[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But numbers are rational discrete concepts. Infinity isn’t.[/quote]
This is not true.[/quote]
what is irrational or indiscreet about the number 2?[/quote]
Infinity is a rational concept.[/quote]
It isn’t mathematically. But perhaps you mean this in a more metaphysical context?
Mathematically it is a perfectly well understood concept, so I have no idea what you mean. I’ve already mentioned how transfinite cardinals/ordinals were discovered in the 19th century by Georg Cantor. One can construct ordinals in ZFC very easily, any graduate set theory course will cover that.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Mathematically it is a perfectly well understood concept, so I have no idea what you mean. I’ve already mentioned how transfinite cardinals/ordinals were discovered in the 19th century by Georg Cantor. One can construct ordinals in ZFC very easily, any graduate set theory course will cover that.[/quote]
I agree its useful in math, but useful and rational are 2 different things. i is entirely useful and calculable. You can use it in equations and graph with it, but none of that makes it rational. No one knows what i actually is. No one understands i.
Although I admittedly don’t know anything about what you are talking about so I may be off base. Got any good sources?
DD, I’ll ask again.
Where is your proof that matter and energy haven’t always existed?
You keep ignoring this possibility like it’s an established fact that matter and energy were created at some point in time. It isn’t.
If you are going to categorically dismiss the possibility that matter and energy have always existed, you need some pretty solid evidence to back it up.
So where is your evidence, outside of wanting to believe in a supernatural being?
[quote]forlife wrote:
You keep ignoring this possibility like it’s an established fact that matter and energy were created at some point in time.[/quote]
Perhaps it would be better to say non-intuitive? Real numbers are no less artificial than complex numbers in a sense. I say they are rational in the sense that these are things that can be built up from axioms and understood by someone reading the logical steps involved.
“Naive Set Theory” by Halmos is an excellent book, but may be a bit difficult to get hold of. Wikipedia is useful as a reference. Unfortunately I learnt this stuff from some impenetrable notes from a graduate course.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to say non-intuitive? Real numbers are no less artificial than complex numbers in a sense. I say they are rational in the sense that these are things that can be built up from axioms and understood by someone reading the logical steps involved.
“Naive Set Theory” by Halmos is an excellent book, but may be a bit difficult to get hold of. Wikipedia is useful as a reference. Unfortunately I learnt this stuff from some impenetrable notes from a graduate course.[/quote]
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness.
DD, how does your response prove that time didn’t exist? I’m still waiting for even a small amount of evidence for this belief.
Furthermore, let’s say you’re right that time didn’t exist. Where is your proof that in this state of timelessness, matter and energy didn’t exist?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, how does your response prove that time didn’t exist? I’m still waiting for even a small amount of evidence for this belief.
Furthermore, let’s say you’re right that time didn’t exist. Where is your proof that in this state of timelessness, matter and energy didn’t exist?[/quote]
Sigh, you are still trying to put things outside of time into some sort of linear order. Your question is still irrelevant to my assertion.
My logic and reasoning lead me to believe the universe needs a cause. A cause for the universe cannot be bound to notions of experience based on that universe.
Lastly, without the universe to define matter/energy and it couldn’t exist as we know them. If they existed, then the rules that define it also had to exist meaning space/time (the universe) would have to exist.
But once again our entire notion of existence is based on our experience in the universe. I’m not sure what you mean by a state of some sort existing without the universe to define what you mean by state and exist.
You seem to have a serious aversion to thinking outside a pre-defined box.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch. [/quote]
There is an uncaused cause and I’m not it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch. [/quote]
There is an uncaused cause and I’m not it.[/quote]
That’s not theology. That’s a theory.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch. [/quote]
There is an uncaused cause and I’m not it.[/quote]
That’s not theology. That’s a theory. [/quote]
really theology is the the study of God. It doesn’t have to have tenants and doesn’t have to be complicated. But in my pursuit of god that is what I have arrived at, so that’s a theology.
Even you have a theology.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, how does your response prove that time didn’t exist? I’m still waiting for even a small amount of evidence for this belief.
Furthermore, let’s say you’re right that time didn’t exist. Where is your proof that in this state of timelessness, matter and energy didn’t exist?[/quote]
Sigh, you are still trying to put things outside of time into some sort of linear order. Your question is still irrelevant to my assertion.
My logic and reasoning lead me to believe the universe needs a cause. A cause for the universe cannot be bound to notions of experience based on that universe.
Lastly, without the universe to define matter/energy and it couldn’t exist as we know them. If they existed, then the rules that define it also had to exist meaning space/time (the universe) would have to exist.
But once again our entire notion of existence is based on our experience in the universe. I’m not sure what you mean by a state of some sort existing without the universe to define what you mean by state and exist.
