Jump to content
Islamic Forum
noxiouspython

Logical Proof Of Creator, Above Creation!

Recommended Posts

theres a reason for the "s" at the end of numbers.

 

I can't believe you actually fell for the bit of ambiguity in that :D

 

the facts still stand and infinite is not really number - read it again, it's not hard to decipher that the "numbers" im refering to are a mention of distance :D

integers also dont go to 9999999999999999 in programming but they do in math, this is not programming my friend :D

you figure out whats wrong with this, i'm not even gonna bother :D

You're attempting to deny the number value of 0. It does exist and have a value. This value is between -1 and 1+. It is not apart of the number sets in going from -3, -2, -1, or 1, 2, 3, etc., but it does come before/between them and, therefore, precedes them. krawn is correct. :D

 

Oh, and I'd rather not attack or insult you. I don't turn to such measures. Let's stay civil.

Edited by Undertaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
You're attempting to deny the number value of 0. It does exist and have a value. This value is between -1 and 1+. It is not apart of the number sets in going from -3, -2, -1, or 1, 2, 3, etc., but it does come before/between them and, therefore, precedes them. krawn is correct. :D

 

Oh, and I'd rather not attack or insult you. I don't turn to such measures. Let's stay civil.

I never denied the number value of 0? I was pointing out that 0 is not part of the negative or positive set of numbers and krawn has agreed with this. To say that the number 0 precedes the first number of those sets implies that 0 is the first number which it is clearly not.

 

but it does come before/between them and, therefore, precedes them.

Something that comes between two things, definitely does not precede them.

 

negatives, 0, positive (0 inbetween) this

0, negative, positive (0 precedes the two sets) does not mean this

 

I'd appreciate it if everyone would get back to the point of proving that time had an absolute beginning. The only one who's actually made any decent arguement for this so far is krawn with the scientific suggestions that point to a beginning. I've countered by suggesting a theory which pits the universe in a cycle similar to that of a common star, it'd make the data relavant to the beginning (or the last beginning according to this theory) irrelevant in determining the universes age..

 

Do parallel lines ever intersect????

 

and why????

They intersect at infinity as explained by algebra and geometry. The infinite answer also means no in this case.I think you're on to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never denied the number value of 0? I was pointing out that 0 is not part of the negative or positive set of numbers and krawn has agreed with this. To say that the number 0 precedes the first number of those sets implies that 0 is the first number which it is clearly not.

Something that comes between two things, definitely does not precede them.

 

Are you asserting that 0 does not come before the first number in the positive number set (as well as before the first number in the negative number set, though that set is increasing in the negative direction)?

 

I'd appreciate it if everyone would get back to the point of proving that time had an absolute beginning. The only one who's actually made any decent arguement for this so far is krawn with the scientific suggestions that point to a beginning. I've countered by suggesting a theory which pits the universe in a cycle similar to that of a common star, it'd make the data relavant to the beginning (or the last beginning according to this theory) irrelevant in determining the universes age..

 

The theory, at this point, is that time is a construct that is directly related to the creation of the universe. Without the creation of the universe, time would not exist.

 

When the big bang occured, length, width and breadth were created, as well as time. When the big crunch happens, (assuming that is the correct theory which describes what will happen) time will no longer exist.

 

It's possible that this occurs more than once, but there is no time between the two occurrances because time is internal to the creation and destruction of a universe.

 

What do you mean with "cycle similar to that of a common star"? Stars are born, produce huge amounts of energy through fusion for a long time, then die in one of a number of ways. They arn't reborn as far as we know. Do you just mean that universes are created and then die, like stars?

 

My current understanding is that this universe was created a long time ago, and that it will die in a long time. When it dies, time will cease to exist. Another universe similar to this one may then be created, but there is no time in between the two creations because time is a property of the universe in which we were born.

 

They intersect at infinity as explained by algebra and geometry. The infinite answer also means no in this case.I think you're on to something.

 

They also intersect in exciting ways in non-euclidian geometry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D for all the pseudo science being bandied about in here i'm not surprised that nobody mentioned the word 'minkowski space time' yet.

