I am logically disagreeing with and refuting by stating that you have to prove that infinity is actually possible, which you have not done.
So, to ‘you’, ‘I’ am young due to ‘being so young’.
Okay.
So, although ‘I’ explain how and why I have no beliefs here, ‘now’ ‘I’ do not just have beliefs; ‘I’ have ‘extreme beliefs’.
Coming from ‘the one’ who thinks that it is not even possible that the Universe could go on forever, nor infinitely, because the ‘limited observable universe’ has a boundary, is extremely hilarious.
Okay.
Well, you cannot refute it nor logically disagree with it. But, you can choose hold off recognising and seeing ‘the proof’ for as long as you like.
Yes. And, although you believe absolutely otherwise, I decided to choose to neither believe and disbelieve things. Did you know this?
you also have chosen to refuse to look at and see ‘the proof’, which was presented before you here.
See, you have chosen to reject what you prefer to think, presume, or believe is true.
Are you absolutely sure?
Is it, for example, not a possibility that the Universe could be finite, to you?
Show the readers here how ‘neutral’ you really are here.
Do you judge the reasoning to be sufficient enough when it sways you towards believing what you already ‘currently’ think, presume, or believe is true?
Yes you have already proven this. you choose to reject ‘proof’ and also to not even look at and engage with ‘proof’ at all.
I never did. Just in case you were curios.
No ‘new information’ was needed.
How and why all of you people are ‘the way’ you are is because of ‘past experiences’ solely.
That is ALL the information that is needed here.
But, on the contrary.
Firstly, ‘I’ did say it about ALL of you people.
Secondly, how and why ALL of you people are unique and individual individual people is, AGAIN, for the exact same reason. you are ALL, individually and collectively, ‘the way’ you ALL are, because of ‘the individual and unique past experiences’ each and every individual and unique human body has.
No, you did not quote and respond to all that I said. I said this:
My statment is that you are either young and zealot like or old and zealot like. My reasoning for being zealot like at a young age is due to being that young and not having been challenged by the world yet. For old, you likely just were so stubborn and disagreeable that you were able to keep your views unchanging for your entire life, yet somehow never learned how to formulate a stronger argument against basic refutation.
Yes because I disagree and will not concede that you can just know things. So I will continue to claim that you believe things because that is what I believe.
Of course not.
Obviously there are physical objects. Which, obviously, reduces the amount of ‘space’, clearly.
What would supposedly not just be nothing then?
Did you have some preexisting answer to your previous question here?
See what happens when these people have beliefs, which they want to keep and maintain.
They start asking quesitons, on some silly notion that they already have the ‘irrefutable answer’, and then ask ‘more questions’, which they again believe that they KNOW, for sure, what ‘the answer’ is, exactly.
Which is extremely funny to watch and observe ‘play out’. They just keep proving how their own already existing beliefs just keep leading them completely and utterly astray.
Again, ‘space’ is between and surrounds objects. Unless of course there is one infinitely thick, on one side, physical object, which surrounds ‘space’.
But, either way, because ‘space’ and ‘matter’ exist, and what the Universe is made up of, at the fundamental level, this proves, irrefutable. that the Universe, Itself, is infinite, and eternal also by the way.
Why not?
Great. I look forward to hear and see what you say and write.
Okay.
What is ‘space’, to you, exactly?
So, you are ‘back to’ the ‘space’ is ‘physical matter’ definition again.
Now, if ‘space’ is made up of ‘physical matter’, is this only, or is there something else that ‘space’ is made up of?
And, how could something that is made up of ‘physical matter’ allow ‘physical objects’ to exist, exactly?
Like ‘what other properties’, exactly?
See how ‘these people’ really would ‘try to’ twist and distort words around and ‘try to’ use them in ‘a way’, which they hoped would somehow back up and support their ‘current’ belief/s in ‘some way’.
So, to you, a physical object can be at ‘a point’ in physical space and not at another point without contradicting anything.
