The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by abaddon

You have no evidence.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Whether I have proved beyond reasonable doubt....

You haven't presented any evidence. Not one experiment to prove your silly religion. In contrast, we have presented 200 years of experiments proving your claims are completely bogus.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Let others place a comment to which I'll get the time and the chance to respond, for a change.

No. You are posting insane religious claims on a skeptic forum and I am a skeptic pulling them apart with ease.

Everyone who has posted in this forum has shown you the errors in your claims. You simply keep repeating them and ignore the evidence presented to you.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

... you continue to rack your brain to "debunk" my philosophy, "Infinitism"

No I present evidence and experiments, that are already well known to my fellow skeptics.

You however, can't provide one experiment to support your religious nonsense. .

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

No I present evidence and experiments, that are already know known to my fellow skeptics.

You however, can't provide one experiment to support your religious nonsense. .

What kind of experiment do you propose would possibly prove the Infinite? When as I have already stated, if the Infinite Itself displayed Itself to us, we still would not be able to comprehend it, our minds would not be able to contain the Infinite knowledge/knowledge of what the Infinite is. We would die. Now do you see why I call your arguments childish chamaquito?

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Infinitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism
"Infinitism is the view that knowledge may be justified by an infinite chain of reasons. It belongs to epistemology, the branch of philosophy"

If it required "an infinite chain of reasons" no knowledge would ever be justified. That would be similar to saying what the ancient Greek skeptics had said, that we cannot be certain about anything; there is only one thing we should be certain about, the Infinite.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

What kind of experiment do you propose would possibly prove the Infinite?

None, as it doesn't exist.

That's why we provided 200 years of experiments that debunk all your hilarious claims. Do you want to see the list again?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

If it required "an infinite chain of reasons" no knowledge would ever be justified.

That's not what philosophical infinitism is claiming.

You are now claiming to be a philosopher......who hasn't actually read any philosophy.

[8enotto]

The idea of the religion as you present it is a god of the gaps. What we don't fully understand that god did or does.

It's a complicated way of saying " we don't know just yet "

Which if that statement alone is used, we need no gods. We need better sciences and strive to achieve them.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

None, as it doesn't exist.

That's why we provided 200 years of experiments that debunk all your hilarious claims. Do you want to see the list again?

Dude, relax. You won this one a long time ago.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Dude, relax. You won this one a long time ago.

I know that. I just find it entertaining. It's like the pittsburghjoe thread ; Insane conflicting scientific claims with no evidence.

As you probably observed he makes up excuses on the spot, when presented with actual science. However he forgets what he has previously posted. The more he posts, the more self conflicting statements he makes, that I can throw back at him. (That's why he had all his early posts deleted on the SSF.)

This time, we have gathered conflicting excuses for all his claims and he can't delete any of them. As he can't delete his posts, he tries to flip the thread onto the next page, by telling us his life story and copying excerpts from Wikipedia he hasn't bothered to read himself.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

What kind of experiment do you propose would possibly prove the Infinite? When as I have already stated, if the Infinite Itself displayed Itself to us, we still would not be able to comprehend it, our minds would not be able to contain the Infinite knowledge/knowledge of what the Infinite is. We would die. Now do you see why I call your arguments childish chamaquito?

Strange then, that you appear quite able to comprehend "The Infinite", and- I assume- you are not currently dead.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Whether I have proved beyond reasonable doubt, to a hypothetical jury of scientists whether the concept of the Infinite stands; that is a matter, as I have already mentioned, of perception and perspective.

You have "proven" nothing to anyone. That is why your crank religion has a membership of one.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

What I have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, is that the idea of "God" could stand along our scientific knowledge, understanding and proof; and that the two are not contradictory.

Wrong. You have provided none of these three things. You have demonstrated not a scintilla of scientific knowledge, understanding and proof. For example...

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

We could have evolution stand as proven scientific fact;

Science does not provide proof of anything. It provides evidence. And you have none. Proof is in the realm of mathematics.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

and that that evolution is not limited to our planet, but a Universal fact;

Nobody ever claimed it wasn't. That is a strawman of your own making.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

a fact even that takes place throughout the Infinite (as is devolution; formations and deformations).

Now your cheese has slid off the cracker and you are making unevidenced assertions again. Dismissed for lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

We don't necessarily have to discard the writings of the Bible; for it perhaps refers to God in an allegorical manner, by people who may had sometimes divine inspiration, as the faithful believe; and wrote down what they understood from that inspiration, with their finite minds; taking in consideration the level of understanding of the times; or may have not, and just wrote down a framework of faith, that they believed it would help in keeping their society in order; perhaps both.

