ahah, it is ironic that your name is logical.
1)i have said that you cannot conceptualize infinity, just like you cannot conceptualize a new sense, something foreign to experience like non-locality is impossible to grasp. i too know infinity exists because of mathematical abstractions in the plantonic sense that have specific axioms, but i dont KNOW what it is to be infinite, because my brain cannot fathom it. a definition of finite, would be contained or with edges, or barriers, can be measured. ex my body is finite as my skin is the endpoint. now a definition of infinite is boundless, no barriers. there are no examples therefore your concept of infinity while correct is a mere abstraction. you do not understand infinity truly i am sorry, no human can truly know infinite just like they cannot know what it means to be in two places at once. however, from mathematical axioms based on the validity of previous assertions i accept that infinite exists. i never said it never existed it does, but i cant properly describe it using our finite language. give an example of infinite, there is no concrete understanding of infinite only abstract, much like mathematics.
2)here are some definitons of faith from wiki
-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
-confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love
-Belief without evidence
-A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise.
so as you see you have faith with no evidence that god does not exist, much like you have evidence that your lottery ticket IS the winning ticket without proof. funny thing is you and other atheist argue with me without having knowledge in anything your talking about. hell, according to you, your beleif isnt faith when using concrete definitions it is. yes, if you dont know something, but beleive it to be true, like i will wake up tommorrow that is faith. what is so hard to comprehend?
3)i can see red, i know intimately what red is, i can view it. anything you can experience you can conceptualize, what is at the horizon of a black hole, were does stuff go when sucked in a black hole. your using examples of concrete things to justify the abstract, this is called ill-logic. you cant see infinite, nor can you imagine timelessness, but they exist as abstractions with axioms based on logic. stop making dumb arguments. you dont even know the difference as to why i can understnad the concept RED and cannot conceptualize concretely INFINITE. i have examples of red and black holes, they are perceivable, infinite is not. please do not make another dumb argument, i cant bare to keep repeating myself to atheist who dont know mathematics, nor philosophy, nor what there faith stands for.
4)look nothing is you still dont have a grasp of what nothing is. your question is like asking, what about if there is a different type of infinite, or black. if there was a different type of infinite do you know what it would be called, well i know based on gradeschool logic that it is something different not inifinite. if you say "what about nothing existing or being able to allow something to come from it under different laws" you are mistaking what you think is nothing. to say there is a different type of nothing one we do not know, is defining that nothing by difference or contrast to our nothing, making it something. once you give nothing characteristics that allow it to DO something it is no longer nothing. i meant to say "dont try to conceptualize, accept them as mutually exclusive"(ive said this on four threads now). once you start defining how laws operate on nothing or nothing creating something , your nothing has know become a something, thus invalidating your argument. nothing given eternity cannot create something. go to avantlabs for a better discussion, as you are just not grasping the logical and philosophical ramifications of your language. law dont operate with nothing, the laws of this unverse dont nor would the laws of a hypothetical universe, its like saying what if there was a different type of infinite that did not go on forever, you have changed what it means to be infinite, it is a ill-logical fallacy, and if you cant see this you should change your username.
im being a dick, because you, sandy and others make dumb points over and over, while others have understood what i say and keep making me repeat myself with dumb arguments. this was something you said
"So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it" yes this is actually the definition of faith, do some research. why should i have to defend if a different type of nothing exists? this question is convaluted and self-defeating, can you see why. what if there was a different type of black? THEN IT WOULDNT BE THAT TYPE OF BLACK BUT ANOTHER MAKING IT DIFFERENT WITH NO RELEVANCE TO OUR ARGUEMENT. nothing can not have variant forms, just like infinite cannot, and saying things like what if we had this sixth sense etc etc which is what your asking me to conceptualize doesnt hold water.
every atheist pay attention
if you say everything needs a cause then there is a infinite regression of causes, making this something(life) not possible. so logical something needs to be eternal, but based on science this unverse is not, therefore it had a creation a cause. the only way for anything to exist is for something to exist that has always existed and is uncaused. could be another universe, god, a bunny rabbit i dont know but some non-thing outside of time(hence uncaused)created us.
Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you left out the personal BS and kept to arguing points. Maybe this is difficult for you, but I've tried to treat you with respect and argue your statements point-by-point. You don't see me making fun of your username, so try to return me the same curtesy.
- I don't care how many times you've said you can't conceptualise infinity, you still haven't demonstrated this claim. Am I to accept it merely on your say-so? Just because YOU don't know what it is to be infinite, doesn't mean that no one else can. So, a demonstration or proof would be nice, please. (I even asked nicely).
Re abstraction, this is a moot point; whatever you say is an abstraction. Whenever you start talking, you are abstracting. When I refer to the car on the street, I am abstracting it from its environment. This is a very, very weak path to go down for you.
Further, as I have said now multiple times, by asserting why it is not understandable, you have understood it. Seriously, don't go there- it's illogical. You tell me that no human can know inifnity- well, this is a comment on the nature of infinity, even if only dealing with its perceptability. So, it follows that, if we are to take you seriously, then you are understanding what you're talking about. Ie, infinity. Yet how can this be? According to you, no one is allowed to understand infinity
- I accept that definition of faith- I have no problem with it. However, it grossly weakens your stance on God. What distinguishes your faith that God exists from your faith that your girlfriend loves you, or that you'll excrete what you just eat sometime tomorrow? Nothing, really.
It's quite different to knowledge. If I start defining knowledge along the lines of sufficiently justified true belief, then I have more than enough to assert that 'I know the Sun will rise tomorrow.' Just because I can't prove it empirically beyond all doubt, doesn't mean I don't know it.
- You can conceptualise more than experience. That's what thought and imagination is about. I might have only experienced 256 colours in my lifetime. Does this stop me from imagining a 257th? No..
And seriously, just because you can't think of a coherent reply, doesn't mean my arguments are dumb. As far as I'm concerned, you have done
nothing to justify any of your claims. You simply repeat them over and over, with different wording. Is this a sensible argument? OK...
I'm sure you're the be all and end all:
- I'm not even going to bother replying to this insulting crap. Re-word it without the bullshit, maybe also make it comprehendable and I'll think about replying. Otherwise, you're wasting my time- I don't need to sit here and be insulted by some internet expert
And if that's how you concluded God, well, God help you mate.