The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
#91
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Space as we tend to use the term is clearly non-infinite.  It might be really really big, and cosmologists can estimate the approximate size and age of the observable universe based on scientific observation.
Occupied space is finite. You have yet been able to concede the distinction even if you dont believe macro-infinite non-occupied space exists eternally.

If you are simply trying to say that space itself, beyond our ability to observe, just continues on and on "forever" this is rampant speculation.
Yes space is infinite. Occupied space is finite. If you agree with the latter premise then the only rational, logical common sense conclusion is that eternally existent non-occupieds space is what exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe.

It is only your ego that keeps you from conceding this rational, logical common sense conclusion.


The evidence we currently have strongly suggests that space and time are the same thing and they were once very very small and now they are getting larger and larger and we are approximately 50% of the way through the cycle, incidentally this makes a lot of sense because the 50% mark is the peak of the complexity curve.
So here you prove my point. Small and large only relate to a finite occupied space.  Your in denial of your own comments that can only lead to one rational, logical common sense conclusion.  Like so many, even Bru7al has and ego problem to obvious truths. You are the only one here that I believe shows the most rational, logical common sense.

Just not batting 100% yet.


From our best calculations all space and time will come to a screeching halt at the predicted heat death of the cosmos.
Heat death means one very large, very flat and  least energy photon.  It will not stay that way because gravity ( ) and dark energy )( eternally exists, along with sine-wave EMRadiation.

I can see no reason to believe and no evidence to support the idea that either space and/or time is technically "endless".
Yeah your correct and OtPlaz is incorrect. He doesnt get it yet.


You can believe the universe is "infinite" if you like, but I'd be curious about why you would think that and what possible utility you believe that belief might grant.

No it is not and OtPlaz is confused. 
Space is infinite and eternally existent.
Finite occupied space is our Universe.

1} "U" niverse/"G" od is the label that includes macro-infinite space in the list.

0} "U" niverse/"G" od is the label/identity that includes the above #1 and metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo concepts of space not actual space.   Conceptual space has no 2D area or 3D volume.

Conceptual space, unlike actual space, has no location.
...read my lips/text Bru7al, Conceptual space has not location ergo no Observed Time reference points.....

Occupied space is within macro-infinite space and exists in reference to non-occupied space,
....and any set of 2  points of occupied space as and 2D area or 3 points as 4th point of 3D volume.....

Macro-infinite space is outside of finite occupied space and that is its only reference point.

Why do so many seemingly rational, logical common sense people run from rational, logical common sense conclusions?  Ego. * i *

Ego = i or I-verse ergo * i * and the i should really be italicized because it is a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept not and actually space.

Why do seemingly rational, logical common sense people refuse to follow rational logical common sense pathways of thought? Ego.

Go figure and get back to me and  *  i  * and my ego.


#92
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The Monotheist God is The Ultimate Reality.
Those are your own claims, they are not supported by Scriptures.

#93
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop
You say that, but theologians for thousands of years claim otherwise, and so do I.

Surely, the only being that even meets all the criteria for God is The Ultimate Reality, and this alone should make it obvious.

I am certainly not making this up, and it isn't just Jews and Christians who understand this. Even Muslims understand this. Sikhs understand this. Ba'ha understand this.

Yes, there is theological consensus about this, and you simply being contrary is not going to change the facts.





#94
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You say that, but theologians for thousands of years claim otherwise, and so do I.

You're just making up more baloney. It's just you, no one else. Deal with it.
#95
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Kant's noumena is the perfect example of a truly objective reality.  Kant points out that no matter how much we intuitively believe we can infer the nature of nourmena from phenomena, any such inference is an astronomical epistemological leap of faith.

I would be more than happy to explain/explore this further if you are so inclined.

It may be beyond me, but I'm interested.  If we can only know and share phenomenal reality, then why should noumena be considered important ...or (for that matter) objective reality.

I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested [infinity].
I don't think I have anything more to add on this, so I'll pay attention to your conversation with Outplayz. 
Topic's author
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
The Monotheist God is The Ultimate Reality.
Those are your own claims, they are not supported by Scriptures.
Mopac says "monotheist" but it sounds to me like they should probably be using "deist".

I've found that a lot of theists, when cornered, suddenly argue for deism and if they can get a reasonable person (like Dawkins) to admit that the whole thing is an epistemological mystery, they use the appeal to ignorance to count it as a "win" in a mad rush to declare victory.

Even though deism has absolutely nothing do with, and offers absolutely zero logical support for their specific belief.

Deism is functionally identical to atheism.

