The caller tries playing innocent, in response to Matt's expectation that he would say the first cause is a god, he says "if you want to call it that." The big problem there is that he starts this whole thing out by saying he's going to define god. So it's really shameful to then pull out the old "I'm just saying there's a first cause, I'm not saying it's god" bit that so many theists cynically use.
Caller: If time was infininate then we would never have gotten here, right? Jen: No, we've been there before... LOL. Jen was referring to the staleness of the argument, but when applied to the context of the question... it's a brilliantly ironic.
Okay, Christians, just because science can't answer the cause for abiogenesis doesn't mean that an invisible magic man who lives in the sky said "abracadabra, walla walla, poof" here's life. That's exactly the same as when mankind saw lightening and said that the explanation of that is some invisible guy in the sky saying "abracadabra, walla walla, poof" until science came along and explained where it came from. Just because science has no proven explanation today of the origin of life doesn't mean that only magic could have done it then because we cannot explain it any other way.
MegzeeR -- Yeah, it's funny how religion ALWAYS had an answer for events that happened...until science PROVED what they were, then religion tried to argue with science, or just 'forget' they ever said anything........ SMDH
The problem with the "first cause' issue is that you need to provide verifiable data and concrete, experimental based evidence on how your god{s} were created and evolved. Once that is established via peer reviewed essay analysis by established Physicists, Biologists and Chemists, you then are required to provide the data and experimental based evidence on how this god{s} made a universe and submit that paper for peer review and analysis via the same scrutiny; otherwise you are simply "making shit up" based on ancient superstition and delusion. Please submit both papers to me as well; Thank you. :)
1337penguinking no because infinity isn't a number therefore not on the number line you are positing people start from. Logic escapes you, but your avatar is smart. ...hagd and "d" is for doobie or delusion. your choice.
Matt's example of a circle actually has a better use to show how actual infinities can exist. On a circle, of any size > 0, there are an infinite number of points on that circle, all of them infinitesimally small. I cannot completely enumerate all of the points on that circle, yet I can draw, or traverse, the circle. Therefore it is possible to "traverse" infinities, even if we cannot enumerate them. Vic Stenger addressed the "infinite regress" problem at a skepticon event some time before his death. Needless to say, I don't find the infinite regress problem to be an actual problem. More to the point is that infinities tend to be difficult to understand!
+Atheist Lehman And a muslim speaker used this same argument. And no you arent traversing infinities, you are traversing that finite distance that you can break down into ever smaller parts. If you are going from point A to point B it is still a finite distance no matter if you break it down into 2 separate distances or separate it into an infinite amount of pieces. 5 miles is still 5 miles if you split it into ever smaller distances.
Theists A&B: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing is implied) Skeptic: Then where did god come from? Theist A: God has always existed. Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point. Theist B: God created herself. Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing.
It's like the guy on the phone has no idea that propositions can be disputed. He just has it in his head that everything he's about to say must be true, and that everyone must agree with him.
5:35 "It (infinity) is not a number. You can't get to infinity." As a mathematician, I agree with the second part, but not with the first. If you add the power series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 and so on, you could add a new term every second for a hundred years, and you'll never reach 1. But in math we do sort of use infinity as a number. If you add (1/2)^n from n=1 to n=infinity, the sum is defined to be 1.
Kenny's my favourite caller (even better than Eric). It cracked me up when he said, " *sigh* I never said that" on another call. And he's at least having a go, trying a better argument than "Look at the trees...". Keep at it, Kenny - knowledge will set you free!
@kropking You say they're there to have a discussion, but isn't it obvious that the caller isn't even listening to the counterpoints? The fact that they continue to try to reason with the caller is showing respect.
@RyanLeeParis: "All things have a cause" does not follow from "some things have a cause". Even if you assert "All things have a cause", it follows that the "first" cause also had a cause, which would be a contradiction. Therefore, you cannot use that assertion to prove a first cause exists. This assertion may be true if the universe has always existed in some form, which is yet another possibility (that you failed to mention). Also, depending on definitions, maybe not all things have a cause.
@DaveDoggOwns 1. Ego is like the appendix. It's there, but not essential for survival. 2. I'm responding to you because you commented towards me first, and having got me all wrong, I needed to correct you - ABOUT ME. It's not about being better, it's about clearing the air. 3. Mescaline makes you hallucinate? False. Now it's 100% clear you've never had the privilege...
Infinity is a concept really as well as a number. Between two points in space A - B. Theoretically there are an infinite number of spaces between them. e.g. 1/2 the distance, 1/4 the distance, 1/8 the distance, 1/16 the distance... etc...
