# Existence

237 posts / 0 new

"ENDLESS"! Like i said your intelligent is questionable!!!

Its arc length is infinite because it is not calculable, just like you said.

FINALLY so its infinite therefore proving to not be a 3rd possibility for existance.

WHAT?! THAT PROVES PERFECTLY THAT IT IS A 3RD POSSIBILITY!

"Its arc length is infinite"
Is infinte not one of the two ways i have claimed somthing can exist? or am i talking to people who cant, literally incapable of thinking objectively.

Andrewcgs - "FINALLY so its infinite therefore proving to not be a 3rd possibility for existance."

Remember I posted this example in direct response to your false statements (below), it was not one meant to be sorted into your two categories. I did post several other examples that don't fit into your two categories (which you have yet to address).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrewcgs - "Infinite can have a starting point( combining the 2 ways i have stated) for example starting now until forever that can be considered infinite but it cannot stop at any point or it will no longer be infinite."

The arc length of -1/