For example -


Topic's author
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
...And though I myself identify as a Christian and have my theological education in that tradition, I must admit this is a universal concept.

So that is your good news for the day. The Ultimate Reality is God. That is something that transcends culture, tradition, conception, everything.


It Is What It Is.
There is another, more specific term that means "ultimate reality" and that is noumenon.

The primary characteristic of noumenon is that it is fundamentally unknowable.

In Kabbalah this is referred to as Ein Sof.


Topic's author
#98
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
However, what I am currently puzzled by is a person who says the only believe in empirical evidence and then tries to assert that consciousness is somehow evidence of free will.

This makes zero sense.

If you can't support your assertions, fill the others mouths with your words. Poor tactic.
If you refuse to explain yourself, I must speculate.

Imagine for a moment that free will is gods.

I say, "there is no god".

You say, "Support your assertion with empirical evidence."

I say, "A god is not an empirically measurable phenomena."

You say, "You have no proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I say, "Are you suggesting that my statement is false, which would strongly imply that you believe there is a god?"

You say, "You're wrong because you have no empirical evidence."

What would you say to someone who told you that your inability to provide empirical evidence that "there is no god" PROOVESS that god exists?

Oh, yeah, right, of course, please feel free to completely dodge every single point I've explicitly addressed.
Topic's author
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
All we know is "our" universe.
This is an important point.  We must show the utmost respect for our epistemological limits.

This evidence is trying to make sense of the universe we know. We don't know how far it goes or if there is anything beyond it or before it.
100% true.

So, we are stuck in only speculating on what we can tell. And, just bc things look as though what they are doesn't mean we are remotely right about it in a bigger picture.
Also 100% true.  This is the key point that I gleaned from Kant.  We are stuck in only speculating on phenomena.  And, just bc phenomena look as though what they are doesn't mean we are remotely right about noumenon.

i'm confident that our universe wasn't the start of space and wasn't the start of time in the bigger sense of things.
This is where you jump off the epistemological cliff.  How can you pretend to be confident about noumenon?  Any confidence in the specific nature of noumenon is pure dogma.

It makes more sense to me than a finite route. In part bc i can also answer the infinite regress problem from my metaphysical belief's point of view. Bc metaphysically i also believe intelligence/consciousness is infinite and that answers why there is no infinite regress problem plus other things about life.
Please be a little more specific about how an infinite cosmos solves the infinite regress problem.  Is it simply turtles all the way down?

I promised you some logic earlier and I feel that I didn't make myself perfectly clear, so, here you go.

(IFF) infinite means literally "without limit" (THEN) anything that can be divided into parts or identified in any way cannot be considered infinite.

Using this statement, we can deductively reason the very word infinite itself is a logically incoherent concept.

You might want to consider possibly using another word perhaps, like indeterminate or indefinite.

Many people seem to think that things like the number of grains of sand are infinite, that somehow there is an infinite supply of sand.

However, there are only approximately 1000000000000000 grains of sand on the planet earth.  This is a large number, but I can write it out pretty easily, it didn't even take up the majority of my post.  There are not an infinite number of stars.  There are not an infinite number of molecules.  After every red dwarf has gone dead, all matter in the cosmos will coalesce into black holes and these black holes will either combine with others or be spread so far apart by the expansion of the cosmos that they will never combine and these perfectly isolated black holes will then very slowly evaporate.  This is the story we are living.  This is what we know.
#100
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Since there are more than one noumenons, I would say by definition these realites, which I do agree they are realities albeit unkowable ones, cannot be ultimate. I am not that familiar with Kant, but I know it essential that The Ultimate Reality by definition must be one. 

But that said, these are still all good connections. There many names of God in Jewish thought, The Ungraspable Infinite is certainly one of them. The problem with any name is that they are abstractions. You have to take away in order to highlight. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is among the best names for God, but even this name doesn't bypass this problem. The Holiest Name is not really a name in the sense of a pronouncement of syllables.

Or as it is written in The Tao te Ching  "The Name(or way) that can be named is not The Eternal Name(or The Way)".

This assertion made in this ancient Chinese text is actually very much in line with theological thought in the west.

I think a peculiar thing to meditate on is that the name "Jesus" is pronounced differently in most every language despite the fact that there is a church that spreads across national and ethnic borders. This is intentional, because a major overarching theme of the new testament is that "the letter kills, the spirit gives life".

That isn't to say there are not some who make the pronouncement of these names an issue, but they are mislead. All of these names actually have meanings. For example, even Jesus means "God is Salvation", which pretty much means "The Truth will set you free".

