Okay. Would you now like to look at them instead and/or only?
If you would, then will you list some of the “tons of them”? So, then ‘we’ have something to ‘look at’ and ‘discuss’.
Okay.
Do you believe in God or that God exists? Do you not believe in God or that God does not exist? Or, do you believe or disbelieve something else here?
Yes, I know.
Did I even assume that you claimed to not believe in God?
If yes, then where and when exactly?
you just claimed that I am constantly assuming. Where and when have I been constantly assuming.
I have NEVER stated absolutely anywhere that I do not make assumptions.
I know.
I just pointed out you telling me to read ‘a book’ is just like a “christian” or any other religious person telling me to read ‘a book’.
I was not refuting anything.
Again, I was just pointing out “religious people” like you, “theologians,” and “scientists” refer others to read ‘the books’ that they read, in the hope that ‘the others’ will ‘see’ what they do when reading ‘those books’.
A basic concept in english that you learn if it was your first langauge is that when someone says you, depending on the context, they are not referring to any specific person. It’s a general you that refers to everyone. It doesn’t matter if I say that you can agree with me or not. You will or you won’t
I simply don’t agree or disagree with the claim that the universe is infinite. There is not enough reasons in either direction to convince me to take one side over the other. All that is possible is conjecture and theory.
Also you continue to make claims and then call those claims your proofs. Stating that something is the case is not an argument so restating things over and over again doesn’t convince me.
Do you mean that there is not enough reasons, or that you have not yet been presented with enough reasons, in either direction to convince you to take one side over the other?
If this is what you want to continue to believe is true, that is perfectly fine and okay with me.
But, once again, while one is believing that they already know the truth, then they are not open to what is actually True and Right.
I have NEVER ever made that claim and meant that all.
OF COURSE, stating that something is the case is not an argument. This is blatantly obvious, as well.
your first part here also does not logically follow with a ‘so’, restating things over and over doesn’t convince you.
The only things that could convince you are ‘proofs’ and ‘facts’. But, since you are not wanting to look any further, ‘the proofs’ and ‘facts’ cannot be presented to you.
you are stuck in and with your inability to explain your belief that ‘space/a distance’ cannot go on forever.
I am not sure if you are unfamiliar with logic, but saying that something doesn’t logically follow isn’t an argument as to how something doesn’t logically follow. It is basic english that I made a statement, and then said ‘so’, which functions as an indicator of a conclusion. What was meant by saying that stating something is the case is not an argument and then stating that restating the same thing over and over again doesn’t convince me, is that you do that. It is like you do not understand basic implication. If I say that simply stating something is the case is not an argument, and then I say “so, restating the same thing over and over again doesn’t convince me.” That means that I am saying that you are stating that something is the case over and over again. It completely logically follows, but some of our misunderstanding stem from the obvious fact that either you have a disability or that English is not your first langauge.
I can perfectly explain my belief. My belief is this:
To begin,
I reject your definition of space because it being defined as distance between objects does not fully encompass the capacities of the thing we call space. Space also has the capacity for objects to be within it, so I define space as being the foundational physical fabric of the universe that allows for physical objects to exist. It is like a box that contains items within it and without this box, the items would have nowhere to be placed.
Space is not the distance between objects because those objects are all within space. There is space between objects, but we do not even call space, ‘space’ because it is some magical thing. We literally call it that because it is empty and things can fill it. Like how you fill space in your house with furniture. It is the exact same space as is the kind that exists between planets. Of course there are more things within the space on planets than outside of planets due to atmospheres and such, but nonetheless, space can contain objects within it. This is the reason why we have two different terms for space. We have empty space and space. There would be no need for clarification that it is empty if it could not contain objects within it.
Please remember that I am making an argument and so you must take the entirety of it into consideration and not just parts at a time.
The last part of my argument is that we only have the concept of something being infinite because of our understanding of the finite being possible, therefore there is no way to know with certainty that anything can be infinite. So I reject the idea that there is such a thing as an infinite universe because not only is space not distance as I have argued, but there is no proof that anything can be infinite. Both of these are required for your argument, and I reject them both.
