Comment: "who said anything about an

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: who said anything about an (see in situ)

"who said anything about an

"who said anything about an infinite amount of possibilities? ... I said that in an infinity there is an infinite number of CHANCES for those things which are POSSIBLE to occur...."

Woah there captain semantics, ahoy, now you're really reaching!

Let's parse this a bit. If there are an infinite number of chances, then everything possible will occur during that infinite number of dice rolls. If you ever feel you're running short of variety, just add one more Magwan in each succeeding moment, and you will never exceed the number of possibilities.

If you're feeling a little ambivalent about spatial infinity, and don't think any more Magwans will fit, you can just replace Magwan with any other logically possible thing.

It shouldn't take more than a little imagination to see how an infinite number of possibilities exists. In fact, as long as you believe in the infinitude of time, then each additional moment, by itself, is another possibility. The next moment about to occur is another possibility; since moments are infinite, possibilities are infinite. Therefore, there are infinite possibilities.

Not everything is possible, but the number of possibilities, like moments, would be infinite, if temporal infinity exists.

Since infinity also extends backwards, every possible thing must already have happened.

Therefore, anything logically possible and coherent -- for example, a universe composed entirely of clones of Bill3 and Magwan debating endlessly in chat, sustained by an evolved photosynthesis and orbiting a single sun -- will inevitably happen, and must already have.

There is nothing about such scenarios that is logically impossible. It may be extremely unlikely, as the confluence of events would be extraordinarily bizarre, but given infinity, every possible thing will happen, so every conceivable logically possible event is guaranteed. Not just probable, inevitable.

Such are the perils in dabbling in speculation about infinity. A fool's errand, but required to uphold the infinite regress of causes demanded by naturalism. The only 'out' is forfeiting all confidence in our cognitive faculties and adopting a total skepticism. The danger in that is to undermine the logic of your own argument by establishing skepticism of logic.

As to your silly "can god lift a rock..." paradox, its very easy to answer. Either 1) No, because to not be able to lift the rock would be imperfect, so the definition of perfection excludes the possibility, or, 2) Yes, he can. Either one works. While 2) is logically absurd, if you demand the logically absurd, I am happy to give it to you.

I never read the galaxy book, but I do recall asking you in an earlier reply what your basis was for rejecting big bang cosmology. I am open to consider it, but you haven't pointed me in the direction of an alternative theory which you hold to.