Timeline for Could there ever be evidence for an infinite being?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2014 at 18:04 | comment | added | Dave B | @infatuated: But if the universe is finite in time the number of states the universe will experience will again be mind-blowingly, computer-breakingly huge... but still, strictly speaking, a finite number. That, I think, is what the questioner was trying to get at: how do we differentiate between the mind-blowing and the actually infinite? So far as I know, we can't. | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 0:37 | comment | added | infatuated | @user4894, you fail to get the crux of the matter. Whether or not there are finite or infinite number of atoms, whether or not time or universe are infinite, each new phenomena is exceptionally unique. You fail to see that even a single atom is a new phenomenon just a moment later! | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | user4894 | @infatuated There are about 10^87 atoms in the universe. If the universe is indeed finite, there are only finitely many possible configurations of these 10^87 atoms. And there is currently no physical theory that accounts for the universe being infinite. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 20:59 | comment | added | infatuated | @DaveB, by natural world I meant the whole universe not just Earth! The argument was: if the universe is eternal then infinity of forms of being follows because of uniqueness of all individual forms of being and they include living and non-living forms, such as planets, stars, plants, animals, human beings etc every instance of which is unique and non-duplicable. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 20:34 | comment | added | Dave B | Also, having commented without expanding the comment thread, I see that @user4894 did a great job raising these very same points. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 20:27 | comment | added | Dave B | @infatuated: Taking 'eternity of the natural world' to mean the Earth, we already know it's not eternal: We know that the Earth is finite in time. Though that timeline dwarfs the sum entirety of all human existence ever, we know that the Earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years (or Ga - giga-annum) ago, that the first cells arose roughly 3.5 Ga ago, that multi-cellular life arose roughly 1 Ga ago. We know that the Sun will eventually become a red giant (and shatter any illusions of infinity at the other end), sometime between 1 and 5 Ga into the future. (But I think we drift off-topic now?) :) | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | infatuated | @DaveB Well, it is not really the actual infinite number of existing/exited phenomena that is being argued here, but the ceaseless emergence of unique phenomena that indicates a creator who is constantly generating unique expressions. That is, the universe is offering infinite possibilities for being. Yet, if the infinity of the actual existing/exited phenomena should be argued, it can be proven if eternity of the natural world is proven; that the universe came into existence since an infinite time in the past. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 14:47 | comment | added | Dave B |
@infatuated: But as for observable evidences of his infinity, one can just look at the infinite and endless expressions of life on Earth --- Except that this isn't an infinite number, it's just a very, very, mind-bogglingly, hugely, colossally gargantuan one. I could be wrong, but I think that's what the questioner was getting at - how do you tell the 'big' from the 'actually infinite'?
|
|
| Jul 20, 2014 at 21:54 | comment | added | infatuated | @user4894 As for scientific evidence I think it must be common knowledge. At least for humans it is proven that there are no single two of identical human beings no matter how closely similar they are. Genetics has proven that! But philosophy alone can prove that even without recurse to any empirical proof. | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 21:51 | comment | added | infatuated | @user4894 "Only finitely many people have ever lived and will ever live on Earth" This is wrong! There has always been being and will be! So there have been infinite number of all forms of being (living, non-living) and will be! | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | user4894 | @infatuated Can you quote any scientific evidence that the world is infinite? "All individual forms of being (animate or inanimate, living or lifeless) are completely unique and identical." -- Only finitely many people have ever lived and will ever live on earth. Finitely many. I can only repeat myself to point out that a large finite number is not infinite. Of course in a lyrical sense we all have "infinite potential," but that's not a statement about anything that exists in the actual universe. It's imperative to make this distinction. | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | infatuated | @user4894, if universe is infinite (as metaphysicians hold) then there would definitely be infinite number of virtually everything. However, even if not, there are still infinite expressions of being which is a widely accepted fact. All individual forms of being (animate or inanimate, living or lifeless) are completely unique and identical. This necessarily entails infinite number of possible forms of being. | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 17:51 | comment | added | user4894 | "one can just look at the infinite and endless expressions of life on Earth ..." -- But you are confusing "infinite" with "really really big." There are only finitely many atoms on earth and only finitely many possible combinations of atoms. There is in fact a finite amount of biological variation on earth. If you look at a large finite number and call it infinite, you will be led to faulty conclusions. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:53 | comment | added | infatuated | @BrysonS. Also note that infinity can be best demonstrated through logical reasoning and mystical introspection. Confirmation of transcendental truths take much mental exercise and training. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:46 | comment | added | infatuated | @BrysonS. It is an extensive topic, various related questions have to be examined, and some may seem outright foreign to you at the first glance. But what I wrote in the last the last two paragraphs were only observable evidences. But as you said some of them may be debatable. As for your particular issue with the beauty argument, it depends on your perspective. The mystic theistic view is that if one considers all phenomena as part of the greater Divine scheme of things, or in other words, through a holistic perspective, he or she shall never find any ugliness or flaw in the creation. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:34 | comment | added | Bryson S. | For our purposes, I am perfectly happy to accept invisible entities. The burden of my question lies entirely in discerning the finite versus infinite nature of said entities. You seem to have not provided a basis for the assertion that the creator of Nature is infinite, only the assumption that Nature is infinitely beautiful. But how would we know Nature is infinite? Also, is all of Nature beautiful? Presumably it's all made by the same perfect deity, so it would make sense that all of it should strike us as beautiful. But some things in Nature are, without doubt, aesthetically rebarbative. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:20 | comment | added | infatuated | @BrysonS., philosophical arguments rely on principles of logic and abstract concepts. The observable empirical evidences can be however taken as a basis for explaining phenomena that are not directly observable but can be inferred from the observable data. For example from observation of beauty in nature, one is related to the concept of beauty independent of its sensual referent. And it is ultimately based on contemplating the observable that we can find our way to the invisible. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:16 | comment | added | Bryson S. | Additionally, if we do not start from the assumption that God exists and is infinite, how could the vast beauty of Nature sway the skeptical observer? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:11 | comment | added | Bryson S. | I am questioning our ultimate ability to reason accurately. If our fundamental axioms turn out to be false, then the most rigorous proof of a proposition would be rendered meaningless. I am looking for a more empirical approach. For example, the proposition "The surface of the Sun is 6000K" can be unambiguously verified with observations that produce publicly available, intersubjective data. Is there anything analogous for the God envisaged by Anselm? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:08 | comment | added | infatuated | @BrysonS. So are you only recognizing purely observable raw evidences with not attempt at making logical inferences from the observable data? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 3:01 | comment | added | Bryson S. | Two beings stand before you: one is infinite, one is not. How do you tell which is which? If you cannot, how do you even know that an infinite being exists without assuming it a priori? I am asking about evidence, not subjective impressions of the grandeur of the universe (which can be just as readily expressed in non-theistic terms). | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:51 | history | edited | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor modification in wording.
|
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:45 | history | answered | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |