Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[PolyHedral]

There isn't "an infinite" it's not a quantity, it's a concept. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in. Maybe this will clear it up, if you have a limitless amount, how many do you have in numbers? Can you add to something that has no limit, can you subtract from something without limit? If you subtract from infinity what number of marbles do you have? Again, it's not a number it's a concept.

Yes, and the same.

 

[Tristesse]

It is a UNSPECIFIED quantity, and if you dont understand this or see how and why, I dont think i can help you.

You don't need to help me, I know what infinity is. It's purely conceptual, not an actual quantity. It may be unspecified, but it is never an attainable quantity, thats the point of infinity. Maybe we're doing a semantics game here, but do you agree that it's not an actual quantity?

First of all, you keep talking about numbers when I am not using infinity as a number. Second, lets take this nice and slow....if i have a limitless amount of marbles, can I give you three, yes or no???

If we're applying infinity to the amount of marbles you have, if you give me three, then you would still have infinity, again this is conceptual, you can never actually reach "an infinity". However, I find it paculiar that you objected to my use of the word numbers when referring to your usage of infinity, but when giving an example you used numbers when referring to infinty, as in your marble analogy.

The fact that you are asking this question implies you dont understand infinity...yes you can add to something that has no limit. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, i can still give you ten of my own marbles. So the answer the the question is undoubtedly yes.

If you add to infinity, you still get infinity. No finite sum of real numbers can result in infinity. This is because the real numbers are closed under addition and inifinity is not a real number. So, I guess in a sense you can add to infinty, but any real number will have zero impact, because infinity isn't a real number, but simply a concept.

Um, yes you can. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, you can give me three of your marbles. Yes you can, once again. So you are asked two questions, both which you thought the answer was no due to your lack of understanding of the subject in question.

Once again, you don't have "AN infinite" amount of anything. Infinity isn't an amount. If you gave me three marbles from infinity, guess how much you'd still have? Infinity. The problem here is that you're trying to use real numbers in an analogy of something that doesn't use real numbers.

If you subtract marbles from an infinity amount of marbles, how many marbles you will have will depend on how many marbles you subtracted. Once again, I never used infinity as a number, that is what you seem to be doing. It is clear that you dont understand infinity, yet you seem to think you are making such a good point here lol

If you never said infinity was a number, then why do you continue to use numbers when talking about infinity? You can't have "AN infinite" amount of marbles, so we can dispense with that analogy. Infinity isn't applied to real numbers, so stop using real numbers when discussing infinity, and then maybe I'll stop accusing you of conflating infinity with a number.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't need to help me, I know what infinity is. It's purely conceptual, not an actual quantity. It may be unspecified, but it is never an attainable quantity, thats the point of infinity. Maybe we're doing a semantics game here, but do you agree that it's not an actual quantity?

It is a quantity in terms of amounts. It doesn't have to have a number attached to it, but it is a unspecified amount.

If we're applying infinity to the amount of marbles you have, if you give me three, then you would still have infinity, again this is conceptual, you can never actually reach "an infinity".

Thats my point, you cant reach infinity by succesive addition (adding one after another), nor can you have an actual infinite amount of something. It is conceptual, and by conceptual I mean it is something that can be thought about, but it cant exist in reality as something that can be used or experimented on.

However, I find it paculiar that you objected to my use of the word numbers when referring to your usage of infinity, but when giving an example you used numbers when referring to infinty, as in your marble analogy.

I use numbers only when im speaking of the results of adding and subtracting from the infinite amount.

If you add to infinity, you still get infinity. No finite sum of real numbers can result in infinity. This is because the real numbers are closed under addition and inifinity is not a real number. So, I guess in a sense you can add to infinty, but any real number will have zero impact, because infinity isn't a real number, but simply a concept.

Right, it will have zero impact but it is supposed to have an impact if we could in fact do it. Regardless of whether it is a number or not, if it is an actual "thing" that can exist, when you add to it you are supposed to have more than what you had before. The fact that you can add to it and there not be more of it is self contradictory. I agree, it is a concept, but it is a concept that cant exist or happen in real life affairs.

