(May 26, 2013 at 7:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)paulpablo Wrote: Why?
By the way I'm not saying they did both start the event, I'm saying another entity or more could exist and not effected the event.

Go back to my proof, in this case time will exist

Assume two entities A, B pre-existed the Universe
A created the universe, we can say (relating to B) time of A creating the Universe

but according to the proof time didn't exist, i.e. it contradicts with the hypothesis of A,B existing.

Only one entity can exist outside time.

You haven't presented any viable evidence to support that.

(May 26, 2013 at 6:24 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I didn't apply algebra at all, it is only logic!

Your logic is circular. You started with S1 is finite and S2 is infinite to conclude that S1 is indeed finite, therefore S2 can't be infinite.

Quote:

Quote:Here's a scenario that illustrates the weirdness of infinity: suppose there is a hotel with an infinite numbers of rooms, all occupied. You show up asking for a vacant room. You would think there is no room for you, but all I have to say is, "everyone moves one room to your right", and presto, there is a vacant room for you.

It is a paradox, i.e. impossible to exist in reality

Wrong definition: A paradox is an apparent contradiction.

Quote:Infinity itself is a conceptual term and nothing can be of infinite time time in the future or history or have an infinite number of real elements.

This is a blatant assertion with no evidence supporting it.

(May 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm)little_monkey Wrote: This is a blatant assertion with no evidence supporting it.

Yeah, he does that a lot.

(May 26, 2013 at 2:55 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm) little_monkey Wrote: This is a blatant assertion with no evidence supporting it.

Yeah, he does that a lot.

In religion, this is called "proof". Christians on this forum do it all the time, too.

(May 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm)little_monkey Wrote: This is a blatant assertion with no evidence supporting it.

Well, actually no. You would have to provide a demonstrably non-theoretical example of our understanding of infinite, the burden of proof here wouldn't be on him. He said that infinite is conceptual (which it is, at least in mathematics).

---

(May 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: In religion, this is called "proof". Christians on this forum do it all the time, too.

Well...it's not really surprising seeing an Atheist jumping on the bandwagon here, even when it is a blatantly false and misleading point.

(May 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm)ideologue08 Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: In religion, this is called "proof". Christians on this forum do it all the time, too.

Well...it's not really surprising seeing an Atheist jumping on the bandwagon here, even when it is a blatantly false and misleading point.

Then maybe you can demonstrate the truth of the points Muslim Scholar cannot?

(May 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Then maybe you can demonstrate the truth of the points Muslim Scholar cannot?

A forum user ignorantly criticized a perfectly valid point that Muslim Scholar actually made, that of a conceptual infinite, and you jumped on the bandwagon, did you not? So do you have an example of a non-theoretical infinite are you just here to agree with anything an Atheist says on the forum like a sheep?

(May 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ideologue08 Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Then maybe you can demonstrate the truth of the points Muslim Scholar cannot?

A forum user ignorantly criticized a perfectly valid point that Muslim Scholar actually made, that of a conceptual infinite, and you jumped on the bandwagon, did you not? So do you have an example of a non-theoretical infinite are you just here to agree with anything an Atheist says on the forum like a sheep?

By sheep, you mean "people who expect assertions to be supported with facts or at least strong logic." Muslim Scholar has said that there must be not only God, but a particular number of Gods (i.e. 1). However, there's no philosophical problem to which adding God doesn't just add an additional confounding factor.

Instead of starting with Sky Daddy, let's say there's some property or value, X, which allows the universe to exist but doesn't in turn need to be created. The simplest solution is that the universe, itself, IS this entity. If you attribute to the universe the magi-wonderful ability to dissolve all apparent "paradoxes," then: 1) you still have an unsatisfying answer; 2) this particular unsatisfying answer doesn't require making up a mythological being and blowing people up who have made up a different mythological being/s.

Don't worry, you can still play the numbers game for extra fun: that's what multiverse theories do.

(May 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ideologue08 Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Then maybe you can demonstrate the truth of the points Muslim Scholar cannot?

A forum user ignorantly criticized a perfectly valid point that Muslim Scholar actually made, that of a conceptual infinite, and you jumped on the bandwagon, did you not? So do you have an example of a non-theoretical infinite are you just here to agree with anything an Atheist says on the forum like a sheep?

So, no, then?

(May 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Well, actually no. You would have to provide a demonstrably non-theoretical example of our understanding of infinite, the burden of proof here wouldn't be on him. He said that infinite is conceptual (which it is, at least in mathematics).

It's not to the conceptual aspect I was objecting but to: "...nothing can be of infinite time time in the future or history or have an infinite number of real elements."

That can only be decided by empiral evidence. Otherwise, the most one can say is" "It is possible that nothing can be of infinite time in the future or history or have an infinite number of real elements."

Can you get that straight?