Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know you've said it. You say lots of things. Doesn't mean they make sense.
Which means an actual infinite is possible, as we discussed previously. Are you ready to concede yet, or do you intend to continue droning on about how infinity isn't "actual infinity"?
Read my lips. Or fingers.
I'm asking YOU to justify the DIFFERENCE between an actual infinite (i.e., a set with an infinite amount of numbers) and something that's qualitatively infinite, i.e., infinitely large.
You. I'm asking you. You just ignoring it and making jabs at my character does nothing except put up a mirror against yourself.
Great argument.
Why are you asking me when you're the one drawing this distinction? You are asking me to do your work for you. I'm not the one making this distinction; you are!
I've already made my distinction like half a jillion times. One refers to an infinite number of things, whereas another refers to not a million number of things but just one thing that is infinite.
See?
Can you at least point me to a post where you made an argument? I'd be happy to check it out and get back to you.
Exactly. A distinction without a difference: you are still posting something that infinite.
THIS is your claim, that there isn't a difference.
I'm saying 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc. to infinity as a set
is not the same as
infinity, i.e., something infinitely large
You claim no difference despite me showing the difference. Therefore the burden is on you.
How is quantitative infinity not different than qualitative infinity?
What is the dividing line between two things not agreed upon? Allow me to think about that whilst I work out the average of two numbers that I do not know.You didn't say a lot of things in my question, which is why I'm asking it.
So "must" is out. What's the dividing line between something not agreed upon meaning we're still talking about the same thing we're attempting to define versus something not agreed upon meaning we're talking about different things?
There isn't a difference in the infinity; the difference is in what is infinite. The important point, which you want to obfuscate, is that you are claiming that there is something infinite.
I fail to understand what you're saying.
I can imagine a structure that's infinite in length. Regardless of its infinity, it is a structure which can be seen to uphold something else.
I can imagine an infinite number of stepping stones, and imagine that saying there is an infinite number of stepping stones behind me implies that I've somehow made it from negative infinity to zero (the present). The problem here, though, is this is impossible.
The structure is God; it's infinity without quantity, without steps or causes, as a structure that can uphold something -- the universe. The stepping stones are analogies for causes apropos the universe, and we would need to imagine stepping (causality as a process) an infinite amount of times from the past to a present moment, which we can't do.
Two different things: one a structure, another a process.
.... is because natural objects are more conducive to examination than intelligent beings are; it's the same reason that political science and psychology have made so much less progress than natural science.
If you accept that, you would end up in having no God. Because you do not know who He really is. (the intersection of all the above will not the true God).
Among all the understandings, there is only ONE which is true. Accept that one, then the others would start to make sense.
Skywriting, Can you deny that political science has made less progress than natural science? That Aristotle is totally outdated in his natural science but may still be read with interest in his political science?
Archaeopteryx, do you deny that anything infinite exists? Is there any theory of the origin of the universe that does not either posit some infinity or else a logical contradiction?
The point is that you are positing something that is infinite. The division between structure and process is immaterial to this point. You are saying that there is something, in reality, which is actually infinite in some respect, whether it be size or whatever.
The division isn't immaterial. Something infinite would mean something with infinite causes (quantitative) or something of infinite size (qualitative). There is a difference here.
God is like an infinitely-sized wall from which causes spring, the first of which is the universe. He himself isn't composed of an infinite number of causes; he's just a structure, at which the buck starts. Saying that there is no structure logically means you need an infinite set of causes, which is different than the structure.
You're just repeating yourself now, but still missing the point: you are positing something that is infinite in some respect, while also claiming that an actual infinite cannot exist. Whether this is sloppy wording on your part, I cannot say, but the "cannot exist" aspect to your assertion is hardly ambiguous. Either you allow for some things to be at least potentially infinite in some respect, or you disallow anything from being infinite in any respect (infinitely-sized walls included).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?