Once again, you don't have "AN infinite" amount of anything. Infinity isn't an amount.

So if you had limitless 100 dollar bills just pouring in to your bank account, this wouldnt be an amount?? So what would it be??

If you gave me three marbles from infinity, guess how much you'd still have? Infinity. The problem here is that you're trying to use real numbers in an analogy of something that doesn't use real numbers.

What?? So you are telling me that I cant subtract from what I have? You cant stop me from giving someone three marbles out of my limitless collection if i wanted to. That is the problem, you are telling me that i cant do something because of this and because of that, but yet if i actually had this limitless collection, you would not be able to make that statement because if I could, I would.

If you never said infinity was a number, then why do you continue to use numbers when talking about infinity?

So if i have a limitless supply of marbles, and I give you three, isn't 3 a number??? That is the only time I use numbers.

You can't have "AN infinite" amount of marbles, so we can dispense with that analogy. Infinity isn't applied to real numbers, so stop using real numbers when discussing infinity, and then maybe I'll stop accusing you of conflating infinity with a number.

Infinity is a set, and there are numbers within the set. I dont get what you are trying to say. If time never began, that would mean that time is infinite/limitless, yet, we count seconds and minutes every day using numbers, right?? Now if you are saying all of this to say that infinite is just a concept and not an actual thing that can be used in reality, then we agree.

 

[lunakilo]

Hubble only observed it, but going back to at least a decade before his observation Einstien already knew that the universe was not static with his famous GR equations.

I assume you by GR mean general reletivity...
And no, it's the other way around.
Einstain originally assumed a static universe. He had to introduce a cosmological constant in order to make his model static.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary"

Right, he assumed a static universe and thats my point. Before the discovery of a expanding universe the majority of naturalists assumed the universe was static and eternal. Based on the equations of his GR theory, he found out that the universe couldnt be eternal but must have had a beginning. Then he came out with the cosmological constant to make the universe back static, but Hubble confirmed his theory by observation and Einstien recanted and called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life. Good ole fashioned science right there.

Um, thats my point luna.

You are driving me crazy.

Be consistent will you!

"Einstien already knew that the universe was not static"
"he assumed a static universe and thats my point"

So what is your point again?

 

[lunakilo]

Wait a minute, how could there not be a number before the number one when you arrive at the destination of 1?? If you arrive at any destination there is always something before it. There is no getting past this. How can you arrive at one, without passing points leading up to this destination?? If you arrive at one, where were you before you arrived at one?? There is no answer to this because infinity is just a mathematical concept. When you apply the concept to real life events, to actual "things", you end up with these kind of absurdities.

There are numbers before the number 1.
There is just not a specific number which is the number just before 1.

And you are correct, if you tried to count all the numbers between 0 and 1 you would never get to one.
Lucky for you you can skip as many as you like.

 

[PolyHedral]

Wait a minute, how could there not be a number before the number one when you arrive at the destination of 1?? If you arrive at any destination there is always something before it. There is no getting past this. How can you arrive at one, without passing points leading up to this destination?? If you arrive at one, where were you before you arrived at one?? There is no answer to this because infinity is just a mathematical concept. When you apply the concept to real life events, to actual "things", you end up with these kind of absurdities.

1-e, for arbitrarily small e.

 

[Tristesse]

It is a quantity in terms of amounts. It doesn't have to have a number attached to it, but it is a unspecified amount.



Thats my point, you cant reach infinity by succesive addition (adding one after another), nor can you have an actual infinite amount of something. It is conceptual, and by conceptual I mean it is something that can be thought about, but it cant exist in reality as something that can be used or experimented on.




I use numbers only when im speaking of the results of adding and subtracting from the infinite amount.



Right, it will have zero impact but it is supposed to have an impact if we could in fact do it. Regardless of whether it is a number or not, if it is an actual "thing" that can exist, when you add to it you are supposed to have more than what you had before. The fact that you can add to it and there not be more of it is self contradictory. I agree, it is a concept, but it is a concept that cant exist or happen in real life affairs.



