Argument from infinity

[cardnals100]

Found this on youtube,seemed pretty interesting to me...however I haven't had the time to really watch it and critique in detail so I'll just leave that up to everyone at TWC since I'm busy with an essay.

One interesting thing I did notice too is that the maker is a strong atheist which is something you don't see on youtube very often.

[CamilleBonparte]

One interesting thing I did notice too is that the maker is a strong atheist which is something you don't see on youtube very often.

You're kidding right?

Youtube is full of atheists, just look up any debate on the topic of God and read the comments.

[justicar5]

You're kidding right?

Youtube is full of atheists, just look up any debate on the topic of God and read the comments.

however it is rare to hear an arguement like that.

[cardnals100]

You're kidding right?

Youtube is full of atheists, just look up any debate on the topic of God and read the comments.

Key word is strong.

[basics]

Just watched the two videos and have come to the conclusion that I am glad that I never could claim to be academic because if that is what academia does to anyone no wonder the world is in such a state.

For a start the universe was like us a creation so why would God be inside it? I play wargames whether on a table or on the PC it matters not for I am never inside them but yet I still direct them from the outside. So on that he makes a lot of assumptions.

The silly man eventually asserts that in three minutes he has disproved God, so what? When he has to appear before what he has disproved the likelihood of him having to go back on YT to correct his errors is surely the only certainty he will not have.

Then he will discover that the universe he claims to be all things with no other is also not as true as he asserts when he takes up his place in the holding chamber which is also outside of the universe. Has he never read that all creation must be done away with so that a new creation takes its place.

Boy, am I glad that the Gospel is so simple. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved rings more true today than it did in the beginning that's why many are still at the name of Jesus having their lives turned around, something this young fella has never got the gist of.

[Strelok]

That video was primarily made to establish and explain a syllogism for a claim that he made in this video:



I don't particularly feel like getting into a debate on this issue, but if someone watches the video mentioned in the OP, they should probably watch this one too.

He's one of the more philosophically apt people on YouTube and indeed on the internet in general. Although a lot of theists and atheists on YT seem to dislike or disassociate with Dhorpatan. I like him regardless of the fact I don't always agree with his arguments.

[SigniferOne]

Did anyone notice how, in trying earnestly to prove Premise1, this atheist basically proves the existence of God?


Meanwhile, Premise2 is so easy to disprove it almost makes me groan to have to write about it. "Existence is by nature a limitation"? Ok yes, follow you so far. God is 'limited' in that sense, because he's good, not Good, Evil, And Everything Else. He is benevolent, not Benevolent, Malicious, Hasty, Cranky, and Frustrated, And Everything Else. So agreeing with the atheist so far. I hope he's not going to extrapolate that God is finite from that.

"Thus God is finite"....????

?????????????????????????

*Groan*

[Squiggle]

Dhorptan is a really poor philosopher. He grabs terms and narrows their meaning so specifically so as to disclude God from the start, and then basically says "oh my, notice how god contradicts the definition? Thus he doesnt exist!". I mean thats basically the extent of his argumentation, semantical word twisting.

[cardnals100]

Dhorptan is a really poor philosopher. He grabs terms and narrows their meaning so specifically so as to disclude God from the start, and then basically says "oh my, notice how god contradicts the definition? Thus he doesnt exist!". I mean thats basically the extent of his argumentation, semantical word twisting.

I suppose you could have a point here...what if the argument was translated into another language? Would it still make any sense at all?

[Plant]

Hmmm, I'm thinking that the 2nd premise is false. He says it cannot be rebutted, so I decided to look into it.

· It relies of the law of identity, which includes the identity of infinity, otherwise infinity cannot be defined.
· If so, then how is infinity defined?
· What would be the definition of infinity? The fact that infinity can be defined means that the law of identity hold true for anything that claims to be infinite.
· In other words, a by law of identity states that the object is infinite and same as itself, then there is no inherent contradiction.
· I see no problems in being limited to having no limit as the conclusion of such premise is that it has no limit.
Of course I could be wrong, because I have no idea what infinite means to an philosopher.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just watched the two videos and have come to the conclusion that I am glad that I never could claim to be academic because if that is what academia does to anyone no wonder the world is in such a state.

