Is the concept of infinity real or imaginary?

[untermensche]

Infinity is used in calculations. That is the only place it has purpose. Nowhere is it put forth as a hypothesis to explain natural phenomena. Nowhere serious.

I'll try another example: complex numbers were first conceived, and weren't even dignified as real numbers. But four hundred years later, I'm told that there are physical quantities in quantum mechanics which have complex values.

That's real enough for me. I can't think of anything more serious than an empirically adequate theory.

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

But we can't apply the imaginary entities we use in the models to the real thing.

Even so-called "real" numbers are imaginary. They exist by definition.

You can't find the number three in nature. You can find three similar entities but not the number. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[beero1000]

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

 

[untermensche]

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

View attachment 11608

If only there were a point.

Thanks for highlighting a simply undeniable fact.

 

[fromderinside]

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

But we can't apply the imaginary entities we use in the models to the real thing.

Even so-called "real" numbers are imaginary. They exist by definition.

You can't find the number three in nature. You can find three similar entities but not the number. That simply doesn't make sense.

Yet what engineer hasn't rotated some physical process on its axis and wanted to know it's relation with the same process not rotated.

Imaginary number/Geometric interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number#Geometric_interpretation

Oh, and the eye tends to group sets of three like those found in star fields. I wonder how that happened. Stuff, not existing, like the number three depends on where one finds them.

 

[untermensche]

We can use complex numbers in models, because part of the models are very complex calculations.

But we can't apply the imaginary entities we use in the models to the real thing.

Even so-called "real" numbers are imaginary. They exist by definition.

You can't find the number three in nature. You can find three similar entities but not the number. That simply doesn't make sense.

Yet what engineer hasn't rotated some physical process on its axis and wanted to know it's relation with the same process not rotated.

Imaginary mumber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number#Geometric_interpretation

Physical relationships exist.

And we apply imaginary numbers to measurements to elicit those relationships.

But the relationship has nothing to do with a number.

That is just our way of abstractly modeling the relationship.

The relationships exist. The numbers do not. A calculation is not a relationship. It is a way to abstractly model one.

Oh, and the eye tends to group sets of three like those found in star fields. I wonder how that happened. Stuff, not existing, like the number three depends on where one finds them.

You haven't found the number three by talking about how humans group specks of light in the sky.

There is nothing that one can point to except a human invented notation and say; "That is three".

All you can do is say; "That is three items of some kind".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Humans did not discover infinity somewhere. They did not observe it.

Because it is not something that can be observed.

You cannot find infinity anywhere in nature.

It is a mathematical concept and exists by definition. Like zero. You can't observe zero either.

It is a mathematical concept that we have been able to use to solve mathematical problems.

Something that only exists as a mathematical concept and mathematical tool is imaginary, not real.

All I can say is I will defend any of this with argument if people disagree with arguments.

If people have opinions and claims but no actual arguments they should feel free to express them but that will not progress the conversation since only arguments can do that.

Your question is: "Is the concept of infinity real or imaginary?".

Assuming I understand this question, which remains to be seen, my response is as follows.


First, personally, I don't know the answer to your question.

Second, I don't believe anyone knows it, so I don't believe you know the answer to your own question, although it seems to me your post strongly suggests you believe you do.

Third, what seems your argument for your conclusion that infinity does not exist is inconclusive.

Fourth, I don't know of any argument conclusively showing that the concept of an infinite past is logically impossible.

Fifth, I believe the concept of an infinite past logically possible.

Sixth, I'm quite certain you don't have any conclusive argument to the contrary.

Seventh, I don't think you properly understand what it is to argue logically. This makes your claim that you will argue your position hard to believe.

Eighth, I don't believe you understand what it is to debate ideas in a rational way.
EB

 

[untermensche]

First, personally, I don't know the answer to your question.

If I asked you if god is a real or imaginary concept would you have the same problem?

If I asked about the flying spaghetti monster would you have the same problem?

To even think infinity could be real is to be able to imagine experiencing it in some way.

Not just to imagine it or use it combined with limits in calculations.

Second, I don't believe anyone knows it, so I don't believe you know the answer to your own question, although it seems to me your post strongly suggests you believe you do.

I know it has as much chance of being real as the flying spaghetti monster.

