If this is what you really want to believe and maintain here, then okay.
I defined the word ‘space’, which aligns with your claim that objects are so-called ‘within’ ‘space’.
you, however, have the belief that the Universe is finite. And, this is why you cannot fathom and comprehend anything opposing this belief. Again, beliefs stop people from being able to ‘look’ and ‘see’ clearly, and the Truths in Life.
Also, remember that it is ‘you’ who is just saying, “No, what you say is not true”. Again, this is because of your ‘current’ belief, which you obviously have not been able to back up and support at all here.
LOL Remember that it is ‘you’ is saying, “No, ‘space’ cannot go on forever”.
Although, and again, you have not yet provided a single thing that could back up and support this belief of yours, at all.
LOL, LOL, LOL
I have explicitly stated that saying ‘space’ is ‘physical fabric’, which is what allows objects to exist, while also saying ‘space’ is ‘empty’, which is what allows objects to exist, is A CONTRADICTION.
This JUSTIFIES how your statements and claims ARE CONTRADICTIONS.
Once more, you just cannot see and comprehend this JUSTIFICATION because you are blinded by ‘your beliefs’.
I have NEVER stated this anywhere.
But, if you really do want to believe this, then go ahead and show exactly where and when I stated that.
Here is the ‘red herring’ or ‘strawman’ again. I have never even implied anything about ‘filled and empty’, let alone said it anywhere. you introduced this so you had something to refute or reject.
I have also pointed out that ‘a room’ has a boundary or endpoints, which once again are ‘physical objects’, and which has absolutely nothing at all to do with ‘space’ itself, which has NO all-encompassing physical boundary nor endpoint.
Also, previously you stated that ‘space’ is both ‘empty’ and is comprised of ‘physical fabric’, which is obviously CONTRADICTORY. The word ‘filled’ you now introduced to ‘try to’ fool and deceive the readers here.
Who cares.
you have claimed that ‘space’, itself, can end without ‘physical objects’.
Show the readers here that you are able to stay focused, and show the readers how ‘space’ could end without ‘physical object/s’, exactly.
Okay.
Apparently, ‘I’ do not understand ‘this’.
But, what ‘I’ do understand is that you believe, absolutely, that the Universe is finite, while you also ‘try to’ claim that ‘space’ can end or be bounded without a physical object or without physical objects.
So, let the readers see how this could even be a possibility, then ‘we’ can and will look into if it is an actuality, or not.
So, when then do you believe, absolutely, that ‘space’ could never go on forever, or infinitely?
What, exactly, is causing you to have and maintain this absolute belief of yours here?
So, you want to claim, 'Human beings have a concept for ‘the infinite’, and, that you have ‘an argument’ for the fact that human beings have a concept for what, you call, ‘the finite’.
Now, just so ‘you’ become AWARE ‘I’ agree that ‘a concept’ for ‘the infinite’ exists. Just like ‘a concept’ for ‘unicorns’ exist, or like how ‘a concept’ for ‘the beginning and expanding universe’ exists, as well.
And, if people want to ‘try to’ make arguments for what they do not yet have actual proof for, then by all means please make them and present them here, if that is what you really do want to do.
Okay. I can follow and understand this. Although you might believe otherwise.
Again, you appear to be wanting to just make arguments for ‘concepts’ only here. Also, and let ‘us’ not forget that you can own a finite number of shirts, but you obviously could not own an infinite number of shirts.
Or, do you believe otherwise here?
I never ever even thought that you were referring to something ‘in’ ‘space’ that is finite.
If I am mistaken, then please inform me, but you have been referring to ‘space’ itself as being finite, correct?
Just because you introduced the ‘exaggeration’ word in ‘your shirt example’ that word has absolutely no bearing at all here.
Just because you believe, absolutely, that there is no thing that is infinite, never means that what you believe is true, is actually true.
Again, there is proof that the Universe is infinite.
The opposite of ‘finite’ is just ‘infinite’. That you can understand this most obvious of concepts is great.
our understanding of the infinite also does not mean that there is proof beyond the 'exaggeration of the opposite of our understanding of the infinite. In other words, do you have proof that there is such a thing as a finite Universe? Or, is this just what your ‘exaggerated’ imagination believes is absolutely true?
If this is what you really want to believe is true, then okay.
Again, if this is what you really want to believe is true here, then okay.
Really?
If yes, then how do you address the question about ‘space’ and how you claim it ‘just ends’, exactly?
Once more, how could ‘space’ ‘just end’ without ‘physical object/s’, exactly?
I could also suggest you look up a few words here, but I will not.
Well, this fits with your preexisting belief ‘perfectly,’ right?
Do you read through all posts before you respond?
It would not matter how many times I showed and proved otherwise, while this one was believing what it is here, it would not be able to recognise and see the actual Truth.
So, this one follows the, ‘Do as i say, not as i do’, advice.
Where and when did I say, “I struggle with communication”, exactly?
Three times you have used the ‘struggle’ word, as though I used it.
Says the one who cannot envision, at all, and does not have the ability, at all, to understand the concept that ‘space’ does not and can not end. Unless, of course, it meets a physical object.
you really do make me laugh sometimes, “acltalls”.
If only you knew “acltalls”. If only you knew.
Is there any possibility at all that it is you who has deluded “yourself” into thinking and/or even believing that ‘my statements’ are ‘entirely unjustified’, and that ‘your statements’ are ‘justified’ and/or ‘entirely justified’?
Or, is this not a possibility in “acltalls” world?
I’ve already said that I neither agree nor disagree with space being infinite or finite. All I said was that we have no reason beyond the opposite of finite being infinite to even think that infinity is possible, therefore I withhold judgment. I do not claim that space is finite. I do not claim that it is infinite. When one does not have enough reasons to go in either direction one can maintain neutrality and withhold judgment. How can one even begin to presume to know what lies at the edge of the entire universe or how it really looks as a whole? How egotistical do you have to be to think that you know such a thing when you only have reasoning to use for your claims. Logic fails to explain many different things and using logic alone leads to contradictions because it isn’t a perfect system. There are things that cannot be known if you believe that you can know things at all. And no, you do not just know things even though you claim to and fail to understand analogies because you take everything literally and lack an understanding of nuance.
Yes I quite literally do because I value understanding an entire argument before responding.
This quote here demonstrates how self centered you are because you think other people do as you do. I literally read through an entire post before responding every time, but just because you don’t you somehow think that others cannot. Also, I have provided within each of the posts many of the exact quotes that demonstrate what I say, which you respond to what I am saying like you can’t read.
The thing that you do not understand is that I am not making the claim that space can just end without physical objects. I am saying that I do not know if infinity is actually possible, therefore it is not a property that I will attribute to the universe. No one knows truly if infinity is possible, we can only theorize or reason as to how it is, but without being able to truly know, I refrain from claiming that it is possible. I do not need to argue as to how the universe/space can end without physical objects because I am not claiming that it can. I cannot claim with certainty that it is infinite as I have reason to doubt the infinite is possible. Unlike you, I can acknowledge that there are things that cannot be known, yet you think that you can reason your way into all knowledge. You can keep thinking this way, but it will fail you because not everything can be known. For example, you cannot use reason to know almost anything about me. You would have to experience and find the information, just as I would have to do for you. You could make claims based on what is written in these posts, but they will be innaccurate because you lack the social understanding and nuance necessary to make accurate claims about human behavior beyond how you would behave, which is why you assume what you assume. It is why you ask questions that people who do not struggle with understanding social dynamics would already have answers to without needing to ask. You can just say no to this like you normally do because you have no argument against this. Accept some of your flaws. We all have them. I could list some of mine, but I don’t see a point in doing so right now because I acknowledge that I have them even if I do not specify them to you.
No one is perfect, and when you accept that you can be wrong, and stop reacting so strongly and getting upset, then you will be able to engage a bit better with the arguments. You can say that these things do not upset you at all, but I can tell that what you talk about is important to you, so it is reasonable to feel upset. But nonetheless, this frustration leads to misunderstandings and reacting to quickly to what is said. That is why I said to actually read all the way through the posts first as I do.
I NEVER said that you did. What I did say, instead, is;
As can be clearly seen and proved above here.
you believe that ‘space’ can end without physical objects.
Why do you not inform ‘us’ readers here who this ‘we’ is, exactly, which ‘you’ keep mentioning and talking about here? I have asked you a couple of times already.
Now, and once more, ‘we’ have more reasons than that one and only reason to think that infinity is not just possible but is the actual Truth here.
In fact, since there is proof that the Universe is infinite, it would be really very silly to think that the Universe is not infinite.
Okay. you just claim that it cannot or does not go on forever nor infinitely, correct?
you, after all, have claimed that ‘space’ can end without physical objects. Although you have not explained how this could even be a possiblity, even though I have challenged you to a few times already.
True.
But, rejecting or refusing to look at ‘proof’ is not really the smartest nor wisest thing to do.
Just look at how silly and foolish all those people looked who also rejected or refused to look at the ‘proof’ that the earth revolves around the sun.
one would have to have already begun to presume or believe that there is ‘an edge’ to the Universe, before they could even begin to presume to know what lies at ‘the edge’ of the entire universe.
Do you presume or believe that there is ‘an edge’ to the entire universe?
As always, your honest answer will be very much appreciated.
So, if you do presume or believe that there is ‘an edge’ of the entire universe?
If you do, then why did you begin to presume or believe such a thing? There is obviously no proof for this existing here.
Now, if you have not begun to presume or believe that there is ‘an edge’ to the entire universe, then why did you mention and talk about ‘an edge’ to the entire universe, as though there even is or could be one?
you talk like those so-called “scientists” who mention and talk about “the early universe”, as though they presume or believe there was one.
Now, I never began to presume to know what lies at ‘the edge’ of the entire universe, nor how the Universe really looks as a whole. Instead, when ‘the proof’ of what the actual and irrefutable Truth is exactly, in regards to the Universe, as a whole, was presented to me, then I KNEW the Truth.
Are you able to and can see ‘the differences’ here?
If you can, then do you understand ‘the differences’?
Why have you ‘now’ chosen to believe, absolutely, that ‘I’ only have ‘reasoning’ for ‘my claims’?
If I recall correctly, before you claimed something like I had no reasoning, but now you claim that I only have reasoning.
Is this what led to ‘your contradictions’?
I have not presented any. Or, if I have, no one has presented them and expressed how and why they are. Like ‘I’ have with ‘your contradictions’.
Spoken like the ‘perfect’ “preacher” or so-called “expert” when they are questioned and/or challenged over their claims, which do not make sense.
Imagine believing, absolutely, that there are things that cannot be known. Especially when things like what the Universe is made up of exactly, and how the Universe works, exactly, are already known.
Now, what are ‘these things’, which you claim can never ever be known, forever more?
Once more I have to re-repeat ‘my words’ here. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything here.
Now, let ‘us’ take a look at your whole sentence here again.
Does this mean that if you do not believe that you can know things at all, then there are things that can be known?
Talk about one having been influenced and indoctrinated here, already.
Now, so you KNOW that ‘I’ do not just know things.
Again, ‘we’ are presented with another blatant contradiction.
This one claims to KNOW that ‘I’, ‘we’, or ‘some’ just do not know things, but it somehow does happen to KNOW things.
So, what this means is that ‘I’ cannot know things, even though I claim to know things. But, “acltalls” claims that it can KNOW things, even though it claims I cannot.
I also happen to fail to understand analogies. I wonder if this is ALL analogies, or just some only?
And, I fail to understand analogies, because I supposedly take absolutely everything literally. And, I also supposedly lack an understanding of nuance.
Which, all again, is a complete and utter attempt at deflection that “acltalls” claims that ‘space’ cannot go on forever, or infinitely, because somehow ‘space’, magically, ‘just stops’, without physical objects.
When I speak of an edge to the universe, I refer to the limit of the observable universe. There is such a thing and requires a moment of using google to verify. We cannot know what lies beyond for it is not observable.
How many times are you going to say this? Prove it with something more than a statement. I am asking directly for your exact and explicit reasoning for how the universe works in whatever way you are referring to in this quote.
No, what I am saying is that for you to be able to claim that there are things that cannot be known, you first have to believe that things can be known. This is distinct from a claim that one cannot know anything at all and that all there is, is belief.
