Osito Attempts to Analytically Prove the Existence of God

[Keith C]

Your trying to make logic equivalent to an axiom is irrational. I don't need to provide experimentation or measurement to establish these types of truths. You can't say that "past time is infinite" can be qualified like light. It is either true, or it isn't. There is no "past time is finite and infinite at the same time in the same aspect." Absolutes exist. Objective truth exists.

You are assuming that your rules of logic apply to all aspects of the real world.

One part of this is that all definitions satisfy the 'excluded middle' condition.

The nature of light is one, which is both particle and wave. I think you have no way of proving that there isn't some similar problem with time:- perhaps there are quantum particles of time or perhaps something equally unexpected occurs near the big bang.

Saying that god would not have created such a universe is not very helpful if you are then going to use your logic to prove the existence of a lawful god.

[Osito]

Your trying to make logic equivalent to an axiom is irrational. I don't need to provide experimentation or measurement to establish these types of truths. You can't say that "past time is infinite" can be qualified like light. It is either true, or it isn't. There is no "past time is finite and infinite at the same time in the same aspect." Absolutes exist. Objective truth exists.

You are assuming that your rules of logic apply to all aspects of the real world.

One part of this is that all definitions satisfy the 'excluded middle' condition.

The nature of light is one, which is both particle and wave. I think you have no way of proving that there isn't some similar problem with time:- perhaps there are quantum particles of time or perhaps something equally unexpected occurs near the big bang.

Saying that god would not have created such a universe is not very helpful if you are then going to use your logic to prove the existence of a lawful god.

1. You have the analogy incorrect. The only thing that we are determining about past time is whether it is infinite or finite. What thing about the infinitude do you think was not excluded? Remember that infinity does not have the characteristics of a number: there can't be partial infinitude, there can't be infinitude at one point in the dimension and not at another, and there can't be infinitude at one location and not at another. It is the nature of infinitude that is absolute by definition. I didn't say all definitions satisfy the "excluded middle" condition. I said I could create a hypothesis that satisfied the Principle of the Excluded Middle.

2. I have no need to say anything about God. This is simply a matter of logic working in any rational universe.

3. And this is MOST IMPORTANT! You are assuming something irrational. You are assuming that something unexpected can happen in a closed system like logic. You have swallowed the propaganda that there are no absolutes. I can create scenarios where there is an excluded middle. You are betting I can't...but based on what? If there is nothing about logic that one can rely upon, then there is nothing about anything that could be known to be true. If so, then why even participate in this forum - IT MIGHT NOT EXIST! Rules of logic do apply to all aspects of the real world. We live in a rational universe. There are laws. We can define things. Things can be true by their very nature. Past time is composed of constituent parts, or there could be no processes. But we do live in a rational, predictable universe.

[Keith C]

1. You have the analogy incorrect. The only thing that we are determining about past time is whether it is infinite or finite. What thing about the infinitude do you think was not excluded? Remember that infinity does not have the characteristics of a number: there can't be partial infinitude,............
I didn't say all definitions satisfy the "excluded middle" condition. I said I could create a hypothesis that satisfied the Principle of the Excluded Middle.

Your hypothesis, in your ideal logical system, may be correct, but does this also apply in the real world?
Remember that Cantor proved that there were different infinities.
What about the possibility that time, instead of being a straight line, is fractal when examined very closely?

2. I have no need to say anything about God. This is simply a matter of logic working in any rational universe.

Some of your fellow presuppositionists claim that it is only the supervision of the universe by god which keeps the universe rational and predictable. Doesn't thin make your argument circular? Or is the universe rational without god?

3. And this is MOST IMPORTANT! You are assuming something irrational. You are assuming that something unexpected can happen in a closed system like logic. You have swallowed the propaganda that there are no absolutes. Rules of logic do apply to all aspects of the real world. We live in a rational universe. There are laws.

Wrong. Logic is logic, and nothing illogical occurs within that closed axiomatic system. What I am saying is that you have no such assurance about the real world - particularly if god created it with some measure of irrationality.

[Osito]

Your hypothesis, in your ideal logical system, may be correct, but does this also apply in the real world?
Remember that Cantor proved that there were different infinities.
What about the possibility that time, instead of being a straight line, is fractal when examined very closely?

