Mathematical Proof Of God

[Ouroboros]

Yet, I see that it all hinges on an absolute infinite beyond the beyond. It is sort of the infinite ends of the infinite.

All that too. It's a dance of infinite and eternal energies.

[ContraBardus]

You ask how i know it was always there. Keep in mind i am not saying something specific was always there, just that something was always there. There is no other choice. If there wasn't something always there, then what was there before the something? Was there only nothing before? How can something come from only nothing? i mentioned that even Hawkins talks about Quantum principals alongside nothing. Even if there was nothing, it seems to be infinite nothing, so we are still back to something infinite.

 

I disagree with you that science can potentially find answers to everything. The infinite is not possible to grasp. Lets say people always existed. We would go back and back and not be able to realize who was first because there is no first. We keep asking who was before him and before him and before him. There is no end and it cannot be grasped. Something without an end can never be understood. The natural world is finite. The infinite is beyond nature and beyond understanding.

 

In any case, i am by far not alone is saying that infinity is not comprehensible. It is a valid position. (google it to see what others have to say.)

 

The mind does tend to shut down under all the contradictions. But it is what it is. The infinite past was always there and we can't comprehend how something can always be there. 

 

Nope, not buying it. Vast majority of Googleites talking about 'infinity' were unqualified and speaking of how we 'cannot understand God' or spiritual excuses for why we can't understand it, and there's no good reason to accept that reasoning. Even those who weren't speaking spiritually gave no real reasons behind the claim that it's something humans can't comprehend aside from 'it's reeeeeaaallly big'. That's a 'proof by majority' fallacy anyway. I see no reason to think that it is true, and again -how do you know what we are capable of comprehending anyway-?

 

You also immediately assume that 'something was always there' despite there being no evidence to support that claim. There's no reason to think that any something or nothing, no matter how vague, has always been there.

 

Why must there have been nothing or something there either way? It doesn't really matter how specific or vague you're being about any particular thing or no particular thing. Either way you're digging the same hole. You don't know one way or the other, and they are both mutually exclusive ideas. If there was infinite nothingness, then there wasn't something there because nothing isn't a something. It's the opposite of something. You're claiming both at the same time and that's not a valid position to take. Perhaps at some points there was something, and other points there was nothing. It's entirely possible that there was a finite amount of both something and a finite amount of nothing, or an infinite amount of nothing and something, or a finite amount of one and an infinite amount of the other, or any variation of any point between the two extremes. They could have coexisted or they might have been completely separate, possibly even both. We have no way of knowing, and there's no evidence to support the idea of an infinite amount of anything, whether that's something or nothing, much less how eternal whatever it was might be or have been. I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You're just posturing if you claim that you do. There's no way to verify it one way or the other.

 

Infinity may not even exist. It goes against the theory of an expanding Universe to say that the Universe is infinite, and we know that the Universe is expanding through observation. It's not unlikely that there is no such thing as Infinity at all, which would make comprehension of little more than academic value anyway. We don't know what is at the edges or beyond. Though the universe having an edge is entirely probable. It may well be infinite nothing, but there's no reason to assume that, just as there's no reason to assume that whatever is beyond the edge of the universe is not filled with a thousand and one fairy wings and a billion trillion gallons of sunshine. You certainly can't prove that it's not, but there's no good reason to think that it is. It's not even really worth considering, it's unknowable, but not because it's beyond comprehension. It's unknowable simply because it cannot be verified. Not being able to verify an idea is true, such as the concept of infinity, does not mean that the idea can't be comprehended. I see such claims as looking too deeply into a rather shallow pool. Sure infinity is really big, but I don't really see how it's all that complex an idea. It's just a large abstract that I think you're trying to overdefine and making it much more complex than it really is.

 

The statement that infinity cannot be comprehended keeps coming up, yet no one has provided a good answer for why not. Saying it's beyond comprehension doesn't answer the question. Why is it beyond comprehension? Because it's endless? What's so difficult to understand about endlessness? There's a lot of it. So what? I see no reason to accept that it's beyond human comprehension at face value, and that's the only kind of answer I've seen in regard to it. 'It's incomprehensible because it's infinite' is just a statement, it doesn't provide any reasoning to explain itself and therefore isn't a valid argument. It's literally saying that the statement is true because it says that it is.

 

How exactly is that not circular reasoning?

 

Infinity is not a contradiction. Infinity does not contradict nothing, they are opposites. Opposites are not necessarily contradictions. Darkness does not contradict light. Up does not contradict down. Infinite does not contradict nothing. It doesn't contain any contradictions, it's simply an abstract used to express endlessness. You're making it sound like The Elder Gods, as if thinking about it simply drives us insane. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Infinity R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Who will be endless first? It won't matter because we'll all be insane!

 

Once again you claim abstracts as fact with basis. There's no evidence of Infinite time. As I stated before, it's entirely possible that both time and space came into existence together. There's even some evidence to that effect in theoretical physics. Not proof, but some evidence that suggest it may have been the case. What was before that? I don't know any more than you do, and you don't know anything. You're just making claims that can't be verified and claiming they are true because they can't be disproved. That's not how it works. The fact that I don't have a counter-assumption for what did or did not exist, or an exact finite number for how much time there is or has been, does not make your assumption of infinite time or eternal existence correct. Even if I can't provide counter evidence to your claim, you've still got to show that it's correct and you've not done that.

 

I see no good reason to accept your reasoning for your claims than to accept that the lady running the psychic tarot card reading business down the road from me can see my future. Both are equally spiritually based and little more than mystical bunk and you've yet to give me a good reason to think otherwise.

 

I don't care if Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Issac Newton all say that there's no possible way to ever understand the infinite. They wouldn't make such a statement to begin with, but even if they did it doesn't mean that it's not possible. Perhaps it is outside our current understanding, and it may be incredibly difficult.

 

I don't believe in the impossible. Improbable yes, but impossible no. If you break a glass, pick up the pieces, and drop them again it is entirely possible that the pieces will fall back together and reform the unbroken glass perfectly. That's not probable, but it is not impossible, and it's well within the laws of physics.

