The religion of "no beginning".

[Kharakov]

You make a finite amount of movements in this world.

Yes. The illusion of smoothness and continuity doesn't exist, because it's imaginary, and things that are imaginary don't exist in reality, because imaginations don't exist. I think the velocity of my eyeroll exceeded the speed of light, created a black hole, and created another universe.

Beware, unter, for wizards are often soggy and hard to light.

The illusion of smoothness does exist.

We can look at the frames of a movie and see they are all static and finite.

But when we run the movie we get the illusion of smooth movement.

So smoothness, which requires infinite precision, exists in our minds. This implies reality must support its existence (since it exists in our minds), so at least one component of reality contains infinities (well, there are tons of them that do, but this is one...).

 

[Kharakov]

Everybody agrees you can't reach the finish line. Why the need to quibble about where the hamster is going?

View attachment 14678

Which one is unter?

UM is spinning the wheel and you guys are those who are going round and round and round.
EB

lol... and you want to spin the wheel? Our wheel already has @roll, unless you think you can increase the angular momentum of our... know spin zone. <starts nibbling on a wheel of cheese while glaring in bilby's general direction>

 

[Lion IRC]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.

Perhaps you could cite an example of a prominent theist refereing to eternity as something which has been "achieved"
Achievable implies a finish line. That would be a contradiction of infinity.
If God died He would not be eternal.

Let's cut to the chase.
Heaps of atheists and biblical theists agree upon the (metaphysical) plausibility of past-eternal things - God, multiverses, etc.
If you say nothing infinite is really real what else is left? A continuum of impermanence?

 

[untermensche]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.

Perhaps you could cite an example of a prominent theist refereing to eternity as something which has been "achieved"
Achievable implies a finish line. That would be a contradiction of infinity.
If God died He would not be eternal.

Let's cut to the chase.
Heaps of atheists and biblical theists agree upon the (metaphysical) plausibility of past-eternal things - God, multiverses, etc.
If you say nothing infinite is really real what else is left? A continuum of impermanence?

There are no such thing as gods.

But they are described by the deluded as eternal.

- - - Updated - - -

The illusion of smoothness does exist.

We can look at the frames of a movie and see they are all static and finite.

But when we run the movie we get the illusion of smooth movement.

So smoothness, which requires infinite precision, exists in our minds. This implies reality must support its existence (since it exists in our minds), so at least one component of reality contains infinities (well, there are tons of them that do, but this is one...).

The illusion of smoothness does not require any infinity.

If an infinity would be required for something then that something does not nor could ever exist.

 

[Kharakov]

You don't understand smooth curves. There are an infinite amount of changes of direction on any smooth curve. If you look at something, and it looks round, you're looking at infinity.


Even if it's an illusion due to distance, like in the case of 0 in your mind....

 

[untermensche]

I do understand the imaginary quality of smoothness.

I also know it does not exist in the real world.

It couldn't exist. It is not a real world quality. It is only an imaginary quality.

 

[bilby]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.

Switching the burden of proof is yet another logical fallacy. You are well on your way to a complete set!

You are making the positive claim here; It is up to you to prove it, or it fails.

The default position is the null hypothesis - anything is possible, until it is demonstrated that it entails a contradiction, or until it predicts a result that is at odds with observed reality.

The past may or may not be infinite. If you want to claim "No infinity is possible", then you must prove it - and you must do so without employing any logical fallacies in your proof.

Your abject failure to do this despite dozens of attempts strongly suggests that you cannot.

 

[Juma]

Time could not "have been forever".

The phrase "could have been forever" is a nonsensical phrase.

It has no real world meaning. It is gibberish.

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

I think its meaning is clear to everyone, even you since you actually use it in your response.
Wether something can have existed forever is what is debated in this thread...
it is totally OK to to make an hypotetical assumption that it is possible until it is shown that it is impossible.

The Christians all say the Trinity makes perfect sense too.

The idea of "always existing" is an imaginary idea that is not given weight because it can somewhat be imagined.

The question you ask could be posed differently.

We could just ask: Is it possible to traverse an infinity?

LOL. Are you drunk? Your redponse doesnt make ANY sense.... at all..

 

[untermensche]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.

Switching the burden of proof is yet another logical fallacy...

Then the believers that it is possible for infinity to be real should not keep doing it.

They should instead prove this imaginary concept, infinity, could be real.

How exactly would you ever have an infinity?

It is not an amount.

It is not a real world concept.

The default position is the null hypothesis - anything is possible..

Who told you this. It is absolute nonsense. And that is not the "null hypothesis". You should look up what "null hypothesis" means. You don't have a clue.

The default rational position is skepticism of claims.

Especially claims that imaginary concepts could somehow be real.

 

[untermensche]

The Christians all say the Trinity makes perfect sense too.

The idea of "always existing" is an imaginary idea that is not given weight because it can somewhat be imagined.

The question you ask could be posed differently.

We could just ask: Is it possible to traverse an infinity?

LOL. Are you drunk? Your redponse doesnt make ANY sense.... at all..

To you.

 

[bilby]

Then the believers that it is possible for infinity to be real should not keep doing it.

They should instead prove this imaginary concept, infinity, could be real.

How exactly would you ever have an infinity?

It is not an amount.

It is not a real world concept.

The default position is the null hypothesis - anything is possible..

Who told you this.

Someone a LOT better informed than you. Who told you all the crap you believe?

It is absolute nonsense. And that is not the "null hypothesis". You should look up what "null hypothesis" means. You don't have a clue.