A. I believe in no gods
and
B. To which of the thousands of claimed deities do you refer?

Besides, do you know what is missing from all of those thousands of claimed deities? Evidence.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Unless in our generation we have the appearance of a superior entity that presents itself to us, with the characteristic of immortality through the millinia and complete power over nature and our visible space beyond Earth,

Can I have dressing with that word salad?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

we will never have scientific proof of the existence of God.

Because there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Only indications deriving from philosophical suppositions, in our logical reasoning and endeavors to find explanations and reasons for existence.

Perhaps there is no reason at all.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Yet, if the Infinite was what I presented it to be, and from my perspective it could not be otherwise, then if it did indeed and for whatever the reason choose to present itself in the subtle way it did, through other people's writings, and not directly to the future generations as it is said to have in the stories described in those writings; how could we ever know! Would we ever believe any such display of superior existence? A supernatural being could make its presence yes! But would it be the Infinite? Would it be God? How could the Infinite ever present Itself to a finite being and be understood as such; other than perhaps through the cumulative writing and references throughout the experience of human existence?

More word salad. So far, you have had no evidence, but with this you have no substance either.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

<snip bible babble>

I have no idea why you think the poorly written fiction of a bunch of goat herders would impress anyone.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

I have already stated in the beginning of my original post, that I am not a scientist but a philosopher,

You are not a philosopher either.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

any contemplation that I made based on deductive reasoning, and extrapolations based on recognized patterns and scientific theories I am aware of, were just that; contemplations.

That is an admission that you are simply MAKING IT UP.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Some may be correct, some may not; for others it may yet to be proven and it is still therefore, debatable.

None have been correct so far. All have been wrong so far. Not a good track record, is it?

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Dude, relax. You won this one a long time ago.

Nope, he didn't. You and others may think he did though, it's your opinion.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Strange then, that you appear quite able to comprehend "The Infinite", and- I assume- you are not currently dead.

I've only conceived the idea of the Infinite, I did not claim to have visualized the Infinite in its actuality.

[Myriad]

The problem, tazanastazio, is that one can substitute literally any adjective in the dictionary where you write "Infinite" and the meaning and value of what you're writing doesn't change at all.

"The universe is Blue. It's a Blue that's so utterly Blue that we cannot even comprehend its Blueness. Even I don't understand actual Blueness, even though I'm the only one who has visualized the Blueness that must exist. Despite that lack of understanding, I'm certain that everything you think you know about the universe is wrong, because you haven't arrived at Blue. And by the way, God, because only God can be or create such perfect and profound Blue."

"Infinite" or "Blue" or for that matter "Noisy" or "Holy" or "Squamous." Either way, it doesn't clarify anything. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean anything.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by abaddon

You have "proven" nothing to anyone. That is why your crank religion has a membership of one.

Again this is your opinion and the one of some others. As I have stated multiple times already, IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT NOT A RELIGION. As with all philosophies, this one too started by one person, me.

Originally Posted by abaddon

<...snipped for space economy...>I have no idea why you think the poorly written fiction of a bunch of goat herders would impress anyone....

Even "goat herders" can observe phenomena and relay their experience as best as they can. Some may be fable, or imagined, true; it doesn't mean every account especially as it seems is similar to other such observed phenomena, is false. And the aforementioned "verses" are found in different parts of the Bible, accounting for different people, living in different times and place, yet relaying similar events, and experiences; phenomena as they were perhaps revealed to them.

Just because we don't have proof or evidence about something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it does not exist. Skeptics are not deniers, they in the contrary allow more room for doubt, and while leaning pro or against, they still do not dismiss for certain anything till they have undisputed proof/evidence in favor or against. Even the most incredulous of skeptics would not say that the Infinite does not exist, especially when ALL SCIENTIFIC PROOF POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE, and we have no proof of the existence of an absolute origin; in the contrary we logically see the illogic of such a ridiculous notion.

"I know one thing, I know nothing." Plato accounting for Socrates.

I am absolutely certain for one thing, the Infinite! Everything else is a matter of perception and perspective. There are many things we don't know yet, and many things we'll never learn about.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Myriad

The problem, tazanastazio, is that one can substitute literally any adjective in the dictionary where you write "Infinite" and the meaning and value of what you're writing doesn't change at all.

"The universe is Blue. It's a Blue that's so utterly Blue that we cannot even comprehend its Blueness. Even I don't understand actual Blueness, even though I'm the only one who has visualized the Blueness that must exist. Despite that lack of understanding, I'm certain that everything you think you know about the universe is wrong, because you haven't arrived at Blue. And by the way, God, because only God can be or create such perfect and profound Blue."

"Infinite" or "Blue" or for that matter "Noisy" or "Holy" or "Squamous." Either way, it doesn't clarify anything. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean anything.

The Infinite includes "Blue", "Blue" does not include the Infinite.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

The Infinite includes "Blue", "Blue" does not include the Infinite.

Of course your limited ordinary conception of blue, perhaps as one mere color shade among many, does not include the infinite. You don't comprehend Blue. The infinite is only a tiny fraction of all that Blue encompasses.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Of course your limited ordinary conception of blue, perhaps as one mere color shade among many, does not include the infinite. You don't comprehend Blue. The infinite is only a tiny fraction of all that Blue encompasses.

infinite:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

blue:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blue

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Nope, he didn't. You and others may think he did though, it's your opinion.

Not one person, on either this forum or the SSF forum has ever agreed with your hilarious conflicting religious nonsense.

Do you have any evidence anyone on the planet has ever agreed with your claims?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT NOT A RELIGION.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio previously

God is infinity / Infinity is god

You really are a very confused person.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

As with all philosophies, this one too started by one person, me.

Philosophical Infinitism comes from the philosophers Paul Moser and John Post

Have you ever actually read a book on philosophy?

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

You really are a very confused person.

Not confused at all, whatsoever. I am absolutely certain about the Infinite!
The idea of "god" conceived by humanity could be a product of imagination; a superior being or organization of beings of a variety of range of influence within the Universe; or a social implementation to organize society a certain way and control people. But the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, beginningless and everlasting God; could be nothing but the Infinite.


Infinitism:

God is the Infinite and the Infinite is God.
The Infinite is the only certainty; everything else is a matter of perception and perspective.
There always will be many things yet to learn about, many things we will never know about, and many things we will never have proof, or evidence for; non of which means that those things do not exist or are not the case.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Not confused at all, whatsoever. I am absolutely certain about the Infinite!

Nope. You are permanently confused or simply insane. You claim "God is infinity" and "infinity is God" and simultaneously claim you aren't talking about religion.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

The idea of "god" conceived by humanity could be a .....

....Zoroastrian concept. Prior to Zoroastrianism all religions were polytheistic. (many gods existing simultaneously).

You really should read some basic books about the history of religion.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

But the idea of an omnipotent, ...... God; could be nothing but the Infinite.

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know?

Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

There is no such thing as an omnipotent god. Your God is not "infinite".

Read some basic philosophy books before posting again.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Nope. You are permanently confused or simply insane. You claim "God is infinity the Infinite" and "infinity the Infinite is God" and simultaneously claim you aren't talking about religion.

....Zoroastrian concept. Prior to Zoroastrianism all religions were polytheistic. (many gods existing simultaneously).

You really should read some basic books about the history of religion.

Poly/Πολυ=Many - theism/θεϊσμός=about God; God = Theos/Θεός
Like science, religion also springs from philosophy.
Neither confused nor insane, simply a contemplator.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know?

Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

How naive! Or Medievally Let's rephrase it:
CAN THE INFINITE TURN INTO AN INFINITE STONE AND LIFT ITSELF? WHERE?

... and then you say I am 200 years behind, compared to medieval philosophical arguments, try 1000 years ahead! Give or take a few centuries

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Myriad

The problem, tazanastazio, is that one can substitute literally any adjective in the dictionary where you write "Infinite" and the meaning and value of what you're writing doesn't change at all.

"The universe is Blue. It's a Blue that's so utterly Blue that we cannot even comprehend its Blueness. Even I don't understand actual Blueness, even though I'm the only one who has visualized the Blueness that must exist. Despite that lack of understanding, I'm certain that everything you think you know about the universe is wrong, because you haven't arrived at Blue. And by the way, God, because only God can be or create such perfect and profound Blue."

"Infinite" or "Blue" or for that matter "Noisy" or "Holy" or "Squamous." Either way, it doesn't clarify anything. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean anything.

Fan of the Yellow Submarine movie?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Nope, he didn't. You and others may think he did though, it's your opinion.

Grown-ups are talking.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Grown-ups are talking.

Depending on your guys' age, behavior and perception; that'd make me middle-aged, or a genarian.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know? Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

... and then you say I am 200 years behind, compared to medieval philosophical arguments

That is exactly what I am saying.

You claim "God" is omnipotent and "God" is infinity as infinity contains everything. But 1000 years ago philosophers deduced the omnipotence paradox. Your "god" can't create a stone so large he can't pick it up. That logically means "god" cannot be omnipotent and have infinite abilities.

That totally destroys your entire "God is infinity" religion in one go.


What is amazing is that you claim to be a religious philosopher and yet you never heard of this basic premise of religious philosophy.

Omnipotence paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!

No you didn't. You didn't know the omnipotence paradox and you can't spell basic words or write complete sentences.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

But the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, beginningless and everlasting God; could be nothing but the Infinite.

Tsk tsk tsk ......

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in (at) a University, the other in (at) a college, and I almost taught them both!

How embarrassing for you. Philosophy 101 introductory courses specifically discuss the Omnipotence paradox. You just admitted you never heard of it.