My pet peeve is when believers attempt to use terminology or concepts from philosophy of mind and epistemology, a discipline I've done academic work in, as though they thought it up personally. I usually respond by pointing out that these disciplines have basically disproven any kind of meaningful free will, and have reduced our perception of choice to an operating system. I also inform them that intensity of religious belief may be directly tied to chemical reactions in the brain. Shuts 'em up.
I think I can see a mistake. In a hen house of religious chickens, the chickens realise that all the eggs are laid by chickens. So using "logic". they think that the hen house was laid by a giant chicken, which they worship But it wasn't. The giant chicken doesn't exist. It's a different logical realm. They have no way of finding out that the hen house was made from recycled wood by Mr Grant.
There are an infinite number of positive numbers and negative numbers. Zero is in the middle of all these numbers. If we can never get to "now", then we can never get to zero.
They could've brought up Zeno's paradox: there are infinitely many half-steps between me and the chair, yet I traversed it. Calculus shows us we can add infinitely many numbers and get a finite number. So just because infinity isn't intuitive to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Oh, sorry, I missed the 2nd part of your message; I'll just say I agree, those odds seem about right. Btw, who's Summer Glau (I'm sure I'm out of the loop on current celebs)?
Overall, the dude on the phone, typical guinea pig that happened to stumble onto scientific knowledge that he won't ever fully understand the implications of. Probable result = fail.
@DaveDoggOwns 1. You said "there is no escaping egoism". Not only is that false (I'm speaking from experience!), but it also implies that ego is inherent as well as permanent. Untrue. 2. That's your interperetation. I'm not trying to raise myself above him, merely trying to knock him down a notch... off his imaginary perch. WE'RE EQUAL. Just a friendly reminder. 3. Don't try to discuss mescaline with me when you clearly have no experience with it. That's simply foolish and you know it.
To sum up- It's slightly possible that there is some sort of god, but it's not any being that any human has ever worshiped, and by slightly possible I mean worse probability than the slight possibility of molecular structures of two solid objects aligning so precisely that they're able to flow through each other or the slightly further odds of me marrying Summer Glau.
Dr Who music is very appropriate. The universe can be traced back to a point particle known as a singularity at which point all our physical laws no longer make any sense. The big bang is not an explosion in the distance past it's the accelerating expansion of spacetime we currently observe from within that singularity. The whole thing is just as impossible for the human mind to comprehend as the interior of Dr Who's Tardis.
Yes but matt left a big hole when debating the first cause argument. The first cause argument DOES NOT state that there is not an infinite continuation, it states that there is a beggining to this now infinite continuity. Matt did NOT support his side of the debate much but instead supported the idea of the first cause theory more.
'There had to be a first cause of the universe, so that has to be 'God' (of the Old Testament)'....ok so then what was the first cause of your God? I'm sure he'd say his God exists, certainly he wouldn't say it does not exist.....so then there had to be a cause for it, by your own argument.
+davids11131113 I think the argument goes something like this: "God exists outside time and space, so he doesn't require a cause, so AHA! Checkmate you stupid atheists!"
MC473428 HA! The multiverse answers nothing! Its an escape for atheists to avoid a creator! Time space and energy all had a beginning! Max Planck and George lemaitre! Who both believed in GOD!!! So Where did the first particle come from?
So you're saying that God DOES exist within time and space. If that's the case, then the laws of physics ought to apply to him and he requires a creator.
@kropking The difference between me and the caller is that I'm willing to concede that you're correct that I misunderstood your point. Let me play devil's advocate here. If you're dealing with clueless idiot after clueless idiot, eventually, it'll wear you down. So, unless the hosts have the patience of saints, every once in a while, they'll have an off day where they don't want to be patient.
Okay, obviously there has to be a first cause in some sense because there is some reason why something happened (assuming existence didn't exist and then at one point began to exist, however pointless such a concept is before "time" existed). This does NOT mean that there has to be a first CAUSER. We understand that in quantum physics stuff happens for no discernible reason so this seems to suggest that the first cause argument is a waste of time.
Not really. Time as we know it was a byproduct of the expansion of time and space we refer to as "the big bang". In that sense, "time" didn't exist before that, and since time didn't exist, there is no "before" as that relates to time as it is now.
If this person wanted to support the "First Cause" theory, he should have pointed out during the "Trace the circle" example, that you would infact have to BEGIN tracing at some point.
