1] A universe that exists forever must be capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real.
2] A universe that is capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real must also never reach an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.
3] It is impossible for an infinite number of permutations that can become real to co-exist with an infinite number of permutations that cannot become real because infinity cannot distinguish itself.
4] Hence, the universe must not exist forever.
5] Because the universe does exist but cannot exist forever, the universe must be created.
6] Because creation must be real, then there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real because the creator can create all possible permutations.
7] Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real, an eternal universe without a creator is impossible because such a universe must admit of an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.
8] Hence, a creator of the universe must be real in order to distinguish infinity from itself.
It won’t because those don’t ever become real.
Not an issue.
Your reason is not true. All infinities are not alike.
A) [1 + 1.5 + 2 + 2.5 + 3 +…] is infinite.
B) [1 + 2 + 3 +…] is infinite.
The real number set is distinguishable from the whole number set, yet each are infinite sets. They are distinguishable and one is larger than the other. Whether you want to say that the two infinities “co-exist” is up to your definition of “co-existing”.
Only creation can distinguish the infinity of [1+1.5+2+2.5+3+…] from the infinity of [1+2+3+…]. Only creation is capable of such a division of infinity. Infinity cannot be divided without a creator to divide infinity. That’s the whole point of my proof. You cannot explain the division of infinity without a creator, because infinity itself is incapable of such a division.
No. Only creation can divide the infinite between what becomes real and what does not become real.
Infinity cannot distinguish itself.
You are the one distinguishing infinity between [1+2+3+…] and [1.5+2.5+3.5+…]. Infinity itself cannot perform such a distinguishment of itself. You are a product of creation which gives you this ability. You are your own proof of creation.
The real and whole numbers originate in the mind of God. God is the one who originally distinguishes infinity, because infinity cannot distinguish itself. God is the creator.
This doesn’t seem to be classified as “philosophy” as it’s purely derived from pure speculation, jumping to conclusions, and circular logic ad libitum.
You are a compulsive writer, it would be a fool’s errand to try to disprove every single thread of yours, and you never care about being disproved as you will only start all over in a new thread, or totally disregard logical proof.
Again, you are assuming expanding infinity as the only choice for creation, e.g. 1/9 and 2/18ths. God does not need expanding infinity to create. God is naturally endowed with the ability to create.
God is in control at every moment of time of what is real and what is not real. This is how God creates through His control. Because God has this control over all possibilities for reality, then God can distinguish infinity and avoid the problem of an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.
Ecmandu wrote: So are we, naturally endowed with the ability to create. God doesn’t control what is real and what is not real… there is no creator of the real and the unreal, it is discovered. Just like there is no creator of otherness. There are no permutations that aren’t real, just because they’re not in our universe doesn’t mean we don’t telepathically associate with other universes, giving us stories of things that aren’t real here. No there is no repeating time loop… even as a fraction descends into infinitesimals each place is slightly different than the other… but I don’t want to get into all that right now, let’s just say that there are no ultimate time loops, eventually time loops decay.
JohnJBannan wrote: Obviously, we are not naturally endowed with the power to create. But, God is because such an entity as God must be real in order for any of us to be real.
Ecmandu wrote: Did God create the concept of suicidal tension and homicidal tension? No, I did. Did God create the concept of sexual stratification, by coining the term? No I did. Since the concept of sexual stratification is the key concept to world peace, I find it a little interesting that God never mentions it except through me after humans have been through millions of years of history. Some God there. So are you one of those people who doesn’t think humans create anything? When Jeffrey Dahmer eats people alive, that’s God eating them alive through the majesty of Gods creation?
Not necessarily, because what if God doesen’t exist? I think the argument could stand on it’s own without mathematics, if based on this basic proposition, since God’s qualities are defined as potential infinity, in regard to wisdom, eternity, and goodness. If His wisdom also includes that of mathematicl perfection, then the argument becomes non fallacious, but redundant.
This argument is self refuting… that’s part of the word salad I was referring to. If infinity cannot distinguish itself than God, being infinity, cannot distinguish itself. Like i said before, I’m 10 steps ahead, and when i said that, I was actually just being modest.
I’m afraid not. He has merely proposed that God already had them distinguished “in his mind” and thus creation had nothing to do with their distinction. And actually in the created physical reality, they are not distinguished. They are only distinct in the mind.
He actually shot down his own argument. I was giving him time to fix it.
Ecmandu, Your modesty is admirable, but what ‘word salad’ were You referring to? Perhaps, instead of setting You way ahead, might just place You that far behind.
For those of us, who are new with interacting with You, the sources are not entirely clear. May You offer a simple refresher in this regard?
Thanks for that, but why unfortunately? It is possible to learn as well as to teach in this venue, and it seems that a little back paddling, rather than assuming, may not require a sense of humility, on the contrary, modern philosophers, always tend to seek derivation first, even if it is lost, to the current readership.
That’s my view on the defense against the charge of trolling, sometimes it is necessary to fill in the interveening variability of the infinite appearing as if it could not differentiate it’s self, withouth the uncaused Cause.
Don’t get me wrong, this points toward a loss within the rhetoric, maybe closely resembling a modern sense of it, in the word salad. But i will look more closely onto John’s blogs, albeit this is my initial impression.
Because they’re long… that’s why i said unfortunately. If you wanted to get to my earlier posts to understand what I’m saying here better you have to read about 20 pages of these threads. My posts are pretty brief but the context is John and James, so you kinda have to read those as well.
John, as I said in his last thread, has already lost this debate, he just hasn’t figured it out yet. I’m not calling John a troll, or perhaps you’re calling me one, that was ambiguous. I think John really wants to believe in God, and now that it’s starting to get serious he’s grasping for straws… he’s starting more and more to make assertions without backing them up, of which he was doing less of earlier. It’s starting to crumble is my take on it.