You seem to have a serious aversion to thinking outside a pre-defined box.[/quote]
I said nothing about linear order. I asked where your evidence is to prove that there was a period of timelessness. This assumption is central to your beliefs, but you’re not providing any evidence for it. It’s entirely possible that space-time has always existed, yet you stubbornly refuse to accept that this is even a possibility. Who is thinking inside a predefined box here?
But let’s say you’re right. How then do you know that matter/energy can’t exist in a timeless state? What if the 4 dimensions of space-time converge down the time axis to the point where there is only space, and time equals zero? The absence of time doesn’t categorically prove the absence of space.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch. [/quote]
There is an uncaused cause and I’m not it.[/quote]
That’s not theology. That’s a theory. [/quote]
really theology is the the study of God. It doesn’t have to have tenants and doesn’t have to be complicated. But in my pursuit of god that is what I have arrived at, so that’s a theology.
Even you have a theology.[/quote]
Now you’re just practicing semantic masturbation.
Interesting though, that you use the phrase “in my pursuit of god.” Replace “god” with “truth,” and suddenly you’re an atheist 
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, how does your response prove that time didn’t exist? I’m still waiting for even a small amount of evidence for this belief.
Furthermore, let’s say you’re right that time didn’t exist. Where is your proof that in this state of timelessness, matter and energy didn’t exist?[/quote]
Sigh, you are still trying to put things outside of time into some sort of linear order. Your question is still irrelevant to my assertion.
My logic and reasoning lead me to believe the universe needs a cause. A cause for the universe cannot be bound to notions of experience based on that universe.
Lastly, without the universe to define matter/energy and it couldn’t exist as we know them. If they existed, then the rules that define it also had to exist meaning space/time (the universe) would have to exist.
But once again our entire notion of existence is based on our experience in the universe. I’m not sure what you mean by a state of some sort existing without the universe to define what you mean by state and exist.
You seem to have a serious aversion to thinking outside a pre-defined box.[/quote]
I said nothing about linear order. I asked where your evidence is to prove that there was a period of timelessness. This assumption is central to your beliefs, but you’re not providing any evidence for it. It’s entirely possible that space-time has always existed, yet you stubbornly refuse to accept that this is even a possibility. Who is thinking inside a predefined box here?
But let’s say you’re right. How then do you know that matter/energy can’t exist in a timeless state? What if the 4 dimensions of space-time converge down the time axis to the point where there is only space, and time equals zero? The absence of time doesn’t categorically prove the absence of space.
[/quote]
PERIOD OF TIMELESSNESS = linear order.
“space-time has always existed” is not contingent to my stance. It is inconsequential to it. I have never asserted anything about the permanent existence of matter in time. And you continue to use words like exist in a condition where they are undefined. You still need to address the flaw in your questioning before I could even attempt an answer. If no universe, then define exist.
"But let’s say you’re right. How then do you know that matter/energy can’t exist in a timeless state? What if the 4 dimensions of space-time converge down the time axis to the point where there is only space, and time equals zero? The absence of time doesn’t categorically prove the absence of space. "
You aren’t understanding your own science at this point. there are not 4 separate dimensions. Space/time is one singular entity. They are interwoven by definition. If there were no time there would be nothing that we call space. There could be something else, but it would not be our universe.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A creator can be built up from the axiom of existence needing a cause. =0)[/quote]
Sure… but it’s a pretty big fucking leap from there to theology or even assuredness. [/quote]
Depends on your theology.[/quote]
I have yet to hear a theology that wasn’t a big stretch. [/quote]
There is an uncaused cause and I’m not it.[/quote]
That’s not theology. That’s a theory. [/quote]
really theology is the the study of God. It doesn’t have to have tenants and doesn’t have to be complicated. But in my pursuit of god that is what I have arrived at, so that’s a theology.
Even you have a theology.[/quote]
Now you’re just practicing semantic masturbation.
Interesting though, that you use the phrase “in my pursuit of god.” Replace “god” with “truth,” and suddenly you’re an atheist
[/quote]
I only used god because the questioning was regarding theology. And even “in the pursuit of truth” requires a specific conclusion to become atheist.
Besides I’m a negative atheist already. I don’t think anything about god is provable or absolutely knowable.
DD, I’m apparently not making myself clear. Let’s try again.
My assertion is that space-time has always existed, and will always exist. I don’t ask you to accept this as indisputable fact. I only ask that you acknowledge it as a viable possibility.
If you refuse to even accept this possibility, please provide evidence supporting this refusal. How do you know that space-time has not always existed?
Saying that everything has a cause doesn’t cut it. If space-time has always existed, obviously it doesn’t have a cause. Even the Christians claim that an uncaused cause exists, which disproves your contention that everything has a cause.