The absurdity here is in the raw escapism of the dancing around the notion of a First Cause. Leibniz was correct. Regardless of what one calls the First Cause, if anything now exists, it has its origin in either the necessity of its own being or in an external cause. The universe does indeed exist. The bottom line regarding existence is: Either something is eternal, or something contingent has emerged from non-being. There is no middle.
the big bang theory doesnt give a reason for the universe is becuase WE DONT KNOW! if u assert something like a dynamic eternal entity and claim that it exists without time yet is still dynamic then i see a huge flaw in that argument....u cant put something outside time and also make it a changing system, THAT IMPLIES TIME! even if god existed within time it would be foolish to assume he was eternal based on the 2nd law of thermaldynamics. anything dynamic reaches equalibrium and decays.
What annoys me is that this caller cannot pronounce the word "infinite." He keeps using the word "infinINite", where the capital letters show the flaw.
conor smith Absolutely. Powerful in the sense that in the right hands(say, someone like Carl Sagan) it can be massively beneficial. But, for some people....it just makes them comfortable in their laziness. Personally, that makes zero sense to me. Marijuana engenders creative energy in me....and is the polar opposite of apathy. The whole "eat cheetos and play video games" stereotype is bewildering to me. When I get high...I create, not consume. But to each their own...
Even if the universe had a beginning (there is no reason to believe this, the second law is not violated by the infintessimal regression ie subtracting ever smaller fractions of time, approaching 0 but never reaching it) then why can't the creation be the first cause itself? Why add god? The desired conclusion of all cosmological arguments (Kalam included) is god. God refutes the first premise of the argument. Therefore even if the argument proved a first cause, why would that cause be god?
He may as well have said 'If you shoot an arrow at a target, it can never get there because there's an infinite number of half-distances between here and there'
I would agree, to some extent. The arguments used by intelligent theists are more eloquently phrased (and often laden with impressive-sounding philosophical jargon), but they are ultimately no more coherent.
@kropking But the caller is also doing the same thing. He thinks he's got an airtight argument, but as the call goes on, it becomes obvious that he doesn't even understand basic concepts such as "infinity". As Matt and Jen try to explain it to him, it's obvious that the information is not getting through to him. What's the point of a "debate" if one side doesn't understand basic concepts and then doesn't listen as the concepts are being explained?
@DaveDoggOwns Now I see what you're not understanding. You've yet to comprehend what selfishness is. It's when someone takes action that only serves that one person. If more than one person benefits from the action, it is no longer selfish. You may argue that assisting others is selfish for the gratification it gives to the helper, but that's incorrect. Even just one other person benefitting makes it an unselfish act. A selfish person would refrain from acts that benefit more than just him/her.
Yes you're right and i apprecait your honesty unlike most Theists i speak with, Atheist's nor theists actually know the answer the biggest question of all. BUT atleast Atheist's and science are searching for that answer while Religion on the other hand is saying that they do in fact have the answer and that is "Some greater entity that noone can speak too or see is in fact the creator of EVERYTHING".
@DaveDoggOwns 4. As far as the "dumbass" comment goes, that's just how I talk dude. You know, when you're just goofing off with your friends and giving each other a hard time for the hell of it. I said it to get through to you; grab your attention. Don't take it personally. It was just one of those things... hard to explain. "Someone isn't paying attention"... same thing. I'm trying to engage you, alert your subconcious to a different wavelength and plant a seed... It's not about superiority.
As a "rational thinker", I won't judge anyone else's intelligence based on this poor guy. But I will assert that there is still no proof, no theory, fact or extrapolation thereof that any kind of metaphysical "god" creature exists. No matter how articulate your argument, it will always be based on speculation, supposition and faith. And to indulge in that concept myself for a moment, isn't it just OBVIOUS that there isn't any god? The whole idea is absurd, expecially the christian god...
If there was not a first cause and there was no "before the beginning" then our interpretation of time may be skewed...or there is something Im not quite grasping...i may call in about this one sometime.
An infinite of regress of causes is illogical. Why? Because we must cross an infinite amount of time to get to the moment we are in! How can we settle on a concept that suggests the impossible? As for the "where did God come from?" question. In order to know that an explanantion is the best explanantion, we don't have to have an explanantion of the explanation. This would set us in a position of answering an infinite regress of causes, which would take an infinite amount of time to answer.
@djsmurfie the host didn't say that. and they are trying to debate on the level of the caller, which is exceedingly low. call in, see what they say to you.
I'm not sure if that really makes sense. Having no beginning yet having a finite past (never started yet wasn't always here). And couldn't the sphere thing be applied to any other 3-D shape? When you draw a shape you start and stop somewhere no? But i will look into it.
