I see an infinite regression argument on the horizon here

G) From F, there was an infinite period before the creation of the universe

H) From G, the universe can never be created because there is infinite time before it's creation

I) We are here, the universe exists.

Unless of course God(s) is finite and has his own first cause stretching back into infinity .... but as statement A is true this cannot be true.

So either God(s) gets special dispensation to be outside of your logical argument, or we accept there has always been a god(s), in which case why is it not possible to assume there has always been a universe?

I'm sure some of the readers of this thread will help me refine this argument but as far as I can see, the infinite regression paradox cannot be used to prove the existence of a god(s) any more than it can be used to disprove the existence of a god(s)

Jesus promised to get rid of all the wicked people.
Odin promised to get rid of all the ice giants.
I don't see any Ice giants

LOGIC!

[nugiboy]

The thing is that parts of religion and science are starting to line up and compliment each other now more than ever before. As scientists push closer and closer to understanding the very roots of the universe that is the world of quantum physics, even philistine scientific method academics are starting to question our current fixed and mechanistic view of the universe. At this level of perception, the very fabric of the universe and all the systems and theories we have built to describe it just seem to go completely out the window. Ideas like multiple universes, 11 dimensions (M-Theory) and all existing matter being simply vibrations, which have been spoken of for millennia, especially in eastern philosophy and ancient religions - are being seen as very likely models of the universe.

I'm not saying that all religions are teaching the absolute truth, as they have inevitably become distorted and bastardised over time - however the pure spiritual roots that they all stem from have more in common with science than you might realise, and these two seemingly exclusive ways of thinking (science and spirituality) are converging to to the same conclusion now faster than ever as we look closer and closer at the core architecture of the universe.

Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996) sums it up perfectly.

"The notion that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by ackbar)
This is the first time I have heard of the infinite regression argument and find it fascinating. I think I may finally be beginning to understand it, but need a little help to refine my thought exercise.

A) Infinite Regression can not exist
By your own argument we have established this.

B) God(s) is eternal, infinite, has always existed and will always exist.
If A is true than logically B is also true.

C) The universe was created at some point and is finite with a beginning and an end.
Again a statement built on your infinite regression argument.

D) God(s) Created the universe
If A,B, and C are true than logically D is true.

E) There was a time before God(s) created the universe.
Again logically if the universe was created, there was a time when the universe did not exist correct?

F) God(s) waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.
Uh Oh I see an infinite regression argument on the horizon here

G) From F, there was an infinite period before the creation of the universe

H) From G, the universe can never be created because there is infinite time before it's creation

I) We are here, the universe exists.

Unless of course God(s) is finite and has his own first cause stretching back into infinity .... but as statement A is true this cannot be true.

So either God(s) gets special dispensation to be outside of your logical argument, or we accept there has always been a god(s), in which case why is it not possible to assume there has always been a universe?

I'm sure some of the readers of this thread will help me refine this argument but as far as I can see, the infinite regression paradox cannot be used to prove the existence of a god(s) any more than it can be used to disprove the existence of a god(s)

Jesus promised to get rid of all the wicked people.
Odin promised to get rid of all the ice giants.
I don't see any Ice giants

LOGIC!

A only works if you believe this argument about infinite regression-which is based on an incorrect understanding of infinite. Infinite regress can exist-just look at infinite geometric sequences. We "cannot" add up all the numbers in a geometric sequence, but we actually know it is possible to finish adding them up and we know what we get when we do add them up. The infinite regress impossibility is not correct. This makes C, D, incorrect.

B doesn't follow logically from A at all, they are completely separate ideas.

F will be countered by theists by saying that time itself was created when the universe was created, hence there was no "time" before the universe, just "god". So G,H,I are all irrelevant.

The better argument is to simply disprove A, which is possible, and I've done it in another thread "DNA Proves God". Anyone claiming infinite regress doesn't work is making the same fallacy of thought as those who cannot accept 0.9999... recurring = 1, those who misunderstand the paradox with going halfway towards a finishing line and never getting there, cannot accept infinite geometrical sequences --- in other words, those who don't have the concept of infinite down correctly. It is difficult to accept that there may have been an infinite regress of recurring universes before our own, or that there was an infinite period of time before our big bang, but there's no sound logical argument to demonstrate it is impossible. It's a very difficult thing to disprove, but the misconception is based on the human difficulty with understanding infinity and our preconception that in the infinite past, there's a "first" universe or something of the sort.

In any case, I don't actually think there was an infinite regress. I think the idea of a period "before" the universe is actually a fallacy in itself-there can be no time without something to measure it against, and so I think our perception of the universe, limited by our experiences of slow, medium-sized things and their effect on our evolution, is highly fallible and will find it difficult to accept these things until (if?) we get any scientific evidence about origin. The next hurdle to overcome when dismissing these ridiculous "logic-based" proofs of god will be to get rid of the preconception that something cannot be created from nothing-I don't see why this should be the case, after all, if there truly is "nothing" there should be no laws, no restrictions on what is possible. If there are laws of nature, I think it's likely that it is not truly nothing. Of course this seems counter-intuitive, which is why I don't actually think it's possible to have "nothing" since we know there is something now. In any case, it's a fascinating discussion.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I am saying that, we needed infinite time before our own universe to "arrive" here, as you claim correctly, because there are an infinite number of universes before our own.

you can't grasp something so simple and you think you're smart, or you're playing dumb because thats how desperate you are to avoid God.

You see, we can see here that you clearly do not understand what infinity is, it is something that has no beginning and no end, it goes on forever. If there was an infinite number of universes before ours, we would NEVER get here because INFINITY NEVER ENDS, A NEVER ENDING NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS.

an infinite time NEVER ENDS, so this time required to get here will NEVER END!

However, by definition there has been an infinite amount of time before us, in an infinite loop, so this prerequisite has already been met.

No, an infinite time can never be met because it NEVER ENDS, the time is ENDLESS, AKA NEVER ENDING, for us to get here the time required would have come to an END, which would make it finite and NOT INFINITE!

Clearly I need to address this in simpler language so that you can understand it. Let's try another method.

indeed it is me who does not understand infinity NEVER ENDS!

Call our universe 0. We are a reference point in the infinite loop. Before us, there are no universes, and after us, there are no universes. We have infinite time before us, and infinite time after us. Imagine we did have an infinite loop like we are arguing about, but we've taken out the universes before and after, leaving just infinite time.

A reference point is equivalent to a starting point, a place were you begin counting from, begin is another word for start, I promise, look it up.

this universe is never ending, TIME/SPACE were created after the big band, so why are you applying this beyond our universe.

that can be the case but the TIME LEADING UP TO THE UNIVERSE CAN NOT BE INFINITE, BECAUSE THE TIME WILL NEVER END, THIS ALSO APPLIES TO THE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES AS WELL...

Step 1: We add one universe before us and one universe after us.

this can't be the case, the universe before us in the loop is gone and now ours exists... and one will come after ours once this has ended.

Clearly this is possible because the time before us is infinite, and the universe's time is finite, and so we will be able to "fit" it into our loop

are you suggesting that there are an infinite number before ours and an infinte number of universes after ours in existence right now?

Step 2: Repeat step 1 ad infinitum.
What is the idea behind this thought experiment? We are here. We can keep adding universes before and after us forever, i.e. we can add infinite universes before and after us,

see, IF THERE IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES, A NEVER ENDING NUMBER, THE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS CAN NEVER COME TO AN END, SO WE WILL NEVER GET HERE....

because we are here is a testimony that this is false, and that the singularity or "loop" and a finite beginning, therefore was created.

because the time before us is infinite and the finite time a universe lasts for will be able to "fit" into the infinite time before us. We will never have any difficulty fitting the next universe into the sequence. With infinite time performing step 1 over and over again, we'll reach a situation like our own, with infinite universes before and after, fitting into the time available. Hence we have gone from a situation we know is true - we are here, with infinite time before and after - to a situation we have therefore proven is true - infinite universes before and after us - by simply steps.[/QUOTE]

indeed we are here, but if there were an INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) number of universe before ours, we would never get here because the NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS NEVER ENDS!

The thing you do not understand is that the infinite time has gone on forever

.

FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME, INFINITY/FOREVER, IS NEVER ENDING, THE TIME NEVER COMES TO AN END! SO WE WOULD NEVER GET HERE BECAUSE IF WE DID, THE NEVER ENDIND (INFINITE) TIME HAS ENDED, THUS WE KNOW THIS CAN'T BE TRUE!

Yes. Before us, there was infinite time. We can keep going back and it will never stop. There was no starting point. It went on FOREVER. There were an infinite number of universes Nevertheless, there is infinite time, and so we can keep on counting one further in this cycle until we reach our own universe.

IF THE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS IS NEVER ENDING, WE WILL NEVER GET HERE BECAUSE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS!

You either genuinely do not have the intellect to grasp something as simple as infinite regress or you're doing all this to avoid God, I'm assuming it is the latter.

No number is big enough to stop infinite time

SEE YOU GET IT! BECAUSE INFINITY NEVER STOPS, ITS ENDLESS!

from reaching our point in the cycle, not even infinity.

so, this is were you don't understand.... Infinity is NEVER ENDING, THIS NUMBER NEVER STOPS, THIS NUMBER KEEPS ON GOING, IF IT STOPS, ITS NOT INFINITY!

Your problem comes from an inability to understand that there is no starting point, there is no "position" that we hold in this loop, there is just the infinite cycling of big bangs and crunches that is the basis of this universe. In each universe, something will happen, and in one of those cases, it has been us.

It is me who does not understand infinity? FOR THE ONE BILLIONTH TIME, IF THERE IS AN INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS, WE WOULD NEVER GET HERE BECAUSE THIS NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS NEVER ENDS!

Even if your arguments for something from nothing and infinite regress were true,

no, as I have demonstrated continuously that they are true. I just can't fathom why you can't understand why you can't understand INFINITY HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END, IT IS ENDLESS. SO IF YOU WERE TO APPLY THIS, THE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS WOULD NEVER END, THEREFORE WE WOULD NEVER GET HERE, BECASE THIS NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS NEVR ENDS!!!!!!!!

there's still more obstacles for you to overcome to prove that a god exists. You have to prove that each universe is not uniform-that is, prove that each universe is unique.

well we don't even know that there are other universes! What I have proven is that "THE SINGULARITY COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED FOREVER NOR CAN THERE BE AN INFINITE LOOP, DUE TO INFINITE REGRESS WE WOULD NEVER GET HERE, BUT WE ARE HERE THEREFORE THIS IS A TESTIMONY THAT THIS CAN'T BE TRUE, THUS THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE. I HAVE ALSO PROVEN "SOMETHING CAN NOT BE CREATED FROM NOTHING", THEREFORE OUR UNIVERSE REQUIRES A CREATOR".

That's not necessarily so. If it is a singularity that explodes, it will have exactly the same properties and be in exactly the same environment as every other singularity that has existed before, and so when it explodes it will be exactly the same as before.

do you know anything about the big bang, and know the probability of life, so what are you basing that on?

what you said still doesnt negate that a singularity can't exist forever nor that we can exist in an infinite loop, because it can't as I've proven.

This would result in an infinite loop of exactly the same universe: hence even if everything you said is correct, we will still "get here".

see, you just KEEP making this false/wrong claim. INFINITY NEVER ENDS, THE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BEFORE OURS IS NEVER ENDING! BECAUSE IT NEVER ENDS, WE WILL NEVER GET HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You also have to prove that there can actually be nothing, and that it's not just completely meaningless, because it's commonly accepted that without matter there can be no time, and if there is no time, does this "nothing" have any meaning at all? If there is something now, is it possible for nothing to have ever existed given that we know it is impossible to remove energy/matter from the universe?

