- Get link
- Other Apps
Why Is Infinite Regress Impossible?
An Amusing Case of Sophistry
"the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving".
If you can't read the entire post, please make sure that you read the last paragraph termed the Checkmate Move. Thank you.
Atheist:
And infinite regress is impossible in your world…why?
Reply:
Please do some homework. Follow the links and read the arguments. You may be able to understand “why.”
Atheist:
Oh
I looked at that “paper.” It boils down to “I just can’t believe
infinite regress is possible, therefore it must not be,” only using more
words. Again, why do YOU think infinite regress is impossible? What do you have besides incredulity that shows it is?
Reply:
This is a lie.
Go back read again.
I
could spoon feed you right here, right now. But that means you aren’t
thinking while reading the argument. Take your time, study it and you
will find your answer. It’s right there.
HINT:
If someone tells you that it would take infinite amount of days for
tomorrow to arrive? Do you deem that a possibility or impossibility?
Considering these are real events.
Atheist:
I read it. I disagree. I grasp the nature of the argument and it is one from both ignorance and incredulity, no lie.
I seriously doubt you can spoon feed the argument to me without running into massive logical issues with it.
If
someone tells me that it takes an infinite number of days for tomorrow
to arrive they would be both correct and incorrect. I can tell you that
that to get from point A to point B there are an infinite number of
“halves,” and there are, and thus you can never reach B… but it doesn’t
make it true. It is just word and thought play and has no effect on
reality.
A person
can claim infinite regress is impossible, and come up with all the
rationalizations they want, but it doesn’t mean infinite regress is
impossible; merely that it might not be possible or they don’t know how
it is.
Reply:
You said “I read it. I disagree. I grasp the nature of the argument and it is one from both ignorance and incredulity, no lie.”
Does
adding “no lie”, “ignorance” or “incredulity” adds strength to your
claim? Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence (Hitchen's razor).
You
said “If someone tells me that it takes an infinite number of days for
tomorrow to arrive they would be both correct and incorrect. I can tell
you that that to get from point A to point B there are an infinite
number of “halves,” and there are, and thus you can never reach B….but
it doesn’t make it true”.
The statement“ they would be both correct and incorrect.” is a violation of law of contradiction. A claim cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time.
Is
the distance between 0 and 1 an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can
imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are
infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do
not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series
1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. It is an imaginary exercise.
In my argument, I am speaking of real events.
Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls”
Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?
You said “A person can claim infinite regress is impossible,
and come up with all the rationalizations they want, but it doesn’t
mean infinite regress is impossible; merely that it might not be
possible or they don’t know how it is”.
“An infinity can end”
is the absurdity we are talking about here. We are talking about real
events. Not some mathamatical halves. Claiming that a distance between
two points (assume its 5 feet) is both finite and infinite at the same
time is a violation of law of contradiction.
If
you violate this law one more time, your posts will be deleted. I don’t
waste my time, on those who disobey this law. I am sorry.
Atheist:
“Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence.”
Yep, and you have offered no evidence to back up your claim, only flawed analogies.
“they cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time. That’s violation of law of contradiction.”
No
it isn’t. It is a remark about the flexibility of language, and why I
say it is just a word game. Either you understand that what a person
says can be interpreted multiple ways or you don’t.
“In my argument I am speaking of real events.”
Your
first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite
cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
Rather than doing that you switch to a car driving an infinite distance…
which means nothing to the cause and effect question. It is a false
equivalence. You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not
infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite.
If
you stop and someone else starts driving, and so on and so on, it can
be said that taking trips happens for an infinite amount of time. Can
you show that can’t happen?
You
then talk about time needing to be infinite for an infinite chain to
exist… yet don’t show that time ISN’T infinite. We have a decent idea of
the universe as we know it being 13.7 billion years old, but no idea of
what was before that, if anything. So you seem to be claiming special
knowledge.
Space-time
seems to have started with our universe, but might not have. If it did,
and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is
infinitely old, as it has existed for all of time.
This also leaves out the implied special pleading that nothing can be infinite… except a deity.
I
could go on but why? This entire section of your article is just you
finding finite examples and saying “see, infinite regress can’t happen.”
“An infinity cannot end is the absurdity we are talking about here.”
And that you call it an absurdity without offering evidence that it is shows why this is an argument from incredulity.
“If
you violate this law one more time, your posts will be deleted. I don’t
waste my time, on those who disobey this law. I am sorry.”
I have to
tell you, this is the kind of remark I expect from someone who
recognizes their logic is flawed. But, if you need to delete my comments
to feel more secure in your argument, have at it.
At
no point have I violated the law of contradiction, instead I have
pointed out that language can be used to make anything sound correct. It
is what can be shown, not what can be asserted, that matters. You have
not shown an infinite regress is impossible, merely asserted it. And I
have not asserted one is possible, merely pointed out that we have
nothing to show it isn’t.
Reply:
You said “Yep, and you have offered no evidence to back up your claim, only flawed analogies”
And i repeat "Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence".
You said “No it isn’t. It is a remark about the flexibility of language”.
The following can be said about a claim:
1) it is true.
2) it is not true (i.e. false)
if a person holds (1) and (2) to be true at the same time pertaining to a claim, violates the law of contradiction. Do it one more time. (If you can learn anything from this, go and read comments below. I wouldn’t tolerate this.)
We are talking about “real” claims not some flexibility of language (when was this the point of the argument anyways?)
Claiming that a distance of 12 feet is finite (because it can be traversed) and infinite (because it can be divided into infinite halves) is a contradiction of terms. It is also a sleight of hand.
Is the distance between 0 and 1 an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series 1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. It is an imaginary exercise.
Go and tell a mathematician that you traversed a distance of 12 feet and it was infinite. Do Let us know his response.
In my argument, I am speaking of real events.
Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
Q1) Define “infinity” is it something without a beginning or end?
Q2) what is the difference between finite and infinite?THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
More on this later.
Rather than doing that you switch to a car driving an infinite distance… which means nothing to the cause and effect question. It is a false equivalence. You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite.
Did you really write this ? The question is whether it is possible for the Car to have reached its destination if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times?
Clearly, because if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times it would have never reached its destination because infinity by DEFINITON DOESNOT END. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
As for fallacy of equivocation?
it’s a straw-man and a side track.
1) A car with its wheels spinning infinite number of times cannot reach its destination because infinity doesnot end.
2)An infinite cause and effect loop cannot be completed because infinity by definition doesnot end.
3)Claiming it would take infinite number of days for tomorrow to arrive is impossible. Because infinity by definition doesnot end.
Where’s the fallacy of equivocation? It’s from your imagination. It’s a bunch of atheist’s side-tracking technique from DIY atheist bag. They don’t work with me.
Claiming that a difference exists that is, a car with its wheels spinning infinite number of times was mentioned in 1) and cause and effect infinite loop in 2) and infinite number of days in 3) has NO BEARING ON THE ARGUMENT because all these examples (1, 2 and 3) are showing is that infinity cannot end or be completed by definition. IT IS A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS.
You said “You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite”.
That’s not the point. This statement of yours “No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite” proves you have literally no understanding of what infinity entails and you have 0 understanding of what the argument is postulating.
The point was "can the car reach its destination if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times?"
If someone claims the car reached its destination after having its wheels spun infinite number of times. We say this is an absurd proposition. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
It is the similar thing as making a claim “that for tomorrow to arrive, an infinite number of days must be concluded” and this is impossible because infinity cannot come to an end. It it does, it wasn’t infinite to begin with.
If you stop and someone else starts driving, and so on and so on, it can be said that taking trips happens for an infinite amount of time. Can you show that can’t happen?
Here lies a beautiful example of violation of“law of contradiction”
What is infinity? It is something without a beginning and an end. The claim was the wheels of the car were spinning infinite number of times.
How can something which is without a beginning or end has an end?
“An infinity cannot end is the absurdity we are talking about here.”
You said “And that you call it an absurdity without offering evidence that it is shows why this is an argument from incredulity?”
Argument from incredulity?
If something has an end then by rational necessity it must have a beginning. Why? Because if it were without a beginning then, the mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence. Claiming that it ended shows that its existence came to end (non-existence). And this is impossible Because how can something be without a beginning (the mind absolutely doesnot accepts its non-existence) and has an end (its existence came to an end) at the same time? Therefore by rational necessity if something comes to an end, then it must have beginning and it is by definiton finite and not infinite.
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
What i need to show is the “completion” of the opponents’ infinite cause and effect loop” i.e. the hand did move. And this proves IT WAS NOT AN INFINITE CAUSE AND EFFECT LOOP. ELSE IT WOULDN’T HAVE been COMPLETED AND MY HAND WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE REALM OF NON-EXISTENCE. You really need to work on your logic.
Anybody who holds infinity to have an end, really needs to study logic. Why am i even debating this with you?
I could go on but why?
Please continue. I need to show to the world what 2+2=5 really sounds like.