Also you say this, but I asked you for your proofs. You gave me the proof for your claim that the universe is infinite already and it was unconvincing because it relies on the definition of space being distance, rather than the clear capacity for things to be contained within space. If you fill a space with something is it magically just no longer space? (this is a rhetorical question used to prove a point.) No it is now filled space. Your argument relies on a definition that cannot be proven to be true and has strong reasoning against using distance as the definition for space.
Again, of course not. Why did you assume it was, introduce your assumption, and then point out that your assumption is not an argument?
It appears you did not understand me. Again, your ‘so’ did not align nor logically follow as an indicator of ‘a conclusion’. The prior statement, and, the latter conclusion, again did not logically follow.
Of course the ‘so’ word indicates ‘a conclusion’. But, obviously, just using the ‘so’ word never means that ‘the conclusion’ logically follows on from ‘the prior statement, claim, or premise’.
Okay, just like you are stating that something is the case over and over again also. As you have just shown and proved.
Again, misunderstanding here is my fault.
This one does not like it when I use the ‘obvious’ word, and even wrote a post about how using the ‘obvious’ word lessens the argument or point, but then chooses to use the ‘obvious’ word “itself” in this post.
Notice how when it is pointed out that either ‘I’ have a disability or “english” is not my first language, then this is not just ‘obvious’ or not just a ‘fact’, but it is an ‘obvious fact’.
Besides all of this, ‘I’ am also, allegedly, ‘the one’ who does not stay on topic.
I understood you, but that is not how words work. The ‘so’ that I said functions as an indicator of a conclusion regardless of the truth of the conclusion. Whether my conclusion logically follows my prior statement does not determine the function of a word. And still you have not demonstrated in any capacity how my conclusion does not logically follow the previous statement. You have only stated that it doesn’t, but such a claim is yours to prove since you are the one making it. Not only have you not shown how it doesn’t logically follow, you quite literally can’t because your statement that the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the previous statement, where you do not explain how is literally the thing that I am saying that you are doing over and over again. You have proven my argument as a response to it because you continue to just make statements with no argument attached.
your interpretation of what I have said and meant is a misinterpretation.
I have explained previously that ‘space’ is ‘the distance’ between, and around, physical objects. Which, obviously, means that ‘space’ and/or ‘a distance’ encompasses objects as well.
But, of course and obviously, you were not expected to have yet seen and so realised this. So, what you say about ‘space’ to you also having the capacity for objects to be what you call “within it” does not in any way contradict nor go against anything that I have said about ‘space’.
Now, you define ‘space’ as being a so-called “foundational physical fabric”, but which somehow allows for ‘physical objects’ to exist.
What is the ‘physicalness’ of ‘space’, itself, exactly?
What proof do you have for this definition and claim of yours here?
How can a box, which you say and claim ‘contains items within it’, have no sides, ends, nor boundaries, and still be a so-called ‘box’, exactly?
Any claim that without ‘a box’ ‘the items’ [physical objects] would have nowhere to be placed, is just you again stuck in your own made up assumptions and beliefs once more.
you quoted me saying, ‘you are stuck in and with your inability to explain your belief that ‘space/a distance’ cannot go on forever’.
So far, besides not even addressing this at all, you are just getting more stuck in your own made up stories.
How could ‘space’, itself, be anything like ‘a box’, itself?
A ‘box’ has sides, boundaries, and ends. What exactly are the sides, boundaries, or ends of ‘space’, itself?
you definition of ‘space’ is not something that could even be close to being accepted. For example, how could ‘physical fabric’, (whatever that is), allow for physical objects to exist, exactly?
Obviously a ‘physical fabric’ is a ‘physical object’, itself. So, how could ‘an object’ allow ‘itself’ to exist, exactly? And, what do you even mean by ‘allow’, exactly?