Yes, in a rational universe, using premises that are determined to be true in a real world, the conclusion would be true in the real world. But Cantor didn't prove that infinity exists in an algorithmically finite structure. (Anyway, the Cantor argument is meaningless. It creates no useful new information. What is the application of a "bigger" infinity? And finally, it still represents a concept only.) First, that would not make it infinite, and second, what if the moon were made of green cheese? So what? Unsupported speculation is useless and irrational. Please, answer my question, what is it about the finite-infinite relationship that you think may change? Or are you arguing that we can't know anything for certain?

Some of your fellow presuppositionists claim that it is only the supervision of the universe by god which keeps the universe rational and predictable. Doesn't thin make your argument circular? Or is the universe rational without god?

What would be the difference? The origin would still have to be supernatural, because the universe is rational, no matter what you call that supernatural beginning agent. NO CIRCULAR ARGUMENT NEEDED! You go straight from existing premises to a conclusion. Even so, your question is illogical: "God made and supervises the universe to be rational in nature. The universe is rational in nature." The foregoing isn't even an argument. And since my proof doesn't require God making the universe or the conclusion that there is a God, what are you getting at?

Wrong. Logic is logic, and nothing illogical occurs within that closed axiomatic system. What I am saying is that you have no such assurance about the real world - particularly if god created it with some measure of irrationality.

No! The rules of logic are a closed system to eliminate contamination. But logic itself is a direct result of applying reason to a rational real world. If all premises in that "closed system" are true in the "real world," then the conclusion is true in the "real world." There is no such thing as partial irrationality in the real world. Either something exists according to the laws of the universe, making it rational, or it does not, making it supernatural. You are creating a false analogy: another logical error.

[Keith C]

Yes, in a rational universe, using premises that are determined to be true in a real world, the conclusion would be true in the real world. But Cantor didn't prove that infinity exists in an algorithmically finite structure. (Anyway, the Cantor argument is meaningless. It creates no useful new information. What is the application of a "bigger" infinity? And finally, it still represents a concept only.) First, that would not make it infinite, and second, what if the moon were made of green cheese? So what? Unsupported speculation is useless and irrational. ....................

Part of your 'proof' seems to depend on time being finite.
I do not think you have proved this is true in the real world, even if true in your logical system.
What is particularly important is what happens to the time line as it gets closer to t = 0, the time of the big bang singularity. The simplest question is how many discrete 'points' are present on this line?
Position of any point on this timeline can be represented by its real number (decimal) coordinate.
Cantor's 'second diagonal' shows that the number of points on the real number time-line between 0 and 1 second is greater than any ordinary (countable) infinity like the infinity of all integers.
http://www.learner.org/courses/mathilluminated/units/3/textbook/05.php

Can you be certain real physical singularity in the universe near t = 0 does not in some way stretch out this super-infinity of points in some strange 'relativistic' fashion?

My question about the circularity of your argument remains.

What would be the difference? The origin would still have to be supernatural, because the universe is rational, no matter what you call that supernatural beginning agent. NO CIRCULAR ARGUMENT NEEDED! You go straight from existing premises to a conclusion. Even so, your question is illogical: "God made and supervises the universe to be rational in nature. The universe is rational in nature." The foregoing isn't even an argument. And since my proof doesn't require God making the universe or the conclusion that there is a God, what are you getting at?
Your argument requires the universe to be logical for your proof to work.
Do you really mean that if there is something illogical or irrational about the universe, your procedure would prove that god does not exist?

If all premises in that "closed system" are true in the "real world," then the conclusion is true in the "real world." There is no such thing as partial irrationality in the real world. Either something exists according to the laws of the universe, making it rational, or it does not, making it supernatural.

That is a really large 'IF' in your first sentence.
I rather like the conclusion in your last sentence, anything irrational is supernatural!

[Osito]

Part of your 'proof' seems to depend on time being finite... (H)ow many discrete 'points' are present on this line? ...Cantor's 'second diagonal' shows that the number of points on the real number time-line (sic) between 0 and 1 second is greater than any ordinary (countable) infinity like the infinity of all integers.

1. There are an infinite number of points on a line, because points have no dimension. The question is this: "How many discrete units of time are there?" A finite number. At any finite distance from the origin of time, there are a finite number of increments, as the shortest unit of time is the Planck unit.

