Infinity... Can God conceive it?

[Sisyphus]

I see this a lot, this "our minds aren't built to think in such terms" thing, and I'd like just once for someone to explain why. Especially in the face of the evidence; that being that we clearly can and do think in those terms. Granted we don't do it on a daily basis while cooking dinner or deciding what to wear, but that's a different argument. If you want to understand an infinite value, then you study maths to the requisite level. Shazzam.

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by "think in those terms." It's one thing to abstractly define infinite, it's another to really understand what you're talking about, and something else again to actually imagine it. You can make self-contradictory definitions, for example, that can't correspond with any actual thought. I happen to think omnipotence is such a thing. Defined in words, but inherently absurd. What people are thinking of when they say the word does not match the definition, because the thought is impossible.

[ajb]

Sayonara³ is right. Infinity is a mathematical concept and can only really be discussed and understood within mathematics.

 

I am no great thinker on this, but I use infinity quite formally regularly. For example, infinite sums (irrespective of convergence), infinitely differentiable functions, etc.

 

I also use the notion of an infinitesimal, again quite formally.

[Sayonara]

Well, I think Sisyphus raises a very good point and it's something I could have drawn on myself. I suppose really my objection is that this kind of discussion attracts that "our minds aren't built that way" response to neutralise arguments involving infinite values, yet other abstract concepts which have no concrete definition are not treated in this way.

 

That being said, I would be genuinely interested to see someone showing that our brains are not geared towards understanding infinite values, in terms of neural structure and functions. Although I do recognise that the OP talks about God understanding infinity, so it is not strictly relevant whether a human mind can.

[ajb]

Well, I think Sisyphus raises a very good point and it's something I could have drawn on myself. I suppose really my objection is that this kind of discussion attracts that "our minds aren't built that way" response to neutralise arguments involving infinite values, yet other abstract concepts which have no concrete definition are not treated in this way.

 

I think our minds are built that way, otherwise we would not have developed mathematics.

 

The phrase "infinite value" makes me shudder. Value is usually reserved for a numerical value, that is a real number. Infinity is not (as you know) a number! This courses lots of confusion to people who do not know much mathematics.

 

You are absolutely right. There are many things in mathematics that are "difficult to imagine", yet people work with them all the time.

[Lan(r)12]

This is a bit troubling, because another way of reading it is "I shy away from dealing with issues which contradict my faith". If that is what you meant to say (whether or not you wanted to say it) then I would respectfully suggest that this approach is going to cause you significant grief throughout your life. There is nothing wrong with discarding some of your beliefs in favour of more rational or logically explainable phenomena when those beliefs have just basically been adopted because of "something someone said". It doesn't mean you have to abandon your god/s too.

 

 

I have abandoned many of them Sayanora. The ones that are ill-founded and absurd, like the Earth was created in 6000 years...thats preposterous.

 

I also agree with the Big Bang, and evolution, which "contradict" my religion.

 

Im only ignoring the fallacies because SCIENCE hasnt come up with anything better.

You ask where my god came from, I ask you to explain the temporal anomalies of a cyclical infinite universe...

 

You ask me how he can be omnipotent, I ask how you how matter first came into being and to explain singularities.

 

These paradoxes may be answered eventually, but not right now. And i shy away from them, because I need to. Because my faith isnt strong enough to continually question a being that has no right to exist.

 

Its my business, I just tried to answer from a religious/scientific context, and iNow attacked my nuetral response.

 

And I have studied infinities...in series, in integration, and in differential equations. Seems to me there is alot of extrapolationing when dealing with these areas.

[ajb]

And I have studied infinities...in series, in integration, and in differential equations. Seems to me there is alot of extrapolationing when dealing with these areas.

 

I don't think there is an absolutely agreed upon notion of infinity. It depends on the context to a large extent.

 

Generally it means "an unbounded quantity greater than every real number".

 

A set is infinite if the elements of a proper subset can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the original set.

 

When dealing with infinite sets you say that a set is countably infinite if it is in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. It is uncountably infinite otherwise. The real numbers for example are uncountably infinite.

 

 

So we have just in the theory of set "two kinds" of infinity. I think it was Cantor who first really thought about these things.

 

Most of the issues I see people have with infinity are that they treat it as a real number.

 

Something else you may want to think about is non-standard analysis. Here infinitely small "numbers" known as infinitesimals are "added" to the real numbers.

[iNow]

Its my business, I just tried to answer from a religious/scientific context, and iNow attacked my nuetral response.

Why are so many people so damned easily offended with anything remotely critical of their faith?