 

And, I'm sorry but this has been bothering me since I read it:

Perfect example is Newtons laws. Force = Mass * Acceleration is a load of crock that worked well with what we tested it with in the past, but it fails miserably since the extremeties we are working with have expanded. And now we have Eisnteins laws! Which are simply waiting to be shattered again as we are able to test at wider and wider extremeties.

 

Which is like saying that: Now, because we have precisely manufactured surgical steel scalpels, we no longer have any use for butter knives, axes, razors, butcher knives, shears, or any other more primitive blades.

 

THAT is a load of crock. Newton's 2nd law involves 3 terms and one operator. For the vast majority of applications that equation is the most efficient to use in terms of time AND accuracy.

 

Certainly relativistic considerations are an invaluable tool in very high end processes BUT computing them is purely a waste of time for the majority of scientific/engineering applications. It's even worse than writing numbers to the 10th decimal place because you never learned about significant figures.

 

End Rant.

 

Peace,

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

Before i say anything, i was really wanting to know defination of Infinte you have, a simple one line defination... No philosophies... please (you really lose me on such stuff)

 

I thought it was imortant as the subject was infinite, so it would be better to have a set defination infinite with which we all agree...

w/salaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Before i say anything, i was really wanting to know defination of Infinte you have, a simple one line defination... No philosophies... please (you really lose me on such stuff)

 

I thought it was imortant as the subject was infinite, so it would be better to have a set defination infinite with which we all agree...

w/salaan

 

For now, let's try this definition:

 

Infinite = Increasing without bound.

 

There are others, but this is as good a place to start as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed,

 

but isn't the main point of this arguement to prove that there is a beginning and a creator? *points at title*

 

how does this help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed,

 

but isn't the main point of this arguement to prove that there is a beginning and a creator? *points at title*

 

how does this help?

 

He just asked for a definition and I obliged. Now he can put forth an argument if he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does this mean he scrapped his original theory in the first post?

 

It is a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's a more suitable definition found than the dictionary?

 

(www.)"http://dictionary.reference####/search?q=infinity"]dictionary.reference####

#/search?q=infinity[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

"does this mean he scrapped his original theory in the first post?"

 

 

 

No brother, i have not scrapped my original theory, in the first post....

 

I wanted to get the defination clear, as we seem to be having some problem with the defination of infinity.

 

the reason is... in short, i say that if the universe is infinite years old, then it would, obviously, take infinite years to get to this point in time... But the whole problem for me was that if infinite is greater then any value assigned, then how in the world could you get to it??? Or it is boundless, like "nothingness" as was said, then the chances of reaching infinite, are the same as going beyond nothingness... hope you get my point... (my point about parallel lines was also related, as then NEVER meet, in simple maths etc...)

 

Please, give the defination, as you think of it in the sense you understand infinite yer old time....

 

w/salaam

Edited by noxiouspython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i say that if the universe is infinite years old, then it would, obviously, take infinite years to get to this point in time

 

good god! I thought we've been over this already!

 

I said before that this is both a fact and contradiction cause the reference point we're dealing with is infinity.

 

I'll try to give an example of this as simple as possible and I think you'll see the relation I'm trying to make.

 

negative infinity -------------------------------- -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2, -------------------------------------- positive infinity

#1 The distance between negative infinity and all points on this number line are the same --> infinity

#2 This does not change the fact that the number line must encompass every value possible, if it didn't it wouldn't be infinitely long

#3 The distance between -1 and 2 is 3.

 

All of these are facts, but #1 and #3 contradict eachother! - This does not change the fact that they are facts nonetheless, these type of contradiction always arises wherever infinity is used as a reference point.

 

infinite past -----------------------0000--------2005, 2006, 2007 -------------------------------------- infinite future

#1 The distance between the infinite past and all time on this time line are the same --> infinite years

#2 This does not change the fact that the time line must encompass every value of time possible, if it didn't it wouldn't be infinitely long

#3 The time difference between between 2005 and 2007 is 2 years

 

All of these are facts, but #1 and #3 contradict eachother! - This does not change the fact that they are facts nonetheless, these type of contradiction always arises wherever infinity is used as a reference point.