Yes, that's right, all those doctors, engineers, scientists, mathematicians in the world are to blame for you personal problems! Wear the fact that you could never claim to be academic with pride!

For a start the universe was like us a creation so why would God be inside it? I play wargames whether on a table or on the PC it matters not for I am never inside them but yet I still direct them from the outside. So on that he makes a lot of assumptions.

The silly man eventually asserts that in three minutes he has disproved God, so what? When he has to appear before what he has disproved the likelihood of him having to go back on YT to correct his errors is surely the only certainty he will not have.

Then he will discover that the universe he claims to be all things with no other is also not as true as he asserts when he takes up his place in the holding chamber which is also outside of the universe. Has he never read that all creation must be done away with so that a new creation takes its place.

Boy, am I glad that the Gospel is so simple. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved rings more true today than it did in the beginning that's why many are still at the name of Jesus having their lives turned around, something this young fella has never got the gist of.

It is philosphy; it is all assumptions. But then you call him a silly man, and the gospel simple, and are guilty of doing the same in making assumptions.

[747823]

For a start the universe was like us a creation so why would God be inside it? I play wargames whether on a table or on the PC it matters not for I am never inside them but yet I still direct them from the outside. So on that he makes a lot of assumptions.

Because the universe by definition is the totality of all existence. Saying God is outside the universe would be saying God is outside of existence, which would be saying that God doesn't exist. So the notion that anything created the universe would can appear ridiculous, because existence is an irreducible primary; there is nothing external to existence to cause it or curve it. Some theists will try to use the big bang model to support a claim that the universe had an absolute beginning, but the big bang model does not support that.

Did anyone notice how, in trying earnestly to prove Premise1, this atheist basically
proves the existence of God?

Establishing why the only way that God can exist is for God to be infinite does not prove that such a being exists.

Meanwhile, Premise2 is so easy to disprove it almost makes me groan to have to write about it. "Existence is by nature a limitation"? Ok yes, follow you so far. God is 'limited' in that sense, because he's good, not Good, Evil, And Everything Else. He is benevolent, not Benevolent,Malicious, Hasty, Cranky, and Frustrated, And Everything Else. So agreeing with the atheist so far. I hope he's not going to extrapolate that God is finite from that. If you exist, you are something specific

"Thus God is finite"....????

You cannot presuppose that God exists infinitely and then say that he cannot be considered finite through the law of identity from this point. That doesn't work. And that is exactly what you just did. He/she/it cannot be infinite in the first place because of the law of identity.

Something is what it is, and nothing else. It's limited in it's own quantities and quality. It's this and nothing else. "Infinite" applied to quantity would mean larger than any specific quantity. No specific quantity, AKA it would be a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the law of identity. If something claims an object exists in a way that cannot be defined by the law of identity, then it logically cannot exist.

He grabs terms and narrows their meaning so specifically so as to disclude God from the start, and then basically says "oh my, notice how god contradicts the definition? Thus he doesnt exist!". I mean thats basically the extent of his argumentation, semantical word twisting.

Which words? What are their boarder meaning? Would their supposedly broader meanings fit god? Please tell me where he has done this.

Of course he'll use what the definition of infinity is in the process of establishing as to why God cannot be infinite. If you contradict what infinity means, then you cannot be called infinite. A being would be reduced to something else, and that wouldn't include infinity. If you're trying to say he does this for the definition of infinity, then how is he doing this? You need a definition of something in order to prove or disprove the claim that an object has such a characteristic.

·It relies of the law of identity, which includes the identity of infinity, otherwise infinity cannot be defined.

No, it doesn't. The law of identity applies to objects.

· If so, then how is infinity defined?

In order to attempt to use the law of identity on "infinity", infinity has to be actualized and not established only as a concept. Infinity is only shown to exist as a concept and thus is defined conceptually. Concept don't necessarily exist as only concepts, you can attempt to provide that a concept can also be a characteristic of an object. The whole point of his argument is to show how an object cannot be infinite.

What would be the definition of infinity? The fact that infinity can be defined means that the law of identity hold true for anything that claims to be infinite.

adjective

1 limitless or endless in space , extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate:the infinite mercy of God the infinite number of stars in the universe
very great in amount or degree:he bathed the wound with infinite care
Mathematics: greater than any assignable quantity or countable number
Mathematics: (of a series) able to be continued indefinitely

The law of identity applies to objects. So far, infinity is defined conceptually. Only when a concept supposedly to also match an attribute of an object, then the law of identity can either define or not define infinity.

