Bad Math Used in Apologetics

[Jagella]

Recently I've noticed that some apologists like William Lane Craig are using mathematics-based arguments to assure us that the Christian god exists. I would like to explain why those arguments use poor logic.

A very broad argument is that mathematics in general seems to explain the cosmos in a way that seems to work unreasonably well. An intelligent designer like Yahweh is then required to explain this apparent mathematical basis for the universe. He is "the great mathematician in the sky."

Not really. The reason math works so well to explain the world--in at least some cases--is because we humans created math to describe the cosmos. There is no mystery here. We are the mathematicians describing the universe.

Also, many apologists like to wow us with enormously improbable events that they say cannot be attributed to chance. Since chance is ruled out, "God musta done it."

Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero. Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Also, to state how improbable a natural event might be doesn't say much if you don't know the probability of an alternate event. So if apologists wish to argue that an event like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe by chance is only one out a a gazillion, they must compare that probability to the probability that "God musta done it." If they cannot say that the probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance, then they haven't proved anything.

Finally, a really laughable argument is that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was infinitely we could never have reached the present! Such apologists must have slept through their high-school algebra. Consider the number line with numbers increasing infinitely with positive numbers to the right and negative numbers to the left. All you need to do is have any point on that line represent a moment in time with zero being the present, points on the positive direction are the future, and points on the negative direction are the past. See that? You're at 0 (the present), but the past is infinite. You can go back as far as you want to with no limit.

I can go on, but for now let me ask the...

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Please tell me the natural law which allows life to originate from nonliving material.

There is no one specific law for that, it's just plain old chemistry. Alternatively I can just list the typical laws that is relevant to chemistry re: Conservation of energy, of equilibrium and so on.

Ok, so using "plain old chemistry", can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material? The answer is; "No, I can't".

Good...now admit that there also ain't natural laws that tend towards life from nonlife.

Nah. Why would I do that?

Yet, you just admitted that there isn't a "specific law" for that. SMH.

If nature can't get card houses, then nature also can't get "human houses" (abiogenesis).

That does not follow.

It does...it follows quite logically, actually.

Now, you can certainly believe otherwise...and then you will be prompted to scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis, which we know you can't.

Sure, not yet we can't, but what makes you think we won't ever be able to?

Science of the gaps.

So at that point your belief becomes pure naturalistic speculation with no shred of scientific data supporting it.

Ah, but we do, the Miller–Urey experiment being the standard go to example of scientific data supporting abiogenesis.

Nonsense. First off, even if you were able to create life from nonliving material (which you can't, but we are talking hypotheticals here), this would STILL suggest that intelligence is needed to create the life...which would be the same as you successfully creating an automobile with your very hands, and stating "ahh, see..I told you I can create an automobile".

And I am like, "Yeah, but you didn't tell me how the explosion at the manufacturing plant created the automobile".

So even if the Miller-Urey experiment WAS a success, all that would prove is my point, that intelligence is needed in the process.

But that isn't the theory. The theory is that there was NO mind, NO intelligence, NO hands, NO eyes...and that all of this happened by mindless/blind process...and those odds astronomically AGAINST your religion (naturalism).

Second, the Miller-Urey experiment FLAT OUT didn't create life from nonliving material..naturalists continue to misrepresent (and down right LIE) about the results of the experiment. Life from nonlife was not created in this experiment, even though they successfully created two amino acids...which is a longgggggg way from creating a living cell.

That would be like you were tasked to read to an audience, word for word, the ENTIRE 38 million books in the Library of Congress...and if you are illiterate and can only make out about two words in this astronomically large collection of books, words, and paragraphs..would you consider your presentation to the audience a success?

Well, knowing you, you probability would. However, consider your presentation to the audience an EPIC FAILURE, which is actually the understatement of the century.

I still don't understand what you are saying.

Well that's unsurprising. Is there anything specific about entropy that you would like to learn about in this context?

Sure. I'd like to learn how you can start off with high entropy (an explosion at a card-making factory)...and ending in low entropy (a card-house-mansion) formulating from the explosion.

Do teach, sir.

Nonsense. On one hand, you are saying you can't count all of the past days because it is impossible...

Incorrect. I did not say such a thing, I said the exact opposite: I said I can indeed count all of the past days. The rest of that paragraph is the result of misreading what I said.

Nonsense. You stated in post 110 (in response to my question), that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to reach infinity taking one step at a time. This is the same concept of successfully counting all of the past days, which you JUST said that you CAN do.

If you can successfully count ALL of the days which preceded today, then you are counting to infinity..but infinity doesn't have a limit...and as of today, that IS the limit..so either past-eternity has successfully traversed all preceding days (relative to today)...or there is a beginning point of reference (a first day).

Sounds like you are on the former side of things, which means that, as usual, your position is swimming in an ocean of absurdity. But that doesn't seem to bother you.

Your reasoning is nonsensical, is what I am trying to say

We can chalk that much up to a lack of care in reading my post. You've created a strawman.

Nonsense. I got you loud and clear, brotha.

Please explain the intrinsic difference in counting to infinity, and counting an infinite amount.

Sure, consider the number line, there are infinitely many integers, I can count to each and every single one of them, none of which is infinity.

Soooo, right back to the task; count ALL of the integers on the numbers line (it doesn't have to be in numerical order)...but save zero for the last number counted..at one point will you be able to say "Ive successfully counted ALL of the integers on the numbers line, and I've finally arrived at zero!!"

Tell me. After all, you JUST SAID that you can count every single one of them. Well, handle your business.

Right, and that should have been enough for you to figure out that counting all the integers does not involve counting to infinity. 1...2...3... and so on, for ever and ever. So what exactly are you having problem with?

No, what WOULD be enough for me is for you to complete the impossible task above. That will indeed be enough for me.

I didn't have to tell the eternal past a "day". It just did it. Why can't you?

You are speaking of two different things here, I don't need to have a start at a particular day to arrive at today

This would tie in to the task above; with you counting ALL OF THE days preceding today (with today being the last day counted), and letting me know when you've successfully counted all of the days.

It is logically absurd..

That's up to you to demonstrate, which you can do by simply naming a finite number that I cannot count to (or from.)

The task.

If "it" (eternal past) didn't need a start, then why do you?

To arrive at today? I don't need a start though. But that's a very different thing to measuring the gap between two days, for that I do need, you know, two days.

That's the point; if there are an infinite amount of days in between the "two" days...then how will you get to the second day?

That is the point, it aint happening.

"It" didn't accuse me of asking a loaded question...it just did it.

Did what? Tell you how long it took to get here to today? It couldn't have because you need another day for that. Or perhaps you meant arriving at today on the other hand, sure, it just did it. And I can do it too without another day. Either way you should still stop asking loaded question regardless.

I don't know what you are talking about now; just complete the task, and I will bow down to you as more intellectually brighter than I...and will gladly give you all of my tokens.

Gotta avoid the "G" word.

There is no need to evoke the "G" word in the first place.

Of course not.

This is a borderline straw man. No one ever said you can't count up to any given finite number.

Oh? But you did say that I couldn't count down all of the finite integers to arrive at zero.You are trying to distinguish counting up and counting down?

No, i'm not. Are you disputing the fact that you can't count down all of the finite integers to arrive at zero? Ok, so if you were able to do this, what would be the total number of integers counted? You said that infinity ain't a number, so the total number of integers counted would have to be a finite number.

But that would be an internal contradiction, because there is an infinite amount of members in the set.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Instead of issuing a challenge based upon a position that I never held, how about responding to my challenge..

Please explain how can "today" ever arrive if an infinite amount of days was TRAVERSED to get there.

Asked and answered: One day at a time. Pretty simple and straight forward.

Then the total amount of days from past-eternity to today would be a finite number, correct?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 126 by For_The_Kingdom]

Your rationale inclinations are a product of indoctrination.

Genetic fallacy.

The Christian God isn't necessarily the Jewish one. That is a claim they still deny.

This is a debate within Judeo-Christianity..and if either one of them is true, then that would still defeat atheism/agnosticism.

Are you not aware that time doesn't exist sans the physical universe?

No. I am not aware of that.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the following concept.

https://www.space.com/amp/17661-theory- ... ivity.html

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so using "plain old chemistry", can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material?

Sure, I can. It's already been done. See synthetic cell by Venter and co.

Yet, you just admitted that there isn't a "specific law" for that.

But that doesn't mean there aren't natural laws that tend towards life from nonlife.

It does...it follows quite logically, actually.

It does not, you have committed the hasty generalisation fallacy.

Science of the gaps.

That doesn't answer my question, why would you think we won't ever be able to?