So, what is ‘the distance’ between objects if it cannot be (a) ‘space’, itself?
Also, do you include ‘space’ as part of the Universe Itself?
If yes, then this just reaffirms that the Universe is infinite, spatially.
Unless, of course, you even become unstuck and become able to explain how ‘space’ itself could end, without a physical object.
This does not make sense, to me. And, who does the ‘we’ word here refer to exactly?
Again, who is the ‘we’ here.
And, you have made another contradiction here.
Above you claimed that you define the ‘space’ word as, ‘being foundational physical fabric’, while now you claim you, and some others, ‘literally’, call ‘space’ ‘space’ because ‘space’ is empty, (and things can fill ‘space’).
So, which one is it? Is ‘space’ empty, or, is ‘space’ physical fabric?
When will ‘you’ and ‘those others’ decide, exactly?
But a ‘house’ has walls, which is the physical object that makes and creates the boundary of ‘the space’ here. What is ‘the boundary’ of ‘the space’ in the Universe, Itself?
Is there ‘a distance’ between planets?
If yes, you just do not call ‘that distance’ a ‘space’, correct?
And, what contains ‘space’, itself? you know, like the walls and roof of ‘a house’ contain ‘the space’ within it?
What exactly contains ‘the space’ within ‘the Universe’?
Also, why did you introduce what some call ‘a strawman’ and then say that it is not correct?
I have never said that there are no objects ‘within’ ‘space’, nor that ‘space’ cannot contain objects so-called ‘within it’. In fact, I have already highlighted how objects are encompassed by, or within, ‘space’, itself.
Also, maybe you have forgotten that what your reply here is in relation to exactly is the quote of mine, which you posted, which talked about how 'you are stuck in and with your inability to explain your belief that ‘space/a distance’ cannot go on forever’.
And, what is the difference between what is called and known as ‘empty space’ and ‘space’, itself, exactly?
Also, you have previously talked about ‘common or shared meanings’, so what is the ‘common or shared meaning’ of the ‘space’ word, exactly?
Again, you are making another contradiction. you claim that the ‘space’ that contains physical objects is made up of ‘physical fabric’ as this is what allows ‘physical objects’ to exist, but now you claim that ‘space’ is empty, and that if ‘space’ was not empty then ‘space’ could not contain objects within it.
Do not worry. I am.
Also, please remember that if one does not make a sound and valid argument only, then the so-called ‘argument’ is not worth sharing nor repeating.
Now, your so-called argument, so far, fails absolutely because of the, to me blatantly obvious, contradictions within it.
I have asked you to explain how the ‘finite’ here could be both or either logically and physical possible. So far you have provided absolutely nothing. And, any perception that the Universe could be ‘finite’ is just a made-up conception, which again is based upon nothing theoretically nor empirically possible, let alone actual.
Now, explain to the readers here what ‘your understanding’ is, exactly, of how the Universe, Itself, could even be possible.
Explain how the Universe being finite could be logically possible, and, explain how a finite Universe could be physically possible.
Contrary to your absolute belief here, it is already known, with absolute certainty, that the Universe, Itself, is not just infinite, but is eternal as well.
And, as ‘I’ have already relayed to ‘you’, this is because ‘the proof’ already exists for this irrefutable Fact.
But please, you keep believing whatever it is that you want to believe is true.
Why do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there is absolutely no proof absolutely anywhere and forever more that ‘anything’ can be infinite?
What ‘we’ have here is a classic case of ‘confirmation bias’, where a person can only “see” what they ‘currently’ believe is the absolute truth.
See how, with a “freudian slip”, even if and when ‘the proof’ is presented that counters or opposes one’s ‘current’ belief, they will just ‘reject it’ anyway.
What can be seen, throughout this one’s words here, is another prime example of how and why these people, ‘back then’, took so, so very long to come to recognise, see, understand, and know the actual irrefutable Truths in Life.