So if you had limitless 100 dollar bills just pouring in to your bank account, this wouldnt be an amount?? So what would it be??



What?? So you are telling me that I cant subtract from what I have? You cant stop me from giving someone three marbles out of my limitless collection if i wanted to. That is the problem, you are telling me that i cant do something because of this and because of that, but yet if i actually had this limitless collection, you would not be able to make that statement because if I could, I would.



So if i have a limitless supply of marbles, and I give you three, isn't 3 a number??? That is the only time I use numbers.



Infinity is a set, and there are numbers within the set. I dont get what you are trying to say. If time never began, that would mean that time is infinite/limitless, yet, we count seconds and minutes every day using numbers, right?? Now if you are saying all of this to say that infinite is just a concept and not an actual thing that can be used in reality, then we agree.

Round and round we go. This will be my last post on infinity, seeing as how it really isn't pertinent to thread nor to whether or not a god exists. My only point was that infinity is just a concept, which is something you tend to agree with. And I never said that you can't subtract from what you have, you are more than welcome to subtract, but unlike with real numbers when you sugtract from infinity the quantity remains the same. Infinity is not a physical quantity, it's a conceptual quantity and that was my only point.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Thats my point, you cant reach infinity by succesive addition (adding one after another), nor can you have an actual infinite amount of something. It is conceptual, and by conceptual I mean it is something that can be thought about, but it cant exist in reality as something that can be used or experimented on.

How about the singularity in a black hole that has zero volume, hence infinite density?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are driving me crazy.

Be consistent will you!

"Einstien already knew that the universe was not static"
"he assumed a static universe and thats my point"

So what is your point again?

Um luna...Einstien thought the universe was static and eternal. But based on his GR theory, he found out that the universe was not static but had a beginning. In order to get back to a static universe, he came up with this cosmological constant. He had to abandon this view after it was found that the universe was not static and eternal, but finite and expanding. He didnt "already know" that the universe was not static. His hypothesis from the very beginning was that the universe was static. That is my point.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There are numbers before the number 1.
There is just not a specific number which is the number just before 1.

Luna, if there is "not a specific number which is just before 1", how on earth can there be an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1??? If we can arrive at one, there has to be a point before which we arrived. If we can identify 1 how come we cant identify the number before one??

And you are correct, if you tried to count all the numbers between 0 and 1 you would never get to one.
Lucky for you you can skip as many as you like.

So if you cant get from 0 to 1 by counting all the numbers in between, then you cant get from an infinite past to the present moment if time had to travel an infinite number of points to get to the present moment, which was my original point. Ahhhh...yes...now you understand

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How about the singularity in a black hole that has zero volume, hence infinite density?

Saying that something is infinitely dense does not necessarily mean that you are speaking of quantity. We were speaking in terms of quantity, which is where the absurdities occur.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Round and round we go. This will be my last post on infinity, seeing as how it really isn't pertinent to thread nor to whether or not a god exists. My only point was that infinity is just a concept, which is something you tend to agree with. And I never said that you can't subtract from what you have, you are more than welcome to subtract, but unlike with real numbers when you sugtract from infinity the quantity remains the same. Infinity is not a physical quantity, it's a conceptual quantity and that was my only point.

Exactly. It is only a concept..agreed.

 

[PolyHedral]

Saying that something is infinitely dense does not necessarily mean that you are speaking of quantity. We were speaking in terms of quantity, which is where the absurdities occur.

Density is a quantity. It's units are kilograms per cubic meter.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Saying that something is infinitely dense does not necessarily mean that you are speaking of quantity. We were speaking in terms of quantity, which is where the absurdities occur.

Actually, you might have noticed I was speaking about volume and density. If something has zero volume, it MUST have infinite density.

 

[McBell]

Luna, if there is "not a specific number which is just before 1", how on earth can there be an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1??? If we can arrive at one, there has to be a point before which we arrived. If we can identify 1 how come we cant identify the number before one??

Because there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1.

