What is up with Atheists? - Page 11 - Political Forum

Gumbercules · 11-21-2006, 05:45 PM

Oh no I've gone cross-eyed.

Scruff · 11-21-2006, 05:45 PM

I tend to not think about what was before what is, it's a bit far for me to guess at.

Ygorl · 11-21-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Yes, but I think what he meant was infinite period, whether it repeated verbatim or not. On that note we would dive into multiple dimensions of the same reality (same instances, minor changes).

Well sure. Infinity being what it is we'll just be splittin' hairs now :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

My stance on an infinite past is that only the future is potentially infinite, since it does not exist; but the past is actual in a way the future is not,

Or they're really not separate. The future is that past and the past is the future and they go on into infinity which goes on into infinity which ....

... you see where this ends ?

Nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

as evidenced by the fact that we have traces of the past in the present, but no traces of the future.

No traces of the future ? That may REALLY depend on our knowing what it is we need to LOOK for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

This where potential infinites and actual infinites come into play. To be more clear, how does one count backwards from infinity if you can never actually count from one TO infinity? Would it not make sense to say that there was a beginning? An infinite past seems unlikely here.

Yes, the concept (infinity) is a concept that remains just beyond our fully understanding. But if it IS (one of the true properties of the universe and time), doesn't it follow that somewhere in infinity you'll return to be having this conversation an infinite # of times ?

Does time only go in an arrow straight forward or does it wrap around itself like a snake eating it's own tail ? Or are there another option(s) unknown to us ?

Ygorl · 11-21-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruff

I tend to not think about what was before what is, it's a bit far for me to guess at.

Maybe what was before is what will BE

emptypepsi · 11-21-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

No traces of the future ? That may REALLY depend on our knowing what it is we need to LOOK for.

Does time only go in an arrow straight forward or does it wrap around itself like a snake eating it's own tail ? Or are there another option(s) unknown to us ?

Touche'

Scruff · 11-21-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

Maybe what was before is what will BE

Quite possibly, I'd even put it at likely. Then again, the universe has been to known to throw a wrench in the gears. Circles are nice, but sometimes it's just an ellipse.

Ygorl · 11-22-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruff

Quite possibly, I'd even put it at likely. Then again, the universe has been to known to throw a wrench in the gears. Circles are nice, but sometimes it's just an ellipse.

Or a mobius OR a straight line whose ends never meet. EVER.

drgoodtrips · 11-22-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

Analogizing the idea of global warming with the idea of a creator or God is a bit of a stretch isn't it ?

"Analogizing"? Me? Anywho - the point isn't the specific X in the equation, but the equation itself. You implied that it was unwise not to believe in something if that something might exist. Regardless of whether that something is God, global warming, or a realio-trulio, flying pet dragon, the logic is faulty. Specifically, the fallacy is "from ignorance" - since a proposition has not been proven false, we should believe it.

Ygorl · 11-22-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

"Analogizing"?

Well, ok comparing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

"Anywho - the point isn't the specific X in the equation, but the equation itself. You implied that it was unwise not to believe in something if that something might exist. Regardless of whether that something is God, global warming, or a realio-trulio, flying pet dragon, the logic is faulty. Specifically, the fallacy is "from ignorance" - since a proposition has not been proven false, we should believe it.

And that's not what I was saying really.

I'll say it more taylored for you

Since the proposition has not been proven false, that there is a God, it's best to at LEAST admit ignorance rather than outright REJECT God.

the proposition of a God is much different than the propositions you use as examples.

Again, comparisons that don't fit. Or work. Or make sense.

See what you think of # 94 in this thread.

drgoodtrips · 11-22-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

And that's not what I was saying really.

I'll say it more taylored for you

Since the proposition has not been proven false, that there is a God, it's best to at LEAST admit ignorance rather than outright REJECT God.

I agree with that.

Quote:

the proposition of a God is much different than the propositions you use as examples.

Again, comparisons that don't fit. Or work. Or make sense.

Sure, qualitatively God, global warming, and dragons are all different things. Comparing them doesn't "make sense" to you because you believe in one and not the others. It is the same discussion we've had before where you reject any comparison or analogy out of hand if it doesn't help your argument. That you prefer things not to be compared doesn't make doing so an invalid excercise.