Again, you asked, I provided, you are not able to “see” them, again because you are blinded by your ‘currently’ held onto beliefs, which you obviously clearly want to maintain and defend.
I have asked you to prove what could be at ‘the end’ of ‘space’, itself, if not a physical object, which could cause and create ‘finity’. you, obviously, have provided nothing at all.
Therefore, when you are asked for ‘proofs’, you have so far provided none.
Once again, ‘this’ is your own misinterpretation, and absolutely nothing that I have said and meant.
In fact, I highlighted how objects are what you call ‘within’ ‘space’. Remember it was ‘I’ who stated that on the ‘other side’ of the furthest object, there is still ‘space’ there. Meaning that ‘space’ encompasses objects and/or that objects are ‘contained within space’.
The only real point that you are proving here is that you do not have the ability to listen and hear what I am saying, meaning, and pointing out here.
Again, you have introduced a ‘red herring’ or ‘strawman’, which you are arguing against.
What you speak of here also has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said, claimed, and meant.
LOL, LOL, LOL
Coming from ‘the one’ who claims that ‘space’ is empty, otherwise how can objects be within it, while, laughably, also claiming that ‘space’ is ‘physical fabric’, which allows ‘physical objects’ to exist.
And, LOL ‘my definition’ is ‘the one’ that, supposedly, cannot be proven to be true.
So, ‘my definition’ that ‘space’ is a distance, now, supposedly has ‘strong reasoning’ against using ‘distance’ as the definition for ‘space’.
If anyone can make ‘this’ make sense, then will you please explain it to me?
I know that you used the ‘so’ word to indicate that you had arrived at and are ‘now’ just about to express your conclusion.
Again, I was just pointing out that ‘your conclusion’ did not follow on, logically, from the prior statement that the ‘so’ was related to.
I know. Once again, I agree that the function of the ‘so’ word is to indicate ‘a conclusion’. I have already acknowledged this. I, once again, was just pointing out that ‘your conclusion’ did NOT follow on, logically.
Can you still not see it?
By the way, I did demonstrate, in some capacity, how your conclusion did not logically follow on from the previous statement. Did you miss it?
Proving it is about one of the last things I am concerned about. Those who can read and understand ‘my words’ know what I was pointing out.
I much prefer to stay focused on ‘the proof’ that the Universe is infinite.
If I spend ‘my time’ explaining all of the mistakes in ‘the way’ people communicated just here in this one forum alone, I would spend many lifetimes over, doing so, let alone how much ‘time’ I would spend pointing out all of the other mistakes in all of the other human beings’ communication.
Look, since you believe absolutely that I, quite literally, cannot show how your conclusion did not logically follow from your previous statement, I will now certainly not even attempt to.
Therefore, you can remain believing, absolutely, that ‘your conclusion’ followed logically from ‘your previous statement’. So, all is now well and good, right?
If ‘this’ is what ‘I’ have proven, ‘to you’, then okay.
Your definition does not obviously mean that. When making philosophical arguments you must be explicit. The misunderstanding is due to your lack of specificity in your explanation of your views.
I will not pretend that your arguments are obvious when what you consider obvious requires an unstated assumption, which I will not make when analyzing your arguments. I will only engage with what you have actually said, not what you leave out because I hold people to a higher standard of explanation and do not make up for their lack of clarity by filling in the gaps in their arguments for them.
You state this directly:
And then say:
I am glad that you can see how you have proven to me that you do not care about providing arguments for your claims.
You keep asking questions about statements when the answer to the questions you have asked are contained within previous statements. You keep analyzing these arguments in isolation so they don’t make sense. Also things can have multiple properties. Space can be empty at times, but can also be filled, which is the capacity rhat empty things have. Like a literal container. I understand that you take everything literally and have no capacity for abstract thought, but that does not mean that these arguments aren’t sound or valid. Your inability to understand something does not negate it’s truth or sound reasoning. You claim to know the truth and that if someone doesn’t understand it yet, it’s just because they have yet to see. Because yes of course, you totally know the truth of things. I don’t see the point in most of what you point out as criticism about what I say because you are pointing out how something doesn’t make sense, when it would, if you literally kept the sentence before it in your mind when reading the next one, but even though you say you do take the argument in it’s entirety, it is clear that you don’t because you ask questions about something that I have already given my answer to in the exact same post. I understand if you don’t consider the answer good enough, but that doesn’t mean you don’t know what my answer to it is. You ask questions like you can only read and remember a single sentence at a time.
