Important!

[cmotherofpirl]

[i]Infinitely small [/i]would still take up space, [i]nothing[/i] would not.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 8 2004, 07:03 AM'] [i]Infinitely small [/i]would still take up space, [i]nothing[/i] would not. [/quote]

Infinitely small = 0

Ok, let's have two variables, A and B, and they are comparable.

One and only one of three things can be true. Either A > B OR A = B OR A < B.


Let's say A is bigger than B, so A > B. Let's call the difference between the two numbers C, so A + C = B. (Note: it's the difference between two numbers so C can't be negative).

B = 0

A = Infinitely small.

Lemma: [b]If A is infinitely small then C cannot be positive.[/b]

Proof: Let's assume A is positive and bigger than B. If there is a number, C, that is smaller than A and larger than B, then A > C > B.

But we assumed that A is the smallest possible number above B, so if there is a smallest possible number above B, then C is positive. But then C would be smaller than A so C would be the smallest number.

We have arrived at a contradiction. If A is small and positive then C is smaller than A but still positive, so change C for A. You never end...

ok let's say B = 0 and A = 1.

But C = 0.1 and is positive and smaller than A so A = 0.1.
But C = 0.01 and is positive and smaller than A so A = 0.01
But C = 0.001 and is positive and smaller than A so A = 0.001
But C = 0.0001 and is positive and smaller than A so A = 0.0001
But C = 0.00001 and is positive and smaller than A so A = 0.00001



No matter how small A is, there will still be a number between A and B, C, that is smaller than A and bigger than B, but still positive. C cannot be negative, and it cannot be positive, so C = 0.

Therefore, because C = 0, then A = B, therefore Infinitely small = 0#

I should point out, once I grasped the concept of nothing I think started "looking for god" (wow, that sounds cheesy). I mean, how do you make something out of literally nothing?

Edited July 8, 2004 by RandomProddy

[cmotherofpirl]

I hate math.

infinitely small will always take up some space, because small implies some kind of size.

nothing implies ...nothing emptiness...blankness
smallness does not equal nothingness.

[Aloysius]

hold up, i think you just confused yourself on the math unnecesarily.

A=0 B=1 C=infinitely small

A<C<B

C is positive. C cannot be negative because it is greater than 0. C is positive because it is greater than 0

0 is nothing, but 0 is the gateway to infinity, because zero by it's nature is the same as 0 times infinity, it goes into any number infinite amount of times.

Math can be a reflection about the divine. God is three in one, three times Infinity= Infinity. God existed always, and when there was nothing in existance, God Was. When there is 0, there is infinity.

[DojoGrant]

Infininitely small takes up space. If it's infinitely small, it's not an actual number, but a theoretical number. Therefore, you can't apply simple math to it and get an answer. By virtue of its infiniteness (is that a word?), it is greater than zero and yet still infinitely less than one.

In fact, it could be argued that being infinitely small is an impossibility. Either way, if it did, it would take up space. This is true because zero is not infinitely small. It has no smallness at all.

[Guest JeffCR07]

This question of that which is infinitely small is most certainly an intriguing one, particularly in regards to its relationship with non-existence, however, I feel it is more off topic than is necessary.

Dojo, the answer to your question is relatively easy, though you will not like it. It is, truthfully, much the same as our own (Christian) explanation, though it circumvents God.

Assuming the Big-Bang theory, as has been discussed before, all of matter existed in one infinitely dense, infinitely small "singularity" before the outward projection of matter in what we know as the "Big Bang."

Your question is thus: If all motion exists as a [i]result[/i] of force applied, and this singularity was eternally present, what applied the force that created the change from "singularity" to "big bang?" Ultimately, it is a question of causation.

As I said before, the answer is simple, though you will not like it. Before the Big Bang, what we are considering is something that has never been witnessed in all of the cosmos: A Universal Singularity. The closest we can observe are "minor singularities" that we call "Black Holes." Though we do not know much about them, it seems that math breaks down within a black hole and certain "Laws" of nature fail. It would, then, be logical to assume that, regarding a Universal Singularity, the same would be true, and perhaps on a much larger scale.