So if you cant get from 0 to 1 by counting all the numbers in between, then you cant get from an infinite past to the present moment if time had to travel an infinite number of points to get to the present moment, which was my original point. Ahhhh...yes...now you understand

 

[lunakilo]

Luna, if there is "not a specific number which is just before 1", how on earth can there be an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1??? If we can arrive at one, there has to be a point before which we arrived. If we can identify 1 how come we cant identify the number before one??

If we look at the distanct 1 meter, you can step from the point 0 to the point 1 in one step. You could argue that in this case 0 is the number just before 1.
If you half the length of your step, you would go from 0 to 0.5 to 1. In this case 0.5 could be argued to be the number just before 1.
If you half the length of your step once again you would go from 0 to 0.25 to 0.5 to 0.75 to 1. In this case 0.75 could be argued to be the number just before 1.

No matter how many times you half the length of your step you would still step on a number just before you get to 1, but the number will depend on the length of your step.

So how would you define the number just before one?

So if you cant get from 0 to 1 by counting all the numbers in between, then you cant get from an infinite past to the present moment if time had to travel an infinite number of points to get to the present moment, which was my original point. Ahhhh...yes...now you understand

I understand that you find the idea of infinite time in an expanding universe absurd.
But your arguments don't make me see it as a problem.

The distance from 0 to 1 is a finite distance. I don't think it translates well to an infinite 'distance' in time.

If you look at a time line and look at the time between point 0 and point 1, then there would be an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, just like in the distance example.
But the time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes an infinitisimal amount of time. The time between time 0 and time 1 is finite.

Now if you talk about traveling from 'the infinite past' to now, the time we are talking about is not finite.
And I agree that if time behaves like we are used to, then that would take an infinite amount of time.
But we know the universe was very hot and dense when it was younger, and we know that time behaves strangly in such an environment (again: Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), so I don't think you can rightly assume that time flows in a straight line the way we are used to, when talking about the early, dense universe. So it is possible that there is no time dilemma if one delves deeply enought into how time works.

It is also possible that you are correct that there is a dilemma.
That time goes on forever but the universe (as we know it) had a beginning.
I see 2 ways to deal with that:

1. You can solve that dilemma by adding God as you propose.
2. You can also solve it by postulating that the universe itself is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

I would argue that both 1 and 2 are the same solution just using different words.
If you add an eternal God before the beginning of the current, finite universe, then together (God + universe) is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If we look at the distanct 1 meter, you can step from the point 0 to the point 1 in one step. You could argue that in this case 0 is the number just before 1.

If 0 is the number just before 1 then there isn't an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, as you originally suggested.

If you half the length of your step, you would go from 0 to 0.5 to 1. In this case 0.5 could be argued to be the number just before 1.


If you half the length of your step once again you would go from 0 to 0.25 to 0.5 to 0.75 to 1. In this case 0.75 could be argued to be the number just before 1.

No matter how many times you half the length of your step you would still step on a number just before you get to 1, but the number will depend on the length of your step.

But didnt you say there is an infinite amount of numbers between any two numbers?? That would mean that no matter how small of a step I take or how big of a step I take, I would still traverse infinity.

So how would you define the number just before one?

I define it as 0.

I understand that you find the idea of infinite time in an expanding universe absurd.
But your arguments don't make me see it as a problem.

The distance from 0 to 1 is a finite distance.

I think the distance from any two numbers is a finite distance.

I don't think it translates well to an infinite 'distance' in time.

Because of absurdities.

If you look at a time line and look at the time between point 0 and point 1, then there would be an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, just like in the distance example.

Luna, time travels forward, right? If time had to travel past an infinite amount of points to get to this present point, how could it ever arrive? It would have to travel an infinite amount of points to get to any point, and that would make time travel impossible. But, if time had a beginning, there are two points to distinguish, which is the beginning point and the present point, and we can count the points in-between because we have two distinguishing points of intervals. But if time had no beginning, how could it ever reach the present point if for ever point it reached it would have to travel past infinity, which would in fact be infinity for every point?? This is clearly absurd.

