Which statement is more likely to be true:

[sniper762]

look up the definition of "infinite"

 

[Vansdad]

Of course we don't know. We all think we do, but we don't really!

Cute. I agree, but that's why they call it a belief.

 

[PolyHedral]

look up the definition of "infinite"

I did. It's quite well defined, for something that's apparently unknowable.

 

[ellenjanuary]

look up the definition of "infinite"

a+1/r.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think so. The problem of evil is easy enough to solve: take away the requirement that God must be perfectly good and the "problem" completely disappears.


I didn't get the sense that by "existence", you meant something like "reality" or "universe".

But even if we re-phrase it as "we know what created the universe", we still run into problems: is time part of the universe? If so, what does "created" mean in a context without time?


Actually, I'm still not completely sure what you're driving at.


Then maybe they haven't thought it through. Ask most of those people if God exists and they'll say "yes". Ask them if he existed before existence existed and you'll probably just get a puzzled look.


Sure, and I also realize that if what you were really after was whether people believe in a creator-god, you probably would've just asked about that directly.


It's hard for me to distinguish "details" from the big picture when I have no idea what the big picture is that you're trying to draw. I can only understand what you're thinking as much as you tell me.

"I don't think so. The problem of evil is easy enough to solve: take away the requirement that God must be perfectly good and the "problem" completely disappears."

That was not my point. A square circle is something that can not be held in the mind's eye, but the idea of a beneficent all-powerful god is. Just as the notion that somehow a creator of existence which, transcends or otherwise is not a part of existence, created existence. Perhaps not necessarily a contradiction, but could possibly be viewed as paradoxical.

"I didn't get the sense that by "existence", you meant something like "reality" or "universe"."

Well then you got the wrong sense. I actually considered those three terms on creation of the thread. I went with existence as I have used it in similar fashion before many times here with little problem. And despite the confusion it has caused, I still think, out of the three, it was the better fit. I think the other two would have only caused more confusion and distraction.

"Then maybe they haven't thought it through. Ask most of those people if God exists and they'll say "yes". Ask them if he existed before existence existed and you'll probably just get a puzzled look."

If they believe this god created existence then that god must have existed before existence.

"Sure, and I also realize that if what you were really after was whether people believe in a creator-god, you probably would've just asked about that directly."

I understood it was inevitable that gods be dragged in. But I wanted to minimize the involvement of gods, and just focus on the notion of a created existence. I didn't want the thread to be dominated by debate of the existence of gods, I have seen a lot of threads ruined by that ongoing debate. As I told you, I wanted this to be about what humans know. So you see, I have thought it trough, but I am not exactly sure why you need to know those thought. It is almost as if you are tying to make this into a conversation about me, rather then the topic of the thread.

 

[sniper762]

knowing that something is indefinite is knowledge in itself.

 

[Bereanz]

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
From the National Academy of Sciences

You can face palm all you like my friend, but you're preaching to the converted as far as the academic literal definition of scientific theory in concerned. I've already told you that. My beef is with charletans and liars who masqurade as "scientists" and make "scentific" claims that certain nebulous "theories" are "scientific" FACT, when they are not fact let alone "scientific" fact! A lot of words get plagurised and bastardised, there are many who claim to be Christians that aren't and bcause of this the word has come to mean something that it isnt in the mnds of millions of people, its the same with the word Science. The history of this word is very interesting, it doesn't mean what people think it means at all.

Natural Selection does not prove that we evolved from apes, nor does it refute the creation account in the Bible. My wife is Chinese, I am Irish, my son is half of my wife's genes and half of mine. I may, if forced, agree that my son is a result of Natural Selection, but a funny little bloke in a white coat, with a test tube and bunson burner will try and tell me this proves my son evolved from an ape. And they call it the "theory" of Evolution. Other's here might tell me that my son is an abomination and that the mixing of the races is against the Bible. So, no matter what you do its going to be knocked by some fruit and nut case. I just thank God He recorded everything in a book, and why people can't or won't accept the same God who holds up the planets on NOTHING can preserve one pesky little book for the benefit of the creatures He created is beyond me.

Okay, can we move on? Please?

 

[ellenjanuary]

There's an angry guy. There's no nothing holding up the planets, there's the quantum flux of the space-time continuum. And where Newton's theory of gravitation is lacking, there is the perturbation theory of the calculus.And when they go spinning out of control, we'll blame chaos theory.

 

[Penumbra]

I agree with several others that have pointed out that the two choices are flawed.

However, if I interpret the spirit of the thread to be asking whether humans know how existence got to the current state from either nothingness or something else such as eternal existence of a different sort, then I vote no.

Most or all humans lack that knowledge, and this can be demonstrated simply by asking them. They'll either say that they don't know, or if they say they do, they generally cannot support it with any substance. The closest people can currently come is to examine the evidence and provide possible explanations.

 

[sniper762]

It shows ignorance to ask for evidence to prove an infnite

 

[Penumbra]

It shows ignorance to ask for evidence to prove an infnite

What do you propose is the alternative?

Asserting an answer to something that is (allegedly) infinite without justification for it?

 

[Kel_Lightman]

I want to point out that knowing and believing are two different things. People believe a lot of different things. Most people don't 'know' what reality is, they just have their beliefs. Their beliefs may be right or wrong, but they don't know it.

This.

We may believe we know, but no-one really does.

 

[Bereanz]

There's an angry guy. There's no nothing holding up the planets, there's the quantum flux of the space-time continuum. And where Newton's theory of gravitation is lacking, there is the perturbation theory of the calculus.And when they go spinning out of control, we'll blame chaos theory.

Perhaps you're angry with my points of view, but I'm not at all angry, Im right, not angry, if I was bothered by comments in internet forums I'd take umbrage at the inference and challenge you to muskets at dawn... Islands in the stream...that is what we are...

 

[ellenjanuary]

You can face palm all you like my friend, but you're preaching to the converted as far as the academic literal definition of scientific theory in concerned. I've already told you that. My beef is with charletans and liars who masqurade as "scientists" and make "scentific" claims that certain nebulous "theories" are "scientific" FACT, when they are not fact let alone "scientific" fact! A lot of words get plagurised and bastardised, there are many who claim to be Christians that aren't and bcause of this the word has come to mean something that it isnt in the mnds of millions of people, its the same with the word Science. The history of this word is very interesting, it doesn't mean what people think it means at all.

Natural Selection does not prove that we evolved from apes, nor does it refute the creation account in the Bible. My wife is Chinese, I am Irish, my son is half of my wife's genes and half of mine. I may, if forced, agree that my son is a result of Natural Selection, but a funny little bloke in a white coat, with a test tube and bunson burner will try and tell me this proves my son evolved from an ape. And they call it the "theory" of Evolution. Other's here might tell me that my son is an abomination and that the mixing of the races is against the Bible. So, no matter what you do its going to be knocked by some fruit and nut case. I just thank God He recorded everything in a book, and why people can't or won't accept the same God who holds up the planets on NOTHING can preserve one pesky little book for the benefit of the creatures He created is beyond me.

Okay, can we move on? Please?

Those words in orange, they don't signify anger? Who mentioned your son? Who even knew you had a son; before, of course, anger reared its ugly head? My post addressed the points in yellow, bold where you were bold. As for the emotion, that's all you. As for the umbrage - take what you will, I'm generous - but i didn't give you anything. Well, maybe a little lip; but if you don't toughen up that skin, you're not going to enjoy your stay here.

 

[Bereanz]

Those words in orange, they don't signify anger? Who mentioned your son? Who even knew you had a son; before, of course, anger reared its ugly head? My post addressed the points in yellow, bold where you were bold. As for the emotion, that's all you. As for the umbrage - take what you will, I'm generous - but i didn't give you anything. Well, maybe a little lip; but if you don't toughen up that skin, you're not going to enjoy your stay here.

Im angry and not tough enough and not allowed to talk about my son? Okay, anything else I need to know lippy? Nice colouring in by the way, very fartisitic. Try not to project what "you feel" about what I've writen, its a cringe factor of ten and embarrasing to watch you in action. I mean really to imply what you subjectively surmise I am feeling from my written word is rather rediculous. Oh and highlightng in differnt colours, words I have written is flattering but it doesnt make my words become any more angry than they werent before, but it does reveal what has angered you. Too much. Ive quite enjoyed my "stay" so far, thanks for asking. Your going to need to be pretty thick skinned to handle me without going wee wee wee all the way to the moderators, I'll tell you that for free. I predict it wont be long before you do.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Im angry and not tough enough and not allowed to talk about my son? Okay, anything else I need to know lippy? Nice colouring in by the way, very fartisitic. Try not to project what "you feel" about what I've writen, its a cringe factor of ten and embarrasing to watch you in action. I mean really to imply what you subjectively surmise I am feeling from my written word is rather rediculous. Oh and highlightng in differnt colours words I have written is flattering but it doesnt make my words become any more angry than they werent before, but it does reveal what has angered you. Too much. Ive quite enjoyed my "stay" so far, thanks for asking. Your going to need to be pretty thick skin if you handle me without going wee wee all the way to the moderators, I'll tell you that for free.

I used color because I wasn't going to repeat the things you said. We could have the words analyzed by a third-party psychologist if you wish, but I know what they'd say. Ain't important. Glad you like it here, it's a pretty cool place.

 

[FR33MASON]

Not yet...but it's a commin'!

 

[Bereanz]

I used color because I wasn't going to repeat the things you said. We could have the words analyzed by a third-party psychologist if you wish, but I know what they'd say. Ain't important. Glad you like it here, it's a pretty cool place.

If your paying the bill you can do whatever you like with my words mate, clearly they have made quite an impact on you. WOW. I suspect I may not be having as much fun as you though. I don't partake in hallucinogens. Just for the record and to save you wasting your money on your next visit to your "third party shrink", when I wrote this I was feeling quite amused and pleased with myself for being so witty. (Perhaps you might like to use a little turquoise and Purple in your next treaties of my work, I like those colours, oh and rainbows.) Just a suggestion. Oh happy day....

 

[sniper762]

PEN, the alternative is to accept the infinite for what it is. there is no defining point, so it doesnt make sense tp ask for it.

 

[PolyHedral]

PEN, the alternative is to accept the infinite for what it is. there is no defining point, so it doesnt make sense tp ask for it.

"The size of the natural numbers" is a definition. But that's not what you meant, is it?