• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Infinity!!!

Leumas

Banned
L
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
8,588
Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.

Of course they do this in the context of trying to cobble together coherent apologetics and sophistry for their gods.

As is usually the case with apologetics... ironically and risibly... the very apologists who keep harping on how infinity is nonsense in order to "prove" their gods... turn around and start brandishing infinity when it comes to denying indeterminism in order to keep their gods in the game

The concept of indeterminism threatens the coherence of any god concepts.... "god does not play dice".

So what to do?

Deny randomness and indeterminism.

Unfortunately REALITY shows their denials of randomness and indeterminism are as delusional as their affirmations for their gods.

So what to do?

Cajole and coerce reality into submission.

So now they start brandishing infinity to argue that infinite tosses of a coin will converge onto a deterministic coin toss.

Or that an infinite amount of knowledge about the all but infinite state of the universe would allow "one" to determine everything.

Who is this "one"? Humans? Deep Thought Computer? Slartibartfast? Q? The Borg Queen?

Of course not.... despite the dissimulations and pretenses that they are not talking about their god.... they know the truth... and all is right for the night and they can sleep tight with the satisfaction that they beat reality into submission to their infinitely powerful and infinitely prescient and infinitely amazing gods.
 
Last edited:
Just be sure to sweep up all that straw when you're done. And don't leave that thesaurus out where someone could trip over it.
 
Leumas said:
Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.
Click to expand...


No they don't. Just the opposite. Most Christians attribute eternity (an unbounded, that is to say infinite, span of time) not only to God's existence but also to the condition of a human afterlife.

No point in even reading the rest.
 
Myriad said:
No they don't. Just the opposite. Most Christians attribute eternity (an unbounded, that is to say infinite, span of time) not only to God's existence but also to the condition of a human afterlife.

No point in even reading the rest.
Click to expand...


Well... what do you say to this then

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.
Click to expand...
 
What a strange fantasy argument. It seems to pick and choose unrelated points of view made up out of the blue and mash them together into a point of view that no one actually holds.
 
Leumas said:
Well... what do you say to this then
Click to expand...

The author you rely on says that infinite things are logically impossible (quantitatively), but that God is by definition qualitatively infinite.

Have you actually read the blog post you cite as proof?
 
Last edited:
We know, of course, that infinite boredom is an impossibility, along with unbounded indifference and everlasting ennui.

But logic is sometimes -- nay, much too often -- at variance with our subjective experience. Let our consolation be that our experience is not everlasting.

It's not, is it? No, QED & all that. Goddle mighty.
 
Leumas said:
Well... what do you say to this then

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"An actually infinite number of things are impossible" is a different argument from "infinity is a nonsense concept." If the latter were true, the former would be meaningless.
 
Thermal said:
The author you rely on says things are logically impossible (quantitatively), but that God is definitionally qualitatively infinite. ...
Click to expand...


Have you read the OP? I am well aware of the oblivious and clueless hypocrisy of apologetics in general and apologists in particular.

Of course they say things out of both sides of their mouths all the time... lying to bolster whatever is going to "prove" their gods no matter if even they denied it just a few minutes earlier.

They deny infinity... and affirm their infinite god... contradictions and illogic galore like their Buybull and New Tall tales.

Qualitatively infinite????? What the hell is that?


Leumas said:
...
As is usually the case with apologetics... ironically and risibly... the very apologists who keep harping on how infinity is nonsense in order to "prove" their gods... turn around and start brandishing infinity when it comes to denying indeterminism in order to keep their gods in the game...
Click to expand...
 
Myriad said:
"An actually infinite number of things are impossible" is a different argument from "infinity is a nonsense concept." If the latter were true, the former would be meaningless.
Click to expand...


Yup... this is the definition of casuistry.

And when it comes to infinite knowledge to determine things that is a quantitative infinity... no?
 
Leumas said:
Have you read the OP? I am well aware of the oblivious and clueless hypocrisy of apologetics in general and apologists in particular.

Of course they say things out of both sides of their mouths all the time... lying to bolster whatever is going to "prove" their gods no matter if even they denied it just a few minutes earlier.

They deny infinity... and affirm their infinite god... contradictions and illogic galore like their Buybull and New Tall tales.

Qualitatively infinite????? What the hell is that?
Click to expand...

The author you rely on goes into that in detail.

I mean, denying as illogical infinite things is a valid scientific standpoint, with which your cited author concurs. Not at all sure where you are going with this.
 
Thermal said:
The author you rely on goes into that in detail.

I mean, denying as illogical infinite things is a valid scientific standpoint, with which your cited author concurs. Not at all sure where you are going with this.
Click to expand...


Great... then coin tosses will always remain random and indeterministic and will never be be exactly 50% deterministically because you can never toss enough coins for even god to determine the outcome deterministically as infinite tossing is impossible... right?
 
Leumas said:
Great... then coin tosses will always remain random and indeterministic and will never be be exactly 50% deterministically because you can never toss enough coins for even god to determine the outcome deterministically as infinite tossing is impossible... right?
Click to expand...

Wrong, of course. A coin toss is a mechanical event, not a physical object. Duh.

Try this yourself sometime: flip a coin slow and easy. You can make it come up consistently heads with minimal practice. That is because a coin is a disc of known weight, that can have a calculable force exerted upon it to make it revolve. These forces can be calculated to predict with perfect accuracy exactly how many revolutions the coin will turn and how it will land in your palm (as you required in order to remove edge landings from your calculations). The palm being in a precisely calculated place and the amount of force used in flipping would also factor into the predictive model. We know that factually, it is an entirely predictable mechanical event, if only we know the physical variables.

What your argument relies on is not calculating the physical values, and behaving as if they were truly random, and then extrapolating conclusions about natural randomness from that. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Yup... this is the definition of casuistry.
Click to expand...


No, it's making a necessary distinction between abstract concepts and physical objects. For instance, there's no contradiction between saying the number of integers is infinite, and pointing out that the number of integers that have ever been individually specified in human language (for instance "141" or "the smallest prime with a million or more digits") is necessarily finite.

And when it comes to infinite knowledge to determine things that is a quantitative infinity... no?
Click to expand...


That's not a response to anything I've posted.
 
To finicky! Finity! Outfinity?

Steve said:
And beyond!!!
Click to expand...

And back again!

To infinity and beneath! Alongside! Right through that sugger!

To infinity to pick up a six of Molsons. Grab some freetos while yer at it.
 
I did read it.

But if playing Don Quixote and going to battle with windmills isn't your game it's not all that applicable. They believers will believe against all reason and logic despite how many well researched lines of text are tossed at them.

They don't care and won't read past the part where each understands you are demeaning them.

Being "christian" isn't one uniform belief. It's at least as many versions as there are practioners. Addressing the specific ideas of even a small portion is difficult, getting most of them an utter miracle.
Good luck but it's wrestling a jello monster at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom