The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[abaddon]

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

Yeah, that is called special pleading. Fail right there. Claim dismissed.

 

[Myriad]

infinite:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

blue:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blue

Neither of those definitions say anything about either of those words being god, or omnipresent, or omnipotent.

You fail to understand that Blue has no origin, boundary, or constraint, and existed before time itself. It is free from the limitations of the infinite, because it's Blue. (You didn't know the infinite has limitations? Of course it does. It's not Blue. All that is not Blue is lesser than Blue, and is therefore limited.)

 

[Craig4]

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

Please highlight the portions here that you think are evidence. All I see is your biased, flawed reasoning.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

We have clear evidence the origin of the universe is a singularity that underwent inflation after quantization 13.8 billion years ago. (The Big Bang). This mathematically conforms with general relativity.

The current scientific working hypotheses for this quantization include Brane Interaction Theory
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm

Are you claiming your "god" was part of the singularity?

Are you claiming your "god" caused the Big Bang and then waited 13.8 billion years to create humans in his own image, on Earth?

What is your evidence?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!

We know this is a lie. You claim the scientific method evolved from philosophy yet you don't know what the scientific method is, and when we presented you eight clear experiments that falsify your claims, you ignored that falsification. You didn't even know that a hypothesis must be able to be falsified.

You never heard of the omnipotence paradox, from philosophy which is philosophy 101 and destroys your argument that "god" is omnipotent and why you think "god" must be infinite.

Even more ridiculous, you called your religion "infinitism" as you were totally unaware there already was an established branch of philosophy called "infinitism".

 

[tazanastazio]

The highlighted phrases are contradictory.

If you're going to allow a single exception to "Nothing would exist without an origin" then why not just make the universe (or possibly the multiverse) the exception? Why introduce an extra layer, let alone one as nebulous and undefined as "the Infinite"?

The Universe/Multiuniverse or clusters of them are only visible manifestations of the Infinite.

We have clear evidence the origin of the universe is a singularity that underwent inflation after quantization 13.8 billion years ago. (The Big Bang). This mathematically conforms with general relativity.

The current scientific working hypotheses for this quantization include Brane Interaction Theory
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm

Are you claiming your "god" was part of the singularity?

Are you claiming your "god" caused the Big Bang and then waited 13.8 billion years to create humans in his own image, on Earth?

What is your evidence?

The Infinite does not "wait"; Universes form and deform/evolve and devolve constantly within the Infinite. There is no past and future for the Infinite, only present.

Evidence: Existence without an absolute origin and an absolute origin without the Infinite is an invalid argument, as is evident by human experience, mathematics and other scientific experiments.

Particles popping in and out of existence is as far as we have come to scientifically imagine an absolute origin; nothing we know or we can imagine came to be without an origin; the concept of infinity is evident from many examples in math.

 

[abaddon]

The Universe/Multiuniverse or clusters of them are only visible manifestations of the Infinite.

Evidence for this?

 

[tazanastazio]

Evidence for this?

Evidence:

Subatomic invisible particles.
For something to have an end, it has to end somewhere; and also it has to begin somewhere. The Universe has an end; the Infinite does not.

 

[tazanastazio]

We know this is a lie. You claim the scientific method evolved from philosophy yet you don't know what the scientific method is, and when we presented you eight clear experiments that falsify your claims, you ignored that falsification. You didn't even know that a hypothesis must be able to be falsified.

You never heard of the omnipotence paradox, from philosophy which is philosophy 101 and destroys your argument that "god" is omnipotent and why you think "god" must be infinite.

Even more ridiculous, you called your religion "infinitism" as you were 6utotally unaware there already was an established branch of philosophy called "infinitism".

Press the back arrow, and scroll; the "Omnipotence Paradox" fiasco of an argument was blown to pieces (the response was posted twice, could have not been missed).

19th century Epistemic Infinitism is probably the worse example of a wrongfully/out of target use of a word as a description of a theory or philosophy. Anaximander in ancient Greece who spoke of the "Infinite Mixture" or Giordano Bruno about the "Infinite Worlds", had a more suitable to the name philosophy. At any rate, Infinitism is the theory of the Infinite and everything it includes. It is about the Infinite from a Cosmological, Mathematical, Scientific, Social, Humanitarian and Philosophical perspective. Not mere blather of the19th century that has no touch to reality and logic.

I stated before, I can care less about a 19th century term. This is the 21 century and till someone comes up with a better use of the name, Infinitism it is.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Press the back arrow, and scroll; the "Omnipotence Paradox" fiasco of an argument was blown to pieces (the response was posted twice, could have not been missed).

You didn't understand that you actually confirmed the "Omnipotence Paradox". Your "God" cannot make a stone bigger than the universe because you claim your "god" is infinite and you claim the universe is infinite in size. Therefore as your "god" can't do something he is not omnipotent.

Everyone else on the forum got that in seconds. You claim your "god" made the universe but your god can't change what you claim he made.


You really don't understand anything about philosophical arguments, do you?

 

[tazanastazio]

You didn't understand that you actually confirmed the "Omnipotence Paradox". Your "God" cannot make a stone bigger than the universe because you claim your "god" is infinite and you claim the universe is infinite in size. Therefore as your "god" can't do something he is not omnipotent.

Everyone else on the forum got that in seconds. You claim your "god" made the universe but your god can't change what you claim he made.


You really don't understand anything about philosophical arguments, do you?

There is no way you missed that point: For a rock that size, it could never stop expanding; in that sense the Infinite would be "lifting" Itself in every direction! So the answer isthe Infinite can make any size of a rock and still keep on expanding "lifting" the rock in every direction!

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The Infinite does not "wait"; Universes form and deform/evolve and devolve constantly within the Infinite. There is no past and future for the Infinite, only present.

You claim your "god" made man in his image and yet had to wait 13.8 billion years from the beginning of the universe to create man. That destroys your insane "god is infinity" religious claim.

Particles popping in and out of existence is as far as we have come to scientifically imagine an absolute origin

No. Matter and antimatter particles randomly popping in and out of a vacuum are evidence for quantum mechanics. You denied quantum mechanics is real and claimed everything was caused by existing particles. Did you forget your own religious claims again?

nothing we know or we can imagine came to be without an origin; the concept of infinity is evident from many examples in math.

It is mathematics, specifically Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that explains why matter and anti matter particles pop in and out. You denied Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is real and claimed everything is caused by existing particles.

Tell us how half-life radiation of a single atom can be predicted using your "god is infinity" religion? You can't can you? Perhaps you should read a children's book on quantum mechanics and educate yourself.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

There is no way you missed that point: For a rock that size, it could never stop expanding; in that sense the Infinite would be "lifting" Itself in every direction! So the answer is the Infinite can make any size of a rock and still keep on expanding "lifting" the rock in every direction!

So your "god" cannot make a rock so large he can't pick it up. therefore, your "god" is not omnipotent.

Thanks for confirming the "omnipotence paradox" from philosophy 101.


(You really can't grasp what the very basic philosophical "omnipotence paradox" is can you? That explains why your other claims are so flawed)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!.

Can you set out what exact modules in philosophy you did study for these two courses? It is pretty clear you never studied anything.

All undergraduates have to study general education courses. I took "science and religion" at the school of philosophy at UNSW for my law degree.

Just post your philosophy course modules and curriculum thanks

 

[tazanastazio]

Can you set out what exact modules in philosophy you did study for these two courses? It is pretty clear you never studied anything.

All undergraduates have to study general education courses. I took "science and religion" at the school of philosophy at UNSW for my law degree.

Just post your philosophy course modules and curriculum thanks

No need to convince you about it I took Philosophy 101, and a University class which dealt with philosophical writings of Plato, Freud, Nietzsche, and others.

One more thing about Epistemic Infinitism

The only reasonable application of Epistemic Infinitism (Perhaps Infinite Regressionism would at least somewhat more descriptive especially if it was followed by the words "of knowledge") would be:

Infinite regression of existence. Otherwise, if infinite sources were required for knowledge, then we would not know anything; the only way this notion would logically stand, is through the viewpoint of the skeptics, we can never be certain about anything (except the only thing we can be absolutely certain about, the Infinite- everything else is a matter of perception and perspective).


Foundationalism: Some knowledge comes from a certain number of sources even if it compiles an encyclopedia.

Coherentism: An encyclopedia is comprised of packets of knowledge.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

No need to convince you about it I took Philosophy 101

You can't. You obviously didn't study philosophy as you don't know any basic aspects of philosophy or its history.

The only reasonable application of Epistemic Infinitism......

You didn't know that philosophical infinitism already existed until informed you. You have named your religion and accidentally stolen the name "infinitism" from a well documented and existing branch of philosophy.

Infinitism in Epistemology / Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

You really should have studied philosophy before pretending you were a "philosopher."

 

[tazanastazio]

Can you set out what exact modules in philosophy you did study for these two courses? It is pretty clear you never studied anything.

All undergraduates have to study general education courses. I took "science and religion" at the school of philosophy at UNSW for my law degree.

Just post your philosophy course modules and curriculum thanks

There is no paradox, since none of the two actions negate each other, since both the lifting and the expanding of the infinite rock would occur at exactly the same time, to the infinite minute fraction of an attosecond. So God could create as big as a rock He likes, and still lift it if he ever cared to prove to anybody the point; and the so called paradox, is shere sheer stupidity.

 

[tazanastazio]

You can't. You obviously didn't study philosophy as you don't know any basic aspects of philosophy or its history.

You didn't know that philosophical infinitism already existed until informed you. You have named your religion and accidentally stolen the name "infinitism" from a well documented and existing branch of philosophy.

Infinitism in Epistemology / Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

You really should have studied philosophy before pretending you were a "philosopher."

It is true, I didn't know till Google made its presence as a search engine, and soon after posts with the term start appearing on Wikipedia and other places.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Philosophy 101 : The omnipotent god paradox
Can "god" create a stone so heavy "god" cannot lift it?

(Standard philosophical argument that there is no such thing as omnipotence)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Now let us help the slower students...

There is no paradox, since none of the two actions negate each other

You really are struggling with this aren't you? It's called logic.

Can god create a hat he cannot wear?
Either "god" can create a hat, but cannot wear it (not omnipotent), or
"god" cannot create a hat that god cannot wear ( not omnipotent)

Ask a friend to explain this to you.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

It is true, I didn't know till Google made its presence as a search engine.....

You are funny. You lied and said you studied philosophy courses.......but now say you didn't know about philosophical infinitism, because it wasn't on Google.

Were your "philosophy courses" all based on looking up things on Goggle?