I am not blinded by my beliefs and it is not that I cannot see some truth you speak of, it is that your arguments are not convincing and you lack the ability to actually engage with arguments besides just saying what inevitably equates to saying no. Which saying what basically equates to no, is not an argument. You say that there are contradictions, but you do not justify how they are contradictory. You merely state that they are because you lack the ability to understand nuance. If there is space in a room, and part of that space is filled with furniture, is the space both empty and filled? No it is that part of the space is filled and part of it is empty. They are not having two opposing properties at the same time, but you don’t understand this apparently.
There is nothing at the end of space that is causing ‘finity’ as you put it. My argument was based off of the fact that we have a concept for the finite. For example, if I have one shirt, there is a finite amount of shirts that I own. This understanding of the being a limited amount of something can have it’s opposite taken and exaggerated to the most extreme degree which gives us the idea for infinite. I am not referring to something in space that is finite. I am saying that we have no proof beyond this exaggeration of the opposite of our understanding of the finite, to say that there is such a thing as the infinite.
If you’re going to say that I am using a logical fallacy, at least use it correctly haha. I did not create a weak argument to easily attack, which would be a strawman. I asked a rhetorical question and then provided an answer to demonstrate something. This is also not a red herring because I am not bringing up something irrelevant to the conversation to distract from the main point. I am literally still directly addressing space. Look up a definition for fallacies before you use them unless you don’t believe in them because you are so enlightened.
You asking this question when I give the answer on the very next line, demonstrates to me that you cannot engage with an entire argument and that you do not read through all that I say first before responding. So you literally cannot engage with my arguments because you do not respond to them in their entirety. Your question is pointless when it us literally answered in the next sentence. Read the whole post first before responding.
You say this:
How can you claim such a thing when you have already said that you struggle with communication and are learning to communicate better. In what world do you who struggles to communicate somehow understand better what other’s are saying than someone who does not struggle to communicate. I literally have a degree in communication studies, whereas you can not even think abstractly. Your statements are entirely unjustified and you have deluded yourself into thinking otherwise.
LOL Now these people want to ‘try to’ tell me what ‘my definitions’ mean. I tell one person how I actually feel, but this is supposedly wrong as though they know how I feel exactly, now this one wants to tell me that ‘my definitions’ do not mean what I tell them they mean. And, this one does not just tell what ‘my definitions’ do not mean, but LOL what they ‘obviously’ do not mean. Which again is very funny considering the rant that it went on about the ‘obvious’ word.
So, when I say that when ‘space’ is defined as a distance, from all sides of an object, then somehow this was not specific enough to mean that ‘space’ encompasses objects and/or supposedly lacks specificity in explaining that objects are contained within ‘space’ - a distance.
Also, notice how all of this here now is a detraction from “acltalls” having to explain how exactly that its belief that ‘space’ can end, without ever having to meet a physical object.
Okay, do not.
One can very easily remove the ‘obvious’ word and ‘my claim’ still stands on its own, which again no one can refute.
Could you go more off topic here and deflect into another tangent any more?
LOL Here ‘we’ have another example of another one ‘trying’ this tactic.
OBVIOUSLY, what I was referring to had absolutely nothing at all about providing arguments for ‘my claims’.
I was, OBVIOUSLY, talking about that one specific thing about ‘your conclusion’ in that one specific example not logically following on from ‘your previous statement’.
Again, that ‘your conclusion’, in that one example, did not logically follow, I have absolutely no interest in proving, especially ‘to you’.