First off, even if you were able to create life from nonliving material..., this would STILL suggest that intelligence is needed to create the life...

But it's enough to demonstrate life is purely naturalistic.

which would be the same as you successfully creating an automobile with your very hands, and stating "ahh, see..I told you I can create an automobile".

And I am like, "Yeah, but you didn't tell me how the explosion at the manufacturing plant created the automobile".

Then I would be telling you, but I did created it via an explosion at the manufacturing plant...

But that isn't the theory. The theory is that there was NO mind, NO intelligence, NO hands, NO eyes...and that all of this happened by mindless/blind process...and those odds astronomically AGAINST your religion (naturalism).

Right, and that's what we have evidence for.

Second, the Miller-Urey experiment FLAT OUT didn't create life from nonliving material..naturalists continue to misrepresent (and down right LIE) about the results of the experiment. Life from nonlife was not created in this experiment, even though they successfully created two amino acids...which is a longgggggg way from creating a living cell.

Which is why I mere said it was evidence for abiogenesis.

That would be like you were tasked to read to an audience, word for word, the ENTIRE 38 million books in the Library of Congress...and if you are illiterate and can only make out about two words in this astronomically large collection of books, words, and paragraphs..would you consider your presentation to the audience a success?

But being able to make out two words is evidence that I can read. You are moving the goal post.

Sure. I'd like to learn how you can start off with high entropy (an explosion at a card-making factory)...and ending in low entropy (a card-house-mansion) formulating from the explosion.

By having an even higher entropy else where along side said card house, so that we have a higher entropy on average than we begun with.

You stated in post 110 (in response to my question), that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to reach infinity taking one step at a time.

Correct. Note the difference between IMPOSSIBLE for me to reach infinity taking one step at a time, and the claim that I can count all of the past days because that is very much possible.

If you can successfully count ALL of the days which preceded today, then you are counting to infinity..

By "to" you mean counting towards infinity, right? You cannot reach infinity.

Nonsense. I got you loud and clear, brotha.

The facts says otherwise, you are still confusing counting all the days of the past with counting to infinity.

Soooo, right back to the task; count ALL of the integers on the numbers line (it doesn't have to be in numerical order)...but save zero for the last number counted..at one point will you be able to say "Ive successfully counted ALL of the integers on the numbers line, and I've finally arrived at zero!!"

Tell me. After all, you JUST SAID that you can count every single one of them. Well, handle your business.

Right and it would take for ever.

No, what WOULD be enough for me is for you to complete the impossible task above. That will indeed be enough for me.

That's because you don't have for ever. Not a problem for the eternal past, it does have for ever.

This would tie in to the task above; with you counting ALL OF THE days preceding today (with today being the last day counted), and letting me know when you've successfully counted all of the days.

Okay. Working on it. In the meantime, why don't you naming a finite number that I cannot count to (or from.)

That's the point; if there are an infinite amount of days in between the "two" days...then how will you get to the second day?

Well it's a moot point, since there is a finite amount of days in between any two days.

I don't know what you are talking about now; just complete the task, and I will bow down to you as more intellectually brighter than I...and will gladly give you all of my tokens.

Why wait? Do it now.

Of course not.

Right you are.

No, i'm not. Are you disputing the fact that you can't count down all of the finite integers to arrive at zero?

Of course. I can count down all the finite integers to arrive at zero.

what would be the total number of integers counted?

Infinitely many.

You said that infinity ain't a number, so the total number of integers counted would have to be a finite number.

That does not follow.

But that would be an internal contradiction, because there is an infinite amount of members in the set.

Right, but if you know that, what could possible lead to you suggest the total number of integers counted would have to be a finite number?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Then the total amount of days from past-eternity to today would be a finite number, correct?

Incorrect.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 133 by Bust Nak]

Sure, I can. It's already been done. See synthetic cell by Venter and co.

Heads up in case you've forgotten. FtK likes to ask this question, then when its answered, shift the goalpost by saying he means consciousness/sentience.
Even with that, all we have to do is point at any pregnant woman. A complex new living organism forming within her body, and all with no active design on her part. All the complexities of the baby are formed automatically thanks to the laws of biology and chemistry.
If FtK wants to posit some other designer is responsible, he'll have to show evidence of said designer. Since he wants to see US in a lab with equipment before he'll accept evolution, surely he won't be so disingenuous as to not demand the same of whatever he says is the designer of humans? Surely he'll require a lab and equipment for the claim "God created/designed humans"?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so using "plain old chemistry", can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material?