It is an invented, not discovered concept.

Fourth, I don't know of any argument conclusively showing that the concept of an infinite past is logically impossible.

Sure, no problem applying things that can only be demonstrated to be imaginary concepts to the real universe.

No problem with that at all.

To think such a thing is possible is to think the flying spaghetti monster will show up one day.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First, personally, I don't know the answer to your question.

If I asked you if god is a real or imaginary concept would you have the same problem?
If I asked about the flying spaghetti monster would you have the same problem?

That's irrelevant.

The question is whether it's a fact that I don't know.

And the answer is, yes, it's a fact.

As it is a fact that I don't know whether God exists or not and that I don't know whether the flying spaghetti monster exists or not.

I know the fact that I don't know.

So, why would knowing a fact be a problem for anybody?

To even think infinity could be real is to be able to imagine experiencing it in some way.

Can you support your claim? Because it's clearly not true.

There's a clear difference between "imagining" and "conceiving". I don't know about you but I can conceive of the number pi and yet I could not imagine it.

And I can conceive of an infinite past and yet I cannot imagine it.

If you can't conceive things you can't imagine then you're not like me and you not like most people.

So, probably you have a psychological condition that explains this but there's nothing I could do about that.

Second, I don't believe anyone knows it, so I don't believe you know the answer to your own question, although it seems to me your post strongly suggests you believe you do.

I know it has as much chance of being real as the flying spaghetti monster.

Can you support you claim? I'm sure you could not.

It is an invented, not discovered concept.

I don't even know how that's supposed to be relevant. All concepts have to be invented before we have a chance of discovering whether there's any reality out there that could correspond to them, and often we think we did just that only to realise that was probably not the case, like the concept of the Earth being at the centre of the world, and a litany of scientific concepts that have since been discarded.

Fourth, I don't know of any argument conclusively showing that the concept of an infinite past is logically impossible.

Sure, no problem applying things that can only be demonstrated to be imaginary concepts to the real universe.

Nonsensical.

No problem with that at all.

To think such a thing is possible is to think the flying spaghetti monster will show up one day.

Can you explain how that would work?

To believe that it is not logically impossible that there are Aliens out there is to believe they WILL show up one day at our door?! Are you insane?


So, you have zero argument. You don't understand human beings. You have some form of literalist bias. And you can't even articulate your idea properly.



Now, be careful, here. There are a number of points made in this post. You better address them all.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If I asked you if god is a real or imaginary concept would you have the same problem?
If I asked about the flying spaghetti monster would you have the same problem?

That's irrelevant.

No it is not.

Those are imaginary made-up concepts just like infinity.

There is no difference.

To even think infinity could be real is to be able to imagine experiencing it in some way.

Can you support your claim? Because it's clearly not true.

I can easily support it.

If we can't even imagine how a concept could possibly be experienced there is no way we could possibly claim it is true.

If we claim some building has infinite floors we have to somehow be able to imagine how this is even possible.

Floors without end?

To build it would take materials without end, in other words more materials than exist in the universe.

Trying to just imagine a real infinity quickly becomes an absurdity.

Second, I don't believe anyone knows it, so I don't believe you know the answer to your own question, although it seems to me your post strongly suggests you believe you do.

I know it has as much chance of being real as the flying spaghetti monster.

Can you support you claim? I'm sure you could not.

All concepts that were just invented and not discovered or inferred from actual data have the same chance of being true. None are more likely to be true.

So infinity has the same likelihood of being true as Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

And people who think infinity is something real have the same likelihood of proving it as proving Superman is real.

That is why you don't even try. You understand it is absurd folly to try to prove infinity is real. It can't be done.

And since it can't be shown in any way to be real it is only an act of faith for a person to think it could be.

It is an invented, not discovered concept.

I don't even know how that's supposed to be relevant. All concepts have to be invented before we have a chance of discovering whether there's any reality out there that could correspond to them, and often we think we did just that only to realise that was probably not the case, like the concept of the Earth being at the centre of the world, and a litany of scientific concepts that have since been discarded.

So tell me a way we will "discover" infinity? Where do you suppose we might "discover" it?

Please be specific.

If you have no possible way to even discover it to think it is real is ridiculous.

To think such a thing is possible is to think the flying spaghetti monster will show up one day.

Can you explain how that would work?

To believe that it is not logically impossible that there are Aliens out there is to believe they WILL show up one day at our door?! Are you insane?

So you have some concept you can't demonstrate is real in any way but you believe it is real.

And you think that is my problem.

Thinking an alien will come is just thinking something similar to ourselves exists somewhere in the vast universe.

That you see this as equivalent to believing that imaginary concepts are real is telling.

 

[untermensche]

One thing that needs to be made clear.

The burden here is totally on the people claiming something is real.

It is rational to think something is only imaginary if it can in no way be shown to be real.

So in the absence of some argument or evidence demonstrating infinity is real the rational conclusion is it is not.

Just as in the absence of some argument or evidence demonstrating an eternal soul is real the rational conclusion is it is not.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Seems to me to be a question on the reality of the intelligible. To which my answer is, we don't know if it's real, but we live as if we do. Many of our notions formed by experience are mistaken, but we nevertheless are influenced by them. Are these mistaken notions then real? I'd say yes.

Infinity is a inspiring, by which I mean provocative or stimulating, concept. To my mind, it's the most important attribute of God, another real mental construct. IOW, when religious people invoke God, they are primarily thinking of infinity.

 

[untermensche]

Seems to me to be a question on the reality of the intelligible. To which my answer is, we don't know if it's real, but we live as if we do. Many of our notions formed by experience are mistaken, but we nevertheless are influenced by them. Are these mistaken notions then real? I'd say yes.

Infinity is a inspiring, by which I mean provocative or stimulating, concept. To my mind, it's the most important attribute of God, another real mental construct. IOW, when religious people invoke God, they are primarily thinking of infinity.

That is a question of utility.

Infinity has great utility. Just like zero. We use them in calculations.

And while infinity may be somehow inspiring zero is downright depressing.

But just because a concept has utility that does not make it real.

And the question here is whether it can be shown to be real.

If it can't then as I said the rational conclusion is it is not.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Seems to me to be a question on the reality of the intelligible. To which my answer is, we don't know if it's real, but we live as if we do. Many of our notions formed by experience are mistaken, but we nevertheless are influenced by them. Are these mistaken notions then real? I'd say yes.

Infinity is a inspiring, by which I mean provocative or stimulating, concept. To my mind, it's the most important attribute of God, another real mental construct. IOW, when religious people invoke God, they are primarily thinking of infinity.

That is a question of utility.

Infinity has great utility. Just like zero. We use them in calculations.

And while infinity may be somehow inspiring zero is downright depressing.

But just because a concept has utility that does not make it real.

And the question here is whether it can be shown to be real.

If it can't then as I said the rational conclusion is it is not.

Anything that has utility is real IMO. I'm comfortable with the notion of non-material reality. Granted, it can't be "proven", but that doesn't make it irrational.

 

[untermensche]

Anything that has utility is real IMO. I'm comfortable with the notion of non-material reality. Granted, it can't be "proven", but that doesn't make it irrational.

It is not something up to opinion.

Reality has a definition. If we can detect something in some way or detect it's effects in some way we say it is real.

And things that are only imaginary, like Santa Clause, and infinity, do not fit the definition.

Using infinity in an equation is not detecting an effect anymore than using a plus sign is detecting an effect.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First, personally, I don't know the answer to your question.

If I asked you if god is a real or imaginary concept would you have the same problem?
If I asked about the flying spaghetti monster would you have the same problem?

That's irrelevant.

No it is not.

Yes, it is. That I don’t know is a fact that I know. There’s no point arguing about it.
So your insistence on arguing just shows you don’t understand the issue.
Your argument is just a stupid metaphor and that’s apparently all you can do. Take everyday expressions literally like a good Bible thumper and use metaphors like Jesus would have! It’s just pathetic. You are irrational.

And, it was already all explained in my post:

The question is whether it's a fact that I don't know.
And the answer is, yes, it's a fact.
As it is a fact that I don't know whether God exists or not and that I don't know whether the flying spaghetti monster exists or not.
I know the fact that I don't know.
So, why would knowing a fact be a problem for anybody?

See?
So, you’re not debating anything. You’re just repeating yourself like a mechanical prayer mill.

Those are imaginary made-up concepts just like infinity.
There is no difference.

There’s a difference. Infinity could exist even if God didn’t. Infinity could exist even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t.

But you are like Saint Thomas. You haven’t seen infinity with your own eyes so you’re sure it doesn’t exist.

What is idiotic is that you are pushing even further than Saint Thomas. You are saying that infinity not only doesn’t exist but could not exist. You think that since you haven’t seen infinity with your own eyes then no one could see it and therefore it couldn’t exit.

You’re the True Believer. You should set up a church to convert the heathens. Well, in a way, it’s already what you’re doing here. All your posts fall into that category of the sermon on the hill.

So, I have to repeat that: I don’t know whether infinity exist or not. It’s a fact that I don’t know that. And because unlike you I’m a rational person, I think this implies that infinity could exist. Not that it exists. That it could exist, which is best expressed by saying that the concept of infinity is not logically inconsistent. So, I think infinity could exist because I don’t know that it doesn’t and nobody has provided any conclusive argument that it could not exist.

To even think infinity could be real is to be able to imagine experiencing it in some way.

Can you support your claim? Because it's clearly not true.

I can easily support it.
If we can't even imagine how a concept could possibly be experienced there is no way we could possibly claim it is true.

LOL. This is just a REPEAT.

If we claim some building has infinite floors we have to somehow be able to imagine how this is even possible.
Floors without end?
To build it would take materials without end, in other words more materials than exist in the universe.

LOL ^ 2!
This is irrelevant. The past is not a building. There’s no reason to assume that for an infinite past to exist it would be necessary that it had been built up from the present moment backward up to infinity. You’re again using metaphors. That’s all you can do. It’s irrational. It might be good rhetoric but it’s for the idiots and on a par with commercials for washing powders.

Trying to just imagine a real infinity quickly becomes an absurdity.

See, you’re not prepared to debate properly. I already showed how this is a red herring but you prefer to ignore what I said. So, here it is again:

There's a clear difference between "imagining" and "conceiving". I don't know about you but I can conceive of the number pi and yet I could not imagine it.
And I can conceive of an infinite past and yet I cannot imagine it.

And we certainly think pi is real though it is defined as a series containing an infinite number of terms. Scientists think pi is real because they use pi in physical laws and engineers build things using equations containing pi.

An infinite past can be conceived as an infinite series Tn: Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, where Δt > 0 and each Tn is one moment. So, we can conceive of an infinite past even though we cannot imagine it.

This view of an infinite past is also the default view. That’s the conception people have without enough bothering to think about it. And you can’t do it?!

So, can you explain what would be wrong with this definition of an infinite past?

Second, I don't believe anyone knows it, so I don't believe you know the answer to your own question, although it seems to me your post strongly suggests you believe you do.

I know it has as much chance of being real as the flying spaghetti monster.

Can you support you claim? I'm sure you could not.

All concepts that were just invented and not discovered or inferred from actual data have the same chance of being true. None are more likely to be true.

And we are supposed to take your word for it?! Well, I don’t.

First, your belief that you can assess the likelihood of concepts being true is delusional and you don’t provide any argument to the contrary.

Second, all concepts have to been invented first. And all the concepts that we may think today true to the world had to be invented before they might have been “discovered”. Your point is just idiotic and vacuous.

So infinity has the same likelihood of being true as Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
And people who think infinity is something real have the same likelihood of proving it as proving Superman is real.

Probabilities are empirical data based on past observations and can turn out to be wrong, and do prove wrong often enough. So, your argument just shows you don’t understand much. As far as we know, no probability could possibly prove that something doesn’t exist. And things in the past that rational people and experts would have said had little or no probability of existing turned out to exist (or so we believe today), like space-time, curvature of space, electrons, quarks, galaxies, the Big Bang, and zillions of other things that are today taken for granted.
You have no argument here. All you do is repeat your beliefs as a mantra while rotating your prayer mill and spewing metaphors by the shitload.

That is why you don't even try. You understand it is absurd folly to try to prove infinity is real. It can't be done.