Also, I meant that if you believe that I have proven ‘your argument’ that I just make statements with ‘no arguments’ attached, then okay.
See, a lot of people like you believe and “see” that things have been so-called ‘proven’, when they have not been.
And, you keep making statements when you have previous made the statements, and even after they have been shown to be False, Wrong, or contradictory.
But, what you have not done here is even try to argue for ‘your claim’, let alone have even begun to present ‘proof’ for it. In fact, do you even have absolutely any proof at all that ‘space’ can end with physical objects or a physical barrier?
When one, for example, states that ‘space’ is a ‘physical fabric’, but, within a statement later, then tries to claim that ‘space’ is ‘empty’, and that BOTH the ‘physical fabric’ and the ‘emptiness’ have to both be true, because that is how ‘physical objects’ supposedly exist, then it is not me analyzing your attempt to argue here in isolation, but on the contrary looking at and analyzing your whole so-called argument together or in whole.
your what you call ‘an argument’ does not make sense for the very simple fact that it just does not make sense. Full stop.
Will you name the things besides ‘space’, which you claim is made up of ‘physical fabric’ but which also is not made up of ‘physical fabric’ and which is just ‘empty’?
If you will not, then why not?
Being ‘filled’ is NOT the same as ‘the properties’ that ‘it’ is made up of. They are two very different things.
What you are ‘trying to’ claim and argue for here, is quite convenient for one who is also ‘trying to’ claim that ‘space’ can ‘just end’ without absolutely anything else.
What can be very clearly seen here is another prime example of when one believes something to be true, then they will ‘try’ and jumble words and definitions around in such a way that they hope can be used to show and/or prove their strongly held onto belief is what the actual truth is.
Which, again, is extremely humorous to watch play out.
Once again, a ‘container’ exactly like a ‘box’ has a boundary or endpoint to it.
Once again, where is the boundary or endpoint to ‘space’ itself?
you have claimed that ‘space’ can end without a physical object or barrier.
Will you even try to argue for this belief and claim of yours here?
If no, then why not?
LOL Coming from ‘the one’ who cannot even begin to imagine that ‘space’ goes on forever.
I have already shown and proved how ‘your arguments’ here are not sound and valid.
Although, and obviously, some people are not yet ready and able to see some actual Truths and proofs.
So, once more, absolutely any misunderstanding is always ‘my fault’.
It does not matter if it is either a misunderstanding by ‘me’ or by ‘them’, on all occasions it is ‘my fault’.
I agree.
If you say so, then okay.
So, you do not see the point in another pointing out what does not make sense.
Which helps to explain things better here.
But, I have provided a perfect example of how and when I actually did do this. Except, of course, there is no such thing as “your mind”.
Remember, in one sentence you claimed that ‘space’ is what you call "the foundational physical fabric’ of the Universe, and that it is because of this ‘physical fabric’ physical objects were allowed to exist, which I remembered when I read another sentence of yours where you very contradictory claimed that ‘space’ is now actually ‘empty’, and that is was because of this physical objects can exist.
I just pointed out how those contradictory sentences do not make sense.
And, the fact that you have never even tried to explain ‘this contradiction’ speaks volumes here.
Where and when, exactly, did I ever say such a thing?
Here it can be very clearly seen that its preexisting belief/s has distorted its ability to see and think clearly. it believes, absolutely, that I have not and do not take ‘its argument’ in its entirety, even after I have explained how;
its conclusion did not follow logically from its previous statement.
I provided an example of two contradictory statements it made in a so-called argument of its.
Have you provided an answer as to how ‘space’ can ‘just end’ without (a) ‘physical object/s’?
If yes, then where and when exactly?
I do not even know what you are referring to here exactly, let alone supposedly not knowing what ‘your answer is’ nor what the ‘it’ is even here.
Okay.
you do not answer how ‘your belief’ could be even a logical and physical possibility, let alone the actuality.