 

I don't find the idea that infinity is impossible for humans to comprehend acceptable. I don't even really think it's all that improbable. It's just an assertion with no real basis aside from 'it's really big, and we don't fully understand it now', and I don't see that as an acceptable argument against our ability to comprehend it.

 

It's less about me arguing against what you believe, and more a case of me pointing out that there's really no actual reason for you to believe what you believe. It has no real support, is simply assertions, and we don't know either way.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey Nat, check out Raoul's video over here, and the quotation he offered in a follow-up:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56472-first-cause-no-cause-just-because/#entry859711

 

 

The guy he quotes talks about the total amount of matter in the universe as being zero.  I don't know whether that instance of zero dovetails with anything you're interested in.  But Raoul posts good comments on the Kalam Arg.

[Guest nat]

 

You ask how i know it was always there. Keep in mind i am not saying something specific was always there, just that something was always there. There is no other choice. If there wasn't something always there, then what was there before the something? Was there only nothing before? How can something come from only nothing? i mentioned that even Hawkins talks about Quantum principals alongside nothing. Even if there was nothing, it seems to be infinite nothing, so we are still back to something infinite.

 

I disagree with you that science can potentially find answers to everything. The infinite is not possible to grasp. Lets say people always existed. We would go back and back and not be able to realize who was first because there is no first. We keep asking who was before him and before him and before him. There is no end and it cannot be grasped. Something without an end can never be understood. The natural world is finite. The infinite is beyond nature and beyond understanding.

 

In any case, i am by far not alone is saying that infinity is not comprehensible. It is a valid position. (google it to see what others have to say.)

 

The mind does tend to shut down under all the contradictions. But it is what it is. The infinite past was always there and we can't comprehend how something can always be there. 

 

Nope, not buying it. Vast majority of Googleites talking about 'infinity' were unqualified and speaking of how we 'cannot understand God' or spiritual excuses for why we can't understand it, and there's no good reason to accept that reasoning. Even those who weren't speaking spiritually gave no real reasons behind the claim that it's something humans can't comprehend aside from 'it's reeeeeaaallly big'. That's a 'proof by majority' fallacy anyway. I see no reason to think that it is true, and again -how do you know what we are capable of comprehending anyway-?

 

You also immediately assume that 'something was always there' despite there being no evidence to support that claim. There's no reason to think that any something or nothing, no matter how vague, has always been there.

 

Why must there have been nothing or something there either way? It doesn't really matter how specific or vague you're being about any particular thing or no particular thing. Either way you're digging the same hole. You don't know one way or the other, and they are both mutually exclusive ideas. If there was infinite nothingness, then there wasn't something there because nothing isn't a something. It's the opposite of something. You're claiming both at the same time and that's not a valid position to take. Perhaps at some points there was something, and other points there was nothing. It's entirely possible that there was a finite amount of both something and a finite amount of nothing, or an infinite amount of nothing and something, or a finite amount of one and an infinite amount of the other, or any variation of any point between the two extremes. They could have coexisted or they might have been completely separate, possibly even both. We have no way of knowing, and there's no evidence to support the idea of an infinite amount of anything, whether that's something or nothing, much less how eternal whatever it was might be or have been. I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You're just posturing if you claim that you do. There's no way to verify it one way or the other.

 

Infinity may not even exist. It goes against the theory of an expanding Universe to say that the Universe is infinite, and we know that the Universe is expanding through observation. It's not unlikely that there is no such thing as Infinity at all, which would make comprehension of little more than academic value anyway. We don't know what is at the edges or beyond. Though the universe having an edge is entirely probable. It may well be infinite nothing, but there's no reason to assume that, just as there's no reason to assume that whatever is beyond the edge of the universe is not filled with a thousand and one fairy wings and a billion trillion gallons of sunshine. You certainly can't prove that it's not, but there's no good reason to think that it is. It's not even really worth considering, it's unknowable, but not because it's beyond comprehension. It's unknowable simply because it cannot be verified. Not being able to verify an idea is true, such as the concept of infinity, does not mean that the idea can't be comprehended.

 

The statement that infinity cannot be comprehended keeps coming up, yet no one has provided a good answer for why not. Saying it's beyond comprehension doesn't answer the question. Why is it beyond comprehension? Because it's endless? What's so difficult to understand about endlessness? There's a lot of it. So what? I see no reason to accept that it's beyond human comprehension at face value, and that's the only kind of answer I've seen in regard to it. 'It's incomprehensible because it's infinite' is just a statement, it doesn't provide any reasoning to explain itself and therefore isn't a valid argument. It's literally saying that the statement is true because it says that it is.

 

How exactly is that not circular reasoning?

 

Infinity is not a contradiction. Infinity does not contradict nothing, they are opposites. Opposites are not necessarily contradictions. Darkness does not contradict light. Up does not contradict down. Infinite does not contradict nothing. It doesn't contain any contradictions, it's simply an abstract used to express endlessness. You're making it sound like The Elder Gods, as if thinking about it simply drives us insane. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Infinity R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Who will be endless first? It won't matter because we'll all be insane!

 

Once again you claim abstracts as fact with basis. There's no evidence of Infinite time. As I stated before, it's entirely possible that both time and space came into existence together. There's even some evidence to that effect in theoretical physics. Not proof, but some evidence that suggest it may have been the case. What was before that? I don't know any more than you do, and you don't know anything. You're just making claims that can't be verified and claiming they are true because they can't be disproved. That's not how it works. The fact that I don't have a counter-assumption for what did or did not exist, or an exact finite number for how much time there is or has been, does not make your assumption of infinite time or eternal existence correct. Even if I can't provide counter evidence to your claim, you've still got to show that it's correct and you've not done that.

 

I see no good reason to accept your reasoning for your claims than to accept that the lady running the psychic tarot card reading business down the road from me can see my future. Both are equally spiritually based and little more than mystical bunk and you've yet to give me a good reason to think otherwise.

 

I don't care if Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Issac Newton all say that there's no possible way to ever understand the infinite. They wouldn't make such a statement to begin with, but even if they did it doesn't mean that it's not possible. Perhaps it is outside our current understanding, and it may be incredibly difficult.

