I am an atheist...proof of creationism?

now first of all .. i am not being stubborn, and im not trying to be annoying, im simply trying to understand the problem with infinity.

Is there any way to conceptualize the problem visually? with an example? I learn a lot easier that way. As far as I can see it, if something has no beginning, it has existed forever. If something exists forever, it must have therefore existed for an infinite time before it commited its very first action (whether that is the big bang, or a reflection of light). And as so, it could NEVER reach that point in time where it committed its first action, unless there was only ever 1 action.

Why is that mathematically wrong to think that? At what point in that understanding do i start relating infinity to real numbers?

Are you an atheist?

Fr0st2k said:

Is there any way to conceptualize the problem visually? with an example? I learn a lot easier that way. As far as I can see it, if something has no beginning, it has existed forever.

Click to expand...

Sure.

If something exists forever, it must have therefore existed for an infinite time before it commited its very first action (whether that is the big bang, or a reflection of light). And as so, it could NEVER reach that point in time where it committed its first action, unless there was only ever 1 action.

Click to expand...

Question. Whether a timeline is finite or infinite...you must always be somewhere on the timeline, moving progressively forward, correct?

Fr0st2k said:

now first of all .. i am not being stubborn, and im not trying to be annoying, im simply trying to understand the problem with infinity.

Click to expand...

That's good.

Is there any way to conceptualize the problem visually? with an example? I learn a lot easier that way. As far as I can see it, if something has no beginning, it has existed forever.

Click to expand...

Yup. Which either makes it like a number line or like a circle. BTW, something can also exist forever if it has a beginning: provided that the thing's beginning is also time's beginning

If something exists forever, it must have therefore existed for an infinite time before it commited its very first action (whether that is the big bang, or a reflection of light). And as so, it could NEVER reach that point in time where it committed its first action, unless there was only ever 1 action.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell you can reach any point on an infinite line if you have an infinite amount of time. (And what's this about there being "only ever 1 action"? I'm not exactly following this thread, and I don't see where that comes from )

Fr0st2k said:

Is there any way to conceptualize the problem visually? with an example? I learn a lot easier that way. As far as I can see it, if something has no beginning, it has existed forever. If something exists forever, it must have therefore existed for an infinite time before it commited its very first action (whether that is the big bang, or a reflection of light).

Click to expand...

Why would there have to be a very 1st action? Wouldn't there be an infinite string of actions stretching back into the past?

And as so, it could NEVER reach that point in time where it committed its first action, unless there was only ever 1 action.

Click to expand...

Reach that point from where? From any point you choose in the past, you will reach any other point in the future in a finite amount of time. The confusion stems from you still trying to pick a point at infinity and calling that the beginning. There. Is. No. Beginning.

Wiccan_Child said:

The people have spoken...

Click to expand...

It's almost as if this supposed supposed "scientific proof" doesn't really exist. Words cannot express my disappointment.

Firstly, OP you aren't a very good Atheist if you consider the possibility of Creationism. Seriously - Atheism and Creationism are two of the philosophies in this world that lies furthest apart, but you apparently would have no problem becoming a Creationist overnight because of Philosophy.

MrGoodBytes said:

It's almost as if this supposed supposed "scientific proof" doesn't really exist. Words cannot express my disappointment.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't have proof anyway, proof is for Math and alcohol. Science has evidence that is used to draw conclusions and support theories. The closest thing to proof would be a Scientific Law, but even that isn't the same thing.

Atheuz said:

Science doesn't have proof anyway, proof is for Math and alcohol. Science has evidence that is used to draw conclusions and support theories. The closest thing to proof would be a Scientific Law, but even that isn't the same thing.

Click to expand...

Hence the quote marks.

Atheuz said:

Firstly, OP you aren't a very good Atheist if you consider the possibility of Creationism. Seriously - Atheism and Creationism are two of the philosophies in this world that lies furthest apart, but you apparently would have no problem becoming a Creationist overnight because of Philosophy.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's an atheist.

Science doesn't have proof anyway, proof is for Math and alcohol. Science has evidence that is used to draw conclusions and support theories. The closest thing to proof would be a Scientific Law, but even that isn't the same thing.

Click to expand...

That's why we're asking for the evidence. We don't think it exists, so we'd like to see it before we believe him.

Well, the title for this thread was certainly misleading. I was hoping to find creationists engaged in supplying evidence without relying on claims from religious texts.

Does a thread like that exist? (Seriously.)

EecoErin said:

Well, the title for this thread was certainly misleading. I was hoping to find creationists engaged in supplying evidence without relying on claims from religious texts.

Does a thread like that exist? (Seriously.)

Click to expand...

No.

EecoErin said:

Well, the title for this thread was certainly misleading. I was hoping to find creationists engaged in supplying evidence without relying on claims from religious texts.

Does a thread like that exist? (Seriously.)

Click to expand...

No (Seriously).

flatworm said:

Really? Let's see it.

Click to expand...

E=mc^god did it.

ranmaonehalf said:

E=mc^god did it.

Click to expand...

As speed increases, godwin becomes infinite?

DarylFawcett said:

You want scientific proof?

I will now go and get it for you in my next post.

Click to expand...

Please do. You'd be the first.

DarylFawcett said:

Here is the link to the scientific evidence of an instantanious creation of the planet on which we presently live:

http://www.halos.com/index.htm

There is a lot of reading to be done there, so take your time to digest this scientific evidence/proof.

Click to expand...

You said you had proof, not a refuted hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

ranmaonehalf said:

E=mc^god did it.

Click to expand...

E=mc^(god did it)

We also know
E=mc^2

so 2=(god did it) ???

Fr0st2k said:

Please, explain to me how the logic about infinity is incorrect, as i can't seem to understand why I am looking at infinity as a finite number.

Click to expand...

infinity is not just a place holder for an obscenely large number, it does not work in math that way