Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

first of all that's bad math. second of all, what is your point???

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Wouldn't it be prudent, for all practical purposes, to assume that n >= Planck length, which is 1.616... 10^-35m? I'm sure that with this, proof or disproof of God is imminent...

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

With Planck-length precision, froopy hits the nail on the head. Based on our current understanding of quantum physics, the infinity of the coastline paradox is merely conceptual, not physical. Yes, it's still a consciousness-raiser of a paradox - but as a way to demonstrate the physical existence of infinity within our Universe, it's useless.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

You and froopy do not understand Plank's length.

Plank's length does not define a limit to physical length, but defines the the length at which space-time is overcome by quantum effects. . . and the point at which the coastline would become unmeasurable due to its 'foaminess'

To say there is no infinity, is equvalent to saying there is no zero.

and bryant. . . there is nothing wrong with the math.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

I can assure you I do ;)

I'm not suggesting the Planck length is a mere uncuttable length in the sense that Democritus and others pondered 2,000 years ago. Clearly twentieth century physics taught us that the Planck limit is more profound and fundamental than that.

(Nor am I suggesting that the concept of infinity doesn't exist.)

What I am saying is that I think you are on dodgy ground if you point to this sub-quantum level, this seething quantum foam, and say "Hey look... infinity." It certainly aint infinity in the sense of the ever-growing length of the coastline paradox that you cited earlier.

We can say that eventually, when we reach the Planck length, it becomes unmeasurable, yes. Uncertain, yes. Maybe even turbulent - if we want to use that kind of imagery - yes. But infinite? Not in the sense of something that just 'continues' getting smaller and smaller beyond our ability to measure. I'm sure you at least agree that that's fundamentally not what the Planck limit represents. When you get down to the Planck length (and for that matter, Planck time), the very concept of 'going smaller' ceases to have meaning. And what's left can't just arbitrarily be called 'infinity'.

So when you say "the measurement of the perimiter goes on forever" that's just not true. It's not true of the measurement - and we can't even say it's true of the perimeter.

The analogy I heard years ago compared it to the idea of taking the temperature of a liquid. You can stick a thermometer in a jar of water and take the temperature - no problem. But get to the level of individual H20 molecules and the very concept of temperature ceases to have meaning. In other words, the limit isn't a practical one, it's a conceptual one. And that's why the notion of a perimeter that we can keep measuring for infinity - as in the coastline paradox - is a fundamentally flawed one.

As for God - I think he's an 82 dimensional sphere. Who loves us. :D

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Nah, it's just infatuation.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

That's not quite accurate. Yes, eternity is something we can't comprehend, but so is the concept of an eternal, conscious, omnipotent being that knowingly created the entire universe.

This is true, but there's no scientifically valid evidence that what has always existed is an all-knowing, all-powerful, mythical entity.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

No. I'm essentially contending that every aspect of god has been intentionally constructed to fall outside of human comprehension, thus making it impossible to ever have a way of proving or disproving his existence. And I was still addressing this point through the context of the debate I recounted earlier. Here it is once again:

"I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant."

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Who's trying to disprove his existence? I believe everyone who's said they don't personally believe in god in this thread has also said it's impossible to prove either way. I know I've said as much multiple times.