But the time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes an infinitisimal amount of time. The time between time 0 and time 1 is finite.

Yeah, the time between 0 and 1 is finite, if 0 is the starting point. Now of course, time is potentially infinite going towards the future, but it is only finite in the past. And there is a clear and distinct difference between the two.

Now if you talk about traveling from 'the infinite past' to now, the time we are talking about is not finite.

Then time had a beginning.

And I agree that if time behaves like we are used to, then that would take an infinite amount of time.

What??? If time behaves like we are used to then the fact still remain, how could time reach the present moment if it had to cross an infinite amount of past moments to get here???

But we know the universe was very hot and dense when it was younger, and we know that time behaves strangly in such an environment (again: Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), so I don't think you can rightly assume that time flows in a straight line the way we are used to, when talking about the early, dense universe. So it is possible that there is no time dilemma if one delves deeply enought into how time works.

I dont think it would matter to much. When dealing with infinity, it doesnt matter how slow or how fast time will travel, there is still an infinite amount of points between events. So whether you slow time down or speed time up, the fact still remains. Now yes, according to the Standard Model, the universe began hot and dense, but the GR breaks down at that point anyway so there is no scientific reasoning that we can gather from this event.

It is also possible that you are correct that there is a dilemma.
That time goes on forever but the universe (as we know it) had a beginning.
I see 2 ways to deal with that:

1. You can solve that dilemma by adding God as you propose.
2. You can also solve it by postulating that the universe itself is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

If the universe was in a different form, and it has a eternal existence, then why did it our universe change form only 13.7 billion years ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later?? In fact, with infinity, at any point we can always ask "why not sooner" or "why not later"

I would argue that both 1 and 2 are the same solution just using different words.
If you add an eternal God before the beginning of the current, finite universe, then together (God + universe) is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Density is a quantity. It's units are kilograms per cubic meter.

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

 

[jasonwill2]

Two philosophical reasons why an eternal universe is absurd......the first one is...it is impossible to have an infinite amount of anything. You cannot have an infinite amount of baseball cards or marbles. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you give me three, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and I give you three more, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you gave me all of the "even" numbered marbles and kept all of the odd numbered marbles, you would still have an infinite amount of marbles. But this is absurd, because every time you add you are supposed to have more than what you had previously, and every time you subtract, you are supposed to have less than what you had previously. But in these cases, you would still have the same amount whether you added or subtracted. This is the kind of absurdity that you get when you deal with infinity. An "actual" Infinity cannot exist in reality, it exist as a concept. So, this is why postulating these "multiverse" theories are logically absurd. The Hilberts Hotel paradox also shows why it is impossible to have an actual infinite number of things.

The second philosophical reason why we can know that the universe is past finite is, it is impossible for time to be infinite. It is impossible to "traverse infinity", meaning, it is impossible to cross an infinite number of points and arrive at a single point. If time had to travel across an infinite amount of points just to get to the present point, when would it get here?? If a man has been running on an infinite road, and he has been running for an infinite amount of time, and he stops, and turns back around, and runs the same distant where he stopped but in the opposite direction, where and when would he stop??? There is no answer to this. It cant happen.

These are two very distinct reasons why we can know for certain that the universe is not infinite. If our universe was just a by-product of some pre-big bang event, then that would suggest an infinite amount of cause and effect events, and also an infinite amount of time at which those events would have to had occurred. Both, impossible. These reasons are independent of the scientific findings in cosmology on a finite universes. They corroborate it. Now I will wait patiently has someone try to rebut these things lol. Good luck.

Oh dear lord my "I dont believe in infinity" topic has spilled-over and now some people take my point of view.

But a question, is God finite then? I believe so but few people will agree with me.

Density is a quantity. It's units are kilograms per cubic meter.

This is true, it's also true that the math shows that Black Hole singularities are infinitely dense, though we can't observe them due to event horizons to really know or not empirically.

 

[PolyHedral]

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

IOW, that the energy was infinitely dense? (And what do you mean? Figures of speech don't exist in physics.)