So as tim wood points out you mistake your fantasy for reality, and talk bollocks and call it 'philosophy' — unenlightened

Your deterioration in language is symptomatic of someone losing an argument.

Instead of vague generalities; can you not come up with any specific counter arguments against the argument in the OP?

It's not a la carte, it's prix fixe, no choice. Eat, or starve, or live - starve - in fantasy land — tim wood

It is a fact that not everything you were taught at school is true. You need to be more skeptical and open minded.

You are doing the same magical thinking again. Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have — unenlightened

I think you will find that 'Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have' is part of philosophy and science.

I've no time for stuff like this - philosophical incantations that purport to tell the world how it has to be. It's magical thinking and it doesn't work — unenlightened

It's logical thinking. Why don't you try to find a problem with it rather than posting rants.

And when exactly does physics do this? If physics don't realise that I am quoting you after you have posted and not before, physics is a dick. Obviously there is no reference frame in which there is no preferred reference frame — unenlightened

Nowhere in physics is the concept of now enshrined... so I can't point you to where, it's nowhere.

I've learnt it. I reject the parts of it associated with Actual Infinity (set theory).

You could think of it like that, but physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame.

Small point: not true for (at least) transfinite cardinal numbers — tim wood

The definition of the first transfinite number is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. No way is that a number. It's a conception of a mad man.

I should point out that there is only one kind of infinity; by definition it is the largest thing, so it's not possible to have two of the largest things; one of them would not be infinity. If you want to take a look at what sort of nonsense the opposite assumption produces, then bijection is the term to google. You will find that the procedure produces plainly laughable results such as the set of natural numbers being the same size as the set of rational numbers (the 2nd is clearly infinitely larger than the first).

What are we to make of the rules for working with transfinite cardinals:

∞+1=∞.

If you buy the first point about a single type of infinity, then the above expression immediately leads to 1=0. Even if you don't, there is something deeply wrong with it. In english, it's saying that 'there exists something, that when you change it, it does not change'. What sort of object behaves like that? No objects behalf like that, so does it deserve to be enshrined at the heart of a supposedly logical discipline (maths)?

2. If all inanimate things are directed towards ends, then those ends must (in some sense) exist. — Aaron R

It seems possible to be directed towards an end that does not exist. Firemen heading towards a non-existent fire for example.

3. These ends don’t exist in material nature or in the immaterial minds of any finite creature.
4. Therefore, they must exist in an infinite mind. — Aaron R

I have the goal of keeping safe and that goal most definitely exists in my mind.

Also, he has missed the possibility that ends exist in material minds (of finite creatures). No need for an infinite mind at all...

Actually I thought of a snag. If God were a Boltzmann Brain generated from pure chaos, pure chaos would need fine tuning for Boltzmann Brain's, but by what?

So by this line of thinking (design), God came casually 'before' any chaos.

First it was Chaos , the totallity of all possiblities and no actuallity at all. Imagine an infinite sea of Light with no end and consubstantial in its entire infinity — Illuminati

Great argument.

So the primordial chaos is timeless and thus beyond cause and effect and thus does not need creating?

If that is your argument, then you should present it without referring to a start (except to exclude it). It's easy to demonstrate that an object with infinite extension cannot be perceived. But an object with no start need not be infinite (as the surface of a sphere is not bounded but finite). And eve — Echarmion

Nor can it exist IMO. Infinity is not logical. Nature is logical. Therefore infinity does not feature in nature.

It is not a quantity so it cannot be the value of real world quantities like the size or the age of the universe.

Interesting point about a sphere. Time could circle around. Big Crunch causes big bang in an eternal but finite circle. That would technically have arbitrarily many start/end points; the choice is arbitrary on a circle (often 0˚).

Then why does your argument concerning presentism even refer to a start of time? — Echarmion

If you read the start of the OP, there is an argument against infinite time given first. So I was presenting the argument as a 'what if you buy there is a start of time' argument.

If the start doesn't exist there can't be a point in time following the start — Terrapin Station

Yes so the whole thing does not exist then. There has to be a temporal start point like an object has to have an identifiable spacial start point.

