Friday, June 13, 2008

Be more explicit in step two


Here is the dilemma as I see it;

1) Matter cannot traverse infinite spacetime, therefor God did it. (Violates Occam's Razor once again)
2) Matter can traverse infinite spacetime because your analysis if flawed.

Since you don't provide any references to your statements, I'm assuming you are using the outmoded Zeno's paradox or something like it. Zeno's paradox states that it is impossible for an object to go a given distance since the intermediate steps approach infinity.

If you think of a given task as (1) then the midpoint would be (1/2) and so we get this infinite regression;
{...1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5...} The unit of distance becomes infinitely small, and consequently infinitely difficult.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. Zeno's paradox is solved if you consider time. As the distance approaches infinity, the time needed to travel the distances (that is approaching infitinity) becomes infinitly small.

I'm assuming you haven't read anything about String Theory, so I'm going to give you a little info. Since the standard model of physics falls short of explaining how matter (which you confuse as "universe") works, String Theory proposes some solutions. One of them is a massless particle. You may know that under one of Einstein's theories, an object becomes infinitely massive (impossible to move) as it approaches the speed of light. A massless particle would not be constrained by this, since it has no mass. Consequently, it would be possible to traverse infinite spacetime.

That's just my two cents. I could be wrong (I'm not a phycisist).

None of this, however, has any bearing on whether an invisible guy who likes the number 7, the smell or burning flesh vs plant matter and who has his own palace in the sky, exists or not.
How would that prove that the Bible is true? It wouldn't. You need to remember not to Multiply Hypothesis. You should be more explicit in step two.


Matthew said...

You totally missed the point, Steve, sorry. I've studied Zeno's paradox and it's idiotic, I know that. The point is that a REAL infinity (not something infinitely small) is mathematically impossible in real life, it only works in our heads. If time has always existed, then that would mean that it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the moment we are at now. Since it is impossible to reach the end of an infinity, and we have clearly reached the current moment, time must have a beginning. I never insinuated that this proved anything about God (way to change the subject), merely that your theory about the origin of matter is faulty.

SteveMudSkipper said...

OK, you win.

Since you admit it doesn't prove anything, lets move on to something productive.

I wasn't changing the subject BTW, just trying not to spin my wheels.

Theists and atheists spend way too much time debating stuff that doesn't move the debate forward.
Evolution Hoaxes,
Irreducible complexity,
etc etc.

The answer "God did it" is actually a non-answer which prevents you from discovering the real solution. Give me any problem that man hasn't solved yet, and "God Did It" will not work for me.

Matthew said...

Wait a minute, now Steve... you've led us back to the original question... if you concede that matter has a beginning, then what naturalistic explanation do you offer for the origin of matter from non-matter?

SteveMudSkipper said...


God Did It.

That's an extraneous solution which answers nothing.

Suppose matter had an origin. Some reverse black hole in another dimension. So what.

You end up with an "infinite regress" with either solution. I'm jsut trying to avoid violating occam's razor here.

Other good questions I don't have an answer to;

What made strings,
why do strings make up particles?
Why does the standard model break down at the planck wall?

Flying Spagetti Monster,

All violate Occams Razor and you end up with an infinite regress.

I would rather posit a natural explanation since that is what we KNOW exists. Give me a solution that doesn't violate the Razor.

Matthew said...

"Suppose matter had an origin. Some reverse black hole in another dimension. So what.

You end up with an "infinite regress" with either solution. I'm jsut trying to avoid violating occam's razor here."

I hypothesize that infinite regression violates Occam's Razor, as it suggests an eternal material existence which violates logic and basic mathematics.

Okay, Steve, it's time we set this straight, I've let you get away with it for too long: The existence of ANYTHING does not and can not "violate Occam's Razor." It is merely the explanation which can "violate" the razor, not the object. I believe in your initial explanation of the razor you used the analogy: "if you wanted to guess at who stole your lunch out of the refrigerator, you wouldn't guess that it was a Labrador Retriever who unlocked the front door, opened the refrigerator door, grabbed your grub and disappeared without leaving a trace. You would assume it was your hungry roommate." This is a fairly decent analogy, but you seem to have more recently abandoned this line of thought. You see, while assuming the dog stole your lunch rather than your hungry room-mate would violate the razor, this in no way suggests that Labrador Retrievers don't exist, nor does suggesting that they exist come anywhere near violating the razor. Furthermore, the likely-hood of the canine-as-culprit theory increases considerably if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that your room-mate was neither hungry nor in fact even home at the time... even more so if it is impossible for your room-mate to have come anywhere near the refrigerator at any given time. Likewise, the likely-hood of an outside force being involved in the formation of matter increases considerably if it can be proven that all naturalistic explanations defy logic, reason, or science.

Look Steve, here's my "agenda": All I want you to see is that science does not and cannot disprove the existence of God or the truth of Christianity, and that if you choose to believe God does not exist that is perfectly fine (one crucial difference between Ray Comfort and myself is that I strongly believe that Christianity will not/cannot be proven true OR false - well, not until Jesus comes back that is). I just want you to see that it is a CHOICE, not a fact. If you want to reject God and Christianity, go for it. But don't pretend that science will back you up, because science is neutral on the issue. That's all I want you to see - take it or leave it.

P.S. - It would also be nice for you to see the whole "not trying to PROVE Christianity is true thing," considering you seem to assume that's what I'm doing every time I post.

Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by faith. Faith is impossible if the object of faith can be proven to be true. We are given a free choice, so choose.

SteveMudSkipper said...

Since you admit that this argument can neither prove or disprove god, which I never intended it to, we should move on, if that is ok with you.

I have many more questions which don't involve quantum physics haha.

Matthew said...

"we should move on, if that is ok with you."

Fine by me, although I can't promise that it won't come up later... I can't help but feel we're leaving this unresolved, I was really hoping to learn how evolutionists explain the origin of matter.

"I have many more questions which don't involve quantum physics haha."

Fire away...

SteveMudSkipper said...

Was there death before adam and eve committed the first sin?

Depending on how you answer this question I have another question, but first I want to know what you think.

Matthew said...

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12