[SigniferOne]

Because the universe by definition is the totality of all existence.

Whose definition?

Some theists will try to use the big bang model to support a claim that the universe had an absolute beginning, but the big bang model does not support that.

Then you have not looked at the facts.

Establishing why the only way that God can exist is for God to be infinite does not prove that such a being exists.

Oh that part of the video does more than that. It proves why infinite regression of purely material existents is illogical. It proves that there is an existential origin to the universe. It does a lot of things that are shocking for an atheist to admit.

If we subtract premise 2 from being proven, this video just from premise 1 has proven the existence of God. And since premise 2 is far from sound, that's exactly what he has done.

You cannot presuppose that God exists infinitely and then say that he cannot be considered finite through the law of identity from this point. That doesn't work. And that is exactly what you just did. He/she/it cannot be infinite in the first place because of the law of identity.

Which is an usubstantiated assertion that you have not proved.

Something is what it is, and nothing else. It's limited in it's own quantities and quality. It's this and nothing else. "Infinite" applied to quantity would mean larger than any specific quantity. No specific quantity, AKA it would be a quantity without identity.

Larger than any specific quantity does not mean quantity without identity. Mathematicians define infinity on a quite elementary basis, basically as the first Math 101 class. They even define multiple levels of infinities, so there is not just one.

Of course he'll use what the definition of infinity is in the process of establishing as to why God cannot be infinite.

Oh end the charade please, because of the close ideological alliance, and usage of almost identical terminology, just admit that you're the one who authored video and let's get on with the point.

[justicar5]

Oh that part of the video does more than that. It proves why infinite regression of purely material existents is illogical. It proves that there is an existential origin to the universe. It does a lot of things that are shocking for an atheist to admit.

.

since the only stance that REQUIRES infinite regression is a created universe (the regression being who created the creator?) it does not apply to any other standpoint, but nice try at twisting truth to suit a perverse bronze age murder cult. The planet earth would be a far more peaceful and just place without the babbling of desert prophets destroying morality and science.

[Squiggle]

since the only stance that REQUIRES infinite regression is a created universe (the regression being who created the creator?) it does not apply to any other standpoint, but nice try at twisting truth to suit a perverse bronze age murder cult. The planet earth would be a far more peaceful and just place without the babbling of desert prophets destroying morality and science.

Err...it applies only to materialistic causes. If the cause of a material universe is something else material, what caused that- and so on. If the cause of a materialistic Universe was alone and beyond all physical realities, time no longer exists nor does a necessity of coming into being. Infinite regression screws atheism, its misapplied the other way only through ignorance.

@74..whatever. You gave an example for me, the Universe by definition is all that exists...no, thats not what the word universe means. Its what he says it means, so through semantical wording he can just move God out of the picture and laugh. He used that exact same method, hell probably that same word- its been a few months since ive watched any of his videos, there rather worthless- and he did it multiple times. I cant remember watching a video of his that wasnt entirely predicated on one or two words that didnt even mean what he claimed they did. But no, I'm not going to hunt through his videos for further examples, its a waste of time. I've already had this discussion with strelok a couple months ago anyway.

[justicar5]

Err...it applies only to materialistic causes. If the cause of a material universe is something else material, what caused that- and so on. If the cause of a materialistic Universe was alone and beyond all physical realities, time no longer exists nor does a necessity of coming into being. Infinite regression screws atheism, its misapplied the other way only through ignorance.

.

if god did excist considering the way he treats us we should be finding a way to kill him like the mass murdering rapist he is, if god is real, he is the only being that I feel being raped to death is a just punishment , every single sentient being on earth should get in line to shave a red hot razor blade up his cock, for denying us immortality and only giving it to his followers who klill the most, as set out in the bible, the torah and the koran. Not only is following the god of abraham deluded it is treason against the human race, commit it in private if you must, do not spread your mental disease any more than heroin addiction should be spread (Actually herion addiction is better, at least people can admit they are sick from that) Praying to him is a call to the genocide of what makes humans decent and should be treated like the hate crime it is, the second the Death Cults of the Desert die out is the second the human condition escapes from 10000 years of terrorism. I came to this conclusion on my own, death to the lord of genocide, castration to the god of rape. If he excists execute him, for he is a far worse criminal than Hitler or Stalin ever dreamed of being.