Emphasis mine. Your argument refers to a "start" that doesn't exist — Echarmion

The fact that the start does not exist means the rest of the object does not exist (so my argument goes). So time seems to behaves like space in this regard (IE if an object has no identifiable start point in space, it is not an object).

But presentism doesn't assume the present started at some point. "Now" has no temporal extension, and hence neither a temporal start nor a temporal end — Echarmion

Yes I was merely pointing out that 'a start of time' and 'only now exists' are incompatible.

No it wouldn't. We could have a universe with infinite time and two elementary particles and that's it, for example — Terrapin Station

But how did they come into being? Or they existed for ever? See below:

What does "next to start" refer to? It's difficult to evaluate this part of the argument when I don't know what it's referring to. — Terrapin Station

The point in time following the start. It would qualify as the start if the start did not exist. So you can extend that argument through the entire life of the object to establish it never existed.

Just by fiat, or what? — Terrapin Station

Well creation with:
- No time
- No space
- No matter

Seems impossible?

Here your argument assumes a start of time in a scenario without a start of time — Echarmion

No it assumes an 'end' of time: now. Thats all.

B doesn't seem to follow from A. — Echarmion

If there is only now and then you take away that there is nothing left at all. Nothing to create/cause time to start. So that is an impossible something from nothing (no time even).

The point I was making is that God should be logical and therefore build the universe in the most efficient manner possible. There is an argument that this is not the case which could therefore bring into question the existence of God.

A related and contrary though: Eternal Inflation; is it not brilliant? Creation of a multiverse from nothing. If it were possible to achieve, could God resist himself from doing it?

'It (Deism) also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator or absolute principle of the universe.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

A logical, scientific approach to God. Not sure it really counts as a religion, more its a position between theism and atheism.

What I mean is that the path on the circle (/its topology) is finite. You can carry on going around the loop potentially infinite times but the path itself is finite in extent.

Indeed, it's a conjecture of Hawking's that space-time is unbounded — tim wood

'This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. '

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Interesting stuff. I will do some more reading. Sounds like a finite time model to me.

Poincare recurrence theorem is usually referred to in the context of infinite time... entropy resets are required for some infinite time models but a Big Crunch seems a much more probable way of achieving it than recurrence?

I think you can divide possible models of the universe into 4 basic classes:

1. 'Can’t get something from nothing' & 'Infinite Time' - for me this fails because an infinite regress seems impossible and infinite being seems impossible.

2. 'Can get something from nothing' & 'Infinite Time' - fails because I don't believe in spontaneous/natural matter creation and anyway even if that happened, it would lead to infinite matter density (when combined with infinite time).

3. 'Can’t get something from nothing' & 'Finite Time' - This model seems possible and is compatible with the Big Bang theory.

4. 'Can get something from nothing' & 'Finite Time' - This model seems unlikely as there would not be enough time for all the matter to be generated naturally from nothing.

Travelling around circle can be regarded as an example of potential infinity (/unbounded). But it's not really an infinite path: starting at 0˚, once 360˚ is reached, it is the same path being traversed again.

Is it the infinite they believe in or the unbounded? Makes a difference. Do you know the difference? — tim wood

We are talking about time so the being is:

- Actually infinite in the past (IE it stretches back forever) and potentially infinite (=finite but unbounded) in the future if you believe in presentism.
- Or actually infinite in both directions (if you believe in eternalism).

It's the past that is relevant for my arguments, so actual infinity is what I'm referring to.

You now have a universe in which every single event, without exception, has a cause. — fishfry

I agree each event has a cause, the problem is the infinite regress as a whole has no cause. So it makes logical sense when viewed as a series of individual events but no sense when viewed as a whole system. Plus as I mentioned above, there is also this argument against an infinite regress:

The being has always experienced events. No matter how far we go back in time, the being experienced events. So it must have experienced some events greater than any number of years ago. Which is a contradiction (can’t be a number and greater than any number at the same time). — Devans99

The title of the OP is 'Is 2 + 2 = 4 universally true?'. So I've assumed it was false to see where it leads and 2+2<>4 always leads to a contradiction. There is no way to make 2+2<>4 consistent so it must always be false.

As I said above, a universe in which 2+2<>4 is a universe with no information in it. IE no matter/energy. A very boring sort of universe.

