The Circle of Infinity

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Reflex »

osgart wrote:how is non locality possible and yet it's fact.

omnipresence is very real.

no one has any materialist refutation to it's fact.

It's tiresome to see so many materialist meatheads ascribing mind as matter as the default start to rational debate.

there by logical deduction we must infer some kind of non physical reality.

reality is conceptual in nature; there is an art to it's formation and function. anything that functions must be caused by an intelligent force that reasons.

matter isn't life force, it's only energy and mass, I ascribe nothing of life to it, the material has no special life giving qualities; therefore another reality exists.
The last question in the OP is a trick question: there is no sound evidence or argument against the adage. And it is obvious that some people don't even want to discuss the implications if it is true or the ramifications of its broad acceptance.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by osgart »

skeptiko forums are all about science and spirituality. It's a lot more open minded.

It's rational too, not at all laden with myth.

truthfully I think spiritual existence scares people.

It's also got a bad name from extremist religion and scam artists.
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Reflex »

osgart wrote:
truthfully I think spiritual existence scares people.

It's also got a bad name from extremist religion and scam artists.
True on both counts.

I was hoping someone would posit something implied by the adage and what the ramifications would be if broadly accepted as true before offering my own thoughts on the matter.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Walker »

Reflex wrote:“God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere” is an adage that, in one form or another, predates Christianity by centuries. If true, what are the implications and what are the ramifications if widely accepted as an indisputable truism? What solid evidence or argument can be used against the hypothesis?
The implication is that one is not alone. Duality.

Genesis 28:15 King James Version (KJV)
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Walker »

osgart wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 5:01 am sure why not, english, Scottish and most of all american

this place is lacking some humor.
Still lacking?
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=22016&start=30#p312635
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Science Fan »

The statement is actually mathematically correct, as far as it goes. If we had a flat space, but, assume it is infinite for a moment, then where would the center of that space be? No one could tell. It's impossible to identify a center point when one has an infinite space to work with. Moreover, if we cannot identify a center point, we cannot even identify any circle, based on such a center point. In addition, an infinite space could not have a circumference containing it, even if all the points on the circumference are infinite. So, basically the statement is making a hypothetical about an infinite space being like god, and then stating some obvious mathematics that follows from that assumption.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Circle of Infinity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Reflex wrote: Sat May 13, 2017 5:45 am “God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere” is an adage that, in one form or another, predates Christianity by centuries. If true, what are the implications and what are the ramifications if widely accepted as an indisputable truism? What solid evidence or argument can be used against the hypothesis?
I go through these forums and generally speaking the majority is garbage. This is not garbage at all, if anything this is a solid axiomatic foundation for the nature of philosophy.

Everything we understand that is stable and abstract is strictly a reflection of the point.

Everything we understand that is fluxing and physical is strictly a relation of points as a gradation of the point in quality and quantity.

Everything we understand is a synthesis of the abstract/stable/reflective and physical/fluxing/relative as medial/neutral/point. The point is the truest of all axioms and emdodies and is embodied by all subjective and objective space. The "point" is the truest of all axioms.
Post Reply