You take something like the name of God that Jews respectfully replace with "Lord" or "Adonai", this name is a meaningless string of syllables to the average English speaker. These names actually have meanings that are a matter of identity, and on a deeper level and meaning than how names tend to be commonly used.

#101
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
An English language grammatical convention determines your god's existence Are you serious? bwuahahahahahahaha
Topic's author
#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Since there are more than one noumenons, 
There is absolutely no way of knowing if there is more than one noumenon.

However, since "they" (hypothetically assuming there is more than one for the moment) are perfectly indistinguishable from "each other" and perfectly unknowable altogether, it would seem logical to lump all possible noumenon into one.

In other words, for all practical, conceivable purposes, both real and imaginary, there is only one noumenon.
Topic's author
#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Kant's noumena is the perfect example of a truly objective reality.  Kant points out that no matter how much we intuitively believe we can infer the nature of nourmena from phenomena, any such inference is an astronomical epistemological leap of faith.

I would be more than happy to explain/explore this further if you are so inclined.

It may be beyond me, but I'm interested.  If we can only know and share phenomenal reality, then why should noumena be considered important ...or (for that matter) objective reality.
It is only important in the sense that we need to respect our collective epistemological limits.

Be careful what you say about noumena.  If someone gets specific, you know they're full of it.

Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of.  What is outside our house is noumenon.

Metaphysics is what we stuff into the cracks between the boards in order to keep warm.

#104
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It makes more sense to me than a finite route. In part bc i can also answer the infinite regress problem from my metaphysical belief's point of view. Bc metaphysically i also believe intelligence/consciousness is infinite and that answers why there is no infinite regress problem plus other things about life.
Please be a little more specific about how an infinite cosmos solves the infinite regress problem.  Is it simply turtles all the way down?

Not infinite cosmos, rather infinite consciousness/intelligence. This is as far back to the wall reality goes, it stops at the wall of conscious awareness just like your own observation point. In Theistic terms awareness (spirit, God whatever you wish to label it) is an eternal, infinite reality out of which all creation and life arose and which all will return. It solves infinite regression because you cannot go any further than consciousness, it was and always will be, there is no regression from the conscious state nothing came before it, nothing created it.


#105
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) infinite means literally "without limit" (THEN) anything that can be divided into parts or identified in any way cannot be considered infinite.
No, grains of sand are occupied space ergo finite within finite occupied space Universe. Rather simple rational, logical common sense conclusions for those whose ego does not have mental road blocks to truth.

2} eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds the following,

3} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

This is a minimal brainer for those who choose rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

Finite = wholistic integrity ergo systemic and structural integrity

Infinite = lack of wholistic integrity ergo lack of systemic and structural integrity

1} metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts i.e. concepts of space, dogs, Toyotas, God/Universe and are;

......1a} absolute truths,

.......1b} neutral or relative truth i.e. true and not true

........1c} non-truths.

There is at least two or three cosmic subsets to the primary cosmic trinity set.

The problem with atheists and non-atheist is the same. Ego.

Ego is the biggest problem facing humanity.

#106
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I can certainly accept that.

However the word "noumena" I wouldn't call a name of God because it implies that God is contingent on thought. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on thought, thought would be contingent on The Ultimate Reality.




#107
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
This is where you jump off the epistemological cliff.  How can you pretend to be confident about noumenon?  Any confidence in the specific nature of noumenon is pure dogma.
There is just a certain point i will have to jump off. Take a leap in logic. For me, i only do it to make sense of my spiritual belief. A metaphysical belief always makes you have to take the leap. So, i am confident due to the combination of everything, i.e. experience, observation, thinking/logic as a whole. With that said, i am more confident than not that space-time didn't have a start. It just makes more sense to me than the alternative even if i put all my other thoughts aside. It raises more questions than answers if there is finite space-time... i feel occam's razor would say infinite, but i don't think O.Razor is appropriate to use in thoughts such as this one. 

(IFF) infinite means literally "without limit" (THEN) anything that can be divided into parts or identified in any way cannot be considered infinite.
Yet i think it is appropriate to use for something like space-time. I guess i am just not understand your reasoning. Can you explain it in a little more layman's terms. 

This is the story we are living.  This is what we know.
You should say this is only one story of what we know. There can be other things that can happen. Plus, humanity, if we survive to that point in the future, humans can make the universe unrecognizable to us now, and possibly even learn how to create planets, stars, etc. Therefore making the universe itself endless so long as there are these future humans.  