 

 

Suddenly, I'm "attacking" you for posting this:

 

I suspect that you would feel otherwise if the poster were here suggesting that gravity is caused by tiny centaurs fornicating on the backs of turtles, or that unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

 

Why the double-standards when religion and belief in

Apollo

Zeus

Baal

Thor

Xenu

Allah

god enters the equation?

 

 

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and posed in a pretty congenial way, further indicating how others would agree with me if we simply spoke of a different diety... Yet, I get overblown responses like this in response:

 

just Ignore the Bigotry dude, some will bend over backwards and break their necks just to post something derogatory and demeaning about our faith.

 

they`re quite sad individuals filled with Hate, and are more to Pitied than anything else.

 

 

And people wonder why I long ago stopped taking those with faith seriously. The double-standards, hair-trigger offense taking, and extreme dissonance repulses me.

 

I attacked nobody... I asked a god damned question. Looking back, we can all pretty clearly see where the attacks originate, so it's time to back off the misrepresentations people.

[Sisyphus]

We've moved on, iNow.

[Lan(r)12]

Don't kill me Sisyphus, but Im going to respond to iNow.

 

iNow:

What was your question?

The way I interpreted it was, "The only reason you arent calling the OP an idiot is because he was speaking of your faith".

What with all your unicorn farts and accusations of my double standards.

 

Please ask a direct question with no (or a little, just be sure its discernable) sarcasm.

And please tell me what double standards I hold...I think most religions or non-religions, have their share of fundies, and their share of reasonable people.

[iNow]

I think it's best for everyone if I no longer participate in this thread, for fear of offending someones delicate sensibilities or calling attention to their dissonance.

[padren]

Well, I think Sisyphus raises a very good point and it's something I could have drawn on myself. I suppose really my objection is that this kind of discussion attracts that "our minds aren't built that way" response to neutralise arguments involving infinite values, yet other abstract concepts which have no concrete definition are not treated in this way.

 

That being said, I would be genuinely interested to see someone showing that our brains are not geared towards understanding infinite values, in terms of neural structure and functions. Although I do recognise that the OP talks about God understanding infinity, so it is not strictly relevant whether a human mind can.

 

Let me put it this way:

 

We have our universe, in which time and space and all kinds of good things exist. If there is anything outside this universe "influencing" it, either we'd have trouble understanding why the laws of physics seem to be "influenced" by outside forces, or they'd affect things in a way we can't observe and we wouldn't know they are happening.

 

Since we don't see the former, when it comes to the latter, what if something beyond our current space/time framework could actually "affect" the layout of space/time in our universe? If it changes something, then it would "always" have been changed from our perspective. We would never be able to observe these occurrences.

 

If something lead to the creation of space/time, and all our tools involve exploring what occurs in space/time, how would we begin to probe such a thing? Maybe some new math may explain "first cause" effectively but due to the appearance that our universe (or set of manifolds or whatever the totality of dimensions and time and probability and anything else in it) is a close system I don't know how one would go about probing it.

 

 

Just a note regarding people being offended:

 

I don't think even iNow goes around harassing people with religious views - the issue is when you posit your religious views are more logical than other views that you open the doors for debate. That debate can be very callous in terms of affording very little refuge to ideas that do not stand up to cold hard logic. It will be afforded as much reverence as any other social argument in public, something that shreds most scientific theories to the point they fail before they start. I respect anyone's right to hold any views they wish. I understand that people are often religious for very personal reasons and I personally will never try to "assault" those reasons because I don't have direct experiences of them.

However, the moment they leave your mouth or keyboard and the shelter of your personal faith to posit a point - they hit the harsh conditions of peer review and can be shredded thusly.

 

At that point, I have zero sympathy for any hurt feelings - and really if you posit them for logical debate you should enjoy the discussion and not worry too much as when they are picked at it's not the same as picking apart you. Newton, Galileo, Einstein and countless others chose to take their ideas and bring them into public scrutiny and they suffered far more adversity than most religious arguments.

Your personal beliefs are respected, your public views and logical claims will be scrutinized and even mocked at times - accept the peer review or not, but don't posit a logical claim and then call "faith basher" when the logic is called into question.

[iNow]

We've moved on, iNow.

 

Sure didn't appear that way when I read the post two before mine...

I was quite content to heed your original warning despite YTs continued nonsense, but then it came up again in post #30, so I responded.

[Lan(r)12]

Your personal beliefs are respected, your public views and logical claims will be scrutinized and even mocked at times - accept the peer review or not, but don't posit a logical claim and then call "faith basher" when the logic is called into question.

 

I don't think I ever made the claim that religion was right or logical...I explicitly stated that we have a LOT of logical inconsistencies...and that a God-being has no right to exist.

 

i just tried to answer the OP from the terms of both a Christian and someone who knows a little math.

 

And then iNow asked a question I still don't understand. I just wish I knew what he was asking, he might have had a good point or something. It was more of a statement-question lol .

[iNow]

You suggested that tearing down someone's faith is wrong, yet that is exactly what we do, day in and day out, on these boards when people offer new ideas, hypotheses, or challenges to existing theories.

 

I suggested that anyone who thinks religion should be exempted from that exact process of criticism and "tearing apart of false logic" is guilty of holding double standards, and I asked why religion and belief in some deity deserve to be treated with reverence when we don't do that with any other topic. Does this help clarify my point, or do you still think that I am being too combative, bigoted, and attacking with my points?

Edited April 9, 2009 by iNow

[bascule]

Where did the universe come from?

 

Matter? Did it just suddenly decide to exist?

 

Maybe the universe has always existed (infinite regress)

[padren]

I don't think I ever made the claim that religion was right or logical...I explicitly stated that we have a LOT of logical inconsistencies...and that a God-being has no right to exist.

 

i just tried to answer the OP from the terms of both a Christian and someone who knows a little math.

 

And then iNow asked a question I still don't understand. I just wish I knew what he was asking, he might have had a good point or something. It was more of a statement-question lol .

 

Well I think it started here:

 

I will admit that I am religious in most respects, so I may be "biased" in that regard. I myself cannot conceive of a universe originating from nothing. It seems only logical to say that our consciousness came from a previous consciousness.

 

He has a belief - that's fine. Then he states his belief is the only logical one which brought three facets of response: 1) That there are other logical answers 2) The absence of other logical answers does not improve the viability of a given logical answer 3) That the logic posited is in fact not very logical.

 

At that point it started to get a little rough. You stated (correctly) that he has the right to believe what he wants. That was a misnomer however as that was not part of the discussion - the only issue was the quality of the logic he was proposing as a result of this beliefs.

 

iNow's video was in direct response to his proposed logic, which was based on his belief. The general message is while it's nice to have answers simply "choosing one" through circular logic does not make the answer more sound than not having an answer.

 

With regards to the question iNow asked pointed out a valid double standard:

 

1) The OP posited the physical creation of this universe is logically the result of a creator being.

2) You stated he has the right to believe what he wants.

3) iNow points out if he had a similar theory that described say, the cause of gravity (instead of the cause of the universe) that involved similar logical fallacies as his theory on the origins of the universe, you probably, as an engineer, would take issue with it instead of accept it at face value. He mentioned centaurs because it's a well known fact that iNow has a thing against centaurs (darn centaur bigot), but more importantly that centaurs introduce an element that makes you ask "why this?" as it's unsupported and oddly complex, just like the idea of a creator creating the universe makes you ask "why this?" if you find the idea of a creator as foreign to your psyche as centaurs.

 

All in all though, we get into these discussions regarding "insulting faith" when faith becomes the basis of a posited logical argument that then gets the same treatment as all other posited logical arguments. You should see what happens in the Pseudoscience & Speculations forum to poorly defined theories - there is no bias against faith based theories, just a common correlation that faith based theories tend to be shredded as easily as anything you find in PS&S due to the strength of their evidence and logical framework.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe the universe has always existed (infinite regress)

 

Well, is it a fallacy to say the universe is in a certain state right now? I ask that honestly as I don't get all the probability math that well.

 

The reason I ask is, we exist in a certain state, with certain properties that are one way, and not any other way. That state exists due to the prior state of the same system, and on backwards until the initial state of the system (if infinite regression does not exist.)

 

If infinite regression does exist, then we loose that initial state of the system that has lead to it's current state with it's current properties. How can such an issue be resolved in an infinite regression model? To me it seems as equally perplexing as first cause.

[Lan(r)12]

Ok, i can see what iNow was pointing out, thanks padren.

 

iNow:

I DO hold a double standard in that aspect. I believe that religion is a personal issue and inspires many a great emotion and morals.

I didnt attack his grasp of infinite God-creation because I saw no harm in it. He can certainly have his own opinion in entirely speculatory fields as far as Im concerned. HOWEVER, I WOULD have "attacked" his logic if he was going to build a bridge on the basis that "God will help me" or if he was going to try and redefine quantum theory on the basis that "the bible says so".