Er, no.
I wouldn’t even try to somehow “exhibit” infinity as I would a gold coin because I don’t know how I could do that. But that’s clearly very different from thinking infinity could not exist.
And again, I provided as rational definition of an infinite past as an infinite series Tn: Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, where Δt > 0 and each Tn is one moment. This is good enough for most people to prove we can conceive of an infinite past even if we cannot imagine it, experience it, let alone exhibit it. There’s nothing to discuss and yet you keep going using inept Superman metaphors while shaking your prayer mill.

And since it can't be shown in any way to be real it is only an act of faith for a person to think it could be.

No. I would be an act of faith to believe the past is infinite.
There’s a clear difference between believing it is and thinking it could. I guess your English is not so good that you could make the distinction. I would suggest you go back to school.
To think an infinite past could exist is rational.
What is irrational is your idea that it couldn’t exist. What is irrational is to think anything couldn’t exist.

It is an invented, not discovered concept.

I don't even know how that's supposed to be relevant. All concepts have to be invented before we have a chance of discovering whether there's any reality out there that could correspond to them, and often we think we did just that only to realise that was probably not the case, like the concept of the Earth being at the centre of the world, and a litany of scientific concepts that have since been discarded.

So tell me a way we will "discover" infinity? Where do you suppose we might "discover" it?
Please be specific.

That’s irrelevant for two reasons.
First, you could have asked the same idiotic question to somebody in Ancient Greece proposing the concept of the electron. And how could anyone at the time have explained how to go about discovering electrons?
More importantly, we’re back to the distinction between believing something exist and thinking it could exist. I don’t need to have any good reason or evidence for thinking that something could exist (i.e. that its existence is not logically impossible). All I need is that I don’t see any contradiction in the definition of its concept. As I don’t see any contradiction in the concept of an infinite past, I think an infinite past could exist.

If you have no possible way to even discover it to think it is real is ridiculous.

Again, your making the wrong assumption that I would believe that the past is infinite. I don’t.
If your English were good enough, you would have understood by now that I think an infinite past could exist, not that I believe that the past is infinite.

So, can you support your repeated suggestion that I think or believe that infinity or an infinite past exists?

To think such a thing is possible is to think the flying spaghetti monster will show up one day.

Can you explain how that would work?
To believe that it is not logically impossible that there are Aliens out there is to believe they WILL show up one day at our door?! Are you insane?

So you have some concept you can't demonstrate is real in any way but you believe it is real.
And you think that is my problem.
Thinking an alien will come is just thinking something similar to ourselves exists somewhere in the vast universe.
That you see this as equivalent to believing that imaginary concepts are real is telling.

So, you do believe that an Alien is going to pop up at your door, do you?!


To recap:
You use irrelevant arguments: You use arguments against the belief that something exists that you apply against the conception that it could exist. You clearly don’t notice that there’s a difference between belief and conception, and between exist and could exist.
You use metaphors: conceiving of an infinite past is somehow similar to believing in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And you think an infinite past is somehow similar to a building. Using metaphors as argument is totally inept but you don’t seem to realise this. You could well use your metaphors in a Church but here you need to provide arguments or facts. But you don’t seem to do those.
And you just repeat in lieu of providing the supporting argument required.
You also suffer of the same condition as Saint Thomas. If you haven’t seen it with your own very eyes, then it cannot exist. And you think it’s an argument!
You also ignore a lot of what I say, picking the bits you think you can chew. If you want to debate on the OP, then do it properly.
Your English is also not good enough so you don’t know the distinction between believing that something exists and thinking that something could exist. You don’t see the distinction between imagining an infinite past and conceiving of it. You may want to retrain yourself from scratch in this department.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your argument is just a stupid metaphor and that’s apparently all you can do. Take everyday expressions literally like a good Bible thumper and use metaphors like Jesus would have! It’s just pathetic. You are irrational.

Saying something is imaginary is not a metaphor.

And if we are to behave rationally we have to behave consistently.

And rationally it is up to those claiming something is real to prove it before we think it is real.

That goes for gods or Santa Clause, or infinity.

I don't have to prove infinity is imaginary. That is the default position unless proven otherwise.

It is up to those who claim it is real to prove it is. Just as it is up to those who claim god is real to prove it.