 

I don't believe in the impossible. Improbable yes, but impossible no. If you break a glass, pick up the pieces, and drop them again it is entirely possible that the pieces will fall back together and reform the unbroken glass perfectly. That's not probable, but it is not impossible, and it's well within the laws of physics.

 

I don't find the idea that infinity is impossible for humans to comprehend acceptable. I don't even really think it's all that improbable. It's just an assertion with no real basis aside from 'it's really big, and we don't fully understand it now', and I don't see that as an acceptable argument against our ability to comprehend it.

 

It's less about me arguing against what you believe, and more a case of me pointing out that there's really no actual reason for you to believe what you believe. It has no real support, is simply assertions, and we don't know either way.

 

When I said to google it, I just wanted you to see that others also say this and maybe they can explain it better than I can. While I do think that it is the dominant opinion that infinity can't be understood, I can't prove that unless i take a pole. 

 

Of course i don't understand it, because i am saying that it can't be understood. How far back is the never ending past? How do we grasp a never ending beginning? What was there before and before and before without end. I am not just saying I don't know. I am saying we can't know. If I can't convince you of the problem, we will have to leave it at that. 

 

The other thing i am saying is that it is self evident. There is an infinite past before us. The only other alternative is complete nothingness. This has a number of  problems. The main problem is that something can't come out of complete nothingness. Secondly, if it is infinite nothingness, we still come back to something infinite. Lastly, complete nothingness is also beyond comprehension. Even empty space has 3 dimensions. I don't know what it is, because one can't know what it is. But there is no way to avoid the infinite ends. If there is finite ends, what is before or after that? There must be something infinite, some infinite existence. 

[ContraBardus]

Of course i don't understand it, because i am saying that it can't be understood. How far back is the never ending past? How do we grasp a never ending beginning? What was there before and before and before without end. I am not just saying I don't know. I am saying we can't know. If I can't convince you of the problem, we will have to leave it at that. 

 

The other thing i am saying is that it is self evident. There is an infinite past before us. The only other alternative is complete nothingness. This has a number of  problems. The main problem is that something can't come out of complete nothingness. Secondly, if it is infinite nothingness, we still come back to something infinite. Lastly, complete nothingness is also beyond comprehension. Even empty space has 3 dimensions. I don't know what it is, because one can't know what it is. But there is no way to avoid the infinite ends. If there is finite ends, what is before or after that? There must be something infinite, some infinite existence. 

 

 

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it cannot be understood. That's a generalizing from self fallacy.

 

Why can't something come out of complete nothingness? Explain why not. I've seen hypothesis before that suggest that the very existence of 'nothing' creates spontaneous energy that can form particles of matter. Something a long the lines of 'a perfect vacuum doesn't 'like' to exist and so exotic energies are created by such a space to fill the void which leads to the formation of other particles'. On the other hand what if there never was any such thing as 'empty space' or 'nothingness' as you put it? There's a lot that suggest that no such thing exists anywhere and at least some reason to think that it possibly never has existed as well. I still say that, whether you realize it or not, it's more likely that you're over complicating things and exaggerating the complexity of the concepts of infinity and nothingness, and underrating what is possible for humans to understand. Why does there have to be a 'before the before'? You can't just claim it, you've got to explain why there needs to be such a thing. 'Now' is here whether there was such a thing as your 'infinite then' or not, the existence of one does not necessarily prove the existence of the other.

 

Another more philosophical argument I've heard was that all existence happened all at once in but a moment, but time is just how our minds perceive it. Another might be that if there was no time before the beginning of the Universe, and both came into existence at the same time, then there was no infinity before, because there was no 'before' to begin with. Without time existing to pass, there is no infinite anything, not energy, not time, not even nothingness.

 

We have some understanding of what the 'rules' are within our Universe. We have no idea if those 'rules' were the same before it's existence and/or outside of it or not.

 

These were of course presented as hypothetical hyperbole to begin with. I'm not by any means saying that those ideas are true, they are just examples of possible [even if unlikely] alternatives, but they've got just as much evidence supporting them as you do with your arguments. [None.]

 

Again, you're making assertions based on pretty much nothing. As if we should simply assume that these things are true when there is simply no good reason to do so.

 

There doesn't need to be an 'infinite past' before us, nor does there need to be an 'infinite nothingness' or any 'infinite source'. What if the Universe and everything in it, including time, is and always has been [not necessarily 'eternally' either, just since the beginning of it's existence] composed of finite matter and energy? Why couldn't it be? What if there wasn't 'nothing' before that, but a completely different universe that wasn't made up of any of the same energy and matter as this one at all? Maybe we phased into existence out of another dimension, and will phase into another at some point. I don't know, and you don't know. That's probably unlikely, but no more or less than the jumbling of infinite and eternal energies, matter, and time you're suggesting.

 

Right now the Universe exists as it is whether there was an infinite nothing, infinite energy, infinite past, or not.

 

You repeatedly keep making bald faced claims of 'what can't be understood' while providing no reasoning for it. It simply can't be understood because it can't.

 

You don't know, yet you are acting as though you do. [i'd even go so far as to question what value the concepts of infinity and nothingness have to begin with anyway. As far as I can tell they have no real value and it doesn't matter if either one actually exists or not.]

 

That does not support your 'infinite existence' or 'infinte energy' supposition either. Just because a carbon atom is floating around the universe doesn't mean that it's always been a carbon atom, or that all of it's components have always existed or will always exist. I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but I don't know either, and I don't see any reason why you would know any better. I am confident you cannot show any evidence that suggest I should accept your suppositions about matter, energy, infinity, or nothingness. I also still see no reason to accept the idea that these things are 'beyond comprehension'. To quote "Always with you what cannot be done."

 

How many would have suggested we couldn't fly because it was beyond our comprehension in the past, or that we couldn't cross an ocean, or that we couldn't set foot on an extra-terrestrial body, or that we'd never see the deepest part of our ocean, or break the sound barrier 'because it was beyond us'?

 

You say 'we can't comprehend it' I say that's faulty pattern recognition and history does not agree. We move forward because our greatest minds say 'fuck you' to people who say things like that and move forward to further our understanding despite such pessimism from others in spite of it. Not simply accepting that something is 'beyond us' or 'to big for humanity to understand'.

 

I see no logic in your arguments, just assertions and an overly pessimistic assessment of what human understanding can be.

[Guest nat]

When it comes to such abstract concepts proving something is not really possible. Moreover, any one of us can be wrong and still not agree. the point therefore, it to make an argument supported by logic to the extent that it is a valid position. each person will choose for himself which position makes more sense for him.

 

What is our universe expanding into?

Into nothing?

Into infinite nothingness?

 

Infinity is not a big number. It is a never ending continuum. 

 

Was there nothing before our existence? How can something come out of nothing. Nothing is nothing. You can't have something from nothing. That's why I bring in the math. 0 times all numbers = 0 expect for 0 times infinity.

 

Whatever is the finite reaches of time or the universe, there is something beyond that. There is something infinite. No way around it and no way to understand it.

[ContraBardus]

When it comes to such abstract concepts proving something is not really possible. Moreover, any one of us can be wrong and still not agree. the point therefore, it to make an argument supported by logic to the extent that it is a valid position. each person will choose for himself which position makes more sense for him.

 

What is our universe expanding into?

Into nothing?

Into infinite nothingness?

 

Infinity is not a big number. It is a never ending continuum. 

 

Was there nothing before our existence? How can something come out of nothing. Nothing is nothing. You can't have something from nothing. That's why I bring in the math. 0 times all numbers = 0 expect for 0 times infinity.

 

Whatever is the finite reaches of time or the universe, there is something beyond that. There is something infinite. No way around it and no way to understand it.

 

What logic? All of these are just claims. That's kind of the point I've been making. You're not making arguments, you're making philosophical statements that aren't really arguments. You aren't really trying to 'show' anything.

 

How do you know math as we understand it is any good outside of our Universe? I honestly don't see how your math is actually relevant to any of this. You can multiply or divide infinity any way you want, it doesn't show anything about any of this and provides no logical grounding for your claims. You're just making these assertions, tossing in a few formulas and arguments about 0 and infinity, and claiming that they have some relation. There's no good reason to think that they do.

 

Maybe we're expanding into a giant wall of glass or the fossilized skull of a long dead God? I don't know, but there's no more reason to assume that it's 'nothing' than there is to assume it's expanding into a giant marshmallow cloud or that we're really the creamy center of a giant Twinkie. Even though those sound much sillier than 'nothing', they have about the same amount of evidence that they are correct. Absolutely none.

 

How do you know you can't have something from nothing? Why not exactly? Because that's how it works in our little corner of existence as far as you can tell? It's been shown that it may indeed be possible that a void creates something from nothing. According to some Physicist in Germany that's exactly how it works: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html They've written papers showing their work and provided evidence to support their claims so that it could be peer reviewed.

 

So, I'm not inclined to find your suggesting that 'we can't have something from nothing' as a given, especially since there's evidence that suggests otherwise.

[Ravenstar]

Oh for goodness sake.. the universe (uni=ONE) not expanding 'into' anything.. it IS everything that's why we call it the universe. There is NO 'into'. Same as there is no BEFORE.

 

Ask BAA, he knows about this stuff.

 

and I agree.. nothing is incomprehensible, just unknown.. for now.

[ContraBardus]

Well, perhaps we're not 'expanding into anything' [Note not 'nothing' either.] I was exaggerating of course earlier, but my point was valid that we don't really know one way or the other, so making assertions about infinity, eternal, and other such philosophicals is pretty pointless. "I don't know" is simply the best answer. You might present a model of what you imagine might be the case, but it should be presented as such and not made as a statement of fact or something that should be simply assumed as true.

 

For example:

 

There's hypothetical speculation that the universe is actually something like one of these bubbles. Has something to do with Higgs Bozon and String theory I think.

 

 

Implying that we're surrounded by other 'universes' that push against the fabric of ours or vice versa. Something like the outer layer of the bubble would be like a dimensional layer or something along those lines. Not necessarily an actual physical barrier.

 

Another odd hypothesis involves space being curved and that there is no outer edge of the universe. That if you went far out enough in one direction, you'd loop back to the opposite end of the Universe. Essentially going around in circles [or spheres in this case] kind of like how if you start from China and go west far enough, you end up back where you started in China.

 

There are credible alternatives to 'nothing' being beyond the edge of the Universe. We don't know for certain of course, it could be anything, nothing, or whatever in between. There are other models with as much if not more plausibility as what's been discussed here so far.

 

'Uni' -verse may be a mislabeling of what we exist in. No one knows for certain, and there is speculation otherwise that does contain some reasoning behind it, even if it is entirely hypothetical.

 

That's not to say we can't or won't ever find out either.

[ContraBardus]

I love Michio Kaku, I'm not gay and I still love this man without shame or regret!

 

An actual physicist explains some of what I'm talking about above better than I ever could:

 

 

BTW if you've not watched the Think Big channel on youtube it's far more awesome than it rightly should be. Great minds discussing awesome facinating stuff. If you're just discovering this, prepare for sleeplessness, get ye some energy drinks, some snacks, and [un]veg out in front of the Y-tube for a while.

[Guest nat]

First of all, infinity by definition can not be defined. How big is it? However big it is, it is yet bigger than that. We can only define something that is finite. Infinite can't be measured or defined. By definition, then, it can't be understood. 

 

Science usually avoids a certain amount of things. Like if it says it all started by the big bang, it avoids before the big bang. If it says before the big bang was a black hole into another universe it avoids what was before that. If it says that we go round and round like a ball, it avoids whatever is outside that dimension.

 

There is, no doubt, very complicated ways of looking at things. Saying something can come from nothing because the energy cancels out  might make sense in one way, but who says that energy cancelling out is the same as absolute nothing. And who says that their understanding of nothing is the same as absolute nothing. Could very well be that their idea of nothing is actually something.

 

In any case, a valid argument stems from the simple observation of something before what we know and something before that and not absolute nothing. And that something has no beginning so it is infinite and endless. Space, too, leads from our universe into something else and something else endlessly. If perhaps it leads into absolute nothingness, that itself might be infinite nothingness and perhaps something. Our choices are fairly limited. An infinite something is by far the most obvious observation, and by definition it can't be defined or understood.

[Guest nat]

In all, when we look upon the origins of life and the extensions of space, time, and existence, we come upon two players: ininity and nothingness. 

 

To understand the results of these forces and better understand how they work, we can look at the correlations to math. A correlation is not a proof and it does not mean the two are exactly the same, but that they share a unique similarity. And it makes sense that they should be similar because they express similar concepts, just that one involves math and the other an abstract reality of the concept.

 

In math, 0 and infinity are different than every number in between. And in multiplication, they both are unaffected by  the other number. They deal with all numbers in the same way. In limits and division also, all numbers are equally heading to 0 or infinity.The concepts of infinity and nothingness are also so vastly different and unencumbered that nothing of reality can exist in relationship to them. And yet, we are here. And the math shows us how. Yes, both nothingness and infinity are unapproachable, but the two extremes multiplied by each other allows everything in-between. So, too, nothingness and something infinite allows all of reality between it.

 

We still don't understand the players and how they work, and people will disagree on  whether any of them exist in reality. But for anyone who comes to these simple unfathomable observations and wants a smidgen of the properties that may govern them, the math gives us a basis and an opportunity to recognise that they are there and work as such.  

[ContraBardus]

First of all, infinity by definition can not be defined. How big is it? However big it is, it is yet bigger than that. We can only define something that is finite. Infinite can't be measured or defined. By definition, then, it can't be understood. 

 

Science usually avoids a certain amount of things. Like if it says it all started by the big bang, it avoids before the big bang. If it says before the big bang was a black hole into another universe it avoids what was before that. If it says that we go round and round like a ball, it avoids whatever is outside that dimension.

 

There is, no doubt, very complicated ways of looking at things. Saying something can come from nothing because the energy cancels out  might make sense in one way, but who says that energy cancelling out is the same as absolute nothing. And who says that their understanding of nothing is the same as absolute nothing. Could very well be that their idea of nothing is actually something.

 

In any case, a valid argument stems from the simple observation of something before what we know and something before that and not absolute nothing. And that something has no beginning so it is infinite and endless. Space, too, leads from our universe into something else and something else endlessly. If perhaps it leads into absolute nothingness, that itself might be infinite nothingness and perhaps something. Our choices are fairly limited. An infinite something is by far the most obvious observation, and by definition it can't be defined or understood.

 

From Mirriam Webster:

in·fin·i·ty

noun \in-ˈfi-nə-tē\

plural in·fin·i·ties

Definition of INFINITY

 

1 a : the quality of being infinite

b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness

2 : an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars> [before you try to use this definition to weasel out of previous statements. This definition doesn't fit how you've been using infinity in this thread. It's not a mathematical idea and is simply a lazy way of saying "More than I feel like counting or more than I have time to count." In other words, it's a slang term and doesn't fit with how infinity has been used in your previous posts.]

3 a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number b : a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite <do parallel lines ever meet if they extend to infinity> c : a transfinite number (as aleph-null)

4: a distance so great that the rays of light from a point source at that distance may be regarded as parallel "

 

See that? It's called a definition.

 

How big is Pi? What decimal place does it end in? Can you write the complete numerical value of Pi to the last decimal place down? No?

 

That doesn't mean that we don't understand Pi, that it is unfathomable, or that it has no practical value. Pi is understood, it's a concept we can define and practically apply. Why are 'infinity' and 'nothingness' any different? [Hint: They're not.]

 

Also, Epic Fail regarding your understanding of how Science works.

 

Science does not 'avoid' topics. It addresses topics that there is evidence to support. That's not anywhere near the same thing as 'avoiding topics'. It isn't 'avoiding' anything, it's simply not commenting because there's no reason to do so because there's no evidence to support a position one way or the other.

 

Also, more metaphysical BS, failure to understand the concept of 'a valid argument' and no, it's not 'obvious' that's simply another unfounded claim that you can't back.

 

In all, when we look upon the origins of life and the extensions of space, time, and existence, we come upon two players: ininity and nothingness. 

 

To understand the results of these forces and better understand how they work, we can look at the correlations to math. A correlation is not a proof and it does not mean the two are exactly the same, but that they share a unique similarity. And it makes sense that they should be similar because they express similar concepts, just that one involves math and the other an abstract reality of the concept.

 

In math, 0 and infinity are different than every number in between. And in multiplication, they both are unaffected by  the other number. They deal with all numbers in the same way. In limits and division also, all numbers are equally heading to 0 or infinity.The concepts of infinity and nothingness are also so vastly different and unencumbered that nothing of reality can exist in relationship to them. And yet, we are here. And the math shows us how. Yes, both nothingness and infinity are unapproachable, but the two extremes multiplied by each other allows everything in-between. So, too, nothingness and something infinite allows all of reality between it.

 

We still don't understand the players and how they work, and people will disagree on  whether any of them exist in reality. But for anyone who comes to these simple unfathomable observations and wants a smidgen of the properties that may govern them, the math gives us a basis and an opportunity to recognise that they are there and work as such.  

 

You seem to think that if you repeat something enough, it becomes a reasonable argument or assumption by default.

 

Again, what does the existence or non-existence of infinity or nothingness have to do with any of your claims? The fact that they may or may not exist does not support the idea of 'infinite time', 'infinite energy' or 'infinite anything'. The fact that they share some vague similarities doesn't mean squat in regard to what you're trying to support. Even if your math is perfect, it doesn't actually support your other claims or really have anything to do with the universe on the whole. It's not really relevant if you're right or not anyway.

 

Put simply, so what if you're right about infinity, nothingness, and whatever mathematics are involved with them? That doesn't make your spiritual claims any more true or likely. It doesn't make your suppositions about the Universe correct be it Infinite sources, the origin of existence, life, reality, or nothing. You're blowing steam in that regard, and trying to wedge irrelevant concepts into a bunch of unrelated numerical values and concepts. You are taking things to irrelevant conclusions literally.

 

"Nothingness and something infinite allows all of reality between it" is a complete nonsense statement. It means nothing, it says nothing, and no matter how right your math is, it doesn't actually support this claim. It's just a bald assertion, and has no meaning or even a little academic value. You've not shown that there even is nothingness or infinite anything. Say it any way you want, there's no reason to correlate abstract mathematical ideas with reality at all. You're pulling that out of your ass and claiming that it's a reasonable assumption and declaring that it makes sense. It isn't and it doesn't.

 

You are beating a dead horse and repeating yourself, and it's not really doing any good because there's nothing to link the concepts you're going on about together. It's just meaningless supposition on your part and you're really only making assertions, not arguments. It's nothing more than a circular argument and you're stuck in the trap of Agrippa's Trilemma. You're simply repeating the same bald assertions over and over as if that provides some sort of support that it might, maybe, possibly be somehow true.

 

You can't show that you're correct. I see no reason to accept your suppositions about infinity and zero, their nature, or our ability to comprehend them. Even if you are right, explaining how and why is beyond your abilities. Why should I accept any of this as valid? It just doesn't make any sense, and you've done nothing to make it seem any more rational than it seemed to begin with. [Not at all.]

[Bhim]

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

[Guest nat]

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims. 

[Guest nat]

 

First of all, infinity by definition can not be defined. How big is it? However big it is, it is yet bigger than that. We can only define something that is finite. Infinite can't be measured or defined. By definition, then, it can't be understood. 

 

Science usually avoids a certain amount of things. Like if it says it all started by the big bang, it avoids before the big bang. If it says before the big bang was a black hole into another universe it avoids what was before that. If it says that we go round and round like a ball, it avoids whatever is outside that dimension.

 

There is, no doubt, very complicated ways of looking at things. Saying something can come from nothing because the energy cancels out  might make sense in one way, but who says that energy cancelling out is the same as absolute nothing. And who says that their understanding of nothing is the same as absolute nothing. Could very well be that their idea of nothing is actually something.

 

In any case, a valid argument stems from the simple observation of something before what we know and something before that and not absolute nothing. And that something has no beginning so it is infinite and endless. Space, too, leads from our universe into something else and something else endlessly. If perhaps it leads into absolute nothingness, that itself might be infinite nothingness and perhaps something. Our choices are fairly limited. An infinite something is by far the most obvious observation, and by definition it can't be defined or understood.

 

From Mirriam Webster:

in·fin·i·ty

noun \in-ˈfi-nə-tē\

plural in·fin·i·ties

Definition of INFINITY

 

1 a : the quality of being infinite

b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness

2 : an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars> [before you try to use this definition to weasel out of previous statements. This definition doesn't fit how you've been using infinity in this thread. It's not a mathematical idea and is simply a lazy way of saying "More than I feel like counting or more than I have time to count." In other words, it's a slang term and doesn't fit with how infinity has been used in your previous posts.]

3 a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number b : a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite <do parallel lines ever meet if they extend to infinity> c : a transfinite number (as aleph-null)

4: a distance so great that the rays of light from a point source at that distance may be regarded as parallel "

 

See that? It's called a definition.

 

How big is Pi? What decimal place does it end in? Can you write the complete numerical value of Pi to the last decimal place down? No?

 

That doesn't mean that we don't understand Pi, that it is unfathomable, or that it has no practical value. Pi is understood, it's a concept we can define and practically apply. Why are 'infinity' and 'nothingness' any different? [Hint: They're not.]

 

Also, Epic Fail regarding your understanding of how Science works.

 

Science does not 'avoid' topics. It addresses topics that there is evidence to support. That's not anywhere near the same thing as 'avoiding topics'. It isn't 'avoiding' anything, it's simply not commenting because there's no reason to do so because there's no evidence to support a position one way or the other.

 

Also, more metaphysical BS, failure to understand the concept of 'a valid argument' and no, it's not 'obvious' that's simply another unfounded claim that you can't back.

 

In all, when we look upon the origins of life and the extensions of space, time, and existence, we come upon two players: ininity and nothingness. 

 

To understand the results of these forces and better understand how they work, we can look at the correlations to math. A correlation is not a proof and it does not mean the two are exactly the same, but that they share a unique similarity. And it makes sense that they should be similar because they express similar concepts, just that one involves math and the other an abstract reality of the concept.

 

In math, 0 and infinity are different than every number in between. And in multiplication, they both are unaffected by  the other number. They deal with all numbers in the same way. In limits and division also, all numbers are equally heading to 0 or infinity.The concepts of infinity and nothingness are also so vastly different and unencumbered that nothing of reality can exist in relationship to them. And yet, we are here. And the math shows us how. Yes, both nothingness and infinity are unapproachable, but the two extremes multiplied by each other allows everything in-between. So, too, nothingness and something infinite allows all of reality between it.

 

We still don't understand the players and how they work, and people will disagree on  whether any of them exist in reality. But for anyone who comes to these simple unfathomable observations and wants a smidgen of the properties that may govern them, the math gives us a basis and an opportunity to recognise that they are there and work as such.  

 

You seem to think that if you repeat something enough, it becomes a reasonable argument or assumption by default.

 

Again, what does the existence or non-existence of infinity or nothingness have to do with any of your claims? The fact that they may or may not exist does not support the idea of 'infinite time', 'infinite energy' or 'infinite anything'. The fact that they share some vague similarities doesn't mean squat in regard to what you're trying to support. Even if your math is perfect, it doesn't actually support your other claims or really have anything to do with the universe on the whole. It's not really relevant if you're right or not anyway.

 

Put simply, so what if you're right about infinity, nothingness, and whatever mathematics are involved with them? That doesn't make your spiritual claims any more true or likely. It doesn't make your suppositions about the Universe correct be it Infinite sources, the origin of existence, life, reality, or nothing. You're blowing steam in that regard, and trying to wedge irrelevant concepts into a bunch of unrelated numerical values and concepts. You are taking things to irrelevant conclusions literally.

 

"Nothingness and something infinite allows all of reality between it" is a complete nonsense statement. It means nothing, it says nothing, and no matter how right your math is, it doesn't actually support this claim. It's just a bald assertion, and has no meaning or even a little academic value. You've not shown that there even is nothingness or infinite anything. Say it any way you want, there's no reason to correlate abstract mathematical ideas with reality at all. You're pulling that out of your ass and claiming that it's a reasonable assumption and declaring that it makes sense. It isn't and it doesn't.

 

You are beating a dead horse and repeating yourself, and it's not really doing any good because there's nothing to link the concepts you're going on about together. It's just meaningless supposition on your part and you're really only making assertions, not arguments. It's nothing more than a circular argument and you're stuck in the trap of Agrippa's Trilemma. You're simply repeating the same bald assertions over and over as if that provides some sort of support that it might, maybe, possibly be somehow true.

 

You can't show that you're correct. I see no reason to accept your suppositions about infinity and zero, their nature, or our ability to comprehend them. Even if you are right, explaining how and why is beyond your abilities. Why should I accept any of this as valid? It just doesn't make any sense, and you've done nothing to make it seem any more rational than it seemed to begin with. [Not at all.]

 

If you think you can understand how something was just always here, you are fooling yourself. How can something just always have been here? Keep going back and back and it was still here. How? We can say the words that something was always here and we can say words that seem like definitions, but they just point to the idea, not to its comprehension.

 

Also, If you think that we can be here from absolute nothing, you are again fooling yourself. You can't get something from nothing, not in math and not in life.

 

These are solid arguments whether or not you understand them.

[ContraBardus]

You shouldn't post angry. Your last post was sloppy and seemed rushed, so it's reasonable to assume that you did.

 

 

Also, you don't need to quote the entire post. Especially if it contains multiple quotes. Remove excess quotes and edit down to the part you are responding too. Like this:

 

If you think you can understand how something was just always here, you are fooling yourself. How can something just always have been here? Keep going back and back and it was still here. How? We can say the words that something was always here and we can say words that seem like definitions, but they just point to the idea, not to its comprehension.

 

Also, If you think that we can be here from absolute nothing, you are again fooling yourself. You can't get something from nothing, not in math and not in life.

 

These are solid arguments whether or not you understand them.

 

You've not shown that there ever has been anything that was 'always there' to begin with. There is no reason to think that 'something just always have been there'. [???] More bald assertions on your part. I see no reason why I or anyone else should accept these concepts as a given. You've not given any suggestion of what 'comprehension' is, or how something is 'defined'. Despite that you certainly don't have any trouble suggesting that the definition I've provided isn't good enough, and have no problem saying that [insert insane baseless idea here] can't be comprehended, and is therefore a valid argument. [<WTF???] Yet you are unwilling to define exactly what would be acceptable.

 

The definition I provided is sound, and the Pi analogy is valid. Pi is a concept similar to infinity. It is endless [as far as we know] and yet never greater than 3.14, an odd abstract, but both understood and practically applied. I say again, I see no reason to accept that infinity, zero, and nothing are any more difficult to comprehend and you've provided no good reason for me to think otherwise. You're simply saying 'no it's not' over and over without providing any good reason as to why it isn't. 'It's incomprehensible/beyond understanding' is not a valid argument for why not, as it explains nothing and simply contradicts with no basis.

 

In any case, what I provided is certainly better than simply saying 'no it isn't' like we're in a Monty Python skit the way you've been responding up to this point. You're not arguing anything, and are simply contradicting, and that isn't the same thing.

 

Obviously, deciding that the work of Physicist who have shown their work and submitted it for peer review is more valid than your unsubstantiated claims is totally 'fooling myself'. I should totally trust to some guy talking about infinite energies, using suspect mathematical formulas for infinity and nothing, and going on about how it somehow has some relation to all of existence and some old age eternal energy that totally exists, that may or may not be some sort of God-being on some message board more. I'm sure you'll be publishing that white paper about all this so it can be peer reviewed any day now, right? Maybe later I can go to the psychic down the street and buy some crystals to realign my chakras, because the sign they posted outside their house totally says they're an expert in mystical energies and that same sign says that shit is totally real.

 

What you're claiming is about as scientific and mathematical as the movie 'Ghostbusters', [and not nearly as entertaining].

 

They are not solid arguments, they aren't even really arguments, just claims. You're stating that something is, and not bothering to explain how or why, instead claiming 'it's beyond human understanding'. Simply expecting us to comply and agree that it's valid because you said so. That's not how it works.

 

"It exists, it's infinity, I can show it with math, it correlates because my formula is correct, it's valid, maybe I don't know, but you can't understand, I'm not claiming it's true, but eternal energies make everything and have always been, all existence is between nothing and infinity, you can't comprehend forever, infinity can't be understood, it's infinite and has always been, so that makes it true." < This is what your posts look like. Sure, you use more words, but that's about as deep as you're getting.

 

On the one hand you're stating that it's beyond human comprehension or understanding, and then in the same post you're saying that these are valid, reason based arguments, and suggesting that it's just us who don't understand your reasoning.

 

You can't have it both ways, if it's so incomprehensible, then that would make your arguments invalid to begin with because they contain abstracts that are beyond understanding. How can you make a valid solidly based argument from an idea that's beyond understanding? [Hint: You can't.]

 

Besides, there's no reason why I should simply take your word about 'what is beyond understanding and/or incomprehensible'. I see no reason to think that you are a good judge of such matters. All I see is another bald assertion and faulty pattern recognition on your part.

 

I am not a mathematician, so I can't refute your calculations. I do, however, know that there are several members of this board who are well trained in math, and that those who have participated in this thread have said that you are wrong. Again, I see no reason to trust you over them. I find your calculations suspect at best, and that simply means I don't trust your calculations over others whom I know have extensive training in such matters. Maybe you're right, but I don't think it's likely given the responses of others whom I know from experience are experts in that field.

 

The problem here is not on our end.

 

[mymistake]

 

 

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims.

This thread is a perfect metaphor of Science vs. Religion. Several well-trained mathematicians have explained why division by zero isn't done in math and why it doesn't prove fictional characters. That is the science. You respond by asserting your religion.

 

I've read the thread all the way through including every post. I suspect you are thinking of Bhim's comments on page 13 post 258, page 14 post 264 along with your responses in post 260, post 274 again on page 13 and 14. It wasn't forgotten but there is a very good reason why it isn't remembered as you refuting Bhim. You have been making very basic errors all the way through this thread and lashing out at those who take the time to try to help you. You certainly have not made a nobel-prize-worthy breakthrough. Congratulating yourself doesn't fix your errors.

 

By the way you are not the first believer to try division by zero to get to god. I can't tell you how many hours I wasted down that road. It's a pipe dream. It will never work.

[bornagainathiest]

 

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims. 

 

 

Please show us where you refuted Bhim, Nat.

 

BAA

[Guest nat]

 

 

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims.

This thread is a perfect metaphor of Science vs. Religion. Several well-trained mathematicians have explained why division by zero isn't done in math and why it doesn't prove fictional characters. That is the science. You respond by asserting your religion.

 

I've read the thread all the way through including every post. I suspect you are thinking of Bhim's comments on page 13 post 258, page 14 post 264 along with your responses in post 260, post 274 again on page 13 and 14. It wasn't forgotten but there is a very good reason why it isn't remembered as you refuting Bhim. You have been making very basic errors all the way through this thread and lashing out at those who take the time to try to help you. You certainly have not made a nobel-prize-worthy breakthrough. Congratulating yourself doesn't fix your errors.

 

By the way you are not the first believer to try division by zero to get to god. I can't tell you how many hours I wasted down that road. It's a pipe dream. It will never work.

 

 

You are just plain wrong. Division by 0 was a diversion way way back when. I clarified over and over that it was a diversion and I then stuck to the accepted way of doing it in the process of limits. As I last set out the math clearly, there was no refutation. Actually, there was some agreement. Why are you getting stuck on an actual division by 0 when I backed off from that in this thread because it was an unnecessary diversion. 

[Guest nat]

 

 

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims. 

 

 

Please show us where you refuted Bhim, Nat.

 

BAA

 

Bhim said that the undetermined forms of infinity *0 and 0/0 are not equal. I posted 2 videos where it clearly shows how to easily convert infinity *0 into either 0/0 or infinity/infinity. It is done in the same way 6*3 is the same as 6 divided by 1/3. In the same way, 0*infinity is converted into 0 divided by 1/infinity, which becomes 0/0 (all in the context of limits).

[Guest nat]

Contra,

 

Let's try to keep the posts short so we can know where we disagree.

 

Very simple here. 

 

There had to have been something always there, because if you ever hit absolute nothing in the past, there would not be a way to get something from absolute nothing. Even those who say you can get something from nothing are not talking about absolute nothing. They still claim some quantum physics laws and such which is not nothing. So there had to always have been something in existence. This is a very old proof. You want to make long posts that confuse this basic proof. 

 

Next, we can't understand an infinite unending thing. Assuming there was something always there, there is no way to understand how something could always have been there. You can fool yourself and think you can understand it.

 

Actually, the inherent contradiction of something always being there and not being able to understand it is an amazing thing. We are given our limits as human beings. Believers can accept imposed or inherent limits. Nonbelievers can't.

[Guest nat]

By the way, I said quite a few times that I am not out to prove what the thing that was always there is. And I happen to not think it was energy. Maybe something closer to dark energy. I happen to think it is something from a different dimension. I happen to think spirituality is a different dimension. Again, I am not trying to assert what it is.

[Guest nat]

Hey,

 

Now I'm an ex-christian. Not sure how that works, being that I was never a christian.

 

In any case, I never said in the math that division by 0 is a way to God. People are seeing what they want to see. 

 

My main point in the math was to give a basis for something coming out of both infinity and nothing. That is how it works in math, since infinity *0 is an undetermined form which can equal anything.

[ContraBardus]

Contra,

 

Let's try to keep the posts short so we can know where we disagree.

 

Very simple here. 

 

There had to have been something always there, because if you ever hit absolute nothing in the past, there would not be a way to get something from absolute nothing. Even those who say you can get something from nothing are not talking about absolute nothing. They still claim some quantum physics laws and such which is not nothing. So there had to always have been something in existence. This is a very old proof. You want to make long posts that confuse this basic proof. 

 

Next, we can't understand an infinite unending thing. Assuming there was something always there, there is no way to understand how something could always have been there. You can fool yourself and think you can understand it.

 

Actually, the inherent contradiction of something always being there and not being able to understand it is an amazing thing. We are given our limits as human beings. Believers can accept imposed or inherent limits. Nonbelievers can't.

 

Except it's -not proof-. You have proven -nothing-. Again, this is simply conjecture about something you have no possible way of knowing. You simply assume that it's true, and there's really no good reason for that.

 

There's no evidence that there was a 'something' that was always there. None. Unless you can provide -evidence- of this, you're just making stuff up and claiming that it's true. Maybe there was a something, and then there wasn't a something, and then there was another something. It doesn't really matter, there's no way to verify, and your argument is pointless. You don't know, but you are acting as though you do.

 

It is not a given, you just saying that it is and expecting us to simply accept it. Why should we? You've certainly not provided a good reason.

 

Yes, it's amazing the hoops you'll jump through to try and justify unfounded claims with nonsense statements about eternity, and the unending. That's exactly what you're doing. You're not providing an explanation, or any sort of reasoning. You're just saying 'that's just how it is' and that's not an argument or explanation of anything. It's just you making a bald assertion. You also go on about understanding, or what can be understood, as if you have some greater level of insight to the Universe and the human condition than the rest of us. You don't, if you think that you do feel free to prove otherwise.

 

You've failed in epic proportion to do what you've set out to do in this thread, and have devolved into insane mutterings about infinity and zero that have no actual correlation to do with any sort of reality, past or present. It's just supposition on your part, and you're acting as if it should be some obvious fact. It's not, there's no evidence to support your claims. You are making stuff up just as much as I am when I say that there is a layer of clowns halfway into the gassy outer surface of Jupiter called the 'Bozone Layer'.

 

I see no reason to trust your assessment of 'how much' is inside a void. 'Physical laws' are an abstract idea by the way, they don't actually exist in any real sense, so they would indeed not be 'something'. An inch doesn't actually exist, it's not a physical quantitative thing. It's an abstract concept that defines nothing physical. How much does an inch weigh? How much can you fit into an inch? How many times can you divide an inch? There's no way to answer those questions, and by your logic there's no way humans could possibly comprehend the concept of an inch, it's too vague, complex, and undefined for us to comprehend what it is.

 

You're not in any position to make such claims to be honest. There's no reason for anyone here to take what you've been posting seriously.