This entire section of your article is just you finding finite examples and saying “see, infinite regress can’t happen.”
This is a lie. This is a red-herring. “Finite” examples?
“It is a pre-requisite for tomorrow to arrive that completion of infnite number of days prior to it must take place”
“A car with its wheel spinning infinite number of times can reach its destination”
“An infinite series of cause and effects must be concluded before the movement of my hand begins to exist”
These are finite examples according to you? Right? Right!
You said “Space-time seems to have started with our universe, but might not have. If it did, and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is infinitely old, as it has existed for all of time.”
I think What you are trying to say here is " The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. It has existed at every point in time."
Noticed the sleight of hand?
THIS DOESNOT change the fact that the Universe came into existence (began to exist). Notice what he says “If time has only existed for 13.7 B years then our universe is infinitely old”. Claiming that the age of the universe is 13.7 B years (Space-time seems to have started with our universe) and it is infinitely old is a rational absurdity. It is again a violation of law of contradiction.
- Universe is infinite (without a beginning and end).
- Universe is finite (age comes out to be 13.7 B years)
He is holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time. That’s violation of law of contradiction. Please go and grab a book on classical and modern logic. You seriously need to read this to avoid embarassment in future.
Just because universe existed at every point in time (since the BIG-BANG) does not make it infinite. How does 13.7 Billion years of Universe’s age equate to Infinity (without a beginning or end)? Because if it was infinite, then its age would be by rational necessity infinite NOT 13.7 billion years of age.
Why didn't you say this directly that the "coming into existence of the universe was without a cause"? Why make vague statements? Go back read the post where it states "It is impossible for the something to come into existence without a cause." and it leads to the absurdity termed “preponderance without a preferrer”
Your claim also does nothing to remove the absurdity that I am highlighting. In your attempt to ward off regress you, you decided to entertain an adrupt cutt-off point in the past. However this doesnot remove the absurdity that I am highlighting.
If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination.
We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the you namely that causality and existence cannot occur independent of spacetime.
Claiming “Space-time seems to have started with our universe” and “if it did, and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is infinitely old”
On one hand he seems to imply time and space seems to have started with our universe and on the other hand, he claims universe is infinitely old.
You have no “respect” for logical principles. How does universe existing at every point in time (since the beginning of time at the BIG BANG) entail that it is infinite (without a beginning and an end)?
How does the universe existing at every point in time (13.7 billion years) entail it was always existent or existent since eternity past?
Is 13.7 Billion worth of years’ age, infinite according to you?
If it was really infinite, would its age could ever be measured? “Can infinity be measured?
You have no idea what infinite means and literally no idea what finite means. I think this was intentional. You have no way of refuting the argument apart from raising points which are irrelavant to the discussion at hand.
The very fact that the universe is subject to changes or undergoes changes is SUFFICIENT to debunk your claim “the universe is infinite”
Moreover,
Premise A: We exist here today.
Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)
If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
Those who claim that the world has no beginning or is infinite (always existed) are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.
In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end).
You said “This also leaves out the implied special pleading that nothing can be infinite… except a deity.”
It is clear as a day now, that you never read the argument or took it seriously. You were more interested in refutation. How else do you explain blunders like this?
Did i claim “nothing can be infinite except a deity?”
Is that what we claim?
1) Universe cannot be infinite.
2) God is infinite. (This is a special pleading fallacy)
1)Matter cannot be infinite.
2) God is infinite. (This is special pleading fallacy)
1)cause and effect loops cannot be infinite.
2) God can be infinite (This is a special pleading fallacy).
Is the argument postulating any of the above?
What the argument is stating is, that is impossible is for a series of infinite cause and effect to come to an end. God does not change, so this does not apply to Him.
Therefore our argument becomes:
1) Universe cannot be infinite (without a beginning or end) because it is subject to changes. Because change entails a beginning and how can something, without a beginning or end, has a beginning? Moreover change entails non-existence of previous state of existence. How can something without, a beginning and end, has an end?
2) God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning or end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
1)Matter cannot be infinite (without a beginning or end) because it is subject to changes or transformations. Because change entails a beginning and how can something, without a beginning and end, has a beginning? Moreover change entails non-existence of previous state of existence. How can something, without a beginning and end, has an end?
2)God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning and end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
1)Infinite cause and effect loop cannot be completed and coming into existence of any contingent being, entails non-existence of infinity and this is a contradiction of terms because infinity doesnot end. If the cause-effect relationships behind the movement of my hand were infinite, then by rational necessity my hand would have remained in the realm of non-existence.
2)God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning or end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
You said “I have to tell you, this is the kind of remark I expect from someone who recognizes their logic is flawed. But, if you need to delete my comments to feel more secure in your argument, have at it”Someone who deems infinity=finity, violates the law of contradiction and logical principles multiple times, someone who doesnot understand “why” it is impossible for infinity to come to an end, someone who raises side-tracks and straw-man arguments, has the audacity to make a claim that my logic is flawed. Where is this world really coming to?
You have debunked nothing. All you have done is raise a bunch of side-tracks and red-herrings and attacked the meaning of the words such as infinity and finite.
Any attempts at violating law of contradiction wouldn’t be tolerated in future. Consider this my final warning to you!
Please do some homework. Follow the links and read the arguments. You may be able to understand “why.”
Atheist:
Oh I looked at that “paper.” It boils down to “I just can’t believe infinite regress is possible, therefore it must not be,” only using more words. Again, why do YOU think infinite regress is impossible? What do you have besides incredulity that shows it is?Reply:
This is a lie.
Go back read again.
I could spoon feed you right here, right now. But that means you aren’t thinking while reading the argument. Take your time, study it and you will find your answer. It’s right there.
I could spoon feed you right here, right now. But that means you aren’t thinking while reading the argument. Take your time, study it and you will find your answer. It’s right there.
HINT:
If someone tells you that it would take infinite amount of days for
tomorrow to arrive? Do you deem that a possibility or impossibility?
Considering these are real events.
Considering these are real events.
Atheist:
I read it. I disagree. I grasp the nature of the argument and it is one from both ignorance and incredulity, no lie.
I seriously doubt you can spoon feed the argument to me without running into massive logical issues with it.
If
someone tells me that it takes an infinite number of days for tomorrow
to arrive they would be both correct and incorrect. I can tell you that
that to get from point A to point B there are an infinite number of
“halves,” and there are, and thus you can never reach B… but it doesn’t
make it true. It is just word and thought play and has no effect on
reality.
A person
can claim infinite regress is impossible, and come up with all the
rationalizations they want, but it doesn’t mean infinite regress is
impossible; merely that it might not be possible or they don’t know how
it is.
Reply:
You said “I read it. I disagree. I grasp the nature of the argument and it is one from both ignorance and incredulity, no lie.”
Does
adding “no lie”, “ignorance” or “incredulity” adds strength to your
claim? Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence (Hitchen's razor).
You
said “If someone tells me that it takes an infinite number of days for
tomorrow to arrive they would be both correct and incorrect. I can tell
you that that to get from point A to point B there are an infinite
number of “halves,” and there are, and thus you can never reach B….but
it doesn’t make it true”.
The statement“ they would be both correct and incorrect.” is a violation of law of contradiction. A claim cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time.
Is
the distance between 0 and 1 an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can
imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are
infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do
not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series
1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. It is an imaginary exercise.
In my argument, I am speaking of real events.
In my argument, I am speaking of real events.
Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls”
Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls”
Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?
You said “A person can claim infinite regress is impossible,
and come up with all the rationalizations they want, but it doesn’t
mean infinite regress is impossible; merely that it might not be
possible or they don’t know how it is”.
“An infinity can end”
is the absurdity we are talking about here. We are talking about real
events. Not some mathamatical halves. Claiming that a distance between
two points (assume its 5 feet) is both finite and infinite at the same
time is a violation of law of contradiction.
If
you violate this law one more time, your posts will be deleted. I don’t
waste my time, on those who disobey this law. I am sorry.
Atheist:
Atheist:
“Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence.”
Yep, and you have offered no evidence to back up your claim, only flawed analogies.
“they cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time. That’s violation of law of contradiction.”
No it isn’t. It is a remark about the flexibility of language, and why I say it is just a word game. Either you understand that what a person says can be interpreted multiple ways or you don’t.
No it isn’t. It is a remark about the flexibility of language, and why I say it is just a word game. Either you understand that what a person says can be interpreted multiple ways or you don’t.
“In my argument I am speaking of real events.”
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible. Rather than doing that you switch to a car driving an infinite distance… which means nothing to the cause and effect question. It is a false equivalence. You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite.
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible. Rather than doing that you switch to a car driving an infinite distance… which means nothing to the cause and effect question. It is a false equivalence. You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite.
If
you stop and someone else starts driving, and so on and so on, it can
be said that taking trips happens for an infinite amount of time. Can
you show that can’t happen?