Maths is just an extension of logic. Maths/logic existed before any minds and before the universe was created. The universe must obey the rules of math IMO.

Quantum fluctuations on their own are meant to respect the conservation of energy, but its theorised that they can cause processes like eternal inflation / big bangs that generate matter/energy (in exchange for something else).

In the theory of eternal inflation, (positive) matter/energy is created in exchange for (negative) gravitational energy. So they say the universe has a (close to) net zero energy balance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

So, what about the real universe? Does this mathematical game, in which (1+1) + (1+1) = (1+1+1+1), accurately describe the cosmos that we live in? — Crazy Diamond

I'd argue that maths transcends and therefore governs the universe. You can write:

2+2=5

Subtract 4 from each side give:

0=1

That implies false=true. That implies logic is broken and there is also no information in the universe (IE bits of information can take on only a single value).

So it seems basic maths and logic must hold in all possible universes. Geometry is a different matter though. Various geometries have additional axioms beyond basic arithmetic/logic that are questionable and may not hold.

A counter argument:

A. An infinite regress has no initial cause (start).
B. That implies cause and effect don’t hold
C. So spontaneous matter/energy creation happens (eg by quantum fluctuations / Big Bangs).
D. So with infinite time, that implies we’d reach infinite matter/energy density everywhere in the universe.
E. So an infinite regress is not possible.

Also point 5 in the OP is a different argument against an infinite regress.

'Mimosa is a plant, which looks something like a fern, that collapses its leaves temporarily when it is disturbed. So Gagliano set up a contraption that would drop the mimosa plant, without hurting it. When the plant dropped, as expected, its leaves collapsed. She kept dropping the plants every five to six seconds.

"After five or six drops, the plants would stop responding, as if they'd learned to tune out the stimulus as irrelevent," Pollan says. "This is a very important part of learning — to learn what you can safely ignore in your environment."'

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

I'm a veggie so I was quite shocked reading this. Guess we humans need inbuilt solar panels for an ethical energy source.

This is not proper logic. If A and B is impossible, but B is possible, it does not follow that a is impossible. It might be that the combination is impossible. — Echarmion

How exactly does counting make existing forever impossible?

You are also incorrectly applying your own logic, as it should say "counting to infinity" not just counting. And counting to infinity is impossible. — Echarmion

Counting to infinity is impossible because infinity does not exist. Counting is possible so my argument holds.

There is not any numerical property to begin with. With infinite time, the number of collisions is also infinite — Echarmion

There is a derived, whole integer, property of the system - the number of collisions - which must take on an infinite value; which is impossible (infinity is not an integer).

Existing is not the same as existing and counting to infinity. The paradox doesn't apply. — Echarmion

But existing forever and counting is impossible. Counting is possible. So existing forever is not.

Yes, I am saying that. That it sounds odd in the English language is not an argument. — Echarmion

What you are suggesting sounds impossible. How can numerical properties take on non-numerical values?

And again how do you know these forces could have been set at different values? — Echarmion

Imagine for example if the strong nuclear force were weaker, then atomic nuclei would not hold together. You'd still have a viable universe; it's just there would be no life in that universe. Or if gravity were a bit weaker, stars would not form. Again still a viable universe; but no life.

You don't even know which dimensions if at all or if by more, existed before Big Bang. Period. — Christoffer

I've assumed that time exists in some form before the Big Bang. But if that assumption is false; time has a start anyway and my argument still holds.

Causation ≠ Correlation. You cannot apply God to that and you cannot decide if Big Bang was natural or not. Your fantasy correlations do not apply. — Christoffer

But we are doing statistics and probability here so correlation maybe causation depending on how much correlation there is and there is a lot.

God is as real as a unicorn and your argument is as valid as calculating the probability of a unicorn. — Christoffer

I'm a deist and that means I believe in science only; God has to be logically possible; not some magic invention of conventional religion. So God is not some mythical creature with the omnipotence, omnipresence etc... he is a real, viable being. So God is not in any way akin to a unicorn when it comes to calculation of probabilities.

Based on what? Your beliefs? — Christoffer

Based on logic; if it happens naturally it will happen infinite times (given infinite time).

The laws of physics most likely (by scientific findings) came to be during Big Bang. You cannot conclude that these constants existed before Big Bang and you cannot conclude that they were set intentionally. — Christoffer

But if the constants were set during the big bang, they must of been set by something intelligent and that intelligent entity would require a fine tuned environment. That must of been fine tuned by someone else and so on it regresses until we find God.

What is the difference between conceiving and logically conceiving? Why is existing forever not logical? — Echarmion

We can conceive of infinity; but we can't logically conceive of infinity (or not for very long before we hit one of the numerous contradictions of infinity).

Existing forever throws up paradoxes. How can you do something if you don't start doing it? Its paradoxical from the get go. If you can solve the clock paradox I gave above, then you can have 'existing forever'... but that paradox is unsolvable. An equivalent paradox:

- Say you meet a being who has existed forever
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

Unsolvable.

No, because infinity is not a number, and hence your final sentence doesn't hold. — Echarmion

Are you suggesting 'the number of collisions' is not a number?

How do you know the constants could have been any different from what they are? — Echarmion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

So for example, something like the atom is a fine balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force; if either were slightly different (or if quarks or elections had a different nature) then atoms would not form or would be too unstable.

Assumptions assumptions assumptions. — Christoffer

Definitions are not assumptions.

f you cannot define the dimensions, things or properties themselves, you cannot conclude anything, this is fact. — Christoffer

My argument does not rely on dimensions. It uses the loosest possible definition of time (I don't assume eternalism or presentism). All it relies on is the presence of 'stuff' (matter/energy).

You make an assumption about how it happened, i.e there was a sentient creator, God, that's a pretty big assumption about pre-Big Bang, right? The reasoning you do assumes a sentient God as a property of something you cannot possibly know about at this time and you use that as a value to calculate. Why can't you see this flaw in your reasoning? — Christoffer

I argue that the Big Bang was not natural or time is finite. Both of those are strongly suggestive of a sentient God. Pretty conclusively so when fine-tuning and other evidence is also taken into account.

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life. — Robert L. Park

Its a shockingly efficient design if you ask me; the stars provide the energy, the planets provide the living surfaces. Gravity has to be strong to enable nuclear fusion and hence energy for live. And we have to have radiation else energy would not reach the places life lives. It's inevitable that not all parts of the universe would support life whatever universe design you use.

And the fact that even the atom holds together is a miracle of fine-tuning - how likely is that in an arbitrary (non-fine tuned) universe? I think 99.999% of universes would just have particles endlessly bouncing off each other (no adhesion); nothing close to the amazing complexity of matter we have in our universe (see the periodic table and the compounds... all that diversity from just elections and quarks... and that diversity in matter is required to support life).

I can not calculate the probability of a unicorn standing in my backyard, but I can calculate the probability of a horse. How is this not crystal clear? — Christoffer

You can calculate the probability of a 'unicorn standing in your back garden' as virtually zero. How has that got anything to do with the probability of 'is there a creator'? Unicorns are magical creatures and magic does not exist. Creators are not magical creatures.

"Is there a creator?" is a vague question that through logic conclude it to be a sentient God, without nothing more than math. — Christoffer

If I choose to define my creator as my God that is my prerogative.

Even with this reasoning, how can you conclude Big Bang to be unnatural if you don't know the things, properties or properties themselves of what was before Big Bang? How can you define if Big Bang was natural or unnatural when you don't have any data since science has no data on the event themselves? — Christoffer

Natural things come in a multiplicity, unnatural things are singular.

What does that prove? How can you not just turn that around and say that because the universe evolved these 20 physical constants it enabled life to evolve? There's no connection between any intention of fine-tuning and the natural evolution from these constants to life. You apply the assumption that there can only be these constants if someone intended for life, which is only an assumption and therefore a fallacy. How can you possibly connect the constants to the intention of life? False cause fallacy if I ever saw one. Also, there are 22 known constants, not 20. — Christoffer

The laws of physics do not 'evolve' - there is no selection mechanism. So these constants had to be set a precise values initially in order for life to occur.

I do not assume that 'there can only be these constants if someone intended for life' - I assigned it a 75% probability that fine-tuning implies a creator. A very conservative estimate, some people put in much higher than that.

On the multiplicity of God, if there are many things in heaven, they can be traced back in a casual hierarchy of creation to a single creator, who we could then regard as God. Or we could regard the one thing that gave the order for the universe to be created as God.

But we have to have a definition of the term God before we can do any reasoning:

1. God is defined as creator of the universe
2. God exists is given
3. So God created the universe
4. So God must be powerful and intelligent to create the universe
5. And so on (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620)

It is possible that things can exist without coming into being if it's possible to conceive of existence without also conceiving the existing coming into being.

If coming into being is a necessary part of existence, then it is necessary to conceive as something not existing in order to conceive of it as existing (since coming into being is changing from one to the other).

I can conceive of myself as existing, but not as not existing. Therefore, things can exist without coming into being. — Echarmion

Nice try but its impossible. Being able to conceive of something does not make it possible; it has to be 'logically conceive' of something and existing forever is not logical. Also I can conceive of you not existing - there was a time when you were not born.

No, it does not imply that, because infinity is not a number. — Echarmion

Right, so that means my original proof that an infinite regress is impossible holds:

'We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).'

You are still concluding it to be unnatural without being able to apply data on what is natural or not about it. I.e begging the question. — Christoffer

No I am using maths. Time is infinite. I define a natural event as one that has a non-zero probability of occurring. Infinity times any non-zero number is infinity. Hence an infinite number of Big Bangs and infinite matter density. So the Big Bang was not a natural event or time is finite.

How can you draw that conclusion? You answer a question about something you have no idea about, where's the logic here? You make assumptions based on your belief here.
Begging the question — Christoffer

Because I've established that the cause of the universe was non-naturally occurring or time is finite. Both of which imply a creator.

A flawed argument cannot support another flawed argument to enforce an assumed conclusion. It's like fallacy inception. — Christoffer

There are no flaws in the fine-tuning argument.

No, because'Can get something from nothing' still implies that you can define exactly what was before. Can you disprove that the Big Bang wasn't a quantum probability within infinite time, therefore 100% probable to occur instantly? You can't disprove or disprove anything without data on what was before Big Bang. "Nothing" cannot be applied to the reasoning either since you need to define what "nothing" is based on nothing more than assumptions of how to define what was before Big Bang. — Christoffer

But my argument addresses what happens in the case of both:

- Can get something from nothing
- Can't get something from nothing

IE 100% of cases. Did you read the OP?

If quantum fluctuations cause a matter increase on average then we get infinite density with infinite time so it can't be quantum fluctuations that caused the Big Bang.

No, because you don't know the properties of pre-Big Bag so you cannot define anything at all. — Christoffer

But what properties do we need to know? My argument makes no assumptions at all about the properties of the universe pre Big Bang. Maybe you did not read the OP. The point is if you make no assumptions about the state of the universe pre-big bang, you can still reason about it.

If you have such an undefined definition of what God is that it could be considered "whatever", then the metaphorical interdimensional stone could be the God you are arguing for, then why call it God at all if not to apply you own belief to an object of no sentience?
Then:
If you have God as undefined, but sentient, you have defined it with at least one property, that of sentience, which has no support in the argument you are making. Therefore, you assume it to have sentienceout of your belief and will that this is true, not out of any evidence for it. — Christoffer

A natural creation implies multiple creations, so the creator must be unnatural; IE a zero percent probability of naturally occurring, IE God. Plus fine tuning for life of the universe/multiverse is impossible without an intelligent creator.

You are drawing a true conclusion out of a probability value based on your own invented values of each points probability. With some points being "Big Bang 50%"; of what? God? It's flawed. Probability needs data on the outcome so that it can be quantified. Since we don't know anything about pre-Big Bang, you have no data to put into your calculation. Therefore you cannot calculate any type of probability for God. — Christoffer

I made conservative estimates on the percentages. It is a systematic and mathematically correct way to carry out a probability meta-analysis. At least I'm making an effect instead of throwing my hands up. 'I don't know' is not an informative answer.

No, you are using your belief as groundwork for your conclusion. Logic and math cannot prove anything before Big Bang — Christoffer

Point to exactly where I am using 'belief' in my argument please. I believe in logic and maths and nothing else. 1+1=2 applies before and after the big bang so yes, maths and logic can make statements about what happened before the Big Bang (as long as no axioms about the pre-Big Bang period are used).

God doesn't exist within logic and math as a quantifiable entity. — Christoffer

But the question 'Is there a creator?' does exist within logic and is fair game.

Natural and unnatural are concepts without proved scientific definitions and can't be used to calculate what is and what isn't natural. — Christoffer

I have defined these terms; again:

- Natural events have a non-zero probability of occurring naturally given sufficient time
- Unnatural events have a zero probability of occurring naturally however much time

So we can use these definitions to reason about the pre-Big Bang universe.

The fine-tuning argument is a fallacy that assumes the conclusion before the argument, it has no scientific validity.
Properties of anything and definitions of the properties themselves are unknown about what came before the Big Bang, physicists have at this time no data to support anything and no conclusions to give. — Christoffer

Fine tuning is not a fallacy; there are about 20 physical constants that if changed would result in no life in the universe.

I have not in my argument made any assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period. I have not even assumed gravity, the standard model, cause and effect. So as there are no assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period it is OK to reason about it.

God exist or God does not exist is not 50/50 since we don't have a coin, we don't have sides, we don't have the gravity or the flip. — Christoffer

Where then would you suggest I start with a probability analysis if it is not 50%/50% ?

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang.
— Devans99

Please present a logical argument as to why things need to "come into being" in order to exist. I don't know that I was born, for example, from my perspective, I have always existed. But let's not get distracted by metaphors: what is your actual argument? — Echarmion

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being.

Why would a clock that has always existed read infinity? Actual clocks don't actually start at the beginning of time and count up. And even if they did, that I cannot perceive or understand such a clock doesn't mean it cannot exist. — Echarmion

It's a thought experiment. The point is such a clock is logically impossible. But being a clock is possible. So it must be that 'existing forever' is impossible.

Infinity is not itself a contradiction. — Echarmion

Its not a number and it is a contradiction:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

Or you start at "I don't know" — Echarmion

Exactly, you start with I don't know; ie not 100% yes, not 100% no, but equidistant between the opposites: 50%/50%.

Unless energy is conserved. In that case, creation just infinitely repeats itself, and we would never notice. — Echarmion

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang.

Imagine a clock that has always existed. It can’t read infinity as it’s impossible to count to infinity and it can’t read any lessor number as that would be incompatible with ‘always existed’. So such a clock cannot ‘always exist’. If a clock can’t ‘always exist’, nothing else can either.

If something always existed, it has no start. If it has no start (call that time t), so time t+1 is not defined, nor is t+2 (because t+1) is missing. All the way to the end of time, it’s all undefined.

We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).

We shouldn't assume anything unless we have a reason to make assumptions — Echarmion

The reason I need to make an assumption is I want to calculate the probability there is a creator.

How do you figure there is a probability distribution in the first place? — Echarmion

All unknown questions have answers. So there is a boolean probability distribution for unknown questions. If you were given a list of 1000 unknown boolean questions, would you approximate:

- The answer is 'no' for all 1000
- The answer is 'yes' for all 1000
- The answer is 'yes' for 500

So I have to start somewhere with the question of 'is there a creator?'. If I start at 100% no; I'm showing bias against there being a creator. If I start at 100% yes; I'm showing bias for there being a creator. So I start at 50%/50%.

The same type of question, should we assume?

- 100% certain no creator
- 100% certain there is a creator
- 50% / 50%

If we have no evidence either way?

How do you know there is only one creation? You know there is one creation. It doesn't follow that there is only one. — Echarmion

If creation was natural, its has a non-zero probability of occurring. If time was infinite, there would therefore be infinite instances of creation and we would have reached infinite density by now.

No, in the absence of evidence you assume nothing at all. You only assume a normal distribution for cases where you have evidence that there is a distribution, but you don't know the details. — Echarmion

So given a toss of a coin, which would you assume:

- It comes up tails 100%
- It comes up heads 100%
- It comes up heads/tails 50%/50%

It has to be the third surely???