Hell Sig, you may actually have convinced me god excists, and now I think we should devote all human effort to finding a way to execute him, like the genocidal he is, bet it makes you proud.

and yes I am letting rage rule me.

[747823]

Whose definition?

It will either be defined almost exactly as that or will be defined as containing all matter/energy. In either context, theoretically transcending the universe is non-existence. You must accept that the physical is actual, and that the non-physical is only a conceptual thing.

The question of what the origin of the universe is still silly. Existence is an irreducible primary that has nothing external to itself cause it. If we accept what all the evidence points to, which is that everything that exists is physical, then questioning the origin of the physical is moot.

Then you have not looked at the facts.

The big bag model fundamentally states that the universe was originally in a hot dense state, which expanded rapidly and has since cooled and continues to expand today.

Oh that part of the video does more than that. It proves why infinite regression of purely material existents is illogical. It proves that there is an existential origin to the universe.

It only dealt with the invalidity of infinite regression, and never asserted that there is an origin to the universe.

Which is an usubstantiated assertion that you have not proved.

An object that exists adheres to the law of identity. But the problem is that infinity itself cannot be identified according to the law of identity. The law of identity reduces any object to being itself and only itself. So, A=A is a specification. That reduces an object to being finite, because infinity is not cannot be something that has a specification.

Larger than any specific quantity does not mean quantity without identity

Yes it does. To have an identity will mean to have a specification.

Mathematicians define infinity on a quite elementary basis, basically as the first Math 101 class. They even define multiple levels of infinities, so there is not just one.

I'm not a mathematician, so I have little say in this. Are there indications that infinity is an actual mathematical object (it's technically not a real number, right) and not conceptual?

Oh end the charade please, because of the close ideological alliance, and usage of almost identical terminology, just admit that you're the one who authored video and let's get on with the point.

You think I'm Dhorpatan? You would be wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by ideological alliances, but from what I interpret of what that means, that is apparently incorrect. I'm not an objectivist, and Dhorpatan makes the point that he is numerous times. You might take notice of that that I advocate anarcho-Communism which is essentially the opposite of what most objectivists would advocate.

If the cause of a material universe is something else material, what caused that- and so on.

The answer is that there is no, and there cannot be an origin. Existence is an irreducible primary and there is nothing external to it be able to cause it. If you are a materialist and accept that the physical is all that exists, then the problem is solved by the former statement. Time is not necessarily a problem either, because:

A) My former statements are not necessarily saying time is something infinite that always existed. Which, of course, is why I am an agnostic-atheist because this allows people to try to fit their timeless God hypothesis inside that. This would sort of compliment the theory of timeless space that Stephen Hawking proposed in 1983.

B) Our exact theory of time. Whether or not infinite time is a possible or not hinges upon that. I'm not nearly suited to have a debate on this issue, but I will recognize the more "commonly recognized" theory on time would proclaim that infinite time is rubbish. This is a more diverse issue that I really cannot get into.

@74..whatever. You gave an example for me, the Universe by definition is all that exists...no, thats not what the word universe means.

What would your definition of the Universe be?

[Squiggle]

The answer is that there is no, and there cannot be an origin. Existence is an irreducible primary and there is nothing external to it be able to cause it. If you are a materialist and accept that the physical is all that exists, then the problem is solved by the former statement. Time is not a problem, as you might try to point out, because this is not saying that time always existed. Which, of course, is why I am an agnostic-theist because this allows people to try to fit their timeless God hypothesis inside that. And, remember that I'm talking hypothetically her and remember that what I am arguing against is people saying that God is a necessity.

Dont be pedantic, I'm obviously referring to the cause of the big bang, not literally the creation of matter. If a process outside this Universe caused the big bangs initial singularity, we still have a problem further back. So even these hypothetical solutions that the big bangs singularity was blow off of some other physical cause in another dimension or what not...that is where infinite regress actually takes place and makes that solution just another step in a larger problem.

What would your definition of the Universe be?

