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

[bas_I_am]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

[bryantm3]

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

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Trust me. . its infinite... its a matter of resolution.

if n is the size of your ruler,

as n → 0, P → ∞

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...

[Deckard]

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.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

You and froopy do not understand Plank's length.

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.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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

Nah, it's just infatuation.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

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.

Originally Posted by myrrh

However, I don't see that as being an issue because the result of using logic leads us to the point that there must be something that always existed. Otherwise, one would have to say that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Huh???

Are you contending that the logic based in reality based logic can explain all truth within that reality?

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."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

this whole thread has gotten stupid because the people who believe in G-d can't prove it, and the people who don't believe are miserably failing at trying to disprove his existence.

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.