Comments on: Failure of the Aquinas Proofs of God http://www.reasonabledissent.com/failure-aquinas-proofs-god/ Open-minded thoughts on atheism, religion, theism and science. Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:25:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: More (dis)Proof of God | Reasonable Dissent http://www.reasonabledissent.com/failure-aquinas-proofs-god/comment-page-1/#comment-78 More (dis)Proof of God | Reasonable Dissent Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:41:07 +0000 http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=125#comment-78 [...] Last time, I discussed the ‘prime mover‘ argument, specifically the formulation put forth by Aquinas, since his annoys me more than most (it’s the way he asserts the Christian god at the end that does it, I think). But I got an interesting comment that reminds me why mathematical proofs are so satisfying to me. The commenter mentioned the idea, “What’s infinity times zero?” So what does math have to say about this? My response was this: Strictly math-speaking, you simply cannot do that operation because infinity is not a number. It’s tantamount to saying “what is zero times chair?” Infinity is a tricky thing to get a hold of anyway. For example, there are an infinite number of integers. This is a class of infinity called “countably infinite”. But there’s another class called “uncountably infinite”, for example the real numbers. Take my set of numbers here (1.2, 1.22, 1.222, 1.2222, …) You can see how I’m constructing them. I could continue this series forever, always increasing and never reach 1.3. You could not assign an integer in a 1:1 fashion to the real numbers. So is uncountably infinite greater than countably infinite? They’re both infinity… [...] [...] Last time, I discussed the ‘prime mover‘ argument, specifically the formulation put forth by Aquinas, since his annoys me more than most (it’s the way he asserts the Christian god at the end that does it, I think). But I got an interesting comment that reminds me why mathematical proofs are so satisfying to me. The commenter mentioned the idea, “What’s infinity times zero?” So what does math have to say about this? My response was this: Strictly math-speaking, you simply cannot do that operation because infinity is not a number. It’s tantamount to saying “what is zero times chair?” Infinity is a tricky thing to get a hold of anyway. For example, there are an infinite number of integers. This is a class of infinity called “countably infinite”. But there’s another class called “uncountably infinite”, for example the real numbers. Take my set of numbers here (1.2, 1.22, 1.222, 1.2222, …) You can see how I’m constructing them. I could continue this series forever, always increasing and never reach 1.3. You could not assign an integer in a 1:1 fashion to the real numbers. So is uncountably infinite greater than countably infinite? They’re both infinity… [...]

]]> By: Carl http://www.reasonabledissent.com/failure-aquinas-proofs-god/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Carl Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:44 +0000 http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=125#comment-73 Ah, but what *IS* zero times infinity? Strictly math-speaking, you simply cannot do that operation because infinity is not a number. It's tantamount to saying "what is zero times chair?" Infinity is a tricky thing to get a hold of anyway. For example, there are an infinite number of integers. This is a class of infinity called "countably infinite". But there's another class called "uncountably infinite", for example the real numbers. Take my set of numbers here (1.2, 1.22, 1.222, 1.2222, ...) You can see how I'm constructing them. I could continue this series forever, always increasing and never reach 1.3. You could not assign an integer in a 1:1 fashion to the real numbers. So is uncountably infinite greater than countably infinite? They're both infinity... But back to our philosophical discussion (sorry, I like math, so I tend to digress when it comes up :) ). I'm not sure I follow your chain of thought. The 'something else' is still something. If we're to claim that something cannot come from nothing, why is 'something else' special in this regard? What sets it apart from the other stuff? Ah, but what *IS* zero times infinity? Strictly math-speaking, you simply cannot do that operation because infinity is not a number. It’s tantamount to saying “what is zero times chair?” Infinity is a tricky thing to get a hold of anyway. For example, there are an infinite number of integers. This is a class of infinity called “countably infinite”. But there’s another class called “uncountably infinite”, for example the real numbers. Take my set of numbers here (1.2, 1.22, 1.222, 1.2222, …) You can see how I’m constructing them. I could continue this series forever, always increasing and never reach 1.3. You could not assign an integer in a 1:1 fashion to the real numbers. So is uncountably infinite greater than countably infinite? They’re both infinity…

But back to our philosophical discussion (sorry, I like math, so I tend to digress when it comes up :) ). I’m not sure I follow your chain of thought. The ’something else’ is still something. If we’re to claim that something cannot come from nothing, why is ’something else’ special in this regard? What sets it apart from the other stuff?

]]> By: Jim http://www.reasonabledissent.com/failure-aquinas-proofs-god/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Jim Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:00:02 +0000 http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=125#comment-72 Forgive my simplistic approach to this problem but when people ask, "How did something come from nothing." I tend to think like this, "What is zero times infinity? Zero, always zero. Therefore, something could not have come out of nothing, it's not mathematically possible. What was the thing that was before this? I call it 'something else.' I think the universe has always existed, ie, it's age is infinite. Infinity and nothingness are two concepts that the human brain can't understand very well. Forgive my simplistic approach to this problem but when people ask, “How did something come from nothing.” I tend to think like this, “What is zero times infinity? Zero, always zero. Therefore, something could not have come out of nothing, it’s not mathematically possible. What was the thing that was before this? I call it ’something else.’ I think the universe has always existed, ie, it’s age is infinite. Infinity and nothingness are two concepts that the human brain can’t understand very well.

]]>