No, I don't think there was ever nothing, I there always was God. We can get into this as well, as you may have read I can prove this also.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by ackbar)
This is the first time I have heard of the infinite regression argument and find it fascinating. I think I may finally be beginning to understand it, but need a little help to refine my thought exercise.

A) Infinite Regression can not exist
By your own argument we have established this.

B) God(s) is eternal, infinite, has always existed and will always exist.
If A is true than logically B is also true.

No, I don't use God in my initial argument, i prove that he is required.

C) The universe was created at some point and is finite with a beginning and an end.
Again a statement built on your infinite regression argument.

D) God(s) Created the universe
If A,B, and C are true than logically D is true.

If D is the case, I based that upon the universe being finite and then "something can not be created from nothing", therefore God..... I don't agree with the order of your statements but I do agree with time.

E) There was a time before God(s) created the universe.
Again logically if the universe was created, [B]there was a time when the universe did not exist correct?

Indeed that is correct but I think your missing a basic understanding of science "time and space" were created after the big bang....

yes, it has to be finite (have a starting point of existence) because if it hadn't and they claim its infinite, we would have infinite regress

indeed this is the case for the universe.

F) God(s) waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.
Uh Oh I see an infinite regression argument on the horizon here

Well no, he actually created time.... You're trying to use something he created and apply it to him, in order to disprove him which is a fallacy.

G) From F, there was an infinite period before the creation of the universe
H) From G, the universe can never be created because there is infinite time before it's creation

No, well once again your applying something "time", which we know was created after the big bang.

I) We are here, the universe exists.

Unless of course God(s) is finite and has his own first cause stretching back into infinity .... but as statement A is true this cannot be true.

Indeed it is not true. If God created the universe, he would have created everything we know, directly or indirectly, (time, space, gravity, concepts and so forth). Therefore the very concept of creation was created by God (can you deny this if God is the creator of the universe), the very idea that something can be created and brought into existence was created by God, so to apply this to god is a fallacy.

However, if God did have a creator, who created him, and then who created him and then who created him, and so on, this will go on forever, and because it goes on forever we would never get here because there would be infinite regress, but the fact we are here is a testimony that this question "who created God" is a fallacy.

So either God(s) gets special dispensation to be outside of your logical argument, or we accept there has always been a god(s), in which case why is it not possible to assume there has always been a universe?

No, we know that the universe had a beginning (big bang) and we know it is finite or we couldn't have got here, due to infinite regress.

I'm sure some of the readers of this thread will help me refine this argument but as far as I can see, the infinite regression paradox cannot be used to prove the existence of a god(s) any more than it can be used to disprove the existence of a god(s)

Its not a paradox, if there are an infinite number of universes before ours we would get infinite regress. Nice try though, genuinely.

Jesus promised to get rid of all the wicked people.
Odin promised to get rid of all the ice giants.
I don't see any Ice giants

LOGIC!

I wouldnt know what Jesus promised and i'm sure the jesus you know of is different to the one I know of...

Indeed, LOGIC... However you didn't know time/space was created after the big band.

I look forward to your reply.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by King-Panther)
you can't grasp something so simple and you think you're smart, or you're playing dumb because thats how desperate you are to avoid God.

Sorry, but you don't understand the concept of infinity. Let's not start ad hominem attacks, it's not mature and shows you realise you're losing the argument.

x

I started replying to your post, but you keep on just saying "Infinity is infinity therefore we won't get here", in progressively bigger and bigger letters and more outrageous colours.

Let me help you understand. There is no starting point in an infinite loop. All that we have, is reference points, a certain position in the cycle, and we can label every universe in relation to that universe. What you are doing, is assuming a reference point a long way in the past, claiming that there is infinite time between that universe an our universe, and so we can never reach our own universe. However, we know that there is only finite time between our own universe and any other universe. Hence no matter how far back you take this reference point, there will always be finite time from then to now. So we will always make it to this point from any universe, no matter how far back.