5:30 Nerdy math philosophy: Wrong Matt! Infinity is most certainly a quantity, and it is also a number. You are correct there hasn't been "an infinity." But there hasn't been a "5" or a "6" either. There hasn't been any number, because numbers are all theoretical. Infinity is a limitless or endless quantity. It is the numberless number.
***** No Im not. Every number is an abstract concept. There are no "real numbers." No, you can not observe "4," you can observe something that represents the value of 4. Say, 4 chairs, represents the value of 4 but it is not a 4. Now, a chair itself, on the other hand, is a chair. It is tangible and natural information and not theoretical.
Im not confused, you would have to listen to what Matt says at 5:30-5:56 to see the confusion... or more correctly, his error. Abstract means it is a thought and has no physical existence. Since a chair is molecules it cannot be abstract. It is physical, it exists in this universe as part of its natural information, all unlike numbers. You're right on language- You could say the word "chair" is abstract and we've all agreed on what to call it, but a chairs existance is not dependent on a given name, thus the chair is, itself, is still not abstract, even if its name is. All numbers, quantitate or not, are theoretical and there are no "real number[s]."
Found by Googling "Is infinity a number?" This is a sample taken from one of many sites dealing with this question "Infinity is not a number; it is the name for a concept. Most people have sort of an intuitive idea of what infinity is - it's a quantity that's bigger than any number. This is sort of correct, but it depends on the context in which you're using the concept of infinity. There are no numbers bigger than infinity, but that does not mean that infinity is the biggest number, because it's not a number at all. For the same reason, infinity is neither even nor odd.
You start by saying Matt is wrong, and that 'infinity' certainly IS a quantity AND a number....then you go on to say there are no numbers, and that Matt said 'infinity is quantifiable'? No he did not, and 'infinity' is not quantifiable, as Matt clearly said.
Lol, no just a way to make them change the subject. I just always have a laugh when they bring stuff like 'jutsified true belief" or "espistemic content" up in conversation, like "You do realize we're ALL atheists, right?"
The asinininity of his commenentary is infininite.
Infininite? Okay the first time I figured was a fluke but he KEPT...ON...SAYING IT.
There are an infinite number of ininits in infinity.
The caller tries playing innocent, in response to Matt's expectation that he would say the first cause is a god, he says "if you want to call it that." The big problem there is that he starts this whole thing out by saying he's going to define god. So it's really shameful to then pull out the old "I'm just saying there's a first cause, I'm not saying it's god" bit that so many theists cynically use.
Right, the christians dishonesty never takes long to show up.
"Infininate."
Caller: If time was infininate then we would never have gotten here, right?
Jen: No, we've been there before...
LOL. Jen was referring to the staleness of the argument, but when applied to the context of the question... it's a brilliantly ironic.
"You don't think the universe is infininite?"
Infininite.
Its the INFINITY NINNY!
One of the funniest bloopers yet.
Okay, Christians, just because science can't answer the cause for abiogenesis doesn't mean that an invisible magic man who lives in the sky said "abracadabra, walla walla, poof" here's life. That's exactly the same as when mankind saw lightening and said that the explanation of that is some invisible guy in the sky saying "abracadabra, walla walla, poof" until science came along and explained where it came from. Just because science has no proven explanation today of the origin of life doesn't mean that only magic could have done it then because we cannot explain it any other way.
MegzeeR -- Yeah, it's funny how religion ALWAYS had an answer for events that happened...until science PROVED what they were, then religion tried to argue with science, or just 'forget' they ever said anything........ SMDH
Ah the good ole 'infininite' caller :)
Buzz Lightyear can get to infinity....and beyond ergo Mattel is God
well, chuck norris counted to infinity....twice....
Well, for chuck, infinity is 22. Ten fingers, ten toes, and a short dick. 22 is higher than that.
The problem with the "first cause' issue is that you need to provide verifiable data and concrete, experimental based evidence on how your god{s} were created and evolved. Once that is established via peer reviewed essay analysis by established Physicists, Biologists and Chemists, you then are required to provide the data and experimental based evidence on how this god{s} made a universe and submit that paper for peer review and analysis via the same scrutiny; otherwise you are simply "making shit up" based on ancient superstition and delusion. Please submit both papers to me as well; Thank you. :)
funny call? Actually I'm not sure we should be laughing at someone who is calling from a mental institution.
I love how he keeps saying "infininite" :-D So cute!
Just tell that shiny head that the pen was dropped on its own.