 

It seems kinda jerkish to me to question someone's answer, when you dont have one yourself (not that you shouldnt question things, but the OP is obviously a kid or something). His logic is sound in that his explanation is as plausible as everyones elses...a cyclical universe is an option as is a God-created universe.

[iNow]

And part of my point was that I highly doubt you would have had a same hands-off response had he identified his god by the name of Zeus.

 

I appreciate your acknowledgment of your double standards. I just refuse to accept them for myself.

[Lan(r)12]

No, like I said, I would have answered the same if he had thrown out any one of the gajillion of gods that are out there.

 

I would have thought "Zeus, thats kinda refreshing and odd" but thats about it.

 

Double Standards like mine hurt no one and do not inhibit thoughts of any kinds, so they are harmless

Edited April 9, 2009 by Lan(r)12

[padren]

No, like I said, I would ahve answered the same if he had thrown out any one of the gajillion of gods that are out there.

 

I would have thought "Zeus, thats kinda refreshing and odd" but thats about it.

 

Double Standards like mine hurt no one and do not inhibit thoughts of any kinds, so they are harmless

 

Do you understand though, when you start to debate the basis of a certain state of the universe, such as the cause of gravity, the cause of the universe, the nature of dark matter or dark energy, the possibilities of faster than light travel, that any proposition will be will be evaluated based on it's merits, regardless of whether the origin is one of faith, observation, logical workflow, LSD binges, or any other source?

 

Consider these various arguments:

 

1) gravity is caused by God/Allah/Zeus

2) gravity is caused by Satan and/or supported by other subservient demons and fallen angels.

3) gravity is caused by contracting vibrations in particles interacting with subspace ether that has absorbed energy from dark matter.

4) gravity is caused by the gyrations of hula dancers in a hula dancing competition in Valhalla - which just happens to have gone on since the beginning of known time in the universe.

 

Then consider those premises will be supported with some sort of logical or observational argument as to why that is the proper model to embrace. If everyone was just sharing their own idea (and we do that at times) no one steps on those ideas - you want to believe something that's fine. Someone may ask why you believe that and really if you say "it's just my belief, I don't expect anyone else to find it fits them" then that's all well and good - no harm done. The moment you try to build a case for your belief that case is subject to critique.

 

Whether someone believes gravity is the result of demons or vibrating neutrinos, both are equally fair under the doctrines of faith. Both are also equally fair game when presented as a theory for general adoption by those you are communicating with. If you contend it is a logically sound model that fits the evidence you have to be prepared to defend that idea.

 

Where it becomes a double standard is when we (rightly so) rip apart a person's math or observations or logical arguments regarding how dark energy vibrations cause gravity - but that becomes taboo if they mention "god" in their theory. If we don't rip into those theories we'll never know if one happens to be fit enough to remain standing. That includes arguments that mention "god" when they are proposed as theories to explain the nature of the universe. Anything less would be a double standard.

 

That's the whole point.

[Lan(r)12]

Touche

 

I see your point padren, a very good one might I add.

 

But you still didn't change my mind, i like my irrationalities (don't worry, i'll keep them to myself) lol

 

but thanks

[Mr Skeptic]

I can conceive of not only infinity, but various different levels of infinity. Am I smarter than your god?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You suggested that tearing down someone's faith is wrong, yet that is exactly what we do, day in and day out, on these boards when people offer new ideas, hypotheses, or challenges to existing theories.

 

I suggested that anyone who thinks religion should be exempted from that exact process of criticism and "tearing apart of false logic" is guilty of holding double standards, and I asked why religion and belief in some deity deserve to be treated with reverence when we don't do that with any other topic. Does this help clarify my point, or do you still think that I am being too combative, bigoted, and attacking with my points?

 

It's not so much double standards. It's one thing to say "You are totally wrong because of x, y, and z, and the real answer is A" but quite something else to say "You are totally wrong, I don't know why, and I don't know the answer."

 

Basically, religion in general is far to vague and/or unobservable to disprove, whereas attempted scientific theories tend to be more precise and have observable failings. Also, religious views are generally accompanied by "this is my personal belief, yours may differ" whereas attempted scientific theories are generally accompanied by "this is the truth, see for yourself" and therefore make stronger claims that require more evidence. To religious claims, the proper response is to give them the burden of proof if they want to claim you are wrong, but you have to accept the burden of proof if you want to claim they are wrong. Keeping in mind that not everyone has the same religious beliefs, so you probably have to ask them specifically what they believe before trying to disprove them.