You can keep putting the reference point further and further back in the sequence of universes, and the time between then and now will still be finite. You can only have infinite time between then and now if you place an imaginary reference point an infinite number of universes ago. And when that happens, you have contradicted yourself, because then there is by definition, no starting point, because the reference point we are using is an infinite number of universes ago. You used the argument to demonstrate that there is a starting point, but at the same time demonstrated that there can be no starting point. When a contradiction exists, one of the premises behind the argument must be wrong, and that premise is that an infinite regress cannot exist.



Even if the above were incorrect, which it's not, you have to demonstrate that each universe is different, because if it were uniform each time, this argument wouldn't even matter because obviously we will keep repeating exactly the same universe. And there's no reason to believe it would be different each time.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
A only works if you believe this argument about infinite regression-which is based on an incorrect understanding of infinite. Infinite regress can exist-just look at infinite geometric sequences. We "cannot" add up all the numbers in a geometric sequence, but we actually know it is possible to finish adding them up and we know what we get when we do add them up. The infinite regress impossibility is not correct. This makes C, D, incorrect.

yes but we have a starting point and infinity has neither a beginning nor an end.

B doesn't follow logically from A at all, they are completely separate ideas.

i agree.

F will be countered by theists by saying that time itself was created when the universe was created, hence there was no "time" before the universe, just "god". So G,H,I are all irrelevant.

but we know this from studying physics, time/space was created after the big bang...

The better argument is to simply disprove A, which is possible, and I've done it in another thread "DNA Proves God".

well no, I've just proven a million times that you don't get the basic principle that infinity has no beginning nor end, its never ending, therefore the number of universes before ours is never ending, therefore we would never get here.

Anyone claiming infinite regress doesn't work is making the same fallacy of thought as those who cannot accept 0.9999... recurring = 1

0.999 was recurring infinitely, firstly was have a starting point. 0.9, something infinite has no beginning/starting point.

those who misunderstand the paradox with going halfway towards a finishing line and never getting there, cannot accept infinite geometrical sequences --- in other words, those who don't have the concept of infinite down correctly. It is difficult to accept that there may have been an infinite regress of recurring universes before our own,

no, no, firstly these are different argument... 0.9, has a starting point, infinity doesnt.

or that there was an infinite period of time before our big bang, but there's no sound logical argument to demonstrate it is impossible. It's a very difficult thing to disprove, but the misconception is based on the human difficulty with understanding infinity and our preconception that in the infinite past, there's a "first" universe or something of the sort.

indeed you have great difficultly understanding "infinity has no beginning and no end", if the was an infinite number (never ending) of universes before ours, we would never get here because this number never ends, its endless.

I

n any case, I don't actually think there was an infinite regress. I think the idea of a period "before" the universe is actually a fallacy in itself-there can be no time without something to measure it against, and so I think our perception of the universe, limited by our experiences of slow, medium-sized things and their effect on our evolution, is highly fallible and will find it difficult to accept these things until (if?) we get any scientific evidence about origin. The next hurdle to overcome when dismissing these ridiculous "logic-based"

ridiculous but they're based on sound logic... atheists, the logic of the illogical!

proofs of god will be to get rid of the preconception that something cannot be created from nothing-

No, that will never be the case because "something can not be created from nothing" is something that can be known a priori as well as being an analytical truth.

I don't see why this should be the case, after all, if there truly is "nothing" there should be no laws, no restrictions on what is possible.If there are laws of nature, I think it's likely that it is not truly nothing. Of course this seems counter-intuitive, which is why I don't actually think it's possible to have "nothing" since we know there is something now. In any case, it's a fascinating discussion.

laws can not be known a priori, logic is beyond laws, as I demonstrated with 1+1=2

[Fungii]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Sorry, but you don't understand the concept of infinity. Let's not start ad hominem attacks, it's not mature and shows you realise you're losing the argument.



I started replying to your post, but you keep on just saying "Infinity is infinity therefore we won't get here", in progressively bigger and bigger letters and more outrageous colours.

