The religion of "no beginning".

[DBT]

You haven't answered the question so you can't understand the implications.

I can make it easy for some but they have to answer questions.

Can infinite changes take place? Is that something possible?

I have answered the question. Every time I state my position you repeat the same question at some later point, and on and on it goes. It is a ploy you use whenever you are pressured and it's obvious that you cannot justify your claim.

It's clear that you have not explained your claim, you merely repeat and reaffirm your belief.

You have not answered one question put to you.

You are a blabbermouth that has no ability to listen.

Is it possible to make infinite changes?

Is that a physical possibility?

So you could have one change then another and another. Then one day you will have infinite changes.

In other words you can't answer the questions I asked you...hence the mock outrage as a smokescreen to hide your inability to give actual descriptions and arguments, only assertions.

Here are my questions again;

What is your definition of time? What exactly is time and how exactly does time traverse itself?

A clear and concise description please.

 

[untermensche]

You have not answered one question put to you.

You are a blabbermouth that has no ability to listen.

Is it possible to make infinite changes?

Is that a physical possibility?

So you could have one change then another and another. Then one day you will have infinite changes.

In other words you can't answer the questions I asked you...hence the mock outrage as a smokescreen to hide your inability to give actual descriptions and arguments, only assertions.

Here are my questions again;

What is your definition of time? What exactly is time and how exactly does time traverse itself?

A clear and concise description please.

You keep trying to avoid the salient issues with nonsense.

Time is that which allows change to occur. You know when you see change time exists.

So the question is. The question you don't seem to be able to address is: Is it possible for infinite changes to take place?

 

[DBT]

You have not answered one question put to you.

You are a blabbermouth that has no ability to listen.

Is it possible to make infinite changes?

Is that a physical possibility?

So you could have one change then another and another. Then one day you will have infinite changes.

In other words you can't answer the questions I asked you...hence the mock outrage as a smokescreen to hide your inability to give actual descriptions and arguments, only assertions.

Here are my questions again;

What is your definition of time? What exactly is time and how exactly does time traverse itself?

A clear and concise description please.

You keep trying to avoid the salient issues with nonsense.

Time is that which allows change to occur. You know when you see change time exists.

So the question is. The question you don't seem to be able to address is: Is it possible for infinite changes to take place?

How does 'time' allow 'change' to occur?

What is the relationship between time and change that it is time that allows change?

What is the nature of time?

 

[untermensche]

That is called stalling.

Nobody knows how change is able to occur.

But we call this ability, this dimension, time.

The first three dimensions are space. So with 3 dimensions you have space and you can have 3 dimensional entities in that space.

But for any change to occur you need another dimension, time.

The question you are avoiding however is still there.

Is it possible for infinite changes to occur?

 

[DBT]

None of that explains the need for time to transverse infinity for infinity of time to exist. If infinity exists, nothing needs to 'transverse' it.

 

[Juma]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

 

[bilby]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

Why couldn't it be all four?

 

[Juma]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

Why couldn't it be all four?

It definitely could.

To debate this with untermensche is like kicking a car for not starting... utterly ridiculous.

 

[Kharakov]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

Why couldn't it be all four?

I thought you wrote him???

Do we really need a bot to be wrong on the internet so we can argue? Isn't anyone willing to corrupt their mind for the sake of argument?

 

[DBT]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

Why couldn't it be all four?

All four at once like some weird quantum state.......

 

[untermensche]

None of that explains the need for time to transverse infinity for infinity of time to exist. If infinity exists, nothing needs to 'transverse' it.

It is the difference between merely pretending some magic imaginary infinity could be real and actually trying to see what it means for an infinity to be real.

Any attempt I make to look at a real infinity is dismissed by you as irrelevant. It seems you only want to look at imaginary infinities.

But imagining to be traveling on an infinite line is a way to try to imagine an infinity becoming real.

Is it possible to travel to the end of that line?

Is it possible for there to be a completed real infinity?

 

[untermensche]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

You have made no salient point in this thread and you want it to end?

The religious belief in "no beginning" has not been defended by you in any way.

There is no way for this totally imaginary concept called infinity to be real.

Yet somehow you imagine it could happen.

Very strange.

 

[beero1000]

Stop this. This thread will never end.
From the answers it is obvious that untermensche is either a bot,mentally ill, performing a social experiment, or making artistic installation/performance.

Why couldn't it be all four?

Now THAT'S an ambiguity in English!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, there's definitely a performance art element to never ending a thread explicitly about "no beginning".

But it would be too inhuman for anybody in their right mind to do it themselves. So, it has to be either a bot or a dimwit.

And only a bot or a dimwit could manage the thing properly so that it would worth our while.

So, I was looking for a way to clap hands here on FTF, but I can't find anything!

Oh, yes, sure, there is:

So, on behalf of all of us here:

A triumph!
EB

 

[untermensche]

I suppose when you can't beat them call them a bot.

Religious believers have always treated the nonbelievers badly.

Common human behavior from religious nuts.

The believers in "no beginning".

A magical infinity that appears whole.

It has been called other things in the past.

 

[untermensche]

This thread is about giving the religious believers in "no beginning" a chance to prove an infinity could possibly be real.

They of course will not discuss in any way trying to look at a real infinity.

Something like riding an infinite line to it's completion. Or writing out all the fractions between zero and one.

They only claim infinities can complete.

They cannot demonstrate it.

Where is the demonstration from the religious believers that a real infinity could ever complete?

Anything that completes, like all the time in the past completes at every present moment, is finite.

 

[Kharakov]

But it would be too inhuman for anybody in their right mind to do it themselves. So, it has to be either a bot or a dimwit.

And only a bot or a dimwit could manage the thing properly so that it would worth our while.

Think about this: if someone created an ubermensche bot, it would say everything right (and might be wrong about some stuff, or have some flaws due to the creators). If you always see someone saying something true, you might tend to agree with whatever they're saying, willy nilly, so more and more responsibility falls on the creators of the ubermensche bot.

If you create a wrongbot, or unterbot, you don't have to worry about it as much. I'm pretty sure I've seen one or 2 flaws in unter's wrongness (some deliberate, to associate certain true ideas against corruption with wrongness) through the years, but not many. I suppose if untermensche was a global bot, the pro corruption programming (where he argues against corruption to make arguments against it look "unter") is the only flaw from my viewpoint- but I'm poor, and didn't design a bot to favor myself.