Sure, I can. It's already been done. See synthetic cell by Venter and co.

You had admitted earlier that it hasn't been done...now you are saying it has already been done.

Bust Nak: contradicting himself, as usual.

It does...it follows quite logically, actually.

It does not, you have committed the hasty generalisation fallacy.

How?

Science of the gaps.

That doesn't answer my question, why would you think we won't ever be able to?

Because unlike you, I ain't a naturalist...so I don't falsely conclude that science has no limitation and can provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

First off, even if you were able to create life from nonliving material..., this would STILL suggest that intelligence is needed to create the life...

But it's enough to demonstrate life is purely naturalistic.

The creation of an automobile is naturalistic, too...but you ain't getting one without intelligent design.

Remember, your theory is that life originated NATURALLY, with no intelligent design.

which would be the same as you successfully creating an automobile with your very hands, and stating "ahh, see..I told you I can create an automobile".

And I am like, "Yeah, but you didn't tell me how the explosion at the manufacturing plant created the automobile".

Then I would be telling you, but I did created it via an explosion at the manufacturing plant...

Makes no sense.

But that isn't the theory. The theory is that there was NO mind, NO intelligence, NO hands, NO eyes...and that all of this happened by mindless/blind process...and those odds astronomically AGAINST your religion (naturalism).

Right, and that's what we have evidence for.

I don't know about that, but I do know we have evidence of some kind of failed experiment in 1953.

Second, the Miller-Urey experiment FLAT OUT didn't create life from nonliving material..naturalists continue to misrepresent (and down right LIE) about the results of the experiment. Life from nonlife was not created in this experiment, even though they successfully created two amino acids...which is a longgggggg way from creating a living cell.

Which is why I mere said it was evidence for abiogenesis.

So, an experiment that did NOT create life from nonliving material is "evidence for abiogenesis"?

Gotcha.

That would be like you were tasked to read to an audience, word for word, the ENTIRE 38 million books in the Library of Congress...and if you are illiterate and can only make out about two words in this astronomically large collection of books, words, and paragraphs..would you consider your presentation to the audience a success?

But being able to make out two words is evidence that I can read. You are moving the goal post.

Notice my question went unanswered.

Sure. I'd like to learn how you can start off with high entropy (an explosion at a card-making factory)...and ending in low entropy (a card-house-mansion) formulating from the explosion.

By having an even higher entropy else where along side said card house, so that we have a higher entropy on average than we begun with.

Makes no sense, good friend.

You stated in post 110 (in response to my question), that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to reach infinity taking one step at a time.

Correct. Note the difference between IMPOSSIBLE for me to reach infinity taking one step at a time, and the claim that I can count all of the past days because that is very much possible.

That's the point; if the past is eternal and we've successfully arrived at today, then that is reaching infinity, one day at a time.

Better yet, answer this for me, please; is the sum total of all past days (including today)..is the sum total of these days a finite number?

This is a simple yes/no question with no explanation really needed.

If you can successfully count ALL of the days which preceded today, then you are counting to infinity..

By "to" you mean counting towards infinity, right? You cannot reach infinity.

Then past-eternity cannot reach the present moment.

Nonsense. I got you loud and clear, brotha.

The facts says otherwise, you are still confusing counting all the days of the past with counting to infinity.

I am not confusing the two, considering "all of the days of the past" is not a finite number.

Soooo, right back to the task; count ALL of the integers on the numbers line (it doesn't have to be in numerical order)...but save zero for the last number counted..at one point will you be able to say "Ive successfully counted ALL of the integers on the numbers line, and I've finally arrived at zero!!"

Tell me. After all, you JUST SAID that you can count every single one of them. Well, handle your business.

Right and it would take for ever.

So you will never be able to count all of the numbers in completion, will you? Nope. So, for "today" to have arrived, that is saying that all of the past days (an infinite amount) has successfully traversed every SINGLE day (an infinite amount) and has now traversed those days upon completion.

It ain't happening.

No, what WOULD be enough for me is for you to complete the impossible task above. That will indeed be enough for me.

That's because you don't have for ever. Not a problem for the eternal past, it does have for ever.

But there is no possible world at which I would be able to complete the task. That pretty much covers all possibilities, doesn't it?