"if there's an inifninate number of HELLO?"
i lol'd
if you add up all the positive numbers from 0 to infinity you get -1/12
no you don't
Yeah you do
1337penguinking no because infinity isn't a number therefore not on the number line you are positing people start from. Logic escapes you, but your avatar is smart. ...hagd and "d" is for doobie or delusion. your choice.
+1337penguinking As infinity is not a number, there is nothing to go to.
+Vertical Horizon "to" infinity. All the integers. not difficult.
"Your ass is on hold now!"
*Needz t-shirtz* !!!
Great video!
By the way, they should stick to this background for now on! It looks awesome :)
The way this guy says 'infininite' reminds me of 'It's Pumpkininny!' from Mr. Show.
That reminded me of a line from a Pratchett book, where a character 'knew how to spell bananana, she just didn't know when to stop' ;)
Matt's example of a circle actually has a better use to show how actual infinities can exist.
On a circle, of any size > 0, there are an infinite number of points on that circle, all of them infinitesimally small. I cannot completely enumerate all of the points on that circle, yet I can draw, or traverse, the circle. Therefore it is possible to "traverse" infinities, even if we cannot enumerate them.
Vic Stenger addressed the "infinite regress" problem at a skepticon event some time before his death. Needless to say, I don't find the infinite regress problem to be an actual problem. More to the point is that infinities tend to be difficult to understand!
+Atheist Lehman And a muslim speaker used this same argument. And no you arent traversing infinities, you are traversing that finite distance that you can break down into ever smaller parts. If you are going from point A to point B it is still a finite distance no matter if you break it down into 2 separate distances or separate it into an infinite amount of pieces. 5 miles is still 5 miles if you split it into ever smaller distances.
Don't you mean infininities?
This caller's sheer, utter stupidity made my ROFL moment of the YEAR.
he is saying 'infinnnninnnnite'. wow
Infininite. Infininite. Infininite.
Theists A&B: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing is implied)
Skeptic: Then where did god come from?
Theist A: God has always existed.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point.
Theist B: God created herself.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing.
It's like the guy on the phone has no idea that propositions can be disputed. He just has it in his head that everything he's about to say must be true, and that everyone must agree with him.
This guy reminds me of Napolean Dynamite. Hello?....
5:35 "It (infinity) is not a number. You can't get to infinity."
As a mathematician, I agree with the second part, but not with the first. If you add the power series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 and so on, you could add a new term every second for a hundred years, and you'll never reach 1. But in math we do sort of use infinity as a number. If you add (1/2)^n from n=1 to n=infinity, the sum is defined to be 1.
Kenny's my favourite caller (even better than Eric). It cracked me up when he said, " *sigh* I never said that" on another call. And he's at least having a go, trying a better argument than "Look at the trees...". Keep at it, Kenny - knowledge will set you free!
Years have gone by, and Matt has still never learned to share the microphone
Ken should have his own Science show on TV.
@kropking You say they're there to have a discussion, but isn't it obvious that the caller isn't even listening to the counterpoints? The fact that they continue to try to reason with the caller is showing respect.
@RyanLeeParis: "All things have a cause" does not follow from "some things have a cause". Even if you assert "All things have a cause", it follows that the "first" cause also had a cause, which would be a contradiction.
Therefore, you cannot use that assertion to prove a first cause exists. This assertion may be true if the universe has always existed in some form, which is yet another possibility (that you failed to mention). Also, depending on definitions, maybe not all things have a cause.
@DaveDoggOwns 1. Ego is like the appendix. It's there, but not essential for survival.
2. I'm responding to you because you commented towards me first, and having got me all wrong, I needed to correct you - ABOUT ME. It's not about being better, it's about clearing the air.
3. Mescaline makes you hallucinate? False. Now it's 100% clear you've never had the privilege...
Infinity is a concept really as well as a number. Between two points in space A - B. Theoretically there are an infinite number of spaces between them. e.g. 1/2 the distance, 1/4 the distance, 1/8 the distance, 1/16 the distance... etc...
My pet peeve is when believers attempt to use terminology or concepts from philosophy of mind and epistemology, a discipline I've done academic work in, as though they thought it up personally. I usually respond by pointing out that these disciplines have basically disproven any kind of meaningful free will, and have reduced our perception of choice to an operating system. I also inform them that intensity of religious belief may be directly tied to chemical reactions in the brain. Shuts 'em up.
I think I can see a mistake.
In a hen house of religious chickens, the chickens realise that all the eggs are laid by chickens.
