Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Mudhammam]

Regarding the army analogy:

The point is, the army of infinite soldiers ARE shooting. You're going down the line asking each person if his neighbor shot first, and he says yes. The starting point is the individual you arbitrarily chose to ask first, or practically speaking, the moment "preceding" (per your memory) now. There's no logical reason why you must ever come to a soldier whose neighbor did not give the signal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Guys Satan and his forces are an open enemy,they make sometimes the clearest of things unclear to people, and sound arguments just don't register. Try to reflect sincerely.

@Equilax I was stating I never stated nothing can be eternal as my argument. Way to take my words out of context.

Isn't it possible that your failure as a communicator or arguer accounts for the responses you've gotten...........particularly set against the alternative theory you've offered.....that something has cast magic spells upon everyone who responds to you?

Isn't it possible that your failure as a communicator or arguer accounts for the responses you've gotten.........particularly set against the alternative theory that you've offered.....that anyone who doesn't believe you is either incapable of or unwilling to engage in sincere reflection?

Allow me to propose something radical..and please...try to reflect sincerely (lol) - you need to L2logic, and maybe you ought to stop fantasizing about what djinn are doing to other people? That shit -is not- healthy, nor is it helpful.

[Cyberman]

So basically, MK, anytime someone has a different opinion or a different view of your opinion, it's not that there is another perhaps more valid point of view - it's because the devil is tricking them?

Do you apply this to every discussion, or only the religious ones?

[Pizza]

I've said before and I'll say it again: If there is a supernatural entity that is deceiving people on a mass scale, then it's more likely that people who play the Satanic deception card are being deceived by this entity as well. It's a self-defeating belief.

[FreeTony]

This is why physicists have to spend billions on particle accelerators in order to understand the nature of time and the universe. If they could just make up shit on internet forums using terrible arguments that rely on changing definitions and "common sense" then the whole process would be a lot cheaper.

The OP claims to know more about the nature of time and the universe than the experts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, OP has gods crib notes...if you'll recall.

[henryp]

Things tend to get wonky when we start throwing infinity around.

I always found it weird 1 - .999 repeating = 0.  

Or that there are the same number of even numbers as there are integers.  Seems like there would be twice as many integers.  Not so, apparently.  Something to do with 1 to 1 correlation, or matrices or whatever.  Who knows really (aside from math people).  

The point being, if I say there are less even numbers from 1 to 100 than integers , I'm correct.  (50 < 100).  And that works for any number.  But it doesn't work for infinity, because as I said, things get wonky at infinity.

So when you take a nice happy idea like a normal chain of effect, and then make it infinite and stick it in the context of a space/time that we don't understand, and assume that it's not any different than a normal chain of effect, you've probably got a suspect premise. 

[robvalue]

Infinity sure is fun and not to be taken lightly.

Maths is exciting. Here's a fun fact. Say you look at all the (real) numbers between 0 and 1. Some are rational, meaning they can be expressed as one integer divided by another. The rest of the numbers are irrational. There's an infinite number of both rational and irrational numbers in this range.

But what is the comparative density of these two? If you calculate the ratio of rational numbers to irrational, what percentage of all the numbers are rational?

It's 0%. Relative to irrational numbers, the rational numbers occupy no space at all between 0 and 1.

Therefor Thor.

[Alex K]

Things tend to get wonky when we start throwing infinity around.

I always found it weird 1 - .999 repeating = 0.  

Or that there are the same number of even numbers as there are integers.  Seems like there would be twice as many integers.  Not so, apparently.  Something to do with 1 to 1 correlation, or matrices or whatever.  Who knows really (aside from math people).  

The math people are among us, you know?
Two sets of infinite cardinality are defined to have the same "size" if a one-to-one map of their elements can be shown to exist. That makes intuitive sense, doesn't it? For the natural integer numbers versus even numbers, this so-called bijection simply is

f: N->2N, x |-> 2 x

and its inverse

f^-1: 2N->N, x |-> x/2

This is proof that they are of the same cardinality. What's strange is that if you add a finite number of elements to these sets, their "size" (cardinality) doesn't change.

The point being, if I say there are less even numbers from 1 to 100 than integers , I'm correct.  (50 < 100).  And that works for any number.  But it doesn't work for infinity, because as I said, things get wonky at infinity.

Right, it doesn't work for any finite subset.

[robvalue]

By the hare/tortoise principle, when you regress back in time towards t=0, you never get there. Therefor pasta gods for everyone!