You
then talk about time needing to be infinite for an infinite chain to
exist… yet don’t show that time ISN’T infinite. We have a decent idea of
the universe as we know it being 13.7 billion years old, but no idea of
what was before that, if anything. So you seem to be claiming special
knowledge.
Space-time
seems to have started with our universe, but might not have. If it did,
and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is
infinitely old, as it has existed for all of time.
This also leaves out the implied special pleading that nothing can be infinite… except a deity.
I
could go on but why? This entire section of your article is just you
finding finite examples and saying “see, infinite regress can’t happen.”
“An infinity cannot end is the absurdity we are talking about here.”
And that you call it an absurdity without offering evidence that it is shows why this is an argument from incredulity.
And that you call it an absurdity without offering evidence that it is shows why this is an argument from incredulity.
“If
you violate this law one more time, your posts will be deleted. I don’t
waste my time, on those who disobey this law. I am sorry.”
I have to tell you, this is the kind of remark I expect from someone who recognizes their logic is flawed. But, if you need to delete my comments to feel more secure in your argument, have at it.
I have to tell you, this is the kind of remark I expect from someone who recognizes their logic is flawed. But, if you need to delete my comments to feel more secure in your argument, have at it.
At
no point have I violated the law of contradiction, instead I have
pointed out that language can be used to make anything sound correct. It
is what can be shown, not what can be asserted, that matters. You have
not shown an infinite regress is impossible, merely asserted it. And I
have not asserted one is possible, merely pointed out that we have
nothing to show it isn’t.
Reply:
And i repeat "Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence".
You said “No it isn’t. It is a remark about the flexibility of language”.
The following can be said about a claim:
1) it is true.
2) it is not true (i.e. false)
if a person holds (1) and (2) to be true at the same time pertaining to a claim, violates the law of contradiction. Do it one more time. (If you can learn anything from this, go and read comments below. I wouldn’t tolerate this.)
We are talking about “real” claims not some flexibility of language (when was this the point of the argument anyways?)
Claiming that a distance of 12 feet is finite (because it can be traversed) and infinite (because it can be divided into infinite halves) is a contradiction of terms. It is also a sleight of hand.
Is the distance between 0 and 1 an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series 1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. It is an imaginary exercise.
Go and tell a mathematician that you traversed a distance of 12 feet and it was infinite. Do Let us know his response.
In my argument, I am speaking of real events.
Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
Q1) Define “infinity” is it something without a beginning or end?
Q2) what is the difference between finite and infinite?THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
Rather than doing that you switch to a car driving an infinite distance… which means nothing to the cause and effect question. It is a false equivalence. You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite.
Did you really write this ? The question is whether it is possible for the Car to have reached its destination if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times?
Clearly, because if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times it would have never reached its destination because infinity by DEFINITON DOESNOT END. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
As for fallacy of equivocation?
it’s a straw-man and a side track.
1) A car with its wheels spinning infinite number of times cannot reach its destination because infinity doesnot end.
2)An infinite cause and effect loop cannot be completed because infinity by definition doesnot end.
3)Claiming it would take infinite number of days for tomorrow to arrive is impossible. Because infinity by definition doesnot end.
Where’s the fallacy of equivocation? It’s from your imagination. It’s a bunch of atheist’s side-tracking technique from DIY atheist bag. They don’t work with me.
Claiming that a difference exists that is, a car with its wheels spinning infinite number of times was mentioned in 1) and cause and effect infinite loop in 2) and infinite number of days in 3) has NO BEARING ON THE ARGUMENT because all these examples (1, 2 and 3) are showing is that infinity cannot end or be completed by definition. IT IS A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS.
You said “You are saying that if the car stops its trip was not infinite. And…? No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite”.
That’s not the point. This statement of yours “No one is suggesting road-trips are infinite” proves you have literally no understanding of what infinity entails and you have 0 understanding of what the argument is postulating.
The point was "can the car reach its destination if its wheels were spinning infinite number of times?"
If someone claims the car reached its destination after having its wheels spun infinite number of times. We say this is an absurd proposition. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
It is the similar thing as making a claim “that for tomorrow to arrive, an infinite number of days must be concluded” and this is impossible because infinity cannot come to an end. It it does, it wasn’t infinite to begin with.
If you stop and someone else starts driving, and so on and so on, it can be said that taking trips happens for an infinite amount of time. Can you show that can’t happen?
Here lies a beautiful example of violation of“law of contradiction”
What is infinity? It is something without a beginning and an end. The claim was the wheels of the car were spinning infinite number of times.
How can something which is without a beginning or end has an end?
“An infinity cannot end is the absurdity we are talking about here.”
You said “And that you call it an absurdity without offering evidence that it is shows why this is an argument from incredulity?”
Argument from incredulity?
If something has an end then by rational necessity it must have a beginning. Why? Because if it were without a beginning then, the mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence. Claiming that it ended shows that its existence came to end (non-existence). And this is impossible Because how can something be without a beginning (the mind absolutely doesnot accepts its non-existence) and has an end (its existence came to an end) at the same time? Therefore by rational necessity if something comes to an end, then it must have beginning and it is by definiton finite and not infinite.
Your first example (if that article was written by you) is about an infinite cause and effect loop. THIS is what you need to show is impossible.
What i need to show is the “completion” of the opponents’ infinite cause and effect loop” i.e. the hand did move. And this proves IT WAS NOT AN INFINITE CAUSE AND EFFECT LOOP. ELSE IT WOULDN’T HAVE been COMPLETED AND MY HAND WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE REALM OF NON-EXISTENCE. You really need to work on your logic.
Anybody who holds infinity to have an end, really needs to study logic. Why am i even debating this with you?
I could go on but why?
Please continue. I need to show to the world what 2+2=5 really sounds like.
This entire section of your article is just you finding finite examples and saying “see, infinite regress can’t happen.”
This is a lie. This is a red-herring. “Finite” examples?
“It is a pre-requisite for tomorrow to arrive that completion of infnite number of days prior to it must take place”
“A car with its wheel spinning infinite number of times can reach its destination”
“An infinite series of cause and effects must be concluded before the movement of my hand begins to exist”
These are finite examples according to you? Right? Right!
You said “Space-time seems to have started with our universe, but might not have. If it did, and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is infinitely old, as it has existed for all of time.”
I think What you are trying to say here is " The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. It has existed at every point in time."
Noticed the sleight of hand?
THIS DOESNOT change the fact that the Universe came into existence (began to exist). Notice what he says “If time has only existed for 13.7 B years then our universe is infinitely old”. Claiming that the age of the universe is 13.7 B years (Space-time seems to have started with our universe) and it is infinitely old is a rational absurdity. It is again a violation of law of contradiction.
- Universe is infinite (without a beginning and end).
- Universe is finite (age comes out to be 13.7 B years)
He is holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time. That’s violation of law of contradiction. Please go and grab a book on classical and modern logic. You seriously need to read this to avoid embarassment in future.
Just because universe existed at every point in time (since the BIG-BANG) does not make it infinite. How does 13.7 Billion years of Universe’s age equate to Infinity (without a beginning or end)? Because if it was infinite, then its age would be by rational necessity infinite NOT 13.7 billion years of age.
Your claim also does nothing to remove the absurdity that I am highlighting. In your attempt to ward off regress you, you decided to entertain an adrupt cutt-off point in the past. However this doesnot remove the absurdity that I am highlighting.
If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination.
We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the you namely that causality and existence cannot occur independent of spacetime.
Claiming “Space-time seems to have started with our universe” and “if it did, and “time” has only existed for 13.7 B years, then our universe is infinitely old”
On one hand he seems to imply time and space seems to have started with our universe and on the other hand, he claims universe is infinitely old.
You have no “respect” for logical principles. How does universe existing at every point in time (since the beginning of time at the BIG BANG) entail that it is infinite (without a beginning and an end)?
How does the universe existing at every point in time (13.7 billion years) entail it was always existent or existent since eternity past?
Is 13.7 Billion worth of years’ age, infinite according to you?
If it was really infinite, would its age could ever be measured? “Can infinity be measured?
You have no idea what infinite means and literally no idea what finite means. I think this was intentional. You have no way of refuting the argument apart from raising points which are irrelavant to the discussion at hand.
The very fact that the universe is subject to changes or undergoes changes is SUFFICIENT to debunk your claim “the universe is infinite”
Moreover,
Premise A: We exist here today.
Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)
If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
Those who claim that the world has no beginning or is infinite (always existed) are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.
In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end).
You said “This also leaves out the implied special pleading that nothing can be infinite… except a deity.”
It is clear as a day now, that you never read the argument or took it seriously. You were more interested in refutation. How else do you explain blunders like this?
Did i claim “nothing can be infinite except a deity?”
Is that what we claim?
1) Universe cannot be infinite.
2) God is infinite. (This is a special pleading fallacy)
1)Matter cannot be infinite.
2) God is infinite. (This is special pleading fallacy)
1)cause and effect loops cannot be infinite.