So using "logic". they think that the hen house was laid by a giant chicken, which they worship
But it wasn't. The giant chicken doesn't exist. It's a different logical realm.
They have no way of finding out that the hen house was made from recycled wood by Mr Grant.
I just want to tell you how much I love the music you've used at the beginning. :D
There are an infinite number of positive numbers and negative numbers. Zero is in the middle of all these numbers. If we can never get to "now", then we can never get to zero.
They could've brought up Zeno's paradox: there are infinitely many half-steps between me and the chair, yet I traversed it. Calculus shows us we can add infinitely many numbers and get a finite number. So just because infinity isn't intuitive to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Oh, sorry, I missed the 2nd part of your message; I'll just say I agree, those odds seem about right. Btw, who's Summer Glau (I'm sure I'm out of the loop on current celebs)?
Overall, the dude on the phone, typical guinea pig that happened to stumble onto scientific knowledge that he won't ever fully understand the implications of. Probable result = fail.
@DaveDoggOwns 1. You said "there is no escaping egoism". Not only is that false (I'm speaking from experience!), but it also implies that ego is inherent as well as permanent. Untrue.
2. That's your interperetation. I'm not trying to raise myself above him, merely trying to knock him down a notch... off his imaginary perch. WE'RE EQUAL. Just a friendly reminder.
3. Don't try to discuss mescaline with me when you clearly have no experience with it. That's simply foolish and you know it.
You can disregard what the caller is actually saying and still be able to tell just from the sound of his voice that he's not too fucking bright.
I blame William Lane Craig and his ilk for filling the minds of believers with specious nonsense.
I didn't find God in a bong, I found him while tripping on shrooms.
...that guy's nuts, man.
To sum up- It's slightly possible that there is some sort of god, but it's not any being that any human has ever worshiped, and by slightly possible I mean worse probability than the slight possibility of molecular structures of two solid objects aligning so precisely that they're able to flow through each other or the slightly further odds of me marrying Summer Glau.
Dr Who music is very appropriate. The universe can be traced back to a point particle known as a singularity at which point all our physical laws no longer make any sense. The big bang is not an explosion in the distance past it's the accelerating expansion of spacetime we currently observe from within that singularity. The whole thing is just as impossible for the human mind to comprehend as the interior of Dr Who's Tardis.
Yes but matt left a big hole when debating the first cause argument. The first cause argument DOES NOT state that there is not an infinite continuation, it states that there is a beggining to this now infinite continuity. Matt did NOT support his side of the debate much but instead supported the idea of the first cause theory more.
Is he saying INFINNINITE?
'There had to be a first cause of the universe, so that has to be 'God' (of the Old Testament)'....ok so then what was the first cause of your God? I'm sure he'd say his God exists, certainly he wouldn't say it does not exist.....so then there had to be a cause for it, by your own argument.
davids11131113 Have to agree with you, where did God come from?
+davids11131113 The atheist breaks all the laws and rules to get the universe going, just like the believer!!
+davids11131113 I think the argument goes something like this: "God exists outside time and space, so he doesn't require a cause, so AHA! Checkmate you stupid atheists!"
MC473428 HA! The multiverse answers nothing! Its an escape for atheists to avoid a creator! Time space and energy all had a beginning! Max Planck and George lemaitre! Who both believed in GOD!!! So Where did the first particle come from?
So you're saying that God DOES exist within time and space. If that's the case, then the laws of physics ought to apply to him and he requires a creator.
Infinitive is a verb tense. Infinite means endless.
does anyone else get the impulse to slap the caller and tell him to stop adding an extra syllable to "infinite"?
This caller, who obviously fancies himself an intellectual, drove me nuts with his (mis)use of the word "infinitive" when he really means "infinite."
@kropking The difference between me and the caller is that I'm willing to concede that you're correct that I misunderstood your point.
Let me play devil's advocate here. If you're dealing with clueless idiot after clueless idiot, eventually, it'll wear you down. So, unless the hosts have the patience of saints, every once in a while, they'll have an off day where they don't want to be patient.
Okay, obviously there has to be a first cause in some sense because there is some reason why something happened (assuming existence didn't exist and then at one point began to exist, however pointless such a concept is before "time" existed). This does NOT mean that there has to be a first CAUSER. We understand that in quantum physics stuff happens for no discernible reason so this seems to suggest that the first cause argument is a waste of time.
Not really. Time as we know it was a byproduct of the expansion of time and space we refer to as "the big bang". In that sense, "time" didn't exist before that, and since time didn't exist, there is no "before" as that relates to time as it is now.