 

"Getting" to the year 2006 is of no relevance when the reference point is taken as the infinite past - we always have and always will be infinite years away from the beginning of time. There is no "getting accross infinite years", it simply always has been. Pick the year 2000, 5000, 50000 or hell even take the infinite future. All these time values are infinite years (the same) away from the infinite past. Take a reference point as the year 0000 and you can say 2006 years have past since we started keeping track of time. This is similar to taking the distance between 0 and 2006 on the number line and saying the difference is 2006.

 

The point I'm trying to prove is that there is no problems that arise with having an infinite past. There are contradictions, but that doesn't change the truth that they are facts nonetheless as they are in math with the number line. To scrap the infinite timeline theory because of these contradictions would be no different from scrapping the number line because the distances between the numbers are not mathamatically consistent.

 

P.S. Let's work with krawns def of infinity

 

[at]krawn, no this is not a proof of the infinite past, just that there is nothing wrong with having one by pythons analysis

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

hmmmm... i know we have been over it, i just mentioned it to show why i wanted the defination cleared...

 

But now that you have mentioned it, I would like to say something... :D

 

 

When you say infinite years and the distance being the same between any number an dinfinite etc etc... My point is not this...

 

Let me brake it down now, I hopeyou see my point...

 

 

Distance between

 

2000 and 2005 is 5 years

 

1900 and 2000 is 100 years

 

1500 BC and 1500 AC is 3000 years

infinite years (ago) and 2006 is infinite years

 

therefore, it would take

 

5 years to pass to get to 2005 from 2000

 

100 years to pass to get from 1900 years 2000

 

3000 years to pass to get from 1500 BC to 1500 AC, and

 

infinite years to pass to get from infinite years (ago) to 2006...

 

 

The defination bro Krawn, gave was Infinite = Increasing without bound

 

Without bound means without ending, like the "nothingness" you mentioned. Now my complication is that, the chances of crossing the Nothingness (which is infinite, as you said) are the same as infinite time to pass (both being infinite)... So what are the chances of someone crossing the "Nothingness"???

 

I hope it was clear.....

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Distance between

 

2000 and 2005 is 5 years

 

1900 and 2000 is 100 years

 

1500 BC and 1500 AC is 3000 years

 

infinite years (ago) and 2006 is infinite years

 

therefore, it would take

 

5 years to pass to get to 2005 from 2000

true

 

100 years to pass to get from 1900 years 2000

true

 

3000 years to pass to get from 1500 BC to 1500 AC, and

true

 

infinite years to pass to get from infinite years (ago) to 2006...

true - causes a contradiction but true nonetheless

 

Without bound means without ending, like the "nothingness" you mentioned

The nothingness I mentioned became a factor in response to your question about an infinitely distant point. Due to "distance" we had started into the measurement of volume. When discussing the universe and infinitely long distances, the emptiness of space - the nothingness becomes a never ending factor. The nothingness I was refering to was relative to volume as that was the measure being discussed when you asked about distances. You can link up some of the factors of volume and time when discussing infinity but nothingness is not one of them. When throwing the definition of "increasing without bound" at volume we are able to discuss nothingness as it is a spacial quality, when we throw it at time what we get is eternity (infinite time). You cannot attribute the spacial quality of nothingness to time, because it just doesn't make sense to do so.

 

That is to say when dealing with infinite volume - volume increasing without bound in the physical realm (increasing only because you cannot have negative volume) can refer to the expanse into endless nothingness.

 

When dealing with infinite time - time increasing without bound in both directions (as negative time simply refers to going into the past) can refer to eternity and foreverness.

 

Nowthen, your question would be rephrased as what are the chances of crossing the eternity of infinite time. I'm assuming you're refering to time itself. Here your question is like what are the odds of infinite time crossing infinite time. I'd say there is no matter of chance, it has happened. It's kind of like asking what are the chances of a hairball being hairy. (the description of infinite time as being infinite leaves no room for probability that infinite time wont pass, there is no matter of chance here)

 

Is this sufficient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×