 

If you look on the politics section, you will see that people have differing opinions, even on things where in theory you could show one right and one wrong (less vague and more observable then religion), and yet people respect each others' rights to hold opposing opinions, if they can't show the opinion is wrong.

 

Basically, unless you can disprove them, you have no right to claim their beliefs are wrong, and in general you can't disprove them. No reverence required, no double standards.

[padren]

Basically, unless you can disprove them, you have no right to claim their beliefs are wrong, and in general you can't disprove them. No reverence required, no double standards.

 

First, I don't think many people say "your belief is wrong" but address how that belief is applied to an argument such as this one. If they want to argue it is wrong, let them throw the logic they want to use forward - if they are trying to prove a theory false that is unfalsifiable they simply won't get far. If they are just saying "I think your belief is wrong" that's just there counter belief.

 

Second - if a belief cannot be proven false (such as faiths, conspiracy theories, etc) isn't it still fair to point out that the theory is effectively dead if it has no capacity to rise above the background white noise of equally unfalsifiable and equally "unfit" theories?

 

Just because a theory can't be proven false doesn't make it a fair argument, if the merits of that theory are so weak as to (should it be accepted) warrant the acceptance of a huge range of equally weak theories, many of which conflicting, than shouldn't that theory be effectively moot? People start seeing unicorns in posts around this point.

 

It doesn't mean that theory is wrong, just that it is without any meaningful merit. The believer doesn't have to stop believing it, just accept (or continue debating) the arguments so far put forth do not make it meaningful to anyone else any more than any random theory on star charts or unicorns.

[iNow]

Basically, religion in general is far to vague and/or unobservable to disprove, whereas attempted scientific theories tend to be more precise and have observable failings. Also, religious views are generally accompanied by "this is my personal belief, yours may differ" whereas attempted scientific theories are generally accompanied by "this is the truth, see for yourself" and therefore make stronger claims that require more evidence. To religious claims, the proper response is to give them the burden of proof if they want to claim you are wrong, but you have to accept the burden of proof if you want to claim they are wrong. Keeping in mind that not everyone has the same religious beliefs, so you probably have to ask them specifically what they believe before trying to disprove them.

You do realize, right, that your whole diatribe there was one big strawman?

 

Quote me in this thread where I stated that anybody's beliefs were wrong. Please, I beg of you. Scratch that, I dare you.

 

You will not, because you cannot, because I never asserted any such thing.

 

 

Your logic is so twisted on this that you think I'm attacking your religion and claiming it false. I have not done that. I have asserted that it is not a valid basis for claims, and that people who think that faith-based claims should be accepted on their face, despite the fact that we do not do this with ANY OTHER topic, hold double standards.

 

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I have attacked No-Body and No-Thing, with the exception of poor logic and inconsistent application of standards. I have further inquired why we should prevent criticisms of peoples claims when they deal with religion or deity, and have yet to receive a response with any relevance, applicability, or sincerity.

 

We attack claims here on this board every single day. We challenge bad logic and DEMAND evidence for positions. We toss nonsense out the door without so much as a second thought, and I say that we as a community are much better for it.

 

Yet, I make one stray comment about faith, and suddenly I'm a monster. Suddenly I'm a bigot, and suddenly the staff start telling me to mind my manners.

 

You can hold any belief or opinion you want. It doesn't phase me in the least. However, the moment you try to use that unfounded opinion to support an argument, your ass is mine. I will attack the heart of your claim, and I will not back down until you present something better in your favor. Infantile claims of offense will not protect you from the cold hard fact that the mere act of wishing something does not provide it with any validity or utility on a board like ours.

 

 

So, I ask again... Why do we permit these double standards, and attack those who seek consistency in the application of logic and criticism of baseless claims?

Edited April 10, 2009 by iNow

[Syntho-sis]

So, I ask again... Why do we permit these double standards, and attack those who seek consistency in the application of logic and criticism of baseless claims?

 

What is it you consider baseless? The simple notion that the universe was CREATED? Why is this so hard to comprehend? It takes far more faith for someone to believe the universe has always existed- than it does to say that it was created by an ultra-intelligent being. < In my humble opinion.

 

But please stay on topic. By no means is this a religious discussion but merely an inquiry into the proposition of some of the more basic questions that we ask everyday...(But have no REAL answers)

 

Such as.. Does the "infinite" exist in a physical realm-actuality? Could a supposed being with infinite amounts of mind power consider itself to its fullest extent?

 

I am interested in everyone's thoughts on these things (And any other paradoxes that anyone would like to bring up.)

 

We may not be able to answer all these questions but they sure are fun to think about....