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccorm...is-omnipotence

You can now throw out your "God is infinity" religion, as fully debunked from every aspect.

Did you study hamburger flipping "philosophy" at McDonalds Fast Food training University?

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Tsk tsk tsk ......
How embarrassing for you. Philosophy 101 introductory courses specifically discuss the Omnipotence paradox. You just admitted you never heard of it.

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccorm...is-omnipotence

You can now throw out your "God is infinity" religion, as fully debunked from every aspect.

Did you study hamburger flipping "philosophy" at McDonalds Fast Food training University?

I am not going to even raise this so called "paradox", to the level of it worthy to give me bragging rights! What a ridiculously naive notion! To brag about something being destroyed and debunked as a theory or an argument, it has to even be worthy the effort! Do you mean to tell me that nobody has come up with an answer, to this silly argument to put it mildly, ever since it honored the annals of history with its emergence! It took me barely 3 seconds to see the stupidity of that argument!

How naive! Or Medievally! Let's rephrase it:

CAN THE INFINITE TURN ITSELF INTO AN INFINITE STONE AND LIFT ITSELF? LIFT ITSELF WHERE?




Let it be known then, that Taz Anastazio's Infinitism destroyed the serious and Gordian Knot-like argument against God's omnipotence of the so called "Stone Paradox"; in barely 5 seconds, if that, after it was presented to him for the first time; on the day of the Lord Nov. 19, 2019.


Yes it is true, I have never heard of this stupid statement before in my life! Perhaps both of my philosophy professors recognized this so called "paradox" for what it is, total and utter stupidity.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccorm...is-omnipotence

Ha, ha, ha you mean to tell me they STILL scratch their heads over this? This is mindboggling to me. Infinitism is not really a complicated concept. Take out all the extensive analysis on my part, you still have: God is omnipotent and omnipresent, therefore everywhere; therefore God's power and presence extends to infinity -> to make a stone that large it has to be as large as His presence, since it cannot be larger than infinity; and therefore God Himself would have to become the stone with no place to lift Himself, since He would occupy every place to infinity!

Do you have any more "paradoxes" of the caliber and nature of the aforementioned? Keep them coming Chamaquito, I'm having a field day!

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

I am not going to even raise this so called "paradox",

How could you? You never studied philosophy and it is beyond your skill level.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

To brag about something being destroyed and denunked (sic) (The word is "debunked") as a theory

You simply didn't know that your "god" can't be omnipotent. You "god" isn't infinite. Your religion is dead in the water.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Do you mean to tell me that nobody has come up with an answer, to this silly argument

Sooooo,,,,you admit you never studied philosophy and have to ask me why this can't be debunked. You are funny.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

I have never heard of this stupid statement before in my life!

Are you saying it doesn't come up much when you are flipping hamburgers?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

What kind of experiment do you propose would possibly prove the Infinite? When as I have already stated, if the Infinite Itself displayed Itself to us, we still would not be able to comprehend it, our minds would not be able to contain the Infinite knowledge/knowledge of what the Infinite is. We would die. Now do you see why I call your arguments childish chamaquito?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Strange then, that you appear quite able to comprehend "The Infinite", and- I assume- you are not currently dead.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

I've only conceived the idea of the Infinite, I did not claim to have visualized the Infinite in its actuality.

Then how do you know we would die if we saw it?

Are you also admitting that you have no knowledge of what 'the Infinite' is?

You appear to have spent the last 10 years trying to understand something you cannot prove exists, in which no-one except you believes, and which, if you ever were able to experience it directly, would kill you. Do you consider this to be a productive use of your time?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Just because we don't have proof or evidence about something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it does not exist. Skeptics are not deniers, they in the contrary allow more room for doubt, and while leaning pro or against, they still do not dismiss for certain anything till they have undisputed proof/evidence in favor or against. Even the most incredulous of skeptics would not say that the Infinite does not exist, especially when ALL SCIENTIFIC PROOF POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE, and we have no proof of the existence of an absolute origin; in the contrary we logically see the illogic of such a ridiculous notion.

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

Depending on your guys' age, behavior and perception; that'd make me middle-aged, or a genarian.

I'm sure you can find a kid's table to sit at somewhere.

[8enotto]

So if I understand the sheer void where evidence should be is the proof of this infinite whatever.

Restated, our ignorance of its presence is proof it is.

Blind faith. Now that is a sure thing to bet all on.

And again, invoking any god makes this a crackpot religion.

[tazanastazio]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

The highlighted phrases are contradictory.

If you're going to allow a single exception to "Nothing would exist without an origin" then why not just make the universe (or possibly the multiverse) the exception? Why introduce an extra layer, let alone one as nebulous and undefined as "the Infinite"?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

This is an admission, then, that you actually have no evidence and are forced to rely on faulty reasoning instead.
At least we know now.