God is Impossible

[SetiAlpha6]

true, blind faith. wrong, not faith, reason. true at the moment, but it only take's one instant, one microbe to prove something exists.
however one is reasonable, the other is just blind faith, because of the lack of any instances, we most reason on the sensible side, it would be foolish to take something as true, simply on faith alone, dont you agree?

I would say that perhaps reason does not yet provide us with a verifiable explanation for either the existence of this universe or the genesis of life on this planet. Unless you know something that I do not, which is entirely possible.

In the absence of a "reasoned" explanation for the existence of the universe or the beginning of life, all men are left with only faith or belief in one explanation or another simply because we do not know the facts. Reason says, "I do not know!" but keeps on looking for the answer anyway.

What am I missing here geeser?


Thanks!

 

[swivel]

Time is only as you described inside of our Universe.
We can say nothing at all - and I do mean nothing - about that which is NOT WITHIN our Universe.
ANYTHING could be there.
I hesitate to use the word "exist" - as this implies physicality - where no such assumption should be made.
As soon as you go outside of the boundaries of this Universe then EVERYTHING you (or anyone else) claim is up for debate but is utterly and absolutely unprovable.


Then that is unfortunate. There ARE indeed an infinite number of points.
There is also a theoretical minimum useful length (Planck Length - 1.616x10^-35m) where measurement is only useful, and indeed possible, down to that length. However, if length is truly analogue and not digital, then there are an infinite positions between any two given points.

I am fully aware of the apparent paradox.

Whether you think it does or not is moot. Please name any distance you want between 1cm and 2cm - and I will name another - and that could carry on ad infinitum. Whether it is measurable or not is irrelevant.

I have read it.
I think it is limited due to definitions which are only known to exist within our Universe. As soon as you go outside you can know nothing about it.

I love the idea that something can exist "outside" of the universe and not experience time. I promise you, if something is "taking place", then time exists. Time is not just a made-up concept for our own enjoyment, it is a fundamental nature of any system that has changing states. You can't dodge around this by getting metaphysical. It just demonstrates that you don't understand what the concept of time entails. Not being rude, just honest with you.


Secondly, a ruler can indeed have an infinite number of "points" on it, but here you are having the opposite problem as above. Points are not something that really exists. If an infinite number of points exist along a finite ruler, then you are admitting that points have no size. So you can not put your finger on one. They don't exist. How can something with no size exist? Only on paper and in the mind of mathematicians, my friend.

The ruler is finite, therefore it is made of a finite number of "bits". Lets say that I call a "bit" an inch. The ruler has 12 of them. You say that a "bit" is .5 inches. It has 24 of them. We can keep doing this for any small size, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIZE. Which means that my large number would have a value. You can never say that your "bit" has disappeared. That it no longer exists. Only then would you have an INFINITE number of bits.

You are seriously confused about both of these concepts, therefore I can learn nothing from our discussing them. That saddens me. The irony, however, that you believe that time can not exist, but infinite bits in a finite space, can, has at least given me a nice dose of humor.

I wish you the best in your quest to understand these concepts, Sarkus. Happy holidays!

 

[geeser]

I would say that perhaps reason does not yet provide us with a verifiable explanation for either the existence of this universe or the genesis of life on this planet.

we have a much more enlightened reasoning then a god did it, dont you think.

In the absence of a "reasoned" explanation for the existence of the universe or the beginning of life,

you might not accept it, but a god did it scenario, still falls foul, of the more sensible rationale.

all men are left with only faith or belief in one explanation or another simply because we do not know the facts! What am I missing here geeser?

ok you seem to like the word faith, but theres a huge difference between faith in a fantasy, and faith in the evidence we do have, to form a testable hypothesis, a testable theory, of how things started.

 

[one_raven]

swivel,

I think you may have missed my last argument due to Sarkus and I getting off course a little bit.
Here it is

I'm curious what you will respond. Please do.

Also, I have a hypothetical for you...
Let's say I have a box on my lap right now.
The box is sealed completely airtight.
The box is also a perfect vaccuum (let's pretend that we can do that for the purpose of this hypothetical, if you don't mind).

Does time exist in this empty box on my lap?

 

[swivel]

swivel,

I think you may have missed my last argument due to Sarkus and I getting off course a little bit.
Here it is

I'm curious what you will respond. Please do.