This would tie in to the task above; with you counting ALL OF THE days preceding today (with today being the last day counted), and letting me know when you've successfully counted all of the days.

Okay. Working on it.

LOL.

In the meantime, why don't you naming a finite number that I cannot count to (or from.)

Straw man.

That's the point; if there are an infinite amount of days in between the "two" days...then how will you get to the second day?

Well it's a moot point, since there is a finite amount of days in between any two days.

But according to you, there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today...so the same concept applies.

I don't know what you are talking about now; just complete the task, and I will bow down to you as more intellectually brighter than I...and will gladly give you all of my tokens.

Why wait? Do it now.

Because you didn't meet the requirements yet. You said you will work on it. Get to work.

No, i'm not. Are you disputing the fact that you can't count down all of the finite integers to arrive at zero?

Of course. I can count down all the finite integers to arrive at zero.

Well, get on with it.

what would be the total number of integers counted?

Infinitely many.

I agree.

You said that infinity ain't a number, so the total number of integers counted would have to be a finite number.

That does not follow.

But you said infinity aint a number, so if the total number of integers counted ain't a finite number, then what will it be?

But that would be an internal contradiction, because there is an infinite amount of members in the set.

Right, but if you know that, what could possible lead to you suggest the total number of integers counted would have to be a finite number?

Bro, I only said that because YOU said that "infinity isn't a number". Remember that?

Then the total amount of days from past-eternity to today would be a finite number, correct?

Incorrect.

Then what will it be? Please tell me...because I really want to learn from you.

[otseng]

Bust Nak: contradicting himself, as usual.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without commenting on others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

You had admitted earlier that it hasn't been done...

Incorrect. I said no such thing. Instead I said we cannot currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis. Or were you under the impression that synthetic cells counts as abiogenesis?

How?

By concluding X can't be the case just because Y isn't the case where X and Y share some similarities.

Because unlike you, I ain't a naturalist...so I don't falsely conclude that science has no limitation and can provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

That still doesn't answer my question, not concluding that science has no limitation and can provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond, doesn't imply science can't figure out how life came about on Earth.

The creation of an automobile is naturalistic, too...but you ain't getting one without intelligent design.

That's only because there aren't natural laws tending towards the creation of automobiles.

Makes no sense.

Putting stuff into a test tube and zapping it, is closer to an explosion in a factory than an assembly line.

I don't know about that...

That where I come in, to fill in gaps in your knowledge.

So, an experiment that did NOT create life from nonliving material is "evidence for abiogenesis"?

Absolutely. Had it actually created life you wouldn't be here trying to fill that gap with a "God did it."

Notice my question went unanswered.

The answer was a "no" if it wasn't clear. You are still moving the goal post.

Makes no sense, good friend.

Well, I guess it's not entry level science. But do you have any specific area you would like me to explain in greater detail? Or perhaps we need to start with what "average" mean?

That's the point; if the past is eternal and we've successfully arrived at today, then that is reaching infinity, one day at a time.

Incorrect. That is not like reaching infinity, one day at a time. As no day in the eternal past is infinitely far away.

is the sum total of all past days (including today)..is the sum total of these days a finite number?

No.

This is a simple yes/no question with no explanation really needed.

I highly doubt that, given the quality of responses so far.

Then past-eternity cannot reach the present moment.

That does not follow.

I am not confusing the two, considering "all of the days of the past" is not a finite number.

The fact says otherwise, you are still saying they are the same here.

So you will never be able to count all of the numbers in completion, will you?

Of course I can. Name me one number that I would not be able to count to.

So, for "today" to have arrived, that is saying that all of the past days (an infinite amount) has successfully traversed every SINGLE day (an infinite amount) and has now traversed those days upon completion.

It ain't happening.

If I can do it, why can't "eternity?"

But there is no possible world at which I would be able to complete the task. That pretty much covers all possibilities, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

Straw man.

I am challenging you to name me one number that I would not be able to count to, because you said it would be impossible. A claim that you've repeated just above. It's not a straw man.

But according to you, there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today...

Right, but why on Earth would that lead you to conclude there would be "an infinite amount of days in between the two days?" What sort of misconception could you possibly harbor that would warrant such a belief?

Because you didn't meet the requirements yet. You said you will work on it. Get to work.

In the mean time, why don't you name me a number that I cannot count to or from?