I wouldn’t even try to somehow “exhibit” infinity as I would a gold coin because I don’t know how I could do that. But that’s clearly very different from thinking infinity could not exist.
And again, I provided as rational definition of an infinite past as an infinite series Tn: Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, where Δt > 0 and each Tn is one moment. This is good enough for most people to prove we can conceive of an infinite past even if we cannot imagine it, experience it, let alone exhibit it. There’s nothing to discuss and yet you keep going using inept Superman metaphors while shaking your prayer mill.

Writing a few notations that define an imaginary situation, "infinite series" is just an imaginary exercise. It has uses in mathematics if we combine the imaginary concept with other concepts like limits.

There is nothing real about it. This "infinite series" cannot be seen or touched or experienced in any way. It can be defined. That is all. Giving something a definition does not make it real. People have all kinds of definitions for their gods. Eternal, all powerful, all knowing. Defining something does not make it real. Especially when you are using something imaginary, like numbers, to define it.

 

[LordKiran]

I think I see the problem here.

Untermensche fancies himself a high-minded philosophy prince when in reality he is well out of his depth of understanding and trying to position himself and his views as the legitimate equal of others here who's knowledge on the subject outstrips his. Perhaps if he were willing to approach this topic with some humility and a willingness to have his horizons expanded by others he could eventually get to that point. As it stands he comes off as phony, petulant, and unready to have this type of discussion. He didn't come here to have his views challenged, he came here to show the world how much of a smart insightful boy he is and damned be anyone who gets in his way!

 

[untermensche]

I think I see the problem here.

Untermensche fancies himself a high-minded philosophy prince when in reality he is well out of his depth of understanding and trying to position himself and his views as the legitimate equal of others here who's knowledge on the subject outstrips his. Perhaps if he were willing to approach this topic with some humility and a willingness to have his horizons expanded by others he could eventually get to that point. As it stands he comes off as phony, petulant, and unready to have this type of discussion. He didn't come here to have his views challenged, he came here to show the world how much of a smart insightful boy he is and damned be anyone who gets in his way!

You are free to voice opinions about me.

Few rational people think infinity is something real.

It is rational to think something is imaginary unless it can be shown to be real. If there is no evidence of something how do we say it is real? Do you even disagree with this?

It is the religious argument that says if a concept can be conceived, like a god, this in itself is evidence the concept exists or has some possibility of existing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Saying something is imaginary is not a metaphor.

And if we are to behave rationally we have to behave consistently.

And rationally it is up to those claiming something is real to prove it before we think it is real.

That goes for gods or Santa Clause, or infinity.

I don't have to prove infinity is imaginary. That is the default position unless proven otherwise.

It is up to those who claim it is real to prove it is. Just as it is up to those who claim god is real to prove it.

I wouldn’t even try to somehow “exhibit” infinity as I would a gold coin because I don’t know how I could do that. But that’s clearly very different from thinking infinity could not exist.
And again, I provided as rational definition of an infinite past as an infinite series Tn: Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, where Δt > 0 and each Tn is one moment. This is good enough for most people to prove we can conceive of an infinite past even if we cannot imagine it, experience it, let alone exhibit it. There’s nothing to discuss and yet you keep going using inept Superman metaphors while shaking your prayer mill.

Writing a few notations that define an imaginary situation, "infinite series" is just an imaginary exercise. It has uses in mathematics if we combine the imaginary concept with other concepts like limits.

There is nothing real about it. This "infinite series" cannot be seen or touched or experienced in any way. It can be defined. That is all. Giving something a definition does not make it real. People have all kinds of definitions for their gods. Eternal, all powerful, all knowing. Defining something does not make it real. Especially when you are using something imaginary, like numbers, to define it.

So, more of the same REPEATS, more of the same METAPHORS, more of the same CLAIMS without support.


No arguments, either. No ability to engage in a proper debate.

You don't even try to debate. You just repeat yourself at nauseam.

Good bye!
EB

 

[untermensche]

So, more of the same REPEATS, more of the same METAPHORS, more of the same CLAIMS without support.


No arguments, either. No ability to engage in a proper debate.

You don't even try to debate. You just repeat yourself at nauseam.

Good bye!
EB

These are empty claims. You have supported nothing.

For those with a rational mind.

There is no difference in claiming some god exists and claiming infinity exists.

They are both claims that need evidence to be believed.

Nothing is believable about your empty claims that infinity is real.