Thus the short answer to your question is this: A learned atheist would reply "The problem is that you are trying to apply a 'proof' using math and laws that may not be existant within a Universal Singularity"

or, even shorter "Those rules don't apply"


I hope that helps. Ultimately, as Chesterton said, atheists are like a madman who thinks everyone is out to get him. You cannot convince him otherwise because [i]thats just what the people who are out to get him would say[/i], and you are just trying to make him lower his guard. You cannot refute the argument, you must simply show that there is another option, just as viable, and more appealing.

That being that the world is more than just a series of laws dictating the manner in which matter moves about; it is love and fear and angels and demons and miracles and freedom. The Christian is free to believe both in science and in the supernatural, but the atheist is bound to refuse, absolutely, the supernatural, and accept only the science.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[DojoGrant]

Jeff,

My answer to that response (which is a good criticism, I might add), is that such answers are speculation. Unless we witness the birth of another universe (which, by nature, would have to be outside our own, which is a material impossibility), it could never be proven matter-of-factly.

If the laws of nature can break down completely, then using science as the end-all means of understanding itself becomes fruitless, so it's self-defeating.

[Guest JeffCR07]

This is what I was referencing when I said that it is similar to the Christian response, though it circumvents God.

They ask us "How did everything come into being?" and we respond that "God, who is the uncaused cause, created it, and He is eternal because He is the Master of science and the Author of creation, thus our rules do not apply to him."

We ask them and they respond that "The Universal Singularity was in a state of existence in which our laws of science break down, thus making it impossible for us to understand."

Ultimately, the two arguments are symmetrical, though drastically divided. Neither one disproves the other and, in the eyes of the other both are "speculative," for an atheist will deny Divine Revelation.

They are two "options" ours is just the one that is more open, liberating, and answers more questions, though it demands a greater leap of faith.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

Well any good cosmologist will tell you, that if you go back to the beginning, the laws of physics don't apply.

Have you read Stephen Hawking?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Yes, he is one of those whose work substantiates the atheist claim that I have established above, along with the work in subatomic forces done by Professor Richard Fienman during the 40's and 50's

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 8 2004, 08:23 AM'] Well any good cosmologist will tell you, that if you go back to the beginning, the laws of physics don't apply. [/quote]
That's cause gravity=electromagnetic force=weak nuclear force=strong nuclear force.

In other words, it was a fun place! This is all before T=10^(-43) seconds.

[DojoGrant]

Jeff,

I see what you're saying now. The people that I wrote this for, though, deny what cannot be known extensively through science (since the supernatural is not naturally explainable, there is no reason to believe it). Hence, they would be forced to not except any other unprovable theory, which falsifies the notion that atheism is "reasonable."

[cmotherofpirl]

No atheist has ever explained what created the singularity in the first place, or what force moved it. They never will.

It is much easier to believe in a God of order than to think blind chance is the author of all that is.

Atheists are cowards in a little box blindly screaming "it can't be true", because if it was it would require a response.

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I agree with cmom's and dojo's conclusions - that atheism is, ultimately, just as much "faith-based" as catholicism and religion in general, I have to disagree with the broad final statements made by cmom.

In my humble opinion, making a statement of faith is a monumentally difficult task and it is not "cowardice" that leads people to search for other answers. To ask someone to profess a faith in God, who defies reason, the senses, science, and, in fact, all human constructs, is to, ironically, ask someone to believe that that which was dead can once again be alive.

A leap of faith is truly difficult, and, in the case of many, I do not think that "cowardice" is the cause of their inability to take that leap. Reason is. Our culture has placed "reason" on such a pedestal and has enshrined it so thoroughly, that to think that anything more is necessary in the understanding of the universe is "unreasonable" and thus illegitimate.

If atheists are in a box, that box is their own mind, but I don't think I would ever call them a coward for being there, they simply do not yet understand.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

But I don't think belief in God "defies reason, the senses, science, and, in fact, all human constructs ".

I think it is the only logical response to the universe.