But you said infinity aint a number, so if the total number of integers counted ain't a finite number, then what will it be?

Not a number at all. Or rather, a cardinal number.

Bro, I only said that because YOU said that "infinity isn't a number".

That doesn't answer my question, why would the fact that infinity isn't a number lead you to ask me if the totoal number of integer is a finite number?

Then what will it be? Please tell me...because I really want to learn from you.

It's infinity, which isn't a number. Are we learning yet?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Incorrect. I said no such thing. Instead I said we cannot currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis. Or were you under the impression that synthetic cells counts as abiogenesis?

Nonsense. I specifically asked you "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material?" (abiogenesis).

Your response was, "Sure I can".

And now you are saying "I said we cannot currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis".

Well, if you can't currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis, then the answer to the question of "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material" should be "No, we can't".

Like I said, this is a blatantly obvious contradiction.

How?

By concluding X can't be the case just because Y isn't the case where X and Y share some similarities.

Please decipher that into what I actually said.

Because unlike you, I ain't a naturalist...so I don't falsely conclude that science has no limitation and can provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

That still doesn't answer my question, not concluding that science has no limitation and can provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond, doesn't imply science can't figure out how life came about on Earth.

*Science has limitations, and CAN'T provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

The creation of an automobile is naturalistic, too...but you ain't getting one without intelligent design.

That's only because there aren't natural laws tending towards the creation of automobiles.

Or life, either. You already admitted that abiogenesis is scientifically unproven..so no need to beat a dead horse. Science does not affirm abiogenesis, so to believe it is to accept by faith.

Makes no sense.

Putting stuff into a test tube and zapping it, is closer to an explosion in a factory than an assembly line.

Did you get life? Nope.

I don't know about that...

That where I come in, to fill in gaps in your knowledge.

Thanks for filling in those gaps, now I can comfortably reject it.

So, an experiment that did NOT create life from nonliving material is "evidence for abiogenesis"?

Absolutely. Had it actually created life you wouldn't be here trying to fill that gap with a "God did it."

"Had it". No need for hypotheticals; it didn't happen. That is all that is relevant to the discussion.

Notice my question went unanswered.

The answer was a "no" if it wasn't clear. You are still moving the goal post.

What was the question?

Makes no sense, good friend.

Well, I guess it's not entry level science. But do you have any specific area you would like me to explain in greater detail? Or perhaps we need to start with what "average" mean?

I still don't even know what you were attempting to explain.

That's the point; if the past is eternal and we've successfully arrived at today, then that is reaching infinity, one day at a time.

Incorrect. That is not like reaching infinity, one day at a time. As no day in the eternal past is infinitely far away.

Please respond to my challenge.

is the sum total of all past days (including today)..is the sum total of these days a finite number?

No.

Then what is it, then? You already said infinity ain't a number..so if it ain't a finite number, and it ain't an infinite number, what is it?

This is a simple yes/no question with no explanation really needed.

I highly doubt that, given the quality of responses so far.

I agree, but from my perspective towards you.

Then past-eternity cannot reach the present moment.

That does not follow.

The challenge..

I am not confusing the two, considering "all of the days of the past" is not a finite number.

The fact says otherwise, you are still saying they are the same here.

I ain't, though.

So you will never be able to count all of the numbers in completion, will you?

Of course I can. Name me one number that I would not be able to count to.

I said in COMPLETION. Obviously, if you are counting forever and ever, you will never "finish" counting. Reading comprehension is key, here.

So, for "today" to have arrived, that is saying that all of the past days (an infinite amount) has successfully traversed every SINGLE day (an infinite amount) and has now traversed those days upon completion.

It ain't happening.

If I can do it, why can't "eternity?"

I don't know if you can do it. You said you will work on it. You finished? Oh, so you counted an infinite amount of numbers in a finite amount of time?

LOL.

But there is no possible world at which I would be able to complete the task. That pretty much covers all possibilities, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

No possible world = no possibilities.

Straw man.

I am challenging you to name me one number that I would not be able to count to, because you said it would be impossible. A claim that you've repeated just above. It's not a straw man.

I don't recall stating you can't count to a finite number. In fact, I admitted that you could. You counting to a finite number was never a point of contention here. Yet, you keep challenging me as if I claimed you couldn't.

Straw man.

But according to you, there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today...