@bcgonynor
Heh-heh... the only thing slippery than a greased pig is a cornered apologist.
If this person wanted to support the "First Cause" theory, he should have pointed out during the "Trace the circle" example, that you would infact have to BEGIN tracing at some point.
The absurdity here is in the raw escapism of the dancing around the notion of a First Cause. Leibniz was correct. Regardless of what one calls the First Cause, if anything now exists, it has its origin in either the necessity of its own being or in an external cause. The universe does indeed exist. The bottom line regarding existence is: Either something is eternal, or something contingent has emerged from non-being. There is no middle.
@kropking The only way Matt and Jen could have communicated with Kenny on his own level is if they were both suffering from severe head trauma.
Summer Glau is an actress, she's best known for her roles as River in Firefly and Serenity, and Cameron in Terminator: the Sarah Conner Chronicles.
the big bang theory doesnt give a reason for the universe is becuase WE DONT KNOW! if u assert something like a dynamic eternal entity and claim that it exists without time yet is still dynamic then i see a huge flaw in that argument....u cant put something outside time and also make it a changing system, THAT IMPLIES TIME! even if god existed within time it would be foolish to assume he was eternal based on the 2nd law of thermaldynamics. anything dynamic reaches equalibrium and decays.
The guy repeatedly pronounces "infinite" as a four syllable word. That should be your first clue as to his mental competence. :)
Every fucking time, haha, infininite...I'm surprised Matt didn't yell at him for that.
I discovered an earwig in my bong.
That was gross.
Was the caller saying 'Infininite'? Lol
I like that the background indicates that they're broadcasting from hell.
What annoys me is that this caller cannot pronounce the word "infinite." He keeps using the word "infinINite", where the capital letters show the flaw.
Weed is a beautiful but powerful thing
conor smith Absolutely. Powerful in the sense that in the right hands(say, someone like Carl Sagan) it can be massively beneficial. But, for some people....it just makes them comfortable in their laziness. Personally, that makes zero sense to me. Marijuana engenders creative energy in me....and is the polar opposite of apathy. The whole "eat cheetos and play video games" stereotype is bewildering to me. When I get high...I create, not consume. But to each their own...
+conor smith The atheist breaks all the laws and rules to get the universe going, just like the believer!!
+conor smith Speak for yourself; weeds fuck up my manicured lawn.
+Arty Rene Don't take it personally... Ooops!
"infininite"? You know your argument is bad when you can't pronounce the important words.
Kenny owning himself again. Not the first time he's called.
Even if the universe had a beginning (there is no reason to believe this, the second law is not violated by the infintessimal regression ie subtracting ever smaller fractions of time, approaching 0 but never reaching it) then why can't the creation be the first cause itself? Why add god?
The desired conclusion of all cosmological arguments (Kalam included) is god. God refutes the first premise of the argument. Therefore even if the argument proved a first cause, why would that cause be god?
I think that Ken took one and only one low level logic course at night school and fell asleep during the last hour.
But really, what makes Cthulhu and Azathoth more likely than any other explanation? They're all equally unlikely.
"If time was infinite we would never have got here"..haha...He's a Poe surely?
He may as well have said 'If you shoot an arrow at a target, it can never get there because there's an infinite number of half-distances between here and there'
"Hello?"
"HI!"
I would agree, to some extent. The arguments used by intelligent theists are more eloquently phrased (and often laden with impressive-sounding philosophical jargon), but they are ultimately no more coherent.
Oh man, that whole run around about infinitry was cringe as hell.
@kropking But the caller is also doing the same thing. He thinks he's got an airtight argument, but as the call goes on, it becomes obvious that he doesn't even understand basic concepts such as "infinity". As Matt and Jen try to explain it to him, it's obvious that the information is not getting through to him.
What's the point of a "debate" if one side doesn't understand basic concepts and then doesn't listen as the concepts are being explained?
@DaveDoggOwns Now I see what you're not understanding. You've yet to comprehend what selfishness is. It's when someone takes action that only serves that one person. If more than one person benefits from the action, it is no longer selfish. You may argue that assisting others is selfish for the gratification it gives to the helper, but that's incorrect. Even just one other person benefitting makes it an unselfish act. A selfish person would refrain from acts that benefit more than just him/her.
LOL
infininate lulz acquired
if he cant say "infinite" he shouldnt be thinking about the start of the universe
@djsmurfie Then what's the last number before infinity?
