Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

According to an atheist, there are few, if any, reasons to believe that God exists, and the God belief has been passed down from pre-scientific times in the guise of religion. The atheist often believes this in itself is good reason to reject the existence of God. The atheist might even say it is not rational to believe in God. Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

An infinite moment is a moment that is not finite. That is what infinite means. If we were to say that 1 finite second is infinitely small compared to an infinitely long duration we would be correct but the second itself would still be finite in itself. It is only the observation from the position of the infinite duration that makes the finite second appear infinitely small. Any number of these finite moments (which appear to be infinitely small), even an infinite number of them, would never add up to be equal to the infinite moment.

No. An infinite number of seconds would be an infinitely long duration.

Even an infinite number of such infinite moments would never even become more than an infinitely small moment in comparison to the infinately long duration.

Did you mean to say that? An infinite number of infinite moments is an infinitely long duration, how could it be infinitely small to itself?

As you see, a finite action could then never reach completion by any application of infinitely small "elements" of the action.

Why do we have to limit ourselves to a finite action? An infinitesimal duration occurs infinitely fast, so any actual time duration (i.e., proper time) is all that is needed. Remember, a finite duration of time is composed of an infinite number of infinitesimals. So, if we have the duration (i.e., what we experience as the flow of time), then infinitesimals can compose that duration. There is no paradox.

It is not possible to divide an infinite amount by a infinite number and reach a finite answer.

Again, you need to talk about infinitesimals and not infinite amounts and infinite numbers. You are confusing yourself. (By the way, an infinite number of seconds divided by an infinite number of seconds is one second.)

Multiplication requires the application of addition sets to one another. How such an application of such a set that itself by definition itself contain all other such sets is unclear so please show me how this would be possible.

This paragraph is confusing to me. Can you restate it? If you mean how is multiplication possible between an infinite number and an infinitesimal number (i.e., infinity * 1/infinity), the answer is that the infinite numbers cancel themselves out. For example, if you multiply 4 * 1/4, the 4's cancel themselves out.

Of course you could say that a negative number could be infinite if not for the fact that negative numbers are purely conceptual. If you were to say that an infinite number multiplied by an infinite negative number were to equal 1 then this would be incorrect as following your reasoning this would in fact be negative 1.

No. A negative number multiplied by a positive number is the negative of the product of the two numbers. Similarly, an infinite positive number multiplied by the negative of an infinite number of the same cardinality is a negative infinite number.

For any number to be divisible by itself and reach the answer 1, it must be finite itself

No. If a=infinity, then a * 1/a = 1. The value for a can be any value except 0.

even if its finiteness is set by itself. It is simply impossible to divide 1 by infinity and reach an answer. Go on, try it if you don't believe me.

That's the definition of an infinitesimal. So, why would you think that has to be a finite value?

1/infinity = >0
infinity*(>0) = infinity.........NOT 1.

You have to follow the rules of multiplication. The infinities cancel themselves out.

I really don't think that my original explanation needed correcting at all. How exactly have you shown that an infinite number of infinite moments equals a finite moment? The addition of 1 infinite moment to another would still makes the result infinite.

The rules of multiplication show that this would be the case. Also, you were talking about infinite moments and I'm talking about infinitesimal moments, they are different animals altogether.

That you think that there is a difference other than a difference in perspective shows that it is not I who is confused.

I've never heard someone calling an infinitesimal as equivalent to an infinite number. I understand why you want to make an infinitesimal as equivalent to an infinite number, but that is where the source of your confusion lies. The infinitesimal has an infinite number of zeros to the right of the decimal point, but that doesn't make it an infinite number.

It was meant as an explanation of how a finite moment could be considered to be infinite and how infinite moments could be considered finite, depending on your point of view. I think it absurd that you suggest I should drop special relativity in an argument that is discussing the very nature of time.

Special relativity is not needed to be considered since I'm not talking about other frames of reference. If you talk about other frames of reference, the slicing of time is based on their own frame of reference. Nowhere here have I suggested that this slicing of time can be done such that simultaneous moments across frames of reference can be applied. All the infinitesimals being considered are from a single frame of reference.

Far from being an attempt to support my case I am merely pointing out my own observations of your own. If you wish me to drop SR completely then I will happily do so but this does seem rather foolish for you to insist upon as the observations I have mentioned seem to strengthen your case rather than weaken it.

I don't see the relevance. The issue at hand is two things:

1. If time is discrete, then what causes the smallest finite duration of time to effect the next smallest finite duration of time that immediately follows that duration.
2. If time is indiscrete, then what causes an infinitesimal duration of time to effect the next infinitesimal duration of time that immediately follows that duration.

That's what is up for consideration here. I understand that you have a problem with (2), and that's okay if you do, I don't buy into time being infinitely divisible either. My point, though, is that if the materialist rejects (1) because they see time as infinitely divisible, then the problem does not go away for them.

And this shows that theism is rational how exactly?

Because causal relations as real structures can explain how it is that A causes B. There is a relation that exists which tie the two structures together. If such relations exist, then there is a truth to the relation which separates the relation from being false. If there is actual truth to the relation, then the relation must be satisfied. It is this satisfaction relation that points to mind since only mind can verify that a relation has indeed been satisfied. Hence, God exists and atheism is wrong.

[harvey1]

You are committing the error of believing that infinitessimal time-slicing has any bearing on understanding causality.

I've never heard of that fallacy before. Okay, let's ignore infinitesimals for an infinitesimal second. If we ask what causes the smallest finite period of time to bring about the effects for the next smallest finite period that immediately follows the previous finite period, then what material thing can bring that about?

don't recall mentioning a paradox. I'm simply saying there are times when time-slicing is not a useful tool for understanding. To paraphrase a famous quote, "When all you have is a butcher knife, everything looks like a side of beef."

Why not just say that it is useful and that materialism is wrong? Why do you immediately and unequivocally say that materialism is right and the conceptual problems would magically go away if you had all-knowledge? It would seem to me that this conceptual issue shows that materialist beliefs are obviously wrong. I've shown other arguments as well, and each time the response is the same. Sometimes I gather from the atheists here that they believe that their view is above the law of reasoning. Is that what you believe, you are above the law when it comes to justifying your own beliefs?

To me, it seems like you are dismissing these conceptual problems because of a strain of irrationality that has affected your reasoning processes. It gives me reason to believe that atheists will not back away from an irrational belief even when they quite obviously cannot provide any possible answer.

Now, before you get all huffy with this. Let's recall our conversation a week ago about the PoE. There you were quick and confident that conceptual difficulties with a belief should cause us to abandon a belief in an all-good, all-powerful God. You're being entirely hypocritical in this respect because now you wish to say that conceptual problems do not warrant this kind of change in belief. What is it? Do conceptual problems at a fundamental level warrant a change in belief, or don't they? If they don't, then why did you say a week ago that they did? I have another phrase for you, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

That is not the point I am making. I'm saying that if a solution is found, it is guaranteed not to be to your satisfaction, if you insist on ever-more-granular explanations for explanations.

If you want to start out with a causal principle, I have no problem with that. However, you only get to start out with it. If you want to keep advocating it over and over between each slice of time, well now that's becoming a bit ridiculous, don't you think? So, if you want to say that the first finite moment in time (or first infinitesimal moment in time) was uncaused, then that in itself is not a problem. However, if you want to say the whole universe up to 5 minutes ago is uncaused, or something along those lines, that's too much of a stretch. Another stretch is asking us to say that the universe keeps doing this popping into existence only slightly different each moment, that's way too much of a stretch. So, I think you must face these conceptual difficulties and just admit that the materialist philosophy is wrong. This would leave you with a non-materialist belief, and I'm afraid, a step closer to believing in something you don't want to believe (For who knows why. I would think you would be jumping up and down that the universe could have a God, but I'm sure you have your reasons.)

First, THH, please give an explanation for the bleen.

I rest my case.

Your case is that I'm asking you to provide a rational argument for the paradoxes affecting your belief system. I wish I would have used that line last week when we were talking about the PoE. Oh how you would have mocked me. I'm much kinder in that I just point out the absurdity.

When you resort to re-parsing my sentences to make trivial, immaterial points, I have to question the rationality of your arguments. That phrase was not meant to stand on its own in this context, and you know it.

THH, this is not what should get you to question the rationality of an argument. What should get you to question the rationality of an argument is your own inability to respond to a conceptual problem that in principle has no solution.

My point is that you have constructed an argument to which there can be no satisfactory reply, in the deluded belief that it makes a rational point. Insisting on ever-more-granular explanations is a child's game, and approaches - dare I say it? - irrationality.

How is it irrational? What fallacies have I committed that leads you to that conclusion. From my perspective it looks like you believe so strongly in your philosophy that just the mere questioning of that belief is a fallacy in your mind. If that is what you want to think about your beliefs, then I guess that's the point of departure for us. I can only provide you the arguments I have and respond to the arguments you have. If you want to see my arguments as irrational only because it contradicts what you believe, that's fine, but I don't know why you would want to believe something that has such deep conceptual problems associated with it.

We've managed to use science to nail down explanations for just about everything, save for the first few moments of existence, the exact nature of consciousness, and a few other minor details, and now we're down to infinitely small pieces of time?

THH, excuse me, but this is just complete rhetoric on your part. Scientists have believed for centuries that laws exist and have been the hidden cause for many of the regularities we observe in nature. There have been a great many scientists who have believed in God down through the ages. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Liebniz, Pascal,..., Einstein, Schrodinger, Wigner, etc., etc.. who all thought that God was behind these laws of physics. So, you can believe if you wish that materialism has been undeniable since the beginning of science, but that's just completely false. You have a prejudiced point of view, I realize that, but please understand, if we are to communicate at all beyond rhetoric, then we must exchange reasons between each other. If you cannot provide reasons, and indeed insist that your beliefs are above the need to give reason, then what is the point of having these discussions? All we can do is exchange rhetoric. Not very useful at all.

I just don't understand the unwillingness here to consider that your beliefs are wrong. What's up with that?

Please, spare me your attempts to claim the philosophical high ground. We (non-theists) are here because we've considered the possibility of our wrongness over and over and over and over, and the more we consider it, the more sense a materialistic universe makes to us, especially when the best argument your side can make is that we still haven't nailed down causality. Its simple parsimony, Harvey.

I doubt you've considered it as much as me, but no matter, it's not about how you consider an issue. It boils down to providing conceptual solutions or accepting that your view is tainted by irrationality.

It's because you have to write paragraphs like this...[long paragraph explaining conceptual issues in a very theoretical way]......when we can write paragraphs like this: "No god. Stuff happens. We're working on why."

All you've done is taken the fundamentalist view that Goddidit to another extreme that Stuffdidit. But, notice, when arguments come along that suggest that Stuffdidntdoit, you accuse me of heresy and cheating. Just last week you were hoping that conceptual issues would be your reason to claim higher ground, but how quick things change in a week. Now you just want to say that conceptual arguments are cheating and childish.

This has been fun, Harv, but please, get off your high horse and stop with the "we've shown atheism to be irrational" bit. You've done no such thing.

Jim, all that I ask is that you give sound reasons for your belief. I am not asking you to do what I am not willing to do myself. That's fair, I think.

[QED]

What's bothering me Harvey11 is that when I go through all my popular science books I can't find physicists talking about this issue of what links one moment to another. As I said, coincidentally I had just started reading Brian Greenes latest book when you first posed this question and the first few chapters were specifically addressing the question of "what time is". Neither Hawking, Feynman, Wheeler or any other regular publishers in this field seem to have had the slightest concern for what keeps things ticking. I'd dearly like to know what they'd make of it.

And that's the problem, I don't think it's a question for Physicists at all. Some questions are only valid in the realm of philosophy and not all philosophical questions have a bearing on the real world. I haven't had time to check the links you provided but I will try to find time soon. I hope I can follow the thinking and I hope it leads to unmistakably real-world issues.

[Curious]

An infinite moment is a moment that is not finite. That is what infinite means. If we were to say that 1 finite second is infinitely small compared to an infinitely long duration we would be correct but the second itself would still be finite in itself. It is only the observation from the position of the infinite duration that makes the finite second appear infinitely small. Any number of these finite moments (which appear to be infinitely small), even an infinite number of them, would never add up to be equal to the infinite moment.

No. An infinite number of seconds would be an infinitely long duration.

Perhaps it would appear so from the finite seconds perspective but not from the perspective of the infinitely long duration. From this perspective any multiplication of these infinitely small moments would always remain infinitely small.

Even an infinite number of such infinite moments would never even become more than an infinitely small moment in comparison to the infinately long duration.

Did you mean to say that? An infinite number of infinite moments is an infinitely long duration, how could it be infinitely small to itself?

As I have previously pointed out above.

As you see, a finite action could then never reach completion by any application of infinitely small "elements" of the action.

Why do we have to limit ourselves to a finite action? An infinitesimal duration occurs infinitely fast, so any actual time duration (i.e., proper time) is all that is needed. Remember, a finite duration of time is composed of an infinite number of infinitesimals. So, if we have the duration (i.e., what we experience as the flow of time), then infinitesimals can compose that duration. There is no paradox.

I use finite action because that is all we can measure in terms of outcome.

It is not possible to divide an infinite amount by a infinite number and reach a finite answer.

Again, you need to talk about infinitesimals and not infinite amounts and infinite numbers. You are confusing yourself. (By the way, an infinite number of seconds divided by an infinite number of seconds is one second.)

I have no doubt that I may be confusing you, but I never confuse myself.
By the way, it is impossible to divide anything by infinity, let alone infinity.

Multiplication requires the application of addition sets to one another. How such an application of such a set that itself by definition itself contain all other such sets is unclear so please show me how this would be possible.

This paragraph is confusing to me. Can you restate it? If you mean how is multiplication possible between an infinite number and an infinitesimal number (i.e., infinity * 1/infinity), the answer is that the infinite numbers cancel themselves out. For example, if you multiply 4 * 1/4, the 4's cancel themselves out.

These rules apply to numbers only if they are finite.

Of course you could say that a negative number could be infinite if not for the fact that negative numbers are purely conceptual. If you were to say that an infinite number multiplied by an infinite negative number were to equal 1 then this would be incorrect as following your reasoning this would in fact be negative 1.

No. A negative number multiplied by a positive number is the negative of the product of the two numbers. Similarly, an infinite positive number multiplied by the negative of an infinite number of the same cardinality is a negative infinite number.

I was of course referring to your multiplication by (1/infinity) which as a number is infinite.

For any number to be divisible by itself and reach the answer 1, it must be finite itself

No. If a=infinity, then a * 1/a = 1. The value for a can be any value except 0.

Except for the fact that you cannot divide by infinity. Any answer(even theoretically) is never more precise than 1/infinity = >0

even if its finiteness is set by itself. It is simply impossible to divide 1 by infinity and reach an answer. Go on, try it if you don't believe me.

That's the definition of an infinitesimal. So, why would you think that has to be a finite value?

I am saying that only finite values can be used. The quantities you are talking about by definition cannot be used.

1/infinity = >0
infinity*(>0) = infinity.........NOT 1.

You have to follow the rules of multiplication. The infinities cancel themselves out.

Yes you do, for finite quantities and relationships but not for infinity. Imagine an infinite number of bags containing an infinite number of oranges. Would each bag by necessity contain exactly 1 orange or is it just as reasonable to have each bag containing an infinite number of oranges or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc. etc. etc.? This cancelling out of infinities simply doesn't work Harvey1.

I really don't think that my original explanation needed correcting at all. How exactly have you shown that an infinite number of infinite moments equals a finite moment? The addition of 1 infinite moment to another would still makes the result infinite.

The rules of multiplication show that this would be the case. Also, you were talking about infinite moments and I'm talking about infinitesimal moments, they are different animals altogether.

Infinitely small to finite is just the same as finite to infinitely large. The only difference is the direction of approach. As I show quite clearly above, the rules do not apply to infinite numbers.

That you think that there is a difference other than a difference in perspective shows that it is not I who is confused.

I've never heard someone calling an infinitesimal as equivalent to an infinite number. I understand why you want to make an infinitesimal as equivalent to an infinite number, but that is where the source of your confusion lies. The infinitesimal has an infinite number of zeros to the right of the decimal point, but that doesn't make it an infinite number.

Of course it is infinite. It is not finite therefore it is infinite. Mathematically speaking such a countless number of digits is precisely what makes it infinite. I think the confusion is yours. You attempt to define infinite one way and prove it another. We are both using mathematical argument here to show our point yet you do not seem to understand what a mathematical infinite is.

Special relativity is not needed to be considered since I'm not talking about other frames of reference. If you talk about other frames of reference, the slicing of time is based on their own frame of reference. Nowhere here have I suggested that this slicing of time can be done such that simultaneous moments across frames of reference can be applied. All the infinitesimals being considered are from a single frame of reference.

How can you even suggest that SR need not be considered. Finite and infinite time cannot be discussed sensibly without considering it. It might well be argued that it is the only point worth considering.

Far from being an attempt to support my case I am merely pointing out my own observations of your own. If you wish me to drop SR completely then I will happily do so but this does seem rather foolish for you to insist upon as the observations I have mentioned seem to strengthen your case rather than weaken it.

I don't see the relevance.

Unfortunately, that is becoming ever more apparent.

I understand that you have a problem with (2), and that's okay if you do, I don't buy into time being infinitely divisible either. My point, though, is that if the materialist rejects (1) because they see time as infinitely divisible, then the problem does not go away for them.

Don't get me wrong here, I am perfectly amenable with time being infinitely divisible (in theory at least) and, although my arguments may appear at first glance to show a stance contrary to your own, they give as much support for your argument regarding this point as against. It is not my intention to show your position is wrong but that the argument itself has many obvious weaknesses UNLESS we take into consideration special relativity. Information transfer is one particular area where I believe you have made a grave error in judgement but that is not to say that the rest of your argument may not have some merit regarding other considerations. In a subject as immense as the nature of time, physical reality and causation we can only ever hope to scratch the surface. Some times when we scratch we uncover what seems to be gold but on further analysis we may find that it is fools gold, other times we might find a real nugget but this is rare. Most times we find nothing but if we are lucky we might end up with the smallest glimmer if we expend the time and effort to extract the dross.

...Hence, God exists and atheism is wrong.

But simply being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it is rational. It is possible for a rational choice to be the wrong choice so long as the choice was made for sound reasons. The argument here is concerning the rationalism of theism not the correctness of atheism.

[Cathar1950]

The purpose of reason is to promote the art of reason

AN Whitehead.
QED wrote:

What's bothering me Harvey11 is that when I go through all my popular science books I can't find physicists talking about this issue of what links one moment to another.

Metaphysics maybe. AN Whitehead's process philosophy would be a good example.
It seems that this discusions is leaning towards metaphysical considerations. This could be just the nature of our present lack of knowledge and experience.
It maybe that at the basic bottom line is the universe it's self is irrational or at least not rational.
I don't know. I tend towards the hope of the rational but I could be misguided and it seems that I am not willing to start living in a (on purpose anyway)meaning less universe, hence reason.
I think that some of the concepts of God are a little unreasonalbe,
But I can not say all of it is. I don't know that much and i don't know that anyone that really does.

[harvey1]

What's bothering me Harvey11

You can call me Harvey. 1 is my last name--not 11.

is that when I go through all my popular science books I can't find physicists talking about this issue of what links one moment to another. As I said, coincidentally I had just started reading Brian Greenes latest book when you first posed this question and the first few chapters were specifically addressing the question of "what time is". Neither Hawking, Feynman, Wheeler or any other regular publishers in this field seem to have had the slightest concern for what keeps things ticking. I'd dearly like to know what they'd make of it.

And, you won't see them take too much concern for this issue because they would all agree with me that there are laws of physics that provide a causal link between one moment to the next. If you want to accept that approach, I'm more than happy to accept your coming over with me to this stance. Then we can discuss whether mind is necessary based on the satisfaction relation.

And that's the problem, I don't think it's a question for Physicists at all. Some questions are only valid in the realm of philosophy and not all philosophical questions have a bearing on the real world. I haven't had time to check the links you provided but I will try to find time soon. I hope I can follow the thinking and I hope it leads to unmistakably real-world issues.

Physicists don't really think like a pure materialist. Quantum theories probably make it impossible anyway. So these paradoxes are specifically directed toward those who say there are no real causal relations (i.e., there are no laws).

[harvey1]

Metaphysics maybe. AN Whitehead's process philosophy would be a good example. It seems that this discusions is leaning towards metaphysical considerations. This could be just the nature of our present lack of knowledge and experience. It maybe that at the basic bottom line is the universe it's self is irrational or at least not rational. I don't know. I tend towards the hope of the rational but I could be misguided and it seems that I am not willing to start living in a (on purpose anyway)meaning less universe, hence reason. I think that some of the concepts of God are a little unreasonalbe, But I can not say all of it is. I don't know that much and i don't know that anyone that really does.

I think the universe has a holistic element, and this might strike some as irrational, but I don't think that means it is. It just means that certain broader ways of thinking are required to have a better comprehension of the universe.

[Cathar1950]

I tend to see the universe as holistic and inter-related.
This might explain why of spooky actions at a distance. But not how.
i am not sure it is irrational maybe non-rational like in feeling or even the quantum wave/particle duality problem. We may not understand it but that doesn't make it irrational. like i said maybe non-rational. I would think that even reason as powerful as it is has it's limits do to the nature of the universe and change and possibility. Probability is our best bet with historical data but it is always historical and contingent.

[Curious]

To Harvey1

Just to illustrate my point concerning the cancellation of infinities.

1*infinity = 5*infinity

ok lets cancel out the infinities

1 = 5

Err wait, that's not right is it?

[Cathar1950]

What is half (1/2) of infinity? Infinity right?
I better go water my plant and the guy next door to me is acting weird.
I keep thinking we are going to find bodies someday in his apartment.