I know what 'null hypothesis' means; it means that the results are the same either way. How exactly would two universes differ, if in one there was no such thing as infinity, and in the other infinity existed? Until you have evidence that they would differ, you must assume that they would not, and that both are possible.

The default rational position is skepticism of claims.

And that IS MY POSITION. I am making no claim at all; You are claiming that something is impossible. I am highly skeptical of your claim.

Especially claims that imaginary concepts could somehow be real.

A claim that X could be real is a skeptical response to the hard claim 'X cannot be real'. It would be equally wrong to claim 'X must be real', in the absence of evidence. I apologize once again for not making the easily defeated argument you wish I was making; But your arguing against that position rather than the one I actually have is YET ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part.

 

[Kharakov]

I do understand the imaginary quality of smoothness.

I also know it does not exist in the real world.

It couldn't exist. It is not a real world quality. It is only an imaginary quality.

Yet we perceive it, which means it exists in the universe, which means the universe supports it. It's like that theist argument, but it's actually valid. If it exists in the mind, it exists in the universe (smoothness).

Wow- it seems like some of the more popular theistic arguments have valid, interesting, deeply connected to underlying reality counterparts. By design, no doubt.

 

[Kharakov]

And that IS MY POSITION. I am making no claim at all; You are claiming that something is impossible. I am highly skeptical of your claim.

I'm just going to go ahead and lay claim to all illogical statements in the universe at this point in time. I own them, therefore if you make them, you must pay me. Logical statements belong to everyone, sort of like oxygen, so go ahead and make them willy nilly..

 

[DBT]

I don't know whether infinity is a reality or not - which I have already stated several times - I am merely pointing out that your condition that something must be able to transverse infinity is bogus.

I do know it is not real.

It is not something that could be real.

If you think it might be real tell me how.

How could you have an infinity of some item? Infinity is not an amount.

If there are items, no matter how many, there are a finite amount of them.

Maybe you should give a definition of the concept. You must have something in mind when you offered the ''cannot be transversed' clause.....

 

[Juma]

I do understand the imaginary quality of smoothness.

I also know it does not exist in the real world.

It couldn't exist. It is not a real world quality. It is only an imaginary quality.

Yet we perceive it, which means it exists in the universe, which means the universe supports it. It's like that theist argument, but it's actually valid. If it exists in the mind, it exists in the universe (smoothness).

Wow- it seems like some of the more popular theistic arguments have valid, interesting, deeply connected to underlying reality counterparts. By design, no doubt.

How do you perceive this ”smoothness”?

 

[Wiploc]

William Lane Craig Q&A page once recounted how questions about the nature of existence/reality can be dealt with.

Student : Does reality really exist?
WLC : Who wants to know?

I don't agree with WLC on much, but I like that answer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.

Perhaps you could cite an example of a prominent theist refereing to eternity as something which has been "achieved"
Achievable implies a finish line. That would be a contradiction of infinity.
If God died He would not be eternal.

Eternity is "Time without beginning or end". We're talking about infinite past here, not about infinite time. No beginning in infinite past either but definitely one end, i.e. now.

An infinite past would be an infinity already achieved.

After that it gets real complicated so I'll stop here.

Let's cut to the chase.
Heaps of atheists and biblical theists agree upon the (metaphysical) plausibility of past-eternal things - God, multiverses, etc.
If you say nothing infinite is really real what else is left? A continuum of impermanence?

Why not. I find conceivable myself that reality itself just started without cause, and without anything at all existing before that, not even time itself.

I don't know of any rational* counter-argument to this idea so why not.
EB

(*) Rational - Known facts + deductive logic

 

[untermensche]

Someone a LOT better informed than you. Who told you all the crap you believe?

You believe that imaginary things can somehow be real. You are no better than any religious fundamentalist.

I know what 'null hypothesis' means; it means that the results are the same either way. How exactly would two universes differ, if in one there was no such thing as infinity, and in the other infinity existed?

How exactly do you know there would be no difference? What test of the two systems have you done? The null hypothesis is something you test. Not something you pull from your ass.

There is such a thing as infinity. It is an imaginary mathematical concept. It is a group of imaginary concepts.

It cannot possibly be real based on it's definitions. It is totally imaginary.

The default rational position is skepticism of claims.

And that IS MY POSITION. I am making no claim at all; You are claiming that something is impossible. I am highly skeptical of your claim.

Your position is you believe totally imaginary made-up concepts can somehow have existence. And you have absolutely no evidence to believe it.

I on the other hand am very skeptical of the idea that totally imaginary concepts can somehow be real.

Do you also think pure imaginary numbers can somehow be real? Is believing they can be real your default position?

 

[untermensche]

I do understand the imaginary quality of smoothness.

I also know it does not exist in the real world.

It couldn't exist. It is not a real world quality. It is only an imaginary quality.

Yet we perceive it, which means it exists in the universe, which means the universe supports it. It's like that theist argument, but it's actually valid. If it exists in the mind, it exists in the universe (smoothness).

Wow- it seems like some of the more popular theistic arguments have valid, interesting, deeply connected to underlying reality counterparts. By design, no doubt.

We don't perceive smoothness. We don't perceive points or lines or circles, as they are defined mathematically.

We perceive motion.

And there is no need to have smoothness to perceive motion.

 

[untermensche]

An infinite past would be an infinity already achieved.

After that it gets real complicated so I'll stop here....

There is nothing complicated.

An infinity cannot be achieved.

That is a conflict with the definition.

The infinite fractions between zero and one are not ever and cannot ever be achieved.

There is no end to them.

Real world: You take a number of items from a group and the amount of items declines.

Imaginary world: You take a number of items from a group and the amount of items remains the same.