70

You have re-found a well-known paradox -- Zeno's. This is just a compact version of Zeno's paradox. Instead of time and space, what you are dividing against one another are two spaces. The corner has zero probability of ending up anywhere, the same way that the point where Achilles overtakes the tortoise has zero breadth. In fact, in modern statistical ...


29

No, Hawking did not just prove God's existence. Here's why: Even if your argument is true (it's not), it would only imply the existence of something that is capable of causing universes. This "universe-causer" need not even be sentient, and certainly wouldn't have to be a God. The problem with invoking God as the cause through arguing that "nothing is ...


28

No There are several problems with your assumption How did God come into existence if things do not come into existence? You would need to alter the first statement to "Created things do not come into existence uncaused" This argument can be expanded indefinetely and is known as Turtles all the way down. The Cosmological argument exaplains other ...


28

We run into essentially the same problem almost any time we try to combine the real numbers as described by mathematics with probability theory. When applying probability theory to something like a coin flip, a die, or a deck of cards, we use what's known as a Probability Mass Function to assign a probability value to each possible result. What's the ...


16

If you make the supposition that no thing inside the universe could generate the universe and that every thing that exists is inside the universe than the direct conclusion is that the universe was not generated by a thing, which is similar to saying that it was generated by nothing. The difficulty here is that you have to ask yourself what you mean by "...


14

Zeno's Paradox is not a paradox. It is an attack on loose thinking. By emphasising the infinite nature of one thing, and not mentioning the infinite nature of another, it confuses people into thinking something is impossible. The emphasis, in Zeno's Paradox, is upon the infinite number of times a distance can be subdivided, giving the impression that it ...


12

The problem is that probability 0 does not mean 'impossible'. If you have someone flip coins forever, what is the probability that he will never encounter a head? Well, it's zero. But it's possible! In fact, every specific infinite sequence of heads and tails is infinitely improbable; that is, its probability is zero. Still, none is impossible: one of them ...


11

Aquinas claims that "Things do not come into existence uncaused", but how does he know this to be true? Is there any rigorous way he can eliminate the possibility that every once in a very great while (perhaps just once, in fact), something did arise uncaused? Second: if he is willing to accept an uncaused God, is there any reason not to accept an uncaused ...


11

We can not carry the argument past the first step because if our physical laws are simulated then we know nothing about the "physics" of the world that does the simulating. In particular, it may make no sense to say that one computer is "bigger" than another if they function by completely different principles, space or time as we know them may not apply to ...


9

A universe having a finite volume can be unbounded in length and have unbounded cross-sectional area. The example I have in mind is mathematical, not physical. It's called Gabriel's Horn. It's a standard example in first-year calculus. It's also called Toricelli's Trumpet, after Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo. His discovery of this strange ...


8

There are some people who believe our universe is contained within a "multiverse" which contains all possibilities (which personally I find a depressing prospect, since it would arguably reduce to meaninglessness any given event happening anywhere). The "multiverse" is highly speculative, however, and there are plenty of other people who disbelieve in it ...


6

Not only is the answer an obvious "no" because the premises don't restrict the solution to an entity that would conventionally be called God (e.g. the universe is a forgotten and unattended simulation on a computer in another universe with vastly more computational power than ours), there are other possibilities that haven't even been considered. For ...


6

Look at what Peter van Inwagen says in his book "metaphysics" (an excellent read) on this issue. He accuses physicists who claim to have solved the philosophical problem of origin or creation of conflating the notion of "philosophical nothingness" with "physical nothingness". The problem with many answers from physics, as @infatuated pointed out, is they ...


6

Plato's thought has been hugely influential on world religions, with Platonic ideas having been integrated into Christianity (and arguably Islam), via the intermediary of Plotinus, a influential philosopher in the Platonic tradition. You can legitimately argue that Plato's orientation to philosophy is essentially religious, with the philosopher's ...


6

Mathematics is a study. That requires an agent. From Wikipedia on Mathematics: Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of such topics as quantity, structure, space, and change. But the next sentence says: [Mathematics] has no generally accepted definition. ...and goes on to link to Definitions of ...


5

A question like, How can I prove something exists? must be placed in a context. Who is asking, and what will they accept as proof? In an ordinary everyday sort of way, it might be answered by saying that something is the object of our senses: I can prove this apple exists because I can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it. In less simple examples, one ...


5

Think of ∀xP(x) as an implicit conditional: ∀x(xϵU → P(x)), where U is the universe. In an empty universe the antecedent is always false, hence the conditional is vacuously true. In contrast, ∃xP(x) is an implicit conjunction ∃x(xϵU ∧ P(x)), so it is vacuously false. This is in line with the standard way of transcribing "all humans are liars" with a ...


5

The issue is complex and any "significant" answer is hardly reducible to the Yes/No pattern. In modern mathematics, 2+2=4 is a theorem of arithmetic provable from Peano axioms. In a nutshell, assuming the definition of 1 as "the successor of 0" and of 2 as "the successor of 1" and ... and of 4 as "the successor of 3" (and thus "the successor of the ...


5

Theory of Everything does not explain everything The Theory of Everything is a hypothesized way of describing all four of the fundamentals forces within one theory. Today only three of those fit together, with Gravity being the odd one out. But even if we find out such a theory, that does not — in any way — describe everything else we need to do science ...


5

There's a distinction dating from Frege (or earlier, perhaps the Stoics or Aristotle) between identity and individuation. There is no way of individuating the universe (taken as a whole of reality) since there is nothing (else) to distinguish it from. If, however, following Frege, we interpret identity as continuity over time, there seems no insuperable ...


4

Just because the Universe has a beginning does not mean that there had to be a god to create it. There could have been a cause that was not God. Perhaps there was a Universe that Predated our that no longer exists but was the roots of the creation of our universe. As we have no data upon which to evaluate this universe or any other competing or ...


4

It's not a counter-argument to Aquinas, but others have already adressed it. I just want to say that Hawking's actual stance on the subject has changed. He argues that the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal (which is a way to compute the wavefunction of the universe) can be interpreted to mean that the universe had a beginning and still was not created. ...


4

There's a whole bunch of related questions in there - too many for a concise answer. What you are asking is related to three main questions: 1. The question of strong AI, i.e. can there be a computer that does everything humans do? 2. The hard problem of consciousness: even if there is such a computer, would it be conscious like us? 3. The simulation ...


4

"Possible" really depends on what you have accepted as true Solipsism: Assuming you're the only perceiving being and everyone else is a figment of your imagination, your subconscious keeping you company then yes. Perhaps you're a lonely "God" who has created some world within their mind and proceeded to live inside it and wipe their mind of the memory of ...


4

What you describe is a fundamental aspect of probability distributions (in Mathematics), i.e. the probability of each point tends to zero, which is why probabilities are calculated on intervals or areas (in case here is an introduction). The smaller the interval the smaller the probability. At the level of a point, it is considered zero. Nevertheless, you ...


4

The problem is that all positions on the table have the same probability. That means the probability for the ashtray to hit any position on the table is zero. Not quite. The probability for the ashtray to hit any given position on the table is zero. But as you have observed, you can most certainly lay the arrow on the table and get a new position. ...


4

I will present a possible explanation for why the fiercest defenders of natural sciences often ended up with the most idealistic metaphysics in the history of the philosophy of science: Science is incomplete without a metaphysical background, i.e. methodological and ontological reflections on its very possibility. Hellmuth Plessner delivers a nice argument ...


4

Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism. For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states: Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its ...


3

Pi is not infinite; indeed it is smaller than the very finite number 4. What is infinite is the number of digits you need to represent pi in decimal representation. But that's a thing it shares with every irrational number, like the square root of 2, the golden mean, or the Euler number e. Moreover, this cyclic universe you describe was never the mainstream ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible