How does the existence of the finite point to the existence of the infinite?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
while going the existence of finite things implies that there has to be something infinite something is finite, the perception of that, does it imply the existence of something infinite, would that be scientifically verifiable science usually does not deal with philosophical questions it deals with operational questions how things not why things exist so if somebody uses science either to disprove the existence of God or to prove the existence of God both are extrapolations of the scope of science now one extrapolation might be more reasonable, the other might be less, that’s ok but what does science do science looks at the observable world and tries to explain what is happening in the observable world in general it looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena whether something exists beyond nature or not individual scientists may have certain beliefs about them, but those beliefs don’t come from their science they come from their ideological orientation so now whether something the existence of finite objects which we perceive when we go backwards in history at that time, science becomes much more sketchy and unreliable sometimes people say oh science has got this theory about the origin of human life, the origin of the universe and how you are using science to have this mic, to work on this computer to text messages, how can you say science is wrong? people ask this, they don’t recognize that all science is not equally strong the science of how things exist right now we could say it is X that is something which is observable, repeatable and verifiable so this science operates using inductive knowledge, inductive means 50 observations, when all of them come similar, then we say 51 will also be like this so there is repeatable so that can be verified but when it comes to origins we can’t if scientists say the universe came from a big valley, we can’t replicate it so there is no science knowledge about historical things, especially remote historical things, that is not done by induction that’s why it is not that reliable so there scientists use another form of reasoning which is called abduction abduction in normal language means kidnapping, here it means abductive reasoning means it is called eye inference to the best explanation so for example somebody finds that there is a man in his house, he has been murdered by a knife in his stomach now how do you find out? how do the investigators find out? they can’t tell, oh criminal please come and do the murder so that we can observe and catch him so then what they have to do? they have to reject all possible explanations ok, who are all the people who came into this house? ok, but this person was seen alive at 3 o’clock and he was found dead at 12 o’clock in between the security camera says that there are only 3 people who came one was a child who was very small the other was a maid who was very old and many of them could have pierced the stomach pierced the stomach with that knife with that force as to be fatal then there was a butler who came therefore the butler must be the murderer so this is inference to best explanation and this comes by not any verifiable observation or any pattern of observation it comes by rejection of alternative explanations so when science comes to origins they can’t replicate anything so they basically what they do is they reject all the lesser candidates and whatever candidate remains as an explanation they accept it so it’s not definitely not as reliable anywhere they are as reliable as the technology as the science which powers our technology so does the finite existence of finite thing necessitate something infinite? yes that’s what even scientists say not exactly infinite currently what scientists say is that there are various versions of this theory but I’ll keep it simple say all theories have something like a big map now there are super string theories and big universes and many other mutations of that concept but the idea is they say everything began in something which had infinite energy infinitesimal mass which had infinite temperature which is beyond physical realization and beyond mathematical description you know we could very well say that these are the attributes of god he is beyond physical realization he is beyond mathematical description he has infinite energy he has infinite power so basically what they say material science when it goes back in its causal explanations it ultimately has to posit something which is transcendent which transcends the chain of causal so what we think is here that now where that singularity came from they don’t have an extension now some scientists have tried to get around this by saying oh there is a big bang and there is a big crunch and this goes on you know the universe pops out and then it crunches and again it pops out again it crunches but then still that only takes the question one step further where did this whole thing begin so when it comes to origins science does not have any answers what we can use is logical inference I just gave the example that if there are finite things now when we are talking about finite usually we use it in terms of spatial expanse this is finite from here to here I am using finite in terms of chronological expanse how long something exists so if we talk of things which are temporary and each temporary thing comes from something else something else so where does this all originate if there were no origin point then we would just have temporary things going on eternally and that would require that the universe be eternal but scientists are almost unanimous in saying that the universe is not eternal and what is the beginning they say that is the beginning when time began now what does that mean they are talking about something beyond time something which is eternal so logically it is a defensible argument that a chain of temporary things will lead in something non-temporary to sustain it. Does it address your question? Yes. Thank you.