So if someone doesn't do it exactly the way you have done it, it doesn't count. LOL. You are laughable.
Usually because I am shitfaced drunk and talk bollocks, so I do under_stand your POV.
I implore you to read every 'poem' and view the gallery of art I have done - it details the anomalies within the English language and upon the planet itself...if you want to converse about the subparticle 'generator' of our REAL_IT_Y - the 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality - then sure, I'll try not to piss it up and get annoyed.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:09 pm
What I am arguing is that there should exist a point that the universe didn't exist if you believe in creation.
But I KNOW that the Universe ALWAYS exists and I also KNOW that there is creation. So, to me, there was NO point where the Universe did not exist. Will your so called "argument" be able to counter or override this?
That is contrary (bold part).
You’re playing with fire here, guys. Be careful. I am serious.
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:05 am
But I KNOW that the Universe ALWAYS exists and I also KNOW that there is creation. So, to me, there was NO point where the Universe did not exist. Will your so called "argument" be able to counter or override this?
That is contrary (bold part).
But it is NOT contrary AT ALL. It was written in the specific what for that very specific reason.
Also, if you are going to claim some thing to be true, then I suggest you have first some actual evidence or proof BEFORE you express your claim.
Now, you CLAIM that the bold part is contrary, so what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have for this CLAIM?
To CLAIM as you have here is to SHOW with PROOF just how CLOSED 'you' really ARE, "bahman".
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:43 pm
So there are two ppoints when it comes to the act of creation, one comes after another one. This is a temproal.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:43 pm
So there are two ppoints when it comes to the act of creation, one comes after another one. This is a temproal.
Is "zero" a "point"?
Sure it is.
On a graph on paper? Maybe.
But in time, it's not a point. "At" zero, nothing exists; but you can't really be "at" zero, because it's a concept like infinity, in the sense that neither is a point, and to treat either as such is to misunderstand the concept completely and to create illogic as a consequence.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:51 am
Is "zero" a "point"?
Sure it is.
On a graph on paper? Maybe.
But in time, it's not a point. "At" zero, nothing exists; but you can't really be "at" zero, because it's a concept like infinity, in the sense that neither is a point, and to treat either as such is to misunderstand the concept completely and to create illogic as a consequence.
Space and time are either continuous or discrete. Either way, they are made of points.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:29 pm
Space and time are either continuous or discrete. Either way, they are made of points.
You mean like Xeno thought they were?
You are talking about his paradox? If yes, his paradox is resolved.
But the resolution defeats your supposition that a line of motion can be rightly represented as merely discrete...as nothing but a set of points and intervals.