2. Cantor's Diagonal Argument (DA) is a party trick. It doesn't belong in this discussion, because even if it were true, it only describes a bigger infinity. I'll demonstrate the fallacy of this proposition, which happens to be a variation on Zeno's Paradox (doesn't exist in the real world either):

There are infinitely more numbers in the 0 to 1 set, right? No. Imagine that there are more than just the two sets. Make the number of sets 1 more than the number of all permutations of numbers between 0 and 9 for the number of spaces to the right of the decimal point for the remaining sets: all but the counting set being the set of numbers between 0 and 1. 1st set is the counting numbers: the remaining sets are filled with the permutations. Make any correlation between the sets you wish as long as each row contains all the permutations. Now apply Cantor's DA to any of the corresponding columns. HECK, GO AHEAD AND APPLY TO EVERY COLUMN! Tell me if any "diagonalized" set doesn't have a corresponding "number" in EACH row. Of course - every permutation is in every row. Every row has a correlation to a counting number with "diagonalizing" applied. Any set of infinite numbers added to any number of corresponding sets of infinite numbers is simply infinity. Cantor's trick is to hide some information from you. Doesn't matter, because with time we are dealing with an algorithmically finite structure. The argument is superfluous to the proof.

Can you be certain real physical singularity in the universe near t = 0 does not in some way stretch out this super-infinity of points in some strange 'relativistic' fashion?

Yes. An algorithmically finite structure can be stretched or added to and remain finite.

...the circularity of your argument remains... Do you really mean that if there is something illogical or irrational about the universe, your procedure would prove that god does not exist?

And who is asking? {Are you seriously asking me to make a logical conclusion in an illogical universe?)

That is a really large 'IF' in your first sentence.

Really? Then you would have no trouble giving me a concrete example.

Please respond here.

[Keith C]

1. There are an infinite number of points on a line, because points have no dimension. The question is this: "How many discrete units of time are there?" A finite number. At any finite distance from the origin of time, there are a finite number of increments, as the shortest unit of time is the Planck unit.

2. Cantor's Diagonal Argument (DA) is a party trick. It doesn't belong in this discussion, because even if it were true, it only describes a bigger infinity. I'll demonstrate the fallacy of this proposition, which happens to be a variation on Zeno's Paradox (doesn't exist in the real world either):

The Planck time is not the shortest unit of time, even though I am sure you can find some web sites repeating your misinformation. It is simply the time for a photon to travel the Planck length.
"According to quantum theory, 1 Planck time should be the smallest unit of time physics can reason about in a meaningful way."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
'Physics' in that quote is conventional quantum physics. At present we have no good indications of the physical laws which relate to smaller time steps and/or the events closer to the big bang. There is no indication that time comes in quantum steps of some type.

Cantor's proof shows that the number of real numbers on a number line between 0 and 1 is a different order of infinity than the infinite number of integers. The infinity is larger, the points are smaller, and there definitely is not a finite number of such points.
There is nothing wrong with Cantor's proof. Further, we have no reason to believe that time can be represented by a real number line and hence Cantor's proof can be applied to time, even though we have no means of actually making measurements with this precision.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant because it seems to be based on your faulty logic.

[Osito]

The Planck time is not the shortest unit of time, even though I am sure you can find some web sites repeating your misinformation. It is simply the time for a photon to travel the Planck length.

All right, have it your way. Change from Planck unit to the smallest discrete unit of time. It doesn't matter. But there can't be a "infinitely small" unit of time, for the same reason that Zeno's Paradox is a fallacy. Having one terminus (NOW) and another (approaching the beginning) makes past time finite. There is simply no way your argument is going anywhere, even expressed in the materialistic, mathematical and illogical manner you are going.

Cantor's proof shows that the number of real numbers on a number line between 0 and 1 is a different order of infinity than the infinite number of integers. The infinity is larger, the points are smaller, and there definitely is not a finite number of such points.
There is nothing wrong with Cantor's proof. Further, we have no reason to believe that time can be represented by a real number line and hence Cantor's proof can be applied to time, even though we have no means of actually making measurements with this precision.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant because it seems to be based on your faulty logic.

