Add new comment
-
Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.
As COP28, the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, kicks off we look at how maths can help understand the climate crisis.
How do you create dramatic film out of mathematics? We find out with writer and director Timothy Lanzone.
Mathematics plays a central role in understanding how infectious diseases spread. This collection of articles looks at some basic concepts in epidemiology to help you understand this fascinating and important field, and set you up for further study.
Find out why the formula we use to work out conditional probabilities is true!
We talk about a play that explores the fascinating mathematical collaboration between the mathematicians GH Hardy and Srinivasa Ramanujan.
You do realise that you're wrong on several accounts and that Kalam argument doesn't work, right?
I will criticise a couple of points briefly. Firstly, if time of universe's existence is finite ('time' is not a proper word here, which you seem to have ignored) then there's no reason that there has to be a point that nothing existed. Secondly, I can also say that that something "immaterial, personal, self existent*, 'outside' of time*, and logically necessary" (* whatever that means) couldn't in its timeline exist without a cause, as, because its time also cannot be infinite, it couldn't "reason itself into existence", and there is something else that is "immaterial*, personal, self existent, "outside" of "outside" of time, and logically necessary". Also, requiring that "logically necessary" thing to "exist 'outside' of time", be "immaterial", "personal", "self existent" because "universe can't decide to reason itself into existence" is jumping to conclusions.
Also, are computers "personal" (as in, what you mean by the word "personal")? Because they somehow can vary their output depending on the input.
Also, the Kalam argument is irrelevant to the topic.