Please be a little more specific about how an infinite cosmos solves the infinite regress problem.  Is it simply turtles all the way down?
I'm answering this last bc there will be a leap in logic you'll have to take to understand me here. As i said earlier, i believe there is also infinite consciousness/intelligence ("source"). Now, this could have come up in 2 or 3 different ways that are most logical. Its birth is a whole bunch of other thought, so lets just go with it's there. Another thing that is a whole lot of thought is defining specifics about it so i will skip that too. Let's just say there is a source. Furthermore, what this source does is it manifests itself into physical form to experience. In its source state it is infinite per se. Sorta what thought would be if we couldn't die. Would you call thought at that point infinite? So that's basically what i mean here. But the important thing to get is that this source goes from an incorporeal state to a corporeal state to experience. Bc in its source self it is infinite therefore knows everything. All stories from beginning to end. In that sort of state it basically isn't experiencing, so to experience it needs to manifest into a physical form. 

The best way to explain this is a sandbox analogy coincidentally for me too. Imagine an infinite/endless stretch of sand. If i were to make a sand castle you would see it and know what it is. But that is the physical form. Even if i didn't create a sand castle, imagine the castle is already there. In this stretch of sand everything exists. For one to experience it you would have to actually make the castle. But even if you didn't, the castle exists within the sand. This is what i mean about the source... it isn't a "who" it's an "it" where everything already exists within it and manifests into physical to experience it. 

So lastly how does this fix infinite regress? Think of a bunch of books going on forever. If the first book is a drama and then you say go to the middle to find a fantasy book you will never get there. The first book will never meet another book since it is infinitely behind the other books. However, if you add a mind to this... it won't matter if the first book never gets to the other books, you just need to read it. A mind can pick up the first book, experience it, put it down and look for the next drama book. Therefore, a source may be on an infinite platform but since it manifests as a finite being at one point or another... it doesn't matter if the platform is infinite. Since all it does is manifest life for a short time and then dies and picks the next. So, this source could pick the first book if it wants, a drama, or it can search for any other genre it wants to experience. It doesn't matter if they infinitely move bc this mind picks one point, experiences that one point, dies and picks the next point. The platform could be infinite, but to this mind it doesn't matter... bc it will manifest itself wherever it wants. Add to this that the source is also everything, it simply just has the imagine the point/reality it wants to manifest into and it instantaneously goes there. The problem of infinite regress goes away if you add this sort of mind to it.  
#108
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Not infinite cosmos, rather infinite consciousness/intelligence. This is as far back to the wall reality goes,

Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever of such a thing and it contradicts the reality of what consciousness is, a function of the brain.

Repeating that nonsense over and over only makes you look like you need professional help.
Topic's author
#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I can certainly accept that.

However the word "noumena" I wouldn't call a name of God because it implies that God is contingent on thought. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on thought, thought would be contingent on The Ultimate Reality.
We seem to have an ontological disagreement.

I'm going to say, "close enough".

I do appreciate your civility.

#110
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
What would that ontological disagreement be if you don't mind me asking?

#111
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh, yeah, right, of course, please feel free to completely dodge every single point I've explicitly addressed.

When you make a valid point, we'll address it, but until then all you're doing is filling my mouth with your words. Quite dishonest.
Topic's author
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
What would that ontological disagreement be if you don't mind me asking?
In my ontology, thought is bedrock.

Thought is not dogmatically fundamental, however it is our natural epistemological limit.

In the same way that the initial singularity (big bang) is not dogmatically fundamental, but it is an obvious epistemological limit.

Thought, like the initial singularity is the current demarcation point.

Any speculation about "what came before thought" or "what happened before the initial singularity" is currently unknowable and any speculation should be approached with every possible caution and requisite disclaimer.

Cogito, ergo sum.

Topic's author
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
Oh, yeah, right, of course, please feel free to completely dodge every single point I've explicitly addressed.

When you make a valid point, we'll address it, but until then all you're doing is filling my mouth with your words. Quite dishonest.

Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.

This is basic.

If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy. These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they usually claim to in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt. However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt.

You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.

I like to call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".

#114
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't have to know The Ultimate Reality to know it is.

I don't know God, but itnis evident that God is there. If The Truth doesn't exist, how could their even be truths? 

Besides that, if The Ultimate Reality was contingent on thought, how would this reality be ultimate? There is a reality that has authority over what is said to be ultimate reality, and therefore such proclaimed ultimate reality couldn't be The Ultimate Reality.
With The Ultimate Reality, there are no thoughts










Topic's author
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You don't have to know
Full stop.

What you know and what you don't know, what you can know and what you can't know, how you know and why you know are defined by epistemological limits.

Noumenon may or may not "exist" and if you explore the definition of "exists" carefully, you'll find that "exists" can only apply to verifiable phenomena.

However, since there is nothing to be gained by believing in noumenon and there is nothing to be lost by disbelieving, it would seem to be as close to a neutral non-issue as I can imagine.
#116
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.


Yes, and you have yet to show any evidence for you claims.

Round and round you go, the swirling dervish.
#117
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
With The Ultimate Reality, there are no thoughts


So having no thoughts is better than having thoughts?
#118
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I understand what you are saying, but something does not have to be known in order to exist. Something has to be known in order to exist scientifically. Something doesn't have to be known in order to exist. Something must have being or be real in order to exist. It is not necessary that something must be known in order to exist, and the dictionary I am looking at makes this very clear.

Before a moon of Saturn was discovered or even thought of, it certainly existed even though it was unknown. The Ultimate Reality is not known, but it certainly exists, and it has to exist, because without it there is no reality.

There exists that which surpasses understanding and knowledge, and is greater. than either. The Truth. Without this, there is no knowledge, simply vain imaginings.

But really, if you want to get sucked into an epistemological black hole, I can tell you that I am not even 100% certain I exist. I can tell you with 100% certainty that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists. There is nothing else I am more certain of, and though I do not know it, I know it exists, and everything in all creation testifies of it. 







#119
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they usually claim to in vague terms and bald assertions)

And, the irony of that statement hasn't come crashing down on you yet?
Topic's author
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
There is just a certain point i will have to jump off. Take a leap in logic. For me, i only do it to make sense of my spiritual belief. A metaphysical belief always makes you have to take the leap.
Ok, it sounds like you know what you're doing.

So, i am confident due to the combination of everything, i.e. experience, observation, thinking/logic as a whole. With that said, i am more confident than not that space-time didn't have a start.
I'm guessing you are confident in your intuition.  I'd ask you to clearly define your terms "confident" and "intuition" but I'm not sure that would change anything.

It raises more questions than answers if there is finite space-time...
Ok, I'm not challenging your intuition, but my first question would be, "if space-time is infinite, how can we identify space-time and how can anything exist that is not space-time itself?"

Is one region of space-time distinguishable from another region of space-time?  I don't mean to be rhetorical, but I believe the answer is "yes"?

Infinite space-time would be indivisible.

(IFF) infinite means literally "without limit" (THEN) anything that can be divided into parts or identified in any way cannot be considered infinite.
Yet i think it is appropriate to use for something like space-time. I guess i am just not understand your reasoning. Can you explain it in a little more layman's terms. 
The best way to explain this is a sandbox analogy coincidentally for me too. Imagine an infinite/endless stretch of sand.

Now imagine sand in every possible direction.  Sand spilling into every conceivable dimension.  Imagine a multiverse/multicosmos filled with sand.  Now that is an enormous amount of sand, but it is still divisible.  Each grain of sand is not indistinguishable from every other grain of sand and the sand is not space-time, so either space-time is infinite, which would mean it would destroy all the sand and be one indivisible whole, or the sand itself is infinite and you have to delete space-time.  You can't have two infinite things.

Now let's go back to the sand filled cosmos.  Each grain of sand is not itself, infinite, therefore the sum of all of the grains cannot be infinite.  If we want infinite sand, we need to expand a single grain of sand to the size of the cosmos itself.  The sandiverse is one infinite single indivisible grain of sand.  But wait a minute you might say, sand is made up of any number of chemicals and molecules and atoms and quarks and stuff.  You're right about that.  If the sand can be divided in any way, then it is axiomatically and tautologically NOT infinite.  It can be indeterminate or indefinite, but it is not infinite.  You would have to inflate an indivisible sub-quark to fill the entire cosmos in order for it to be considered infinite/unbounded/unlimited.

This is the story we are living.  This is what we know.
You should say this is only one story of what we know.
There are things we know and things we don't know and there are things we can know and things we can't know.

This is what i mean about the source... it isn't a "who" it's an "it" where everything already exists within it and manifests into physical to experience it. 
I agree 99% with you on this.  You are describing noumenon.  What you're saying also sounds a lot like "the blanket speech" by Dustin Hoffman from the 2004 movie I <3 Huckabees. - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kB_mOfvDPU

So lastly how does this fix infinite regress? Think of a bunch of books going on forever. If the first book is a drama and then you say go to the middle to find a fantasy book you will never get there.
This sounds like the same problem we had with the sand.

Add to this that the source is also everything, it simply just has the imagine the point/reality it wants to manifest into and it instantaneously goes there. The problem of infinite regress goes away if you add this sort of mind to it.  
Got it.  The answer is "magic".

I do appreciate your civility and always enjoy reading your posts.