Jrsbarker responds to The God Delusion (Part 2)

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "would you ever reach the finish line"..This is a fallacious argument, as it asserts limits to the unlimited - in essence setting up a strawman ready to knock over.The answer to this question is irrelevant to the very meaning of eternal, and merely demonstrates a lack understanding on the meaning. Just because you would "never reach the finish line" means nothing.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - I challenge anyone to a debate over any of the arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam has been refuted over and over and over again. I'd rather argue about aquinas's cosmological arguments.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Correct, but it is still true that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time in the past although I really don't care to explain why because it would take some time to make a good argument and explain it.

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - I'm sorry mate but a lot of what you have argued has been suggested before by many ID and Creationists, and has been refuted (by more than Dawkins).I think you would do well to study things such as "the atheist experience" for such debates, so that your final copy of this blog has less chance of being quickly ignored. I might also add, that you used an analogy to make your point despite your distaste at Dawkins doing the same =)

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "but it is still true that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time in the past"No, I am sorry but it simply is not. By saying so YOU are setting the limit for what eternal is, and showing that you don't quite understand the meaning of the word. Now is simply a phase of eternity, If I place my finger on a part of a circle, there is still never going to be a beginning or an end.If you would like to use logic or evidence to sway me then sure, but it will have to be gold.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Well I think his argument is flawed, but I think that you can't have an infinite amount of time past because when you treat it as a number you get absurdities for instance if you divide it. You can't traverse an infinite. Theoreticallly you can have a infinite past or future but there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of things. It's impossible by definition of in-finite.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - I really don't feel like articulating this properly, but it really doesn't make much sense to believe in an infinite past.

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - What I am saying though Dark is that you are putting human limitations on something that cannot be measured, and looking at it in the wrong light. How do you know there is no infinite number of things? Aside from the obvious flaws if you put those things in a limited place (such as earth). A good example is the impossibility of a "last" number, it is beyond comprehension, but not beyond appreciation =)

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "doesn't make much sense to believe in an infinite past."Nor does it make much sense to place limitations on it. If you were to find the "edge" of the cosmos, what do you expect would be beyond that? While the answer is impossible to know, it follows logically that even in nothing there is "something".I really do feel the circle, or ring analogy best illustrates my point.

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Ok imagine this:Grab a large circular object (tyre etc).Start at any point, tracing your finger around the object until you reach the end. Of course you would die still tracing the circle, and there would never be a way to validate an end to it.We are so used to limited ideas, we are limited people. We tend to look at all things in the same restricted manner.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "A good example is the impossibility of a "last" number, it is beyond comprehension, but not beyond appreciation =)"It is also beyond logic. You can't treat an infinite as a quantitative matter because quantitative things by definition have a limitation. You don't have to believe in an infinite amount of time or things in the universe to not believe in a first cause. The universe could have existed always with time and there was no time before time. So the universe always existed.

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "You can't treat an infinite as a quantitative matter because quantitative things by definition have a limitation"Exactly!!! We simply do not have the means to measure such an idea as eternity, this is the point I have been (somewhat badly) trying to make. We cannot restrict the universe by our limited understanding and measurements, for the universe is well beyond them. But simply because we cannot place a value on it, does not damage the validity of it =)

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Im am sorry for the huge run-about, as I feel may have misunderstood your initial statement.Am I right in that you are not arguing the idea of infinite, but rather that "time" could be involved in its measurement?

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "Am I right in that you are not arguing the idea of infinite, but rather that "time" could be involved in its measurement?"Well I don't mean infinite in the sense what theologeans call God infinite. I am just arguing against a quantitative infinite of things with dimension. Some theories of time put it as a static entity that exists with matter and space and has a beginning but exists in a sense eternally. I am not sure, but regardless it is nonsense to say something is before all time.

darkforce333 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - "Exactly!!! We simply do not have the means to measure such an idea as eternity,"Infinite and eternal are two different things. Eternal means timeless, while infinite is not confined or restricted.

NeoSentience1 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - good job

ulthea Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Ok cool. I think my misunderstanding has stemmed from my own habit of connecting the two words, but I am sure you can understand what I was saying by the context.....a very interesting and underestimated subject indeed.Take care =)

bobfresco Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - time could be asymtopic (i.e., the closer you get to the big bang, the slower times gets), so the instant before the big bang happened (which is impossible to reach), was infinitely long, therefore making time eternal.hahahah, i just pulled that theory out my ass...i like it though.

simonthesinner Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Sorry, dude... You miss a lot of points, for example the relativistic view on time when casuality is concidered.You need to rediefine causality if you are to apply it to time "beginning". To invoke reson and some scientiffic principles, it will be obvious that you push an agenda instead of sincerely seeking the truth if you are cherrypicking.

iloveteaandcoffee Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Really great beginning!I hope you do a good job, and at least make some kind of impact with it.

peterwilc Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - We understand so little of what time and the universe is, but we learn more and more over time. It is ridiculous to assume a "God" is responsible just because we don't understand it. The Greeks used the same reasoning when they worshiped Zeus, and now you are using the same reasoning. Just because there is not a solid explanation for the beginning of time, doesn't mean there won't be in the future. You won't make an impact as your arguments are nothing new.

TETSUno1 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Interesting, I was thinking more in the lines of at least trying to avoid ad hominems... and disproving a theory by proving another theory. Those tend to give the agenda away instantly.

gangiangie Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - Hey bro, this is an awesome beginning! Really good! Remember to include the Boss in this book and you could be on to something here...He's good at writing books......:o) xxx

VincentBlouin Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - What is the difference between saying that a god has always been there or that the universe has always been there or that the universe is the first thing without cause or that a god is the first thing without cause ? Its just reporting to a further degree certainly the greatest mystery of life that something doesn't work at some point with nothing is created or lost everything transforms. But hey that is a MYSTERY ! And adding one layer doesn't explain the thing but just adds one layer really.

VincentBlouin Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - AND I read the God Delusion and Dawkins says about what I said in one sentence.