2) God can be infinite (This is a special pleading fallacy).
Is the argument postulating any of the above?
What the argument is stating is, that is impossible is for a series of infinite cause and effect to come to an end. God does not change, so this does not apply to Him.
Therefore our argument becomes:
1) Universe cannot be infinite (without a beginning or end) because it is subject to changes. Because change entails a beginning and how can something, without a beginning or end, has a beginning? Moreover change entails non-existence of previous state of existence. How can something without, a beginning and end, has an end?
2) God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning or end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
1)Matter cannot be infinite (without a beginning or end) because it is subject to changes or transformations. Because change entails a beginning and how can something, without a beginning and end, has a beginning? Moreover change entails non-existence of previous state of existence. How can something, without a beginning and end, has an end?
2)God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning and end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
1)Infinite cause and effect loop cannot be completed and coming into existence of any contingent being, entails non-existence of infinity and this is a contradiction of terms because infinity doesnot end. If the cause-effect relationships behind the movement of my hand were infinite, then by rational necessity my hand would have remained in the realm of non-existence.
2)God doesnot change and exists (without a beginning or end). (This is not a special pleading fallacy).
You said “I have to tell you, this is the kind of remark I expect from someone who recognizes their logic is flawed. But, if you need to delete my comments to feel more secure in your argument, have at it”Someone who deems infinity=finity, violates the law of contradiction and logical principles multiple times, someone who doesnot understand “why” it is impossible for infinity to come to an end, someone who raises side-tracks and straw-man arguments, has the audacity to make a claim that my logic is flawed. Where is this world really coming to?
You have debunked nothing. All you have done is raise a bunch of side-tracks and red-herrings and attacked the meaning of the words such as infinity and finite.
Any attempts at violating law of contradiction wouldn’t be tolerated in future. Consider this my final warning to you!
Atheist:
It’s clear to me that pointing out flaws in your pet idea has ruffled your feathers. If that is the case then it’s your issue though, not mine. So by all means keep writing long winded responses telling some imaginary person what you think I am saying, all while not actually grasping it. Or delete my comments. It really doesn’t make your logic any less flawed.
I am not
going to respond to every mistake you have in your comment since that
will take too long. Instead I am going to clarify a couple major issues
you are missing/misrepresenting.
I
have pointed out how language can be used to mean multiple things
depending on how the other person interprets it. This is not breaking
any laws, of contradiction or otherwise, it is a linguistic fact.
When
this is pointed out to you your response is to specify something that
IS a true dichotomy and imply/insist it is equal to what your earlier
examples were. It isn’t.
“It
will take an infinite number of days for tomorrow to be here” being
both correct and incorrect is NOT a true dichotomy. It can be correct if
the person hearing it thinks “When we get to the next day it is now
‘today’ and there is still a ‘tomorrow’ so we will never reach it.” OR
it could be incorrect if the person hearing it thinks “Tomorrow is
Friday, and Friday will be here in 12 hours.”
Equivocation
isn’t a straw-man or side-track, it is something you did multiple times
in both your article and these comments. For someone who claims to care
about logical consistency you seem to be OK breaking your own rules.
You
claim that “infinite” must extend both forward and backward, but this
is not true. And I think this is where you are basing all of your other
mistakes. If a recurring event is planned, call it “C-Trip,” it’s a
road-trip to Chicago that takes 8 hours (a finite time), starts today (a
finite start date), and every year someone makes that same road-trip.
If time never stops, and a person every year makes that road trip, then
C-Trip will happen for an infinite amount of time. That it had a
starting point doesn’t change this. That the trip itself has a finite
duration doesn’t change this. To claim it is impossible you need to show
one of two things: time is finite or one of the years someone doesn’t
make that trip.
That example isn’t a red-herring, straw-man, or anything else you want to attribute to not believing in a deity; it is factual.
This
holds for the universe. It can have a beginning and no end, and thus be
infinite. And, as I pointed out, if time truly did begin with it, then
something existing for the duration of the universe has existed for all
time that has existed, it is infinite. You can say for something to be
infinite it had to exist “before the universe,” but that doesn’t mean
anything if there was no before. Either way your claim that the universe
is either finite or never had a beginning does not hold.
But
the question was about infinite regress, so to show this impossible you
need to show there really wasn’t something before our universe, maybe a
larger cosmos that has had universes coming into existence for your
idea of infinity. Or show that if time did start with our universe, that
this beginning doesn’t constitute an infinite amount of time in the
past, since this would be the entirety of the past. You have done
neither, but instead just said it is inconceivable.
As
another example of equivocation we have your soldier analogy. This is
where you basically state that a finite number of soldiers needing a cue
from an infinite progression cannot do something. I agree. But if you
change the number of soldiers to an infinite is it now impossible? No,
which is why you setup conditions reliant on the finite and suggest it
equals the infinite.
Your
car analogy is just… it shows quite well how you don’t grasp the
concepts. This analogy doesn’t even fit an infinite loop, but my
road-trip analogy does.
And
yes, you are using special pleading for your deity. You write a number
of paragraphs without acknowledging this, and I suspect without
recognizing it, but you do it. I’d go into it but can’t see you being
able to get it past your mindset.
You
have a whole paragraph stating what the mind cannot accept… which is
the definition of incredulity. If we don’y understand how something can
happen then it is very hard to accept it can, but what our minds can or
cannot accept does not effect reality.
Saad,
your logic is flawed. And that you keep threatening me and are so
vitriolic suggests to me you are not used to people questioning your
reasoning. If you truly do value rational and logic I am surprised you
didn’t take this as a chance to talk through your ideas with someone
willing to take the time to discuss them and see if maybe you were
flawed in areas (or just conveying them poorly). Instead you seem
adamant about shutting out anything that disagrees with you, the
opposite of logic and reason. That’s too bad.
Reply:
You said “WOW! You went back and added a book to this while I slept…”
This is what happens when you are refuting side-tracks and red-herrings. Your only job is to raise these issues; and go to sleep. It is my job to debunk them beyond repair.
This is what happens when you are refuting side-tracks and red-herrings. Your only job is to raise these issues; and go to sleep. It is my job to debunk them beyond repair.
You
said “It’s clear to me that pointing out flaws in your pet idea have
ruffled your feathers. If that is the case then it’s your issue though,
not mine. So by all means keep writing long winded responses telling
some imaginary person what you think I am saying, all while not actually
grasping it. Or delete my comments. It really doesn’t make your logic
any less flawed.”
Side-track. No response needed.
Side-track. No response needed.
First you say (1) “It will take an infinite number of days for tomorrow to be here” being both correct and incorrect is NOT a true dichotomy”.
Then you say (2)
“It can be correct if the person hearing it thinks “When we get to the
next day it is now ‘today’ and there is still a ‘tomorrow’ so we will
never reach it.”
And then you say (3) “OR it could be incorrect if the person hearing it thinks “Tomorrow is Friday, and Friday will be here in 12 hours”.
And then you say (3) “OR it could be incorrect if the person hearing it thinks “Tomorrow is Friday, and Friday will be here in 12 hours”.
Is (2) and (3) a true representation
of “It is a pre-requisite for tomorrow to arrive, that infinite number
of days must be concluded” and then it is claimed “that tomorrow did
arrive” and this is a contradiction of terms because “infinity does not end.”
How is (2) and (3) even relevant to what we are discussing here?
How is (2) and (3) even relevant to what we are discussing here?
What
he is trying to paint is a person hearing this “It is a pre-requisite
for tomorrow to arrive, that infinite number of days must be concluded.”
could understand it differently in which case the charge of violation of law of contradiction
cannot be placed. He is right here but what he does not understand is
that if he understood it differently then that doesn’t mean it is a true representation of what was meant to be understood from the original statement.
Clearly you don’t understand infinity. Look at your examples given in (2) and (3)?
How are they even relevant?
How are they even relevant?
As for “It will take an infinite number of days for tomorrow to be here” being both correct and incorrect is NOT a true dichotomy.
If person understands the meaning of the claim which is“infinity came to an end is a contradiction of terms” which is the true representation of the original statement, then if he holds the claim to be true and false at the same time then he has indeed violated the law of contradiction.
If person understands the meaning of the claim which is“infinity came to an end is a contradiction of terms” which is the true representation of the original statement, then if he holds the claim to be true and false at the same time then he has indeed violated the law of contradiction.
You claim that “infinite” must extend both forward and backward,
I don’t claim “infinity is without a beginning or end”, it is a rational necessity.
“If something has an end then by rational necessity it must have a
beginning. Why? Because if it were without a beginning then, the mind
absolutely does not accept its non-existence. Claiming that it ended
shows that its existence came to end (non-existence). And this is
impossible because how can something be without a beginning (the mind
absolutely does not accepts its non-existence) and has an end (its
existence came to an end) at the same time? Therefore by rational
necessity if something comes to an end, then it must have beginning and it is by definition finite and not infinite”.
But this is not true.
Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence (see below).
Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence (see below).
You
said “If a recurring event is planned, call it “C-Trip,” it’s a
road-trip to Chicago that takes 8 hours (a finite time), starts today (a
finite start date), and every year someone makes that same road-trip.
If time never stops, and a person every year makes that road trip, then C-Trip will happen for an infinite amount of time. That it had a starting point doesn’t change this. That the trip itself has a finite duration doesn’t change this.
To claim it is impossible you need to show one of two things: time is
finite or one of the years someone doesn’t make that trip”.
Look at this
1) “recurring event is planned”
2) “starts today”
3)“every year someone makes that same road-trip”
Q1) How would a C-TRIP happen for an infinite amount of time when “IT BEGAN” at a finite start date and when it has a finite duration (8 hours) ?
This is a classical example of violation of law of contradiction.
Something can be finite and infinite at the same time. (violation of law of contradiction).
But since he is a master at sleight of hand, he has changed the definitions of infinity and finity.
Infinity according to him is: Something with a beginning but no end.
Finity according to him: Something with a beginning and an end.
And even then (according to his own definitions of infinity), the trip begins and lasts for a duration of (8 hours), yet he has the audacity to claim that this trip is infinite. It is a violation of law of contradiction, but here i would give him benefit of doubt. May be he is having difficulty putting his idea into words.
What he is postulating is, the cycles of the trip have no end. They begin and last for a duration of 8 hours, but they continue in the future without an end. So he is claiming cycles of the trip have no end.
Does this have any bearing on the argument under discussion?
None (more to come regarding this, later).
Moreover, by rational necessity C-TRIP would have an FINITE AGE. Let’s say he started today, 2019/ 7/16. “8 hours trip”. And assume that he does this forever. At any given point in time C-TRIP would have a finite age. In the next 10 years it will be (80 hours), in the next 100 years it will be (800 hours), in the next 100 billion years it will be ( 800 billion hours)?
But how is this relevant to the argument given in those links?
In the argument we are talking about “infinite number of events in the past (without a beginning and an end)”.
When you say that the past has infinitely many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. This issue is not a problem for the future, because no one in their right mind claims that they have been completed. In fact, it is in the future, because it has not completed.
Look at this
1) “recurring event is planned”
2) “starts today”
3)“every year someone makes that same road-trip”
Q1) How would a C-TRIP happen for an infinite amount of time when “IT BEGAN” at a finite start date and when it has a finite duration (8 hours) ?
This is a classical example of violation of law of contradiction.
Something can be finite and infinite at the same time. (violation of law of contradiction).
But since he is a master at sleight of hand, he has changed the definitions of infinity and finity.
Infinity according to him is: Something with a beginning but no end.
Finity according to him: Something with a beginning and an end.
And even then (according to his own definitions of infinity), the trip begins and lasts for a duration of (8 hours), yet he has the audacity to claim that this trip is infinite. It is a violation of law of contradiction, but here i would give him benefit of doubt. May be he is having difficulty putting his idea into words.
What he is postulating is, the cycles of the trip have no end. They begin and last for a duration of 8 hours, but they continue in the future without an end. So he is claiming cycles of the trip have no end.
Does this have any bearing on the argument under discussion?
None (more to come regarding this, later).
Moreover, by rational necessity C-TRIP would have an FINITE AGE. Let’s say he started today, 2019/ 7/16. “8 hours trip”. And assume that he does this forever. At any given point in time C-TRIP would have a finite age. In the next 10 years it will be (80 hours), in the next 100 years it will be (800 hours), in the next 100 billion years it will be ( 800 billion hours)?
But how is this relevant to the argument given in those links?
In the argument we are talking about “infinite number of events in the past (without a beginning and an end)”.
When you say that the past has infinitely many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. This issue is not a problem for the future, because no one in their right mind claims that they have been completed. In fact, it is in the future, because it has not completed.
For example (Considering there were infinite number of events (without a beginning or end) in the past:
Let’s say today is 7/16/2019, How many days have been passed until today? Infinite.
A year ago (7/16/2018), how many days have been passed until that day? Infinite
And this is a rational absurdity, because what is without a beginning by rational necessity has no end.
And what we have proven in the argument is that there must be an event with no prior past event, regardless of the number of days.
Let’s say today is 7/16/2019, How many days have been passed until today? Infinite.
A year ago (7/16/2018), how many days have been passed until that day? Infinite
And this is a rational absurdity, because what is without a beginning by rational necessity has no end.
And what we have proven in the argument is that there must be an event with no prior past event, regardless of the number of days.
To
claim it is impossible you need to show one of the two things: time is
finite or one of the years someone doesn’t make that trip.
This is the trick to change the matter at hand. It involves a sleight of hand because it shifts the framework of the argument. The shift is from “Infinite (without a beginning and end) number of events in the past” to “infinite ( with a beginning and no end: based on his definition of infinity) events in the future”
This is the trick to change the matter at hand. It involves a sleight of hand because it shifts the framework of the argument. The shift is from “Infinite (without a beginning and end) number of events in the past” to “infinite ( with a beginning and no end: based on his definition of infinity) events in the future”
And this is the famous yet a classical “straw-man” argument. You are asking me to beat it but I wouldn’t.
When you say that the past has infinitely many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. (This is what my argument in question deals with). This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. This issue is not a problem for the future, because no one in their right mind claims that they have been completed. In fact, it is in the future, because it has not completed.
When you say that the past has infinitely many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. (This is what my argument in question deals with). This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. This issue is not a problem for the future, because no one in their right mind claims that they have been completed. In fact, it is in the future, because it has not completed.
This
holds for the universe. It can have a beginning and no end, and thus be
infinite. And, as I pointed out, if time truly did begin with it, then
something existing for the duration of the universe has existed for all
time that has existed, it is infinite.
This is the same sleight of hand that was used in the previous example to shift the framework of the argument “Infinite (without a beginning and end) number of events in the past” to “infinite (with a beginning and no end) events in the future.”
Moreover, what is the age of the universe today?
13.7 Billion years
What would be the age of the universe 100 billion years from now?
1300 billion years.
Make it a trillion years?
It would still be at a finite age because it has a beginning.
Moreover, whenever something begins to exist, the following can be said about its existence:
1) Necessary: If its existence was necessary, it would have been existent since eternity past, in which case it wouldn’t have began to exist. (in other words it is always existent, without a beginning or end).
2) Possible: Its existence was a possibility. All contingent beings belong to this category. (They begin to exist)
3) Impossible: If its existence was impossible, it wouldn’t have begun to exist.
So the fact of the matter is, universe is possible in existence.
This is the same sleight of hand that was used in the previous example to shift the framework of the argument “Infinite (without a beginning and end) number of events in the past” to “infinite (with a beginning and no end) events in the future.”
Moreover, what is the age of the universe today?
13.7 Billion years
What would be the age of the universe 100 billion years from now?
1300 billion years.
Make it a trillion years?
It would still be at a finite age because it has a beginning.
Moreover, whenever something begins to exist, the following can be said about its existence:
1) Necessary: If its existence was necessary, it would have been existent since eternity past, in which case it wouldn’t have began to exist. (in other words it is always existent, without a beginning or end).
2) Possible: Its existence was a possibility. All contingent beings belong to this category. (They begin to exist)
3) Impossible: If its existence was impossible, it wouldn’t have begun to exist.
So the fact of the matter is, universe is possible in existence.
Whatever has a beginning must have an end:
Since the universe began to exist, its existence in the next moment is a mere possibility since it is intrinsically possible in existence (with respect to itself). Why?
Since the universe began to exist, its existence in the next moment is a mere possibility since it is intrinsically possible in existence (with respect to itself). Why?
Since
it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity
past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else
it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in
existence. What does possible in existence entail? There was nothing in
its nature that preferred existence (else it would have been necessary)
neither its nature preferred non-existence (else it would have been
impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect
to the very nature of the event. Equal in what sense? None is
preponderant over the other.
Now when such a universe leaves the realm of non-existence and enters existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occurred causelessly or without a cause because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that preferred existence over non-existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) or non-existence over existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the universe came into existence causelessly (without a cause), you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal (with respect to itself) and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence (with respect to itself)? It is a contradiction of terms.
Now when such a universe leaves the realm of non-existence and enters existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occurred causelessly or without a cause because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that preferred existence over non-existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) or non-existence over existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the universe came into existence causelessly (without a cause), you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal (with respect to itself) and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence (with respect to itself)? It is a contradiction of terms.
Therefore, the universe is only intrinsically possible in existence because it began to exist (by your own admission).
Its existence in the next moment is merely a possibility. It may not exist or exist in a different state of existence. Both entail non-existence.
The fact that universe “changes” proves it, since it is in a different state of existence (after the change) than the previous state of existence (before the change). Non-existence of previous state and existence of current state is what we call a change.
Since you defined infinity to be “with a beginning and no end”:
Its existence in the next moment is merely a possibility. It may not exist or exist in a different state of existence. Both entail non-existence.
The fact that universe “changes” proves it, since it is in a different state of existence (after the change) than the previous state of existence (before the change). Non-existence of previous state and existence of current state is what we call a change.
Since you defined infinity to be “with a beginning and no end”:
How
does it feel like to see “ It has a beginning as well as an end (in
terms of non-existence of previous state”. But you would spin around and
say “By end I meant total annihilation and NOT change” and you would still be wrong because you still miss the point (Go back and read again what has been written).
My question is on what basis have you deemed something that has a beginning (such as universe in this case and it began to exist i.e. came into existence) “must necessarily” not end?” Is this rational necessity? No. Infact i have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it isn’t a rational necessity since i have shown that its existence in the next moment is merely possible since “it is only intrinsically possible” existence. The reason why it exists right now is because of the fact of that it has been caused.
Why must it not end? since by your own admission the “universe” has a beginning i.e. it entered the realm of existence from prior non-existence.
(what i am doing here is attacking the very basis of your definition of “infinity” based on logical principles and showing beyond reasonable doubt that mind does accept its non-existence.)
My question is on what basis have you deemed something that has a beginning (such as universe in this case and it began to exist i.e. came into existence) “must necessarily” not end?” Is this rational necessity? No. Infact i have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it isn’t a rational necessity since i have shown that its existence in the next moment is merely possible since “it is only intrinsically possible” existence. The reason why it exists right now is because of the fact of that it has been caused.
Why must it not end? since by your own admission the “universe” has a beginning i.e. it entered the realm of existence from prior non-existence.
(what i am doing here is attacking the very basis of your definition of “infinity” based on logical principles and showing beyond reasonable doubt that mind does accept its non-existence.)
Like I told you, grab a book on classical and modern logic, you are making yourself look really really bad.
But
the question was about infinite regress, so to show this impossible you
need to show there really wasn’t something before our universe,
Why
is that a rational necessity? I don’t need to show anything. The fact
of the matter is that infinity by definition is without a beginning and
end.
The real question is “can there be an infinite (without a beginning and end) number of “cause and effect” relationships before our universe began to exist?”
or
“can there be an infinite number (without a beginning and end) of cause and effect relationships in the past leading upto the existence of a universe?”
The real question is “can there be an infinite (without a beginning and end) number of “cause and effect” relationships before our universe began to exist?”
or
“can there be an infinite number (without a beginning and end) of cause and effect relationships in the past leading upto the existence of a universe?”
Even if we take your definition of infinity (with a beginning but no end)
“Can there be an infinite number of (with a beginning but no end) of cause and effect relationships in the past leading upto the existence of a universe?”
Doesn’t existence of a such universe entail non-existence of infinity by your very own definition as well?
“Can there be an infinite number of (with a beginning but no end) of cause and effect relationships in the past leading upto the existence of a universe?”
Doesn’t existence of a such universe entail non-existence of infinity by your very own definition as well?
First you brought “Mathematical imaginary divisions” to prove why “infinity can end”. When this didn’t work, you brought another example of “If
you stop and someone else starts driving, and so on and so on, it can
be said that taking trips happens for an infinite amount of time.” When this didn’t work, you brought “Future progression” to prove why infinite regress of the past is a possibility.
What you have failed to realize is claiming there are unlimited number of days in the future “HAS” no bearing on the argument because they can’t be said to be completed in the first place because they lie in the future. Claiming that there are infinite number of days (without a beginning or end) in the past, then you are essentially claiming that “infinity came to an end” because completion of these infinite number of events in the past is must and this is rationally absurd.
Not only your definitions about finite and infinity are flawed, you have no idea what the argument in question is postulating.
“Or show that if time did start with our universe, that this beginning doesn’t constitute an infinite amount of time in the past, since this would be the entirety of the past”.
Any future conversation with you will not be entertained.
You have violated the law of contradiction.
How can something (time) with a beginning (it began to exist), be existent prior to it?
When it’s beginning to exist (entails) its prior non-existence.
1) Time began to exist. Beginning to exist implies it entered the realm of existence from prior non-existence.
2) It was existent before it began to exist.
What you have failed to realize is claiming there are unlimited number of days in the future “HAS” no bearing on the argument because they can’t be said to be completed in the first place because they lie in the future. Claiming that there are infinite number of days (without a beginning or end) in the past, then you are essentially claiming that “infinity came to an end” because completion of these infinite number of events in the past is must and this is rationally absurd.
Not only your definitions about finite and infinity are flawed, you have no idea what the argument in question is postulating.
“Or show that if time did start with our universe, that this beginning doesn’t constitute an infinite amount of time in the past, since this would be the entirety of the past”.
Any future conversation with you will not be entertained.
You have violated the law of contradiction.
How can something (time) with a beginning (it began to exist), be existent prior to it?
When it’s beginning to exist (entails) its prior non-existence.
1) Time began to exist. Beginning to exist implies it entered the realm of existence from prior non-existence.
2) It was existent before it began to exist.
You said “As
another example of equivocation we have your soldier analogy. This is
where you basically state that a finite number of soldiers needing a cue
from an infinite progression cannot do something. I agree. But if you
change the number of soldiers to an infinite is it now impossible? No, which is why you setup conditions reliant on the finite and suggest it equals the infinite.”
What do you mean by infinite here?
1) Is it something without a beginning and end? If it is then, this is rationally impossible. Rationally- absurd. Claiming that there are infinite number of events prior to the movement of my hand, then by definition infinity does not end and my hand remains in the realm of non-existence.
2) Something with a beginning but no end? (based on your definition) This is again rationally absurd for 2 reasons.
Absurdity # 1) your first assumption: that the first soldier did fire his gun without a cause and this is impossible because it leads to absurdity termed preponderance without a preferrer. If you deem that soldier fired his gun due to a cause, then if the cause is contingent (it too would require a cause) adfinitum. And if you didn’t assume anything and left the soldier alone (by itself) then no shot would be fired. So claiming that the series is infinite or finite is of no use. You can’t go ahead without addressing the first soldier.
Absurdity #2) since the number of soldiers have no end, then the movement of the hand remained in the realm of non-existence. Because according to your own definition of infinity, it has no end. (It can have a beginning and no end, and thus be infinite)
Note: These (soldiers) are events leading up to the movement of hand. They exist prior to the movement and not after its movement (i.e. not in the future).
The soldiers are there to represent (series of events) leading upto the movement of my hand.
What do you mean by infinite here?
1) Is it something without a beginning and end? If it is then, this is rationally impossible. Rationally- absurd. Claiming that there are infinite number of events prior to the movement of my hand, then by definition infinity does not end and my hand remains in the realm of non-existence.
2) Something with a beginning but no end? (based on your definition) This is again rationally absurd for 2 reasons.
Absurdity # 1) your first assumption: that the first soldier did fire his gun without a cause and this is impossible because it leads to absurdity termed preponderance without a preferrer. If you deem that soldier fired his gun due to a cause, then if the cause is contingent (it too would require a cause) adfinitum. And if you didn’t assume anything and left the soldier alone (by itself) then no shot would be fired. So claiming that the series is infinite or finite is of no use. You can’t go ahead without addressing the first soldier.
Absurdity #2) since the number of soldiers have no end, then the movement of the hand remained in the realm of non-existence. Because according to your own definition of infinity, it has no end. (It can have a beginning and no end, and thus be infinite)
Note: These (soldiers) are events leading up to the movement of hand. They exist prior to the movement and not after its movement (i.e. not in the future).
The soldiers are there to represent (series of events) leading upto the movement of my hand.
What
you are trying to state is: If i raise my hand in the present moment,
then there are infinite number of events (with a beginning but without
an end: based on your definition of infinity) prior to the movement of
hand. That is between the first soldier and the movement of my hand,
there are infinite soldiers. Based on your very definition, wouldn’t the
movement of my hand entail non-existence of your infinity (with a
beginning but no end). Please note these are past events we are talking
about, not something in the future. Completion of this infinity is a
must, since we are talking about past events and even by your definition
of infinity, it cannot come to an end. Completion of infinity (based on
your definition) is not a necessity but an absurdity. Because what lies
in the future cannot be said to be completed.
This analogy doesn’t even fit an infinite loop, but my road-trip analogy does.
How does “your road trip analogy” fits in the “infinite loop”?
Infinite loop is about the past events leading up to the existence of hand. Claiming these came to an end or completed is what leads to absurdity because infinity by definition does not end.
What is being said here, we can observe the current moment in time, and that there have been moments of time that have existed before the current moment, then it is rationally impossible i.e. rationally absurd, that these moments of time stretch back to an infinite number. It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.
“Your road trip analogy begins to exist” and “comes to a halt” and goes without end in the future.
We are talking about past events here and there impossibility of being completed if they are deemed infinite.
And yes, you are using special pleading for your deity. You write a number of paragraphs without acknowledging this, and I suspect without recognizing it, but you do it. I’d go into it but can’t see you being able to get it past your mindset.
Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence. (Hitchen’s razor). I see this as an embarrassing way of your acceptance of the fact that you raised a side-track.
You have a whole paragraph stating what the mind cannot accept… which is the definition of incredulity. If we don’t understand how something can happen then it is very hard to accept it can, but what our minds can or cannot accept does not effect reality.
Let me spoon feed you. Since you have no idea of logic and its principles and you are writing whatever comes to your mind.
If something is deemed necessary (without a beginning or end, always existent and existent since eternity past, uncreated), then the mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. Why?
Since the existence is intrinsic (with respect to itself) to that thing. If the mind entertained its non-existence, then by definition it cannot be said to be “without a beginning or end, always existent or existent since eternity past). It is merely possible in existence (contingent). Non existence then entails a contradiction of terms in which existence was previously deemed to be necessary.
Now read this as slowly as possible:
“If something has an end then by rational necessity it must have a beginning. Why? Because if it were without a beginning then, the mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. Claiming that it ended shows that its existence came to end (non-existence). And this is impossible because how can something be without a beginning (the mind absolutely does not accepts its non-existence) and has an end (its existence came to an end) at the same time? Therefore by rational necessity if something comes to an end, then it must have beginning and it is by definition finite and not infinite”.
Saad, your logic is flawed.
No comments.
All you have done is changed the definitions of “infinity” and “finity” and built a straw-man so that I can dismantle it. If I remember correctly, I told you to study the argument instead of reading it.
My advice:
Get some good books on logic. Both classical and modern. Your lack seriously in application of logical principles and that primarily stems from your lack of knowledge.
Don’t waste your time on the internet. Read these books. Start with “Logic” by Greg Restall.
This whole post of mine, while I read it again after typing it,appears like spoon-feeding a 5 year old child.
It’s a bad habit to rely on others to spoon-feed you. I hope you realize this.
Thank you.
You’ve repeatedly claimed I “redefined” infinity (i.e. lied). The following are easily found online:
Sigh! another side track. i have not claimed “you lied”. Since you are getting information from google and dictionaries, it is understandable that you are bound to make mistakes.
Your definition of infinity is not based on Logical principles. Go and grab a book on classical logic to see what i am talking about.
As for the usage of “sleight of hand” i have given “clear” evidence why that is the case. On multiple occasions.
But still i see this as a side track. Go and refute what has been mentioned in my previous reply.
I have “shown” based on logical principles why your “definition” is flawed. Until you prove why i am wrong based on a logical principle, you are wasting my time and yours.
You’re welcome to point out how I have redefined something. Did I contact all these places and have them include verbiage that matches my usage? Did I insert the bolded text hoping you wouldn’t look them up (or the mysterious people you sometimes seem to be talking to)?
I can prove right here now that most of the definitons that you have presented DON’T PRESENT YOUR VIEW OF INFINITY (i.e. with a beginning and no end). But doing this would be addressing a side track.
Go back and address the refutation present in my previous reply.
Based on your interactions with others I suspect you’ll delete my comments to you, and that’s fine it doesn’t change the flaws in your argument.
Your post remains undeleted. Your claims without evidence are rejected without evidence. (Hitchen’s razor).
You have done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible (your claim) but simply committed multiple fallacies and concluded if you can’t conceive of it, it must then be impossible. claims without evidence are rejected without evidence.
As for “You have done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible”.
You are lying here. There you go, i said it. And when i say it I DO MEAN IT.
It has been written as clear as a day in my previous reply “why” it is impossible. And you are making yourself look bad. Really bad.
On the contrary I have debunked your argument “beyond” repair. And it is understandable for you to setup another “straw-man” and a “side-track”.
As for how I am describing finite events being infinite see Set Theory,What is wrong with you? We are talking about “REAL” events. Is a duration of an 8 hour journey “Finite” or “infinite”? You claim it is both and this is a lie. Go and ask mathamatician. Even looking at the dictionaries you have provided and 8 hour journey IS NOT INFINITE.
Any replies from you “Not addressing” my previous reply will be deleted.
Consider this my final warning! i don’t waste my time on side-tracks.
P.S you are more interested in refutation then in understanding your opponent’s argument. What that entails is, that you will continue to build side-tracks and red-herrings since you have failed to understand the argument in the first place.
I will be addressing this again.
Defining terms:
My definiton of infinity: “Something without a beginning or end” (This is what the argument in question deals with).
Atheist's definition of infinity: Something with a beginning but no end.
Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. Because by definition infinity does not end. (This is what the argument is postulating). If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. A violation of law of contradiction. This is what the argument is proving as impossible.
When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past.
My question to the Atheist “Do you believe the number of past events prior to the movement of my hand are infinite (based on my definition). By infinite i mean (without a beginning and end) or are they finite (with a beginning and an end)?
If your answer is: No. They are not infinite based on your definition of infinity (without beginning and end). They are FINITE.
Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).
If your answer is : Yes. They are infinite based on your definition of infinity (without beginning and end).
Then it is a rational absurdity, because what is without a beginning has no end. And what that entails is that infinity cannot ever be concluded or completed. We are talking about events of the past not some events in the future. It is rational necessity to claim that the past is "gone", "completed" or it has been reached. If you deem the past events to be infinite, then by definition (without a beginning or end) infinity doesnot end and what that means is the past can never be claimed to be "gone" or "completed" and what that entails is the present moment will never arrive.
__________________________________________________________________
Atheist's definition of infinity: Something with a beginning but no end.
My question to Atheist “Do you believe the “number of past events” prior to the movement of my hand are infinite. By infinite i mean (with a beginning but no end) or are they finite (with a beginning and an end)?
If your answer is: Yes they are finite. (with a beginning and an end).
Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).
If your answer is: Yes they are infinite based on the definition of infinity (with a beginning and no end).
Then i say based on your own definition of infinity (with a beginning but no end), this is absurd from two point of views:
Absurdity # 1) Since it has a beginning then the first unit in the infinite loop (based on Atheist's defintion of infinity ) too must require a cause. If it doesn’t, it leads to the absurdity termed preponderance without a preferrer. And if it does require a cause and if the cause is contingent, it too must require a cause ad-infinitum.
Absurdity #2) According to your own definition of infinity, it has no end
.
These are events leading up to the movement of hand. They exist prior to the movement (i.e. in the past) and not after its movement (i.e. not in the future).
Therefore by rational necessity if the events before the movement of my hand are deemed “infinite” then between the first unit and the movement of my hand, there would be unlimited events without an end. And by your own definition infinity has no end, and therefore my hand will remain in the realm of non-existence. If the hand does move, it entails non-existence of infinity that was deemed to be "without an end". It is a contradiction of terms.
I hope that i made it clear this time. Address the questions asked in this post, before you proceed with anything else.
Thank you.
This analogy doesn’t even fit an infinite loop, but my road-trip analogy does.
How does “your road trip analogy” fits in the “infinite loop”?
Infinite loop is about the past events leading up to the existence of hand. Claiming these came to an end or completed is what leads to absurdity because infinity by definition does not end.
What is being said here, we can observe the current moment in time, and that there have been moments of time that have existed before the current moment, then it is rationally impossible i.e. rationally absurd, that these moments of time stretch back to an infinite number. It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.
“Your road trip analogy begins to exist” and “comes to a halt” and goes without end in the future.
We are talking about past events here and there impossibility of being completed if they are deemed infinite.
And yes, you are using special pleading for your deity. You write a number of paragraphs without acknowledging this, and I suspect without recognizing it, but you do it. I’d go into it but can’t see you being able to get it past your mindset.
Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence. (Hitchen’s razor). I see this as an embarrassing way of your acceptance of the fact that you raised a side-track.
You have a whole paragraph stating what the mind cannot accept… which is the definition of incredulity. If we don’t understand how something can happen then it is very hard to accept it can, but what our minds can or cannot accept does not effect reality.
Let me spoon feed you. Since you have no idea of logic and its principles and you are writing whatever comes to your mind.
If something is deemed necessary (without a beginning or end, always existent and existent since eternity past, uncreated), then the mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. Why?
Since the existence is intrinsic (with respect to itself) to that thing. If the mind entertained its non-existence, then by definition it cannot be said to be “without a beginning or end, always existent or existent since eternity past). It is merely possible in existence (contingent). Non existence then entails a contradiction of terms in which existence was previously deemed to be necessary.
Now read this as slowly as possible:
“If something has an end then by rational necessity it must have a beginning. Why? Because if it were without a beginning then, the mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. Claiming that it ended shows that its existence came to end (non-existence). And this is impossible because how can something be without a beginning (the mind absolutely does not accepts its non-existence) and has an end (its existence came to an end) at the same time? Therefore by rational necessity if something comes to an end, then it must have beginning and it is by definition finite and not infinite”.
Saad, your logic is flawed.
No comments.
All you have done is changed the definitions of “infinity” and “finity” and built a straw-man so that I can dismantle it. If I remember correctly, I told you to study the argument instead of reading it.
My advice:
Get some good books on logic. Both classical and modern. Your lack seriously in application of logical principles and that primarily stems from your lack of knowledge.
Don’t waste your time on the internet. Read these books. Start with “Logic” by Greg Restall.
This whole post of mine, while I read it again after typing it,appears like spoon-feeding a 5 year old child.
It’s a bad habit to rely on others to spoon-feed you. I hope you realize this.
Thank you.
Atheist:
Had to stop 1/4 into your diatribe because you were so incredibly off base.
You’ve repeatedly claimed I “redefined” infinity (i.e. lied). The following are easily found online:
Googlein·fi·nite
adjective: infinite
adjective: infinite
1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
"the infinite mercy of God"
"the infinite mercy of God"
synonyms: boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, without limit, without end, never-ending, interminable, cosmic; More
antonyms: limited, small
• very great in amount or degree.
"he bathed the wound with infinite care"
"he bathed the wound with infinite care"
synonyms: very great, immense, supreme, absolute, total, real; More
antonyms: very little
antonyms: very little
• MATHEMATICS
greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
• MATHEMATICS
(of a series) able to be continued indefinitely.
(of a series) able to be continued indefinitely.
GRAMMAR
another term for nonfinite.
another term for nonfinite.
noun: infinite
1. a space or quantity that is infinite.
God. noun: Infinite; noun: the Infinite
God. noun: Infinite; noun: the Infinite
Merriam-Websteradjective
in·fi·nite | \ ˈin-fə-nət \
in·fi·nite | \ ˈin-fə-nət \
1. extending indefinitely : ENDLESS infinite space
2. immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE infinite patience
3. subject to no limitation or external determination
4. a: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large, infinite number of positive numbers
b: extending to infinity, infinite plane surface
c: characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms, an infinite set, an infinite series
noun: infiniteDefinition of infinite (Entry 2 of 2)
something that is infinite (as in extent, duration, or number)
something that is infinite (as in extent, duration, or number)
1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics.
o not finite.
o (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
o not finite.
o (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
Cambridge DictionaryInfinite adjective [ not gradable ]
US /ˈɪn·fə·nɪt/
US /ˈɪn·fə·nɪt/
1. without limits; extremely large or great: infinite space
WikipediaInfinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number.
Wictionaryinfinite (comparative more infinite, superlative most infinite)
1. Indefinably large, countlessly great; immense. [from 14th c.] quotations
2. Boundless, endless, without end or limits; innumerable. [from 15th c.] quotations
3. With plural noun: infinitely many. [from 15th c.] quotations
4. (mathematics) Greater than any positive quantity or magnitude; limitless. [from 17th c.]
5. (set theory, of a set) Having infinitely many elements. quotations
6. (grammar) Not limited by person or number. [from 19th c.]
7. (music) Capable of endless repetition; said of certain forms of the canon, also called perpetual fugues, constructed so that their ends lead to their beginnings.
You’re
welcome to point out how I have redefined something. Did I contact all
these places and have them include verbiage that matches my usage? Did I
insert the bolded text hoping you wouldn’t look them up (or the
mysterious people you sometimes seem to be talking to)?
As
for how I am describing finite events being infinite see Set Theory,
specifically a countable infinite set. I doubt you’ll understand it but
if you can it will show you how a group of finite things can be
infinite.
Based on
your interactions with others I suspect you’ll delete my comments to
you, and that’s fine it doesn’t change the flaws in your argument. You
clearly don’t understand the very issues you are discussing and are far
from the logical person you seem to imagine yourself to be. You have
done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible (your claim) but
simply committed multiple fallacies and concluded if you can’t conceive
of it, it must then be impossible. I truly hope that at some point you
allow yourself some humility and discover how wrong you are. Best of
luck Saad, you seem to need it.
Reply:
Address the POST (below) where I have “defined terms”. Address the questions asked in that post, before you proceed with anything else.You’ve repeatedly claimed I “redefined” infinity (i.e. lied). The following are easily found online:
Sigh! another side track. i have not claimed “you lied”. Since you are getting information from google and dictionaries, it is understandable that you are bound to make mistakes.
Your definition of infinity is not based on Logical principles. Go and grab a book on classical logic to see what i am talking about.
As for the usage of “sleight of hand” i have given “clear” evidence why that is the case. On multiple occasions.
But still i see this as a side track. Go and refute what has been mentioned in my previous reply.
I have “shown” based on logical principles why your “definition” is flawed. Until you prove why i am wrong based on a logical principle, you are wasting my time and yours.
You’re welcome to point out how I have redefined something. Did I contact all these places and have them include verbiage that matches my usage? Did I insert the bolded text hoping you wouldn’t look them up (or the mysterious people you sometimes seem to be talking to)?
I can prove right here now that most of the definitons that you have presented DON’T PRESENT YOUR VIEW OF INFINITY (i.e. with a beginning and no end). But doing this would be addressing a side track.
Go back and address the refutation present in my previous reply.
Based on your interactions with others I suspect you’ll delete my comments to you, and that’s fine it doesn’t change the flaws in your argument.
Your post remains undeleted. Your claims without evidence are rejected without evidence. (Hitchen’s razor).
You have done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible (your claim) but simply committed multiple fallacies and concluded if you can’t conceive of it, it must then be impossible. claims without evidence are rejected without evidence.
As for “You have done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible”.
You are lying here. There you go, i said it. And when i say it I DO MEAN IT.
It has been written as clear as a day in my previous reply “why” it is impossible. And you are making yourself look bad. Really bad.
On the contrary I have debunked your argument “beyond” repair. And it is understandable for you to setup another “straw-man” and a “side-track”.
As for how I am describing finite events being infinite see Set Theory,What is wrong with you? We are talking about “REAL” events. Is a duration of an 8 hour journey “Finite” or “infinite”? You claim it is both and this is a lie. Go and ask mathamatician. Even looking at the dictionaries you have provided and 8 hour journey IS NOT INFINITE.
Any replies from you “Not addressing” my previous reply will be deleted.
Consider this my final warning! i don’t waste my time on side-tracks.
P.S you are more interested in refutation then in understanding your opponent’s argument. What that entails is, that you will continue to build side-tracks and red-herrings since you have failed to understand the argument in the first place.
THE CHECKMATE MOVE:
“You have done nothing to show an infinite regress is impossible”I will be addressing this again.
Defining terms:
My definiton of infinity: “Something without a beginning or end” (This is what the argument in question deals with).
Atheist's definition of infinity: Something with a beginning but no end.
Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. Because by definition infinity does not end. (This is what the argument is postulating). If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. A violation of law of contradiction. This is what the argument is proving as impossible.
When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past.
My question to the Atheist “Do you believe the number of past events prior to the movement of my hand are infinite (based on my definition). By infinite i mean (without a beginning and end) or are they finite (with a beginning and an end)?
If your answer is: No. They are not infinite based on your definition of infinity (without beginning and end). They are FINITE.
Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).
If your answer is : Yes. They are infinite based on your definition of infinity (without beginning and end).
Then it is a rational absurdity, because what is without a beginning has no end. And what that entails is that infinity cannot ever be concluded or completed. We are talking about events of the past not some events in the future. It is rational necessity to claim that the past is "gone", "completed" or it has been reached. If you deem the past events to be infinite, then by definition (without a beginning or end) infinity doesnot end and what that means is the past can never be claimed to be "gone" or "completed" and what that entails is the present moment will never arrive.
__________________________________________________________________
Atheist's definition of infinity: Something with a beginning but no end.
My question to Atheist “Do you believe the “number of past events” prior to the movement of my hand are infinite. By infinite i mean (with a beginning but no end) or are they finite (with a beginning and an end)?
If your answer is: Yes they are finite. (with a beginning and an end).
Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).
If your answer is: Yes they are infinite based on the definition of infinity (with a beginning and no end).
Then i say based on your own definition of infinity (with a beginning but no end), this is absurd from two point of views:
Absurdity # 1) Since it has a beginning then the first unit in the infinite loop (based on Atheist's defintion of infinity ) too must require a cause. If it doesn’t, it leads to the absurdity termed preponderance without a preferrer. And if it does require a cause and if the cause is contingent, it too must require a cause ad-infinitum.
Absurdity #2) According to your own definition of infinity, it has no end
.
These are events leading up to the movement of hand. They exist prior to the movement (i.e. in the past) and not after its movement (i.e. not in the future).
Therefore by rational necessity if the events before the movement of my hand are deemed “infinite” then between the first unit and the movement of my hand, there would be unlimited events without an end. And by your own definition infinity has no end, and therefore my hand will remain in the realm of non-existence. If the hand does move, it entails non-existence of infinity that was deemed to be "without an end". It is a contradiction of terms.
I hope that i made it clear this time. Address the questions asked in this post, before you proceed with anything else.
Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment