When people ask me what my problem with religion is, one answer is not enough

[Special At Specialist]

^^that's actually hilariously untrue - if anything, it's the opposite. Analytic philosophy (dominated my mathematical thinking and, indeed, people with strong Maths backgrounds) dominates most university philosophy departments.

Analytic philosophy has far more atheists than theists, especially considering the low atheist to theist ratio that currently dominates the world population.

You'll also notice nobody in this thread has claimed a dislike for mathematics...

Not directly, but the only one who properly replied to my comment made remarks like this:

An argument not based on graphing would be nice and more accessible... especially since not everyone knows the ins and outs of something like graphing a line like that. Just as far as explaining things to everyone that probably isn't the best approach.. (I stopped reading at about the 2nd or 3rd premise, too much math.

Yeah, still not working for me. Could you do it not in terms of graphs or anything mathematical (above arithmetic and things like that)

[Special At Specialist]

nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

Shush.

Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.

All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?

[Mech]

I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.

All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?

Or they do not want to go through a ten step process when you could have just made the statement below. You accuse others of being inaccessible and making things unduly complex, and yet you just illustrated your own hypocrisy. To answer the question, you are asking whether the universe had a beginning or an end of events? I do not know.

[slothpomba]

The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is.

Kind of what happened when you slapped everyone with a premise that was dense and thick to understand and required everyone to whip out graph paper. You too are guilty.

A key part of arguing philosophically is actually using premises your opponents understand, if they're just sitting around going "wtf..." about your premises, you'll go nowhere.

You may accuse many here of using flowery prose or rhetoric but by in large at least way more people can understand that than your original argument.

If you look through the history of philosophy, at least western philosophy, a lot of these ideas were presented in long books with a fair sprinkling of the very prose you accuse us of.  Most of the great ideas weren't a one page book but contained within much lengthier books.

You're a fool if you think we'll suddenly operate under how you think philosophy should work.

Again, i dont see the direct link between your graph supposedly being infinite (which is disputed) and infinite regress in an cosmological sense being possible. You're basically saying, well my graph is infinite, therefore infinite regress in the cosmological sense is possible. It seems like a non-sequitur to me though. My giraffe is yellow, therefore, infinite regress is possible!. Again, just because it may be a property of your graph, doesn't automatically make it a property or the current universe or the origin of that universe.

To be able to act logically in philosophy you dont necessarily need mathematics, you just need logic. They overlap but they're different things. I doubt we need to know how to sketch a derivative for many arguments in philosophy of religion. The only widely presented argument in philosophy of religion which you actually need mathematics for is Pascals Wager which is a pretty dismal argument anyway.

Your one line statement did a much better job than whatever that was before..

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

I wasnt going to respond but some people mentioned that they would like to see such a thing. I thought of numerous proofs but they were mostly wordy and long. I decided to pick the simplest one.

Since you're so fond of graphs, i made you one, enjoy  .

(Before you go absolutely bananas i realise it is missing arrows and things but the basic idea is contained just as well)



There was no time if there was no universe for time to exist in. The start of the universe is essentially time = 0. We are 13.75 billion years after that. This is a finite amount of time. It is impossible to have infinite regression and an infinite number of events over a finite timespace.

We need to distinguish between implied or mathematical infinity AND actual infinity.


The infinity on your graph can be called implied. You know it is there (or at least you think you do), just scribble down a little one of these ∞ and boom you're done. Can you actually see all the points on your graph up until infinity though? No. Do they actually occur in reality, on your paper? No. Could you graph an actually infinite line? As in, actually draw a line that is infinite? Doubtful. The infinity here is implied, it is not actually present, you can not draw or see the infinite line.

Unless you contend something actually (not theoretically) infinite could be contained within something finite..?

The idea of infinite regression implies such an infinite line has occurred and does actually exist. This is quiet different from scribbling ∞ on a graph and assuming it continues forever. You are saying in actuality all causes in the universe actually continue forever, its not implied, it has actually happened. There are key differences.

It is impossible to have an infinite series of causes over finite time. Also take into consideration the fact that time series from the creation of the universe till now is not infinite. Infinite regress almost implies there were things existing way before the universe but there was no universe for them to exist in.. Infinite regress has to continue before the very creation of the universe to be infinite which is obviously impossible.

[I would usually use a more complicated and wordy argument but this is just fine and a lot more simple and accessible than the other argument. If you still feel like infinite regress is possible though, i'd be happy to deliver this one too..]

[nacho]

nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

Shush.

Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.

All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?

seriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into this
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs

how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors

'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'

[burbs]

nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

Shush.

Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.

All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?

seriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into this
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs

how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors

'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'

This I understand.

[WhoTookMyUsername]

nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

Shush.

Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.

All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?

seriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into this
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs

how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors

'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'

An would be such a boring place without nacho

[trinh]

how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors

+1 (signature worthy imo)