Let me help you understand. There is no starting point in an infinite loop. All that we have, is reference points, a certain position in the cycle, and we can label every universe in relation to that universe. What you are doing, is assuming a reference point a long way in the past, claiming that there is infinite time between that universe an our universe, and so we can never reach our own universe. However, we know that there is only finite time between our own universe and any other universe. Hence no matter how far back you take this reference point, there will always be finite time from then to now. So we will always make it to this point from any universe, no matter how far back.

You can keep putting the reference point further and further back in the sequence of universes, and the time between then and now will still be finite. You can only have infinite time between then and now if you place an imaginary reference point an infinite number of universes ago. And when that happens, you have contradicted yourself, because then there is by definition, no starting point, because the reference point we are using is an infinite number of universes ago. You used the argument to demonstrate that there is a starting point, but at the same time demonstrated that there can be no starting point. When a contradiction exists, one of the premises behind the argument must be wrong, and that premise is that an infinite regress cannot exist.



Even if the above were incorrect, which it's not, you have to demonstrate that each universe is different, because if it were uniform each time, this argument wouldn't even matter because obviously we will keep repeating exactly the same universe. And there's no reason to believe it would be different each time.

Which would make the Universe finite. If these "Universes" do not go back an "infinite amount of time" (which is a paradox), then they CANNOT be infinite.

Seriously, you're not making any sense at all. It's as if you're trying to convince yourself of the nonsense you are coming out with.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by King-Panther)
yes but we have a starting point and infinity has neither a beginning nor an end.

I think we have hit on your problem with understanding.

Infinite does not need to have no beginning or ending. Pi is infinite, with a beginning but no ending. Whole, negative numbers starting most negative have no starting point, but an ending point, and are infinite. The time before our universe has no starting point, but has an ending point, and is infinite.

(Original post by Fungii)
Which would make the Universe finite. If these Universes do not go back an infinite amount of time (which is a paradox), then they CANNOT be infinite.

You need to continue reading the post, it's pretty clear you got bored and just decided to try and find a flaw. The universes go back infinitely, it's the reference point we are talking about. Keep trying.

[Fungii]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
You need to continue reading the post, it's pretty clear you got bored and just decided to try and find a flaw. The universes go back infinitely, it's the reference point we are talking about. Keep trying.

If the Universes go back infinitely, that would mean if I was to go back in time forever, there would be a "reference point" that I would never reach. Is this correct? Does this not make said reference point nonexistent? Hence an infinite regress does not exist, because we can never reach it as we go back in time?

Again, you are making no sense at all. Keep convincing yourself otherwise if it helps you feel better.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Sorry, but you don't understand the concept of infinity. Let's not start ad hominem attacks, it's not mature and shows you realise you're losing the argument.

This is a test of ones logic. infinity has no beginning and no end, it is endless, can you not comprehend this?

I started replying to your post, but you keep on just saying "Infinity is infinity therefore we won't get here", in progressively bigger and bigger letters and more outrageous colours.

because I'm hoping this will make you understand that "infinity has no beginning and no end, it is endless", therefore if there was an infinite number of universes before ours, THIS NUMBER WOULD NEVER END! FOR US TO GET HERE, THIS NUMBER WOULD HAVE TO END, THEREFORE IT CAN'T BE INFINITE BUT FINITE!

Let me help you understand. There is no starting point in an infinite loop.

Oh really, I've not been saying that for the post one million posts.

All that we have, is reference points, a certain position in the cycle

the only reference point we know of is this earth.

and we can label every universe in relation to that universe. What you are doing, is assuming a reference point a long way in the past, claiming that there is infinite time between that universe an our universe, and so we can never reach our own universe.

there is no "first universe" and I'm not introducing a reference point and by introducing a reference point is its equivalent to introducing a start. what we can say for CERTAIN is if there is an infinite loop, an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, this number before ours would never end because infinity is endless.

However, we know that there is only finite time between our own universe and any other universe. Hence no matter how far back you take this reference point, there will always be finite time from then to now. So we will always make it to this point from any universe, no matter how far back.

No, if we take a reference point one billion universes before ours, thats not infinite, its one billion.

if there are an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, this number will never end, therefore we will never get here.

You can keep putting the reference point further and further back in the sequence of universes, and the time between then and now will still be finite.

indeed, infinity has no reference point, its never ending therefore we would never get here, see you do get it your just trying your hardest to avoid this because you're desperate to avoid God, for reasons I dont know.

You can only have infinite time between then and now

No you can't, because then is the place you start and now is where you end.

if you place an imaginary reference point an infinite number of universes ago.

I really think you dont understand actually, we would never get to this infinite universes ago, because the distance is NEVER ENDING, AKA NEVER ENDS!

And when that happens, you have contradicted yourself, because then there is by definition, no starting point, because the reference point we are using is an infinite number of universes ago.

what you're supposing is that there are an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, a NEVER ENDING NUMBER, THEREFORE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS, THEREFORE WE NEVER GET HERE!

You used the argument to demonstrate that there is a starting point, but at the same time demonstrated that there can be no starting point. When a contradiction exists, one of the premises behind the argument must be wrong, and that premise is that an infinite regress cannot exist.

Indeed, you finally got it, INFINITY HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END, IT IS ENDLESS, SO IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) NUMBER, THEREFORE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS, THEREFORE WE NEVER GET HERE!

Even if the above were incorrect, which it's not,

Well it clearly is!

INFINITY HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END, IT IS ENDLESS, SO IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) NUMBER, THEREFORE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS, THEREFORE WE NEVER GET HERE!

you have to demonstrate that each universe is different, because if it were uniform each time,

I dont even think there is other universes, this is something you're claiming. I'm claiming that INFINITY HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END, IT IS ENDLESS, SO IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) NUMBER OF UNIVERSES, THEREFORE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS, THEREFORE WE NEVER GET HERE!

this argument wouldn't even matter because obviously we will keep repeating exactly the same universe. And there's no reason to believe it would be different each time.

Even if we keep repeating the same universe IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE (NEVER ENDING) NUMBER OF UNIVERSES, THEREFORE THIS NUMBER NEVER ENDS, THEREFORE WE NEVER GET HERE!

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I think we have hit on your problem with understanding.

Infinite does not need to have no beginning or ending. Pi is infinite, with a beginning but no ending. Whole, negative numbers starting most negative have no starting point, but an ending point, and are infinite.

Yes we do have a beginning point. Pi is 3.14159265 to 9 sf, DO YOU DENY 3 IS THE STARTING POINT? Infinity has no beginning and no end, Pi has a beginning point point, therefore has a finite beginning.

The time before our universe has no starting point, but has an ending point, and is infinite

Infinity has NO BEGINNING AND NO END!

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Fungii)
If the Universes go back infinitely, that would mean if I was to go back in time forever, there would be a "reference point" that I would never reach. Is this correct? Does this not make said reference point nonexistent? Hence an infinite regress does not exist, because we can never reach it as we go back in time?

Again, you are making no sense at all. Keep convincing yourself otherwise if it helps you feel better.

You stumbled on the very idea behind the infinite regress paradox. If the reference point is a finite number of universes in the past, clearly we have no problem going from that universe to this universe. If it is an infinite number of universes in the past, then (based on your logic, which is not confirmed in any case) we "cannot reach our own universe" but if it is an infinite number of universes in the past, then there can be no starting point. The infinite regress argument therefore proves that there is a starting point ONLY if there is no starting point. This obvious contradiction shows that one of the original premises were wrong: and it is that infinite regress means we cannot reach our current universe.

I don't even think there is an infinite regress. I don't know why I'm getting so into this, but your argument is WRONG.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by King-Panther)
DO YOU DENY 3 IS THE STARTING POINT?

My post: "Pi is infinite, with a beginning but no ending."

Do you still need to ask that question?

Infinity has no beginning and no end, Pi has a beginning point point, therefore has a finite beginning.

By your definition of infinity, pi is not infinite because it has a beginning. Do you claim that pi is not infinite?