WRONG! I just proved that Cantor's DA only works for a specific case under arithmetic axioms, and can be defeated by adding a little more information within that same system. PLUS, your reasoning is fallacious. Cantor's DA only describes the relationship between the two columns and says nothing about either column separately. (Mathematics is filled with things that can't exist in the real world, like the imaginary numbers.) You can't extract the necessary quality you seek from a single set. BUT THIS IS A GOOSE CHASE! It doesn't matter anyway, because we can prove that past time is composed of discrete units right now making past time an algorithmically finite structure. Such a structure can't be "made infinite" by any manipulation. Insisting that you can create an infinity by introducing ever smaller pieces is EXACTLY Zeno's Paradox. Now, are you going to tell me that Apollo will never catch a tortoise, a person can never cross a room or an arrow can never reach a target?

[Keith C]

All right, have it your way. Change from Planck unit to the smallest discrete unit of time. It doesn't matter. But there can't be a "infinitely small" unit of time, for the same reason that Zeno's Paradox is a fallacy. Having one terminus (NOW) and another (approaching the beginning) makes past time finite. There is simply no way your argument is going anywhere, even expressed in the materialistic, mathematical and illogical manner you are going.

Zeno's paradox is a fallacy if time is linear on the smallest scales. You have not proved that is true in the real world at times very close to the big bang.

I am not advocating this cosmology, but think of two different time lines as in Humphreys' speculation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf
Take one to be our conventional linear time, T.
For the second, time slows down dramatically for T very close to T = 0.
As one possible case, let T2 = ln(T), so that T2 = 0 at T = 1 second and T2 goes to minus infinity as T ==> 0.
T2 is now infinitely long as T goes from 0 to 1 second.

[Osito]

...not proved that is true in the real world at times very close to the big bang.

That is not my responsibility. You must provide irrefutable evidence that an algorithmically finite structure (Tp) can transition into an infinity.

Zeno's paradox is a fallacy if time is linear on the smallest scales. ...not proved that is true in the real world at times very close to the big bang.

I am not advocating this cosmology, but think of two different time lines as in Humphreys' speculation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf
Take one to be our conventional linear time, T.
For the second, time slows down dramatically for T very close to T = 0.
As one possible case, let T2 = ln(T), so that T2 = 0 at T = 1 second and T2 goes to minus infinity as T ==> 0.
T2 is now infinitely long as T goes from 0 to 1 second.

No! This is the last of my time going to waste. If that were pertinent to the proof, it would still not refute. It would not be an infinity, but discrete units approaching a limit - EXACTLY Zeno's Paradox, a fallacy. Please get a book on logic and look up refutations. If you can find one that fits, then use it. Otherwise, the universe does not conform to your personal doubts. I gave reasons and evidence for every step of this discussion and you keep jumping from one thing to another. Give it up! I gave 3 arguments for the proof - all I need is 1. If you don't believe 2 out of the 3, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you give me a refutation that I can't find as being a fallacy or otherwise untrue. You haven't done it. You have been inconsistent. You have posited a number of fallacies. So, bring some substantial evidence to the table that refutes according to the rules of logic, or pack it in. The universe is approximately 13.7 B years old. Any manipulations of an algorithmically finite set (which we know that past time is from experiential evidence) will not cause 13.7 B years to become infinity. I am not going to keep repeating myself so that you can try to make yourself look good. It won't work. YOU ARE WRONG! CANTOR"S DIAGONAL ARGUMENT IS A FALLACY! HUMPHREY'S SPECULATION DOES NOT LEAD TO INFINITY! HOW DOES TIME KNOW WHEN IT REACHES 1 SECOND (THE INCREMENTS OF TIME ARE ARBITRARY)? WHY NOT ONE HOUR?

I'm not here to banter with you about absurd imaginings.

For others, the logic is:
1. The increments of time are irrelevant to the math.
2. If Keith C is correct, then either time slows to a stop, and we are still in the 1st second of the BB; or it doesn't, and Tp is finite.
3. If there are infinite added increments of time, we are still in the 1st second of the BB; or if not, Tp is finite - plus this is another example of Zeno's Paradox.
4. Either way, Mr. C's premise, even if true, could never refute "Past time is finite."


Others than Mr. Keith C may reply here.