You speak of indoctrination like langauge is not itself indoctrination and like culture is not. Everyone is indoctrinated into something. You are too otherwise you wouldn’t even speak a langauge because that is being indoctrinated into a way of thinking because each different langauge guides how we think. There are languages that have concepts that do not exist in the same way they do in English, which makes it so that you cannot think of such a thing in the same way as though you spoke that different langauge. You are not some enlightened person who is outside of the effects of culture and langauge. You can claim that you are enlightened while using your learned langauge that you did not develop outside of any culture.
I never said that I know that you do not just know things. I said that you do not know things just because you claim to. This is a belief and is consistent with my view unless you want to pretend that there are words there that clearly aren’t.
I’ve never claimed that it magically just stops without physical objects. I have asked how you know that it does not and said that it is logically possible that space may just end due to there no longer being any physical space that makes up the universe at some point. But I do not know. I did not claim to know that this was the case, only that there is simply theorizing as to the truth.
you have, however, asked me, “how can space be infinite”?
you also did add, “if ‘space’ is reliant on objects for its understanding”.
you have also said that you disagree with the claim that space goes on infinitely. When you said and wrote:
So, if you are now claiming that you are not making the claim that space can just end without physical objects, then why do you disagree with the claim that space goes on infinitely, without physical objects?
Do you know if finity is actually possible?
Is finity or finiteness a property that you will attribute to the Universe?
I DO.
In fact, I KNOW that not just infinity is possible but is the actual irrefutable Truth.
But, again, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want to here.
This is a pretty big claim. Are ‘we’ able to KNOW this absolutely and fully?
Are ‘we’ able to TRULY KNOW that ‘we’ can NEVER know if the Universe is infinite or not?
Obviously.
Do you refrain from claiming that it is not possible as well?
Do you refrain from claiming that finity is possible, also?
Yet you disagree with the claim that ‘space’ goes on infinitely, right?
So, if you disagree that ‘space’ can or does go on forever, why do you disagree with this?
What is there that would make you disagree that ‘space’ goes on forever, without physical objects?
What is ‘the reason’ you claim to have, to doubt the Universe is possibly infinite?
Why would you doubt something that you have absolutely no ‘proof’ for at all?
Unlike you, I am not that narrow nor closed to claim that I KNOW, for sure and absolutely, that there are things that cannot be known, forever more.
Wow this is another ‘way out there’ claim and belief of yours.
Where and when have I said absolutely anything that could have led you to conclude such a thing as you have here?
LOL Now it actually believes, absolutely, that ‘I’ ‘think this way’ and tells me that ‘I’ can keep ‘thinking this way’.
LOL And, another one here claims that is ‘me’ who does the so-called “mind reading” here.
Again, what things, exactly, do you believe, absolutely, can never ever be known?
If this is what you really want to believe is absolutely true, then okay. But, ‘I’ already KNOW how and why ‘you’ are ‘the way’ you are. I also KNOW why you think and do what you think and do.
Could you go more off tangent here is your attempt to deflect away from the Fact that I have shown and proved how the Universe is infinite.
Anyone can see this. So, your continued attempts to deflect here are not working.
I do not even know what it is that you assume I assume, and which you claim is why I assume what I assume.
What do ‘you’ assume ‘I’ assume here?
Have you forgotten ‘we’ are/were speaking about ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite, and how I claim this to be an irrefutable Fact?
But, it is ‘you’ who has been the one saying, “No”, here.
Just saying, “Accept some of your flaws”, never means that you actually have any.
Now, what flaws are ‘you’ telling ‘me’ to accept here, exactly?
What are ‘your flaws’, exactly?
Not even since ‘I’ have asked ‘you’ to already?
Do you see any point in listing some or all of ‘my flaws’ here?
I see lots of points if you did. But, if you do not want to, then I understand why.
Sounds like you want to highlight something ‘good’ about “yourself” here. Obviously, without acknowledging of your ‘wrongness’ or ‘badness’.
Could you take ‘this’ off topic here any further now?
you sound like how one of those who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolves around the sun would speak and say things to ‘the one’ who KNEW what the actual irrefutable Truth is exactly.
If one has the ‘irrefutable proof, Truth, and Facts’, then why would they want to accept that they can be wrong? Especially when the others around them do not want to look at their own beliefs at all.
Like you, those ones were the ones, that could not and did not accept that their unsubstantiate beliefs could be wrong.
Here is another one, like “greenfuse” who ‘tries to’ TELL ‘me’ ‘my emotions’.
Why are you so upset and reacting so strongly here, “acltalls”?
Now, will “greenfuse” copy and paste this in the Open and Honest thread and say and claim that ‘this’ is more so-called “mind-reading”?
Talk about another prime example of ‘trying to’ deflect and deceive the readers here.
LOL, LOL, LOL Again, it is ‘me’ who could engage with ‘the arguments’ better. LOL The ones these people were really fooling and deceiving was “their” own ‘selves’.
The argument is:
When ‘space’ is defined as ‘the distance’ that is between and around objects, then ‘space’ goes on forever, or infinitely, if there is no physical object surrounding ‘space’.
Are you able to engage with ‘the argument’ and stop “yourself” from deflecting and going off on tangents here?
Exactly like “greenfuse” this one also actually believes, absolutely, that it has the ability to TELL another how they REALLY feel. And, LOL even after they have been informed otherwise.
So, instead of actually pointing out any actual ‘flaws’ in ‘my claims’ and/or ‘my words’, they just turn to looking at, and talking about, ‘me’.
It looks like “acltalls” just like “greefuse” prefer to do this instead.
Again, this conclusion does not logically follow from its prior statements.
Well that is another prime example of another very narrow or closed perspective and view of things.
Now, ‘your question’ asked, “How can one even begin to presume to know what lies at the edge of the ENTIRE Universe”. So, why ‘now’ you say and claim that you only referring to the “limit of the observable universe”.
Again, your contradictions appear blatantly obvious, well to me anyway.
But, if you really want to KNOW how one can even begin to presume to know what lies at ‘now’ the limit of the “observable universe”, then okay.
But, one can very easily and simply KNOW, without even beginning to presume anything, what lies at the so-called “edge” of ‘this limit’.
What lies at “this edge” are, ONCE MORE, objects with ‘space’ between and around the objects. So, nothing really changes at all. The whole entire Universe is THE SAME.
There are objects with ‘space’ - a distance - between and around them.
Therefore, the Universe is infinite, and eternal as well, by the way.
Like “greenfuse” your condescension and superiority complex are OBVIOUS.
you CAN KNOW there are ‘thoughts’, and that are not observable.
I KNOW what lies beyond what can be observed with human eyes, in regards to the Universe, Itself, and other things also.
But, again, you are absolutely free to believe absolutely otherwise.
Have you forgotten that ‘we’ are still discussing ‘the proof’ that the Universe is infinite?
Or, have you ‘given up’ here?
When ‘we’ have finished discussing how the Universe is infinite, exactly, then ‘we’ can move on to this ‘new one’ that you ‘now’ want proof for.
Also, do not forget that you have asked me to prove something else in another thread, which I have responded to already. I suggest ‘we’ move on to ‘that discussion’ after ‘we’ have finished with ‘this discussion’ and before ‘we’ move on to this ‘new one’ that you ‘now’ want ‘the proof’ for.
If ‘we’ keep things in order then it makes it easier for the readers, like “greenfuse”, to follow and keep up with.
I have already answered this question mutliple times. I already said that I do not think that the infinite is possible, so without believing or knowing that the infinite is possible, I reject any argument that requires it. That is the answer to your question. There is nothing else for me to say about it because I have fully explained all of my reasoning. Reread past posts if you need to for the rest that I have already covered.
So, considering that it is only ‘you’ here in this thread that is claiming that there are things that cannot be know, does this mean you had to first believe that things can be known?
Okay. But, you appear to have missed or misunderstood ‘the point’ I was making there.
I’ll point out flaws, but you can’t acknowledge that they are flaws even when I do. You explain away how you have none. This is a flaw of yours. You cannot actually handle criticism. Also you’re clearly autistic which is why you cannot handle any kind of nuanced discussion without being too literal. This is another one of your flaws. You keep responding to only parts of my argument without reading the rest first. Another one of your flaws. You project deflection onto me even though I have already answered your question multiple times, but instead of accepting that that is my answer, you continue saying how I somehow have not answered it. You have my answer and I can point out flaws, but instead of acknowledging any of them, you just poorly dismiss them because even your rejection of your easily perceived flaws is incoherent because you argue like everyone is in your head.