Right, but why on Earth would that lead you to conclude there would be "an infinite amount of days in between the two days?" What sort of misconception could you possibly harbor that would warrant such a belief?

Because since I understand infinity, I know that on an infinite timeline, there is an infinite amount of points between any two points (conceptually).

But, you will have to really understand the nature of infinity to grasp this concept. Some of us do..most of us don't.

Because you didn't meet the requirements yet. You said you will work on it. Get to work.

In the mean time, why don't you name me a number that I cannot count to or from?

What are you doing with all of those scarecrows (straw men)?

But you said infinity aint a number, so if the total number of integers counted ain't a finite number, then what will it be?

Not a number at all. Or rather, a cardinal number.

Call it whatever you want, impress me by traversing the amount.

Bro, I only said that because YOU said that "infinity isn't a number".

That doesn't answer my question, why would the fact that infinity isn't a number lead you to ask me if the totoal number of integer is a finite number?

Because (back to the challenge), if you were to place a natural number on every single integer in the numbers set (with 0 being the last integer assigned a number), what natural number would you place on zero?

Again, if you aren't placing a natural number on it, then what number are you assigning it? It can't be a finite number (for obvious reasons)...so where does that leave you? In absurdity.

That is why.

Then what will it be? Please tell me...because I really want to learn from you.

It's infinity, which isn't a number. Are we learning yet?

The task..

[Bust Nak]

I specifically asked you "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material?" (abiogenesis).

No you didn't, you asked me if I can go in a lab and get life from nonliving material minus the (abiogenesis) bit.

Well, if you can't currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis, then the answer to the question of "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material" should be "No, we can't".

That doesn't follow. making life from non-living material is not necessarily the same thing as demonstrating abiogenesis.

Please decipher that into what I actually said.

Sure, X is there are natural laws that leads to life; Y is there are natural laws that leads to card house.

*Science has limitations, and CAN'T provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

That still doesn't answer my question, why would you think life on Earth is something that is beyond the limitation of science?

Or life, either.

You don't know that.

Science does not affirm abiogenesis, so to believe it is to accept by faith.

Incorrect, we have empirical evidence for it.

Did you get life?

Again, synthetic cells are a thing.

Thanks for filling in those gaps, now I can comfortably reject it.

That's not very scientific or rational.

"Had it". No need for hypotheticals; it didn't happen. That is all that is relevant to the discussion.

But evidence for abiogenesis is relevant to the discussion.

What was the question?

Check the post history.

I still don't even know what you were attempting to explain.

How natural formation of life does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Please respond to my challenge.

I did. I told you to keep waiting while I do it, remember?

Then what is it, then? You already said infinity ain't a number..so if it ain't a finite number, and it ain't an infinite number, what is it?

Infinity.

I agree, but from my perspective towards you.

Well, you know how I like explaining stuff to you.

I ain't, though.

The record shows otherwise.

I said in COMPLETION. Obviously, if you are counting forever and ever, you will never "finish" counting. Reading comprehension is key, here.

But I have only started counting a few days ago. An eternal past never started remember? So keep waiting until I have had as much time as an eternal past.

I don't know if you can do it. You said you will work on it. You finished? Oh, so you counted an infinite amount of numbers in a finite amount of time?

Of course not, why would you ask such a thing?

No possible world = no possibilities.

Right, possibilities = not the case there is no possible world.

I don't recall stating you can't count to a finite number.

That's where the post history comes in. So you don't have to remember.

In fact, I admitted that you could.

Then why would you think I can't count all the past days to reach the present day?

You counting to a finite number was never a point of contention here.

History says otherwise. You said and I quote "'All of them' is actually an infinite amount..and you just said that it will literally take forever...which means it is impossible."

Because since I understand infinity, I know that on an infinite timeline, there is an infinite amount of points between any two points (conceptually).

That's the misconception right there. On an infinite timeline, there is always a finite amount of points between any two points (conceptually). Until you discard this so called "understanding" and "knowledge" you'll never ask the right questions. Again think number line, can you think of any two numbers where there is an infinite amount of points between them?

What are you doing with all of those scarecrows (straw men)?

Beat you over the head with it?

Call it whatever you want, impress me by traversing the amount.

It would literally take forever.

Because (back to the challenge), if you were to place a natural number on every single integer in the numbers set (with 0 being the last integer assigned a number), what natural number would you place on zero?

Zero. Obviously.

The task..

Meh. Keep waiting.