You cannot apply an infinite state model in context of the primordial atom due to us having a finite number of elements and space.
You're losing abstraction again. The model describes a process of all of reality (i.e. everything that exists).
Either:
1. Nothing caused the Big Bang.
2. Something caused the Big Bang.
If #1, then that's it. We're done.
If #2, since nothing within the universe can cause the first cause of the universe, there exists at least one thing not contained in the universe, which is the same as saying that reality is larger than the universe. Since reality is larger than the universe, it's not constrained by its limitations, so it's not contradictory to hypothesize that it's infinitely large.
so it's not contradictory to hypothesize that it's infinitely large
And that would be metaphysics.
I am not convinced of #1 due to you only being able to produce a mathematical example of an infinite state system that does not apply to the state of the primordial atom before the big bang (for reasons already listed).
#2 will most likely find itself faced with similar contradictions as faced if we assume infinity for own universe (infinity relative to size and time).
When scientist first learned that our universe was larger than the solar system, there may have been theories that the rest of space outisde of our solar system was infinite, but would have been wrong for reasons not only supported by GR but other mathematical implications as well.
Thus #2 could most likely lead to a finite model which would bring us back to my initial hypothesis, that something external which our maths (in all its abstractions may not ever be able to define), so could this something have been caused by somehting we may have to define as devine?
hamsterman: I was going to say something on the subject, but I couldn't find a way to get it in without pushing my main point to the background.
I am not convinced of #1 due to you only being able to produce a mathematical example of an infinite state system that does not apply to the state of the primordial atom before the big bang (for reasons already listed).
If #1, then my model is not applicable. I thought that much was obvious.
But if nothing caused, then like I said, that's it. There's no point in asking what caused it, because nothing did. That's where all causal chains end.
#2 will most likely find itself faced with similar contradictions as faced if we assume infinity for own universe (infinity relative to size and time).
I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like I'm still not getting my point across, though.
When scientist first learned that our universe was larger than the solar system, there may have been theories that the rest of space outisde of our solar system was infinite, but would have been wrong for reasons not only supported by GR but other mathematical implications as well.
Thus #2 could most likely lead to a finite model
This is such a gigantic leap in logic that you should be ashamed of having typed it.
that something external which our maths (in all its abstractions may not ever be able to define), so could this something have been caused by somehting we may have to define as devine?
So this is what it all comes down, huh?
What I'm getting from you is not that a bootstrapping reality can't be derived through logic alone and therefore God exists, but that the derivations contradict the implicit premise that God exists and therefore they're false.
Pointless funny story that happened today with me and my wife. My wife and I started talking about this thread and some how got on cheating. I told her "I could promise I would never cheat on her because I have a hand if I wanted sex that bad. After all that is what God gave us hands for!" Which she replied, "God didn't give you hands just to masturbate! I don't think He thought of that!" I immediately replied back, "Well how do you think the Big Bang happened?!"
Well, the name implies that it was more like a multitudinary orgy.
If you take the name alone, yes, but we are talking about church which claims there is only one supreme being upon which taking that into account changes it to masturbation upon which fact my joke was based.