Firstly, I never thought, let alone said, absolutely anything even remotely close to this, for you to try and claim that it occurs without contradicting anything.
Now, let ‘us’ forget about how blatantly contradicting it is to claim that ‘physical objects’ could be at ‘any points’ in ‘physical space’, and let ‘us’ move on to if ‘space’ is made up of ‘physical matter’, then this means, absolutely, that there is only One singular piece of ‘physical matter’ throughout the whole of the entire Universe.
Where, exactly, is the so-called ‘empty space’ and the so-called ‘filled space’?
Is the ‘space’ which you claim is “the” ‘underlying physical realm’, then how can it also be ‘empty’ of physicality?
Why did you not recognise and see these contradictions previously when I pointed them out to you?
The answer, by the way, I have already said and explained.
you speak as though ‘your concepts’ of things MUST BE ‘the truth’ of things.
So, again, to you, ‘space’ is ‘now’ THE “underlying physical realm” as well as, just an “empty void” also.
What has yours and other’s ‘concepts’ of things got to do with what is actually irrefutably proved to be ‘the case’, exactly?
Who cares what ‘concepts’ you or others have, what ‘descriptions of concepts’ you or others have, or what ‘darkness’ you or others observe?
The ‘proof/s’ for people’s claims are what Truly interest me and what I am Truly curios about here.
Although, to you, ‘space’ is ‘the’ “underlying physical realm” as well.
I am not sure how an ‘underlying physical realm’ could be ‘nothingness’ at the exact same time.
But, each to their own, as some say.
How could ‘you’ and some others only have ‘the concept’ of ‘space’ when ‘you’ claim ‘space’ is ‘the’ ‘underlying physical realm’. Obviously, if something is ‘physical’, then it can be observed.
Are you even aware of how many contradictions you have made in this very short so-called ‘more specific’ writing here?
Now, ‘space’, to you anyway, is NOT filled with any objects.
So, again, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION here.
Each ‘because’ and ‘yet’ here is a NEW CONTRADICTION.
At least here you admit that this is just ‘a concept’ of yours, alone.
Could you be imagining or assuming things that just do not exist here?
Or, is this not even a possibility in “acltalls world”?
Okay.
But, because ‘space’ and ‘matter’ co-exist in ‘the way’ they do, the Universe HAS TO BE infinite, and eternal. And, because ‘I’ and ‘thoughts’ exist, there could not be any other way for this One and only infinite and eternal Universe to exist.
you have, again, completely missed or misunderstood ‘the point’ here.
But, then again, you might be doing this on purpose to ‘try to’ deflect and fool and deceive the readers here.
you claimed that you were only talking about the ‘observable universe’, because you believe, absolutely, that no one forever could know about the Universe, Itself.
So, you are not able to engage with ‘abstract topics’ here because you literally do not want to ‘look past’ what can only be seen and observed with the human eyes here. That is; the observable universe only.
AGAIN, I have proved, irrefutably so that the Universe, Itself, is not just both logically and physically possible to be infinite, but is actually infinite.
And again, you can not logically disagree with this and you can not refute ‘the proof’.
That you still cannot ‘see’ ‘the proof’ and so you do not recognise ‘the proof’, and you believe, absolutely, that there is not any proof here is one thing, But I am not talking about that.
I KNOW. That is blatantly obvious.
What is also blatantly obviously is that you said and wrote:
Which means, to you, ‘I’ am either young, (and zealot like in your beliefs) due to being so young, (as well as something else), OR …
Which is ‘the only part’ that I wanted to point out and make known.
And, the Universe is infinite is an irrefutable Fact, because of the irrefutable proof that I have already provided here.
Thus, proving irrefutably so ‘my claims’ about beliefs, and how the belief-system works exactly in conjunction with the brain.
Why do you assume that I am arguing against something you have stated? I am simply stating in more detail what I think. I also keep noticing that you are responding to only parts of my argument without reading the rest which means that questions you ask or things you say are either accounted for already or were already answered within the post that you actively respond to. Please just read throught the whole thing first. It’ll make my arguments far more clear because you keep asking questions about something that is already answered.
I am not the only person with the concepts that I describe here. You are just uneducated so of course you think that my view is some niche and not well thought out view point. If you actually read philosophy then you might know about things I am talking about.
That was the ACTUAL POINT. you are NOT.
you are introducing things, which have absolutely nothing at all to with what I have said and written here, and then you go and saying things like that ‘what you introduced’ is not a contradiction with anything.
you are arguing against your own introduced ‘strawman’ or ‘red herrings’.
Even when I read through the ‘whole thing’ your so-called ‘arguments’ still FAIL miserably. And, even more so to be honest.
Yes belief systems exist. People have beliefs, but that does not mean whatever “belief-system” that you refer to here is actually accurate or true. You have no provided an explanation of this “belief-system” that you mention so I cannot say more about it.
Imagine ‘trying to’ ‘argue’ for ‘a concept’ of something, as though ‘the concept’ is somehow faultless or ‘the proof’ for ‘the thing’ that ‘the concept’ is in relation to.
And, how did I KNOW you were going to ‘see’ and ‘pick up’ on what you did here?
It is like ‘this one’ really believed that it had some actual bearing on anything here.
LOL Okay.
If I read so-called “philisophy” exactly like you do, then I still would NOT KNOW what the actual Truths in Life are here.
You do realize that when someone makes an argument for what they think, it does not have to only be about what you are saying? My argument contains thoughts that are unrelated to what you have said only in the sense that you have not specifically said these things, but it is related because it is MY argument, not yours. Are you the only one allowed to make an argument and bring up points? No you are not, so it is not unrelated just because I am not only responding to every single word you say when I formulate a new argument. Of course the argument has different ideas than yours, or else it wouldn’t be a different argument. Are you 12? Do these basic concepts not make sense to you? Do you think that all statements must only use things that you have brought up? Because that is what is sounds like.
It is like this one also does not ‘see’ the actual words that I say, write, and use here.
Please do not. ‘We’ have at least four or five other discussions to go through first.
Now, back to this first discussion.
‘My claim’ is - the Universe is infinite. And, I claim this because ‘the irrefutable proof’ for this claim has already been presented to me.
I am not arguing that the concept is faultless just because other’s agree with or use the same concept. I am only saying that it is not just my concept. You actually did not know what I was going to see or pick up on there because you misinterpreted what I said because like I said before, you lack the understanding of nuance. Additionally, you lack the ability to take on other people’s perspectives which is why knowing what I actually mean by my statements and arguments is such a struggle. You cannot step outside of yourself to actually imagine how other people think and get it right. You have failed everytime that you try to claim to know what I was thinking because you cannot extrapolate well from what I say. This is not my fault however, because I cannot accomodate within my communication for someone who lacks certain cognitive abilities. I have tried though.
Why would a rational human being ‘try to’ make ‘an argument’ for only what they ‘think’?
YOUR argument for ‘what’ exactly?
‘We’ are, or were, discussing ‘the claim’ that the Universe is infinite, and what ‘the proof’ is for ‘this claim’.
AGAIN, you ask a question, but you then answer it.
ONCE MORE, if you do not formulate a ‘sound and valid argument’, then it is not worth sharing nor repeating here. Again, unless of course you want to present and show what not to do.
Are you able to stay focused on what ‘this discussion’ is about?
you wanted me to provide ‘the proof’ for ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite.
So, let ‘us’ focus on ‘this’ ALONE.
This is the type of question of yours that you usually believe you already KNOW the answer to.
Would you now like to share with the readers here what ‘your answer’ is, exactly?
This type of question is what “greenfuse” likes to copy and paste in the open and honest thread, making it clear that it came from ‘me’.
I wonder if this question with be copied and pasted also.
Considering that ‘you’ want ‘the proof’ for ‘my claim’ here, one could also ask, do you think otherwise?
Okay.