All manner and energy. And now your gonna come back, just like that guy [which might be you as sig pointed out...hmm!], that existence is defined as physical. Its not. Existence is to exist, exist is: ex·ist (g-zst)intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists 1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

To conclude? Its a pathetic attempt at manipulating the English language so as to disclude God from the very start. The Universe is all that exists, all that exists is physical, therefore God does not exist. That is misapplying the terms in a single language, and somehow were suppose to take this as a legitimate philosophical argument? What if you put this in French, German or any other language? Its just semantical . He does this in a number of videos.

[747823]

Dont be pedantic, I'm obviously referring to the cause of the big bang, not literally the creation of matter. If a process outside this Universe caused the big bangs initial singularity, we still have a problem further back. So even these hypothetical solutions that the big bangs singularity was blow off of some other physical cause in another dimension or what not...that is where infinite regress actually takes place and makes that solution just another step in a larger problem.

Infinite regress is only a problem if time existed prior to the big bang. Answer me this: did time exist prior to the big bang?

All manner and energy. And now your gonna come back, just like that guy [which might be you as sig pointed out...hmm!], that existence is defined as physical.

This is either a miswording or an incomprehension of my point. I'm not saying that existence would be defined as physical, I'm saying if you are a materialist you accept that everything that exists is physical. As you state below: existence exists.

Its not. Existence is to exist.

Which is exactly what my position is. You're responding based on a misunderstanding.

ITo conclude? Its a pathetic attempt at manipulating the English language so as to disclude God from the very start.

Your conclusion is based on an unintentional strawman.

I The Universe is all that exists, all that exists is physical, therefore God does not exist.

That is not the syllogism that I would propose. You're just cherry picking here. There are additional steps and arguments to make before you can conclude that in a logically sound manner. Also, I don't claim that God doesn't exist. I'm an agnostic-atheist. I claim that God is not necessary.

He does this in a number of videos.

If you're going to call me Dhorpatan, can you explain to me how:

A) I'm not an objectivist, but Dhorpatan is an objectivst but I'm somehow Dhorpatan?
B) I'm an anarcho-communist, but Dhorpatan is obviously not an anarcho-Communist, but I'm somehow Dhorpatan?
C) I'm an agnostic-atheist, but Dhorpatan is a strong-atheist, but I'm somehow Dhorpatan?

[SigniferOne]

It will either be defined almost exactly as that or will be defined as containing all matter/energy.

Neither will be accepted by most physicists, as a lot of them are positing the multiverse, a multitude (perhaps infinite) of universes. Among those physicists is someone like Stephen Hawking.

Universe can be defined as that which exists within our 3 dimensions, that which exists within the natural parameters that we understand. So for example, in those other universes, there would be different dimensions, perhaps no time, different natural laws where F doesn't equal MA, etc. See more on the Big Bang below.

In either context, theoretically transcending the universe is non-existence.

You have to understand that that's only in your context. Don't shove your context upon other people.

The big bag model fundamentally states that the universe was originally in a hot dense state, which expanded rapidly and has since cooled and continues to expand today.

Then you haven't even acquainted yourself with what the big bang model is, while using it as a concept quite handily. Is that really an honest thing to do? The Big Bang model posits that time and space were created at the big bang, and that what existed before it, if not nothing, then was at least a singularity, not just a tightly packed little ball but something like a black hole, something in which none of the natural laws existed or applied, and where none of the existential parameters of the universe were applicable -- there were no dimensions, no space, and no time.

It only dealt with the invalidity of infinite regression, and never asserted that there is an origin to the universe.

You are not aware of the fact that infinite regression is one of the few actually semi-coherent arguments against God. By removing infinite regression you are in fact proving the existence of God. If there was a first Cause that set Everything in motion, then you have proven God.

An object that exists adheres to the law of identity. But the problem is that infinity itself cannot be identified according to the law of identity.

Of course it can. If you can provide a definition for X, you can provide an identity for it, even if doesn't fit in your preferred "parameters".

An infinity is defined by limitless enumeration. Problem solved

The law of identity reduces any object to being itself and only itself.

That's fine. If an object has a limitless enumeration, it is that and nothing else

I'm not a mathematician, so I have little say in this. Are there indications that infinity is an actual mathematical object (it's technically not a real number, right) and not conceptual?

Glad that was answered for you by someone else.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

Problem solved..