@ErikJonssonMusic Okay, so therefore 1/3 is not equal to 0.333...? Or is 3(0.333...) not equal to 0.999...? Thats the only way it could be false.
This eternal moment is infinite. It has always existed, and always will...there was no 'first cause'. It just is.
+Shreem But is it infinininate?
+Shreem But is it infinininate?
SocietyPages yes I believe so
@djsmurfie ALL numbers are abstractions; labels to keep track of quantity. That's it!
Yes you're right and i apprecait your honesty unlike most Theists i speak with, Atheist's nor theists actually know the answer the biggest question of all. BUT atleast Atheist's and science are searching for that answer while Religion on the other hand is saying that they do in fact have the answer and that is "Some greater entity that noone can speak too or see is in fact the creator of EVERYTHING".
@DaveDoggOwns 4. As far as the "dumbass" comment goes, that's just how I talk dude. You know, when you're just goofing off with your friends and giving each other a hard time for the hell of it. I said it to get through to you; grab your attention. Don't take it personally. It was just one of those things... hard to explain.
"Someone isn't paying attention"... same thing. I'm trying to engage you, alert your subconcious to a different wavelength and plant a seed... It's not about superiority.
As a "rational thinker", I won't judge anyone else's intelligence based on this poor guy. But I will assert that there is still no proof, no theory, fact or extrapolation thereof that any kind of metaphysical "god" creature exists. No matter how articulate your argument, it will always be based on speculation, supposition and faith. And to indulge in that concept myself for a moment, isn't it just OBVIOUS that there isn't any god? The whole idea is absurd, expecially the christian god...
If there was not a first cause and there was no "before the beginning" then our interpretation of time may be skewed...or there is something Im not quite grasping...i may call in about this one sometime.
What design?
An infinite of regress of causes is illogical. Why? Because we must cross an infinite amount of time to get to the moment we are in! How can we settle on a concept that suggests the impossible?
As for the "where did God come from?" question. In order to know that an explanantion is the best explanantion, we don't have to have an explanantion of the explanation. This would set us in a position of answering an infinite regress of causes, which would take an infinite amount of time to answer.
@djsmurfie the host didn't say that. and they are trying to debate on the level of the caller, which is exceedingly low. call in, see what they say to you.
I'm not sure if that really makes sense.
Having no beginning yet having a finite past (never started yet wasn't always here). And couldn't the sphere thing be applied to any other 3-D shape? When you draw a shape you start and stop somewhere no? But i will look into it.
matt's face at 4:10 is just like WTF?
5:30 Nerdy math philosophy:
Wrong Matt! Infinity is most certainly a quantity, and it is also a number. You are correct there hasn't been "an infinity." But there hasn't been a "5" or a "6" either. There hasn't been any number, because numbers are all theoretical. Infinity is a limitless or endless quantity. It is the numberless number.
***** No Im not. Every number is an abstract concept. There are no "real numbers."
No, you can not observe "4," you can observe something that represents the value of 4. Say, 4 chairs, represents the value of 4 but it is not a 4. Now, a chair itself, on the other hand, is a chair. It is tangible and natural information and not theoretical.
Im not confused, you would have to listen to what Matt says at 5:30-5:56 to see the confusion... or more correctly, his error.
Abstract means it is a thought and has no physical existence. Since a chair is molecules it cannot be abstract. It is physical, it exists in this universe as part of its natural information, all unlike numbers.
You're right on language- You could say the word "chair" is abstract and we've all agreed on what to call it, but a chairs existance is not dependent on a given name, thus the chair is, itself, is still not abstract, even if its name is. All numbers, quantitate or not, are theoretical and there are no "real number[s]."
Found by Googling "Is infinity a number?" This is a sample taken from one of many sites dealing with this question
"Infinity is not a number; it is the name for a concept. Most people have sort of an intuitive idea of what infinity is - it's a quantity that's bigger than any number. This is sort of correct, but it depends on the context in which you're using the concept of infinity.
There are no numbers bigger than infinity, but that does not mean that infinity is the biggest number, because it's not a number at all. For the same reason, infinity is neither even nor odd.
You start by saying Matt is wrong, and that 'infinity' certainly IS a quantity AND a number....then you go on to say there are no numbers, and that Matt said 'infinity is quantifiable'? No he did not, and 'infinity' is not quantifiable, as Matt clearly said.
I think i get it. So you are saying it never started because there was never a time when it wasn't here?
Lol, no just a way to make them change the subject. I just always have a laugh when they bring stuff like 'jutsified true belief" or "espistemic content" up in conversation, like "You do realize we're ALL atheists, right?"