Also, I have a hypothetical for you...
Let's say I have a box on my lap right now.
The box is sealed completely airtight.
The box is also a perfect vaccuum (let's pretend that we can do that for the purpose of this hypothetical, if you don't mind).

Does time exist in this empty box on my lap?

I love the hypothetical. I'm going to grant you your wish, and I agree that time does not exist inside of the box. But you have to pretend that they box is made of a material without quantum effects, and that it does not conduct energy into the box in the form of heat. No neutrinos would be allowed, and other particles. Even if the vacuum exists, a massless particle could ruin the timeless state. Enough of these constraints, and I would have to say that time does not exist in the box.

Of course... if you could get a perfect vacuum, you would still have a hard time proving that virtual particle pairs weren't being generated. Or that there isn't some fundamental change in the fabric of space, like measuring gravitational waves generated by the mass of your lap, and our planet at large. If gravitons exist, it would probably be impossible to have a box that doesn't contain them. You can see how silly the "ifs" can be.

Here's another one: Imagine you have a lump of material that is so dense that even the fundamental particles are unable to vibrate. It does not conduct electricity or heat. Nothing can penetrate it. Does time elapse within the confines of this material? That's one of the fun things to think about regarding black holes and the singularity. They could very well have a timeless state.

All you and I are talking about are systems in stasis. Which, of course, is antithetical to time. People that think that time is something you measure in seconds will never quite get what the concept really entails. They think you can imagine a changeable system in which time is not a factor. :bugeye:



Edit: I just read your post. It sounds like you disagree with me on some things that we really agree on. We would have to delve further into this, which I would truly enjoy doing. Part of my proof is precisely that you can not think without time progressing. God's mental states are exactly what I use to denote time in my examples, rather than some measured constant. I'm showing that god can not have an infinite number of mental states leading up to the creation event.

I disagree that the universe can not have an infinite number of discrete states, therefore there is no "now". I think that time can have a beginning, and that beginning could have had no cause whatsoever, and that time can go on forever. There is a huge difference between a "ray" and a "line". I think "lines" are impossible, but "rays" exist. If time is infinite, it just means that the universe will go on changing forever. We could work out some future state of the universe that must eventually exist, but never quite will. What we can not do is say that something will happen an infinite number of "seconds" from now, and hope to reach that point... which is exactly the silly thing that a creator god attempts to do.

Let's discuss this some more, but let's ignore huge chunks of each other's posts, focus on the one or two major disagreements, and play with those a bit. I'm not good at responding to posts when they quote line-by-line with a quick rebuttal for each point. I'm much more interested in hearing what you think than hearing you refute each thing that I think.

Enjoying this - swivel

 

[one_raven]

Let me make sure I have this straight and we can decide upon a starting point.

The essence of your proof is that in order for a thinking God to be eternal then time must necessarily be eternal also, and time being eternal is impossible, correct?

You support this, if I am not mistaken, by stating that God's mind (as it were) could not have had an infinite number of states.

Now, of course a fair analogy would be an eternal universe.
According to your logic the universe could not be eternal because it is not possible for the universe to have had an infinite number of physical states, therefore it must have had a beginiing.

Have I been true to your proof?

If so, please show me that an infinite number of states is impossible.
You state it in your proof as if it is an axiom - you don't really support it.
I am not convinced it is fact.
Convince me.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

we have a much more enlightened reasoning then a god did it, dont you think. you might not accept it, but a god did it scenario, still falls foul, of the more sensible rationale. ok you seem to like the word faith, but theres a huge difference between faith in a fantasy, and faith in the evidence we do have, to form a testable hypothesis, a testable theory, of how things started.

Perhaps the universe as we know it is just an alien experiment sitting in a test-tube on a shelf in a lab somewhere alongside numerous other universes. And perhaps this reality exists on a scale far greater than we can ever fully imagine, comprehend or see. Can reason tell us that it is not?

Theories are fine and good and will hopefully lead to concrete answers some day, but so far they have not. So in the absence of concrete answers, I am saying that the most truthful and honest position to hold today is that, "we just honestly don't know". That is my current position anyway. Perhaps that will change in the future.

Thank You!

 

[swivel]

Let me make sure I have this straight and we can decide upon a starting point.

The essence of your proof is that in order for a thinking God to be eternal then time must necessarily be eternal also, and time being eternal is impossible, correct?

You support this, if I am not mistaken, by stating that God's mind (as it were) could not have had an infinite number of states.

Now, of course a fair analogy would be an eternal universe.
According to your logic the universe could not be eternal because it is not possible for the universe to have had an infinite number of physical states, therefore it must have had a beginiing.

Have I been true to your proof?

If so, please show me that an infinite number of states is impossible.
You state it in your proof as if it is an axiom - you don't really support it.
I am not convinced it is fact.
Convince me.

Yes, I take as an axiom that an infinite number of discrete prior states is impossible. I think our ideas of causality are twisted by our existence in a macro world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that reality is not as straightforward as we think, as creatures that evolved to live in nature, not to understand the fabric of the cosmos.

I would love to hear someone explain to me how an infinite number of previous discrete states is possible. From one of those hypothetical states, start counting states forward. You will never reach the present.

Does this mean that time is finite? Not necessarily. As I have said before, time could very well be a ray, but not a line. It can't be infinite in both directions. To see this, imagine that the universe, now that it exists, is going to exist forever. All that means is that there are future potential states of the matter and energy of the universe that it will never reach. We could hypothetically figure out some future states, and know that the universe is going to tend towards them, but they will never happen. The universe will keep trying to get there, but never quite. Think mathematical limits.

That's why I am not surprised to find the universe expanding. Run that backwards, and you have a beginning of time. What existed before this? Nothing, perhaps. No thing and no time. (redundant, I know) But perhaps the only thing that can happen when you have nothing, is that a very incredible something happens. It could be the very nature of the nothingness to lead to the something. It could be like having enormous sums of potential energy. It could have been so powerful to go from nothing to something, that the downhill flow of energy was great enough to power the hyper-inflationary model of Guth.

All speculation, of course... but so is the idea that causality is a given. It isn't. My point and my proof is designed to show that causality is impossible with our universe. Most people have a hard time seeing this because our brains are hard-wired to look for causes, even where there are none. This drive is so immense that it creates all of our superstition. But that is another story...


So, yes, I take it as a given that an infinite number of previous discrete states have not existed prior to my typing this message to you. Just like in a flat space I expect two orthogonal lines to meet at 90 degree angles.

Please let me know how poorly I am explaining this...

 

[one_raven]

If you are making a bunch of distinct statements in a single post, don't expect me to not address them individually.
I will, however, do my best to keep it coherent and concise.

I think our ideas of causality are twisted by our existence in a macro world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that reality is not as straightforward as we think, as creatures that evolved to live in nature, not to understand the fabric of the cosmos.

I have to give you fair warning.
I am of the opinion that the Copenhagen Interpretation was perhaps the greatest blunder of modern science and physics has been on the woefully wrong course since.
You will have a hell of an uphill battle to convince me of anything using Quantum Mechanics as a base.
Unless you plan on this taking quite a while and delving much deeper - and in an enitrely different direction - than you had anticipated before even back onto the topic, I would recommend not using Quantum Mechanics as a basis for your proof.
If you can convince me without bringing Bohr and his clan into this, you probably should.
Otherwise, stop reading right here and start proving to me that Quantum Mechanics is reasonable and the Copenhagen Interpretation was correct.

I would love to hear someone explain to me how an infinite number of previous discrete states is possible. From one of those hypothetical states, start counting states forward. You will never reach the present.

Another hypothetical...
You have a string of infinite length.
What negates the possibility of me placing my finger somewhere along that string?

That's why I am not surprised to find the universe expanding. Run that backwards, and you have a beginning of time.

As far as we can tell, based on our current limited understanding, the [/i]visible[/i] universe is expanding (and that is still hotly contested).
Even if that WAS a given, it says nothing about the beginning of time.
It suggests a likely beginning of our local space. Nothing more.

I am not saying that time necessarily did not have a beginning - I am just saying that, as you said, this is just speculation.
I can speculate a lot of things. You, however, are supposed to be offering me evidence that time can not be infinite.
This doesn't do it.

All speculation, of course... but so is the idea that causality is a given. It isn't.

I promise to do my best at keeping my mind open to the possibility, for the time being, that causality is not a given in this universe, for the sake of this discussion.
That's the best I can offer with that statement.

 

[Michael]

For those of us who are Atheists here, I thought to ask whether any of you can provide a philosophical argument that demonstrates the impossibility of God. That is to say, not simply "the lack of evidence for God", but the logical impossibility.

What about the old "Can God make a rock to heavy for even God to lift"?


It's impossible to prove a negative.

 

[swivel]

I disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation as well. Even though Bohr has won the temporary battles, I think Einstein will be proven more correct overall. I brought up Quantum Mechanics because of effects like virtual particle pair creation, and Bell's Theorem, not because of any silly cats. I'm just pointing out that there could be a problem with causality, which is an alternative to there being an infinite past.

I think you are confusing my idle speculation with the notion that I think I have any of these answers. I'm not replacing the god hypothesis with an alternative, I'm just showing why it can not be so. I just throw out a few alternatives to show that the logical, and normal assumptions, aren't the only ones. My proof is not designed to answer any questions so much as it is to show that the god answer makes no sense.


As for the string, you are again confusing the mathematical with the real. We can designate an infinite number of non-existing points of zero length, but that is just a fantasy, one that it is admittedly difficult to stop transferring from our calculus class to the real world. I don't care how small a part of the string you pretend to be pointing to, there are a finite number of them. No matter how small.

You go to zero, you say? Then you aren't pointing to any string, you are pointing to vacuum. An abstraction, really.

Understanding the proof is impossible if you believe that mathematical constructs are real (they aren't), and if you think that time is anything other than the measure of the change in state of a system. I truly appreciate your objections, they are the most common and frequent ones that come up. I have yet to meet anyone who didn't mull this over and eventually realize that their own assumptions were flawed, as is the hypothetical god of my proof.

Sorry to be so wordy, and thank you for the kind structure of your replies. They are each a joy to read. This proof of mine is over 10 years old now, and I am not in love with it in a way that blinds me to criticism. I am constantly raising objections of my own, and testing their logic. So any critique and resulting conversation with another person does me a great service.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I take as an axiom that an infinite number of discrete prior states is impossible. I think our ideas of causality are twisted by our existence in a macro world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that reality is not as straightforward as we think, as creatures that evolved to live in nature, not to understand the fabric of the cosmos.

I would love to hear someone explain to me how an infinite number of previous discrete states is possible. From one of those hypothetical states, start counting states forward. You will never reach the present.

But this is where I disagree with you - on a mathematical basis. An infinite number of states CAN exist in a finite time, the same way that there are an infinite numbers between 1 and 2.

Your reasoning for not accepting this seems to be your insistance that time is discrete and that the smallest interval is more than infinitessimally small - and hence an infinite number would indeed be infinitely long.

However, you have yet to prove this - or supply any reasoning for it that I can see (or if you have then I missed it, and apologies).


So - if time intervals can be infinitessimally small then it is possible (as shown in mathematics) that an infinite number of states can exist within a finite time.

But - if time intervals are discrete and > infinitessimally small (i.e. have a real "size") then your statement would hold.


Please can you try and explain why time is as you claim, and not as mathematics would allow?

 

[one_raven]

If time is infinite, then it doesn't even matter if units of time are discrete.
Just as if a string is infinitely long, then it doesn't matter how small a point is.

Let's assume that the Planck length IS a real, physical limit (though that also hasn't been proven).
If you have an infinitely long string, it makes no difference.

What you need to prove to support your proof is what you apparently hold as an axiomatic truth - "Infinity is physically impossible and is nothing more than a mathematical construct."
If infinity is possible, then a string of infinite length is impossible and an eternal God or universe is impossible.
If, however, infinity IS possible, then nothing is stopping me from reaching out and to that infinitely long string and plucking it - though I don't know what note it will create.

 

[swivel]

If time is infinite, then it doesn't even matter if units of time are discrete.
Just as if a string is infinitely long, then it doesn't matter how small a point is.

Let's assume that the Planck length IS a real, physical limit (though that also hasn't been proven).
If you have an infinitely long string, it makes no difference.

What you need to prove to support your proof is what you apparently hold as an axiomatic truth - "Infinity is physically impossible and is nothing more than a mathematical construct."
If infinity is possible, then a string of infinite length is impossible and an eternal God or universe is impossible.
If, however, infinity IS possible, then nothing is stopping me from reaching out and to that infinitely long string and plucking it - though I don't know what note it will create.

That is why I keep making the distinction between lines and rays.

And I'm not saying that infinity is physically impossible, I'm merely saying that a unit of distance size=0 is not a unit of distance. This is the math of limits, and the birthplace of calculus. It is handy, but it doesn't talk about reality.


Proof that the string is not made up of an infinite number of discrete "bits":

You can keep halving the string as much as you want, but the thing you are left with has a size. Halve it again, it still has a measurable size. Halve it again, and it still has a size that you and I can write down. Each time we do this, I will keep doubling another number, to multiply this to your halved number, which will get us the length of the original string. For example:

The string is length 12. My number starts off as "1". You do the first halving, and I multiply it by '2' and get '2'. Your number '6' * My number '2', and we have the finite length of the string. Halve it again, you get '3'. I double mine, and get '4'. Again, '3' * '4' = 12.

Here's the point of the finite 'bits'. You can keep halving your piece, and I can keep doubling mine. Most mathematicians look at the first half of this conundrum and say, "See, you can go on forever, the small bits are infinite!". The mistake that they make is to ignore the fact that the second guy is always able to COUNT the number of halvings, and has in hand a discrete number of "bits" and also the number require to calculate the finite length of the string.

What you have is a bad interplay of mathematical constructs and reality, which leads to a seeming-paradox. It is the "God can't make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it" silliness.

It is resolved by adopting one of two stances. In the world of mathematics, a point has 0 dimensions. A line has only 1 dimension (it's width has the 0 dimensions of a point). In reality, this is not possible. And you are taking the mathematical and injecting it into the real, and not thinking through the dozens of paradoxes that this creates.

And please keep in mind that I have never said that infinity doesn't exist, I'm not sure what I typed to lead to that reading. -Cheers.

 

[one_raven]

I am aware you didn't say that infinity is impossible - that's why I said that you apparently hold it as truth.
It was my misunderstanding of your position.
Let me explain why it seems that way to me.
I can't see why the simple fact that the number of discrete bits of matter can't be counted would lead to any problem with me being able to touch the string.
No, math can not give a realistic answer to the question, "What is half of infinity", but what does that have to do with anything?
"What is half of infinity?", is simply a meaningless a question without an answer.
You can't halve infinity.
It seems to me that you are the one who is confusing mathematical constructs with reality.

If infinity is physically and realistically possible, what then, is preventing me from touching a string of infinite length?
I doesn't matter if it's impossible to measure that string, therefore impossible to measure where on the string I am touching - what is preventing me from touching it?
Assuming a string of infinite length is possible, why does it matter at all if it can not be measured? After all, that's what infinity is - unmeasurable.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I take as an axiom that an infinite number of discrete prior states is impossible....

I would love to hear someone explain to me how an infinite number of previous discrete states is possible. From one of those hypothetical states, start counting states forward. You will never reach the present.

I think this is what is causing me the issue...

If you label the discrete prior states from -inf all the way to +inf, with NOW being point 0, why is it impossible to reach any other of the discrete states?

Why could you not start at "hypothetical state" -100 and count forwards to state 0?

If the states are discrete - then there are not an infinite number of different states between consecutive ones. There is just point -100, then point -99.
It matters not that there are an infinite number of points past the -100, and the same number past -200, -300, -40,000,000 etc.
Infinity does not mean that there are infinite points between two other points - unless one point is randomly generated.
i.e. a truly randomly generated positive real number (between 1 and infinity) will be infinitely far from 0.
However, 1 is still only 1 away from 0.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Sauna]

That is to say, not simply "the lack of evidence for God", but the logical impossibility.

God is not impossible, just difficult to get along with.

The logical impossibility first occurred to me at an early age, maybe three or four years old, and never yet did I see a satisfactory response to it:

If God is supposed to account for creation; who or what created God?

 

[one_raven]

If God is supposed to account for creation; who or what created God?

Why can God not be eternal?

 

[audible]

Why can God not be eternal?

probably because it does'nt exist.

 

[one_raven]

probably because it does'nt exist.

I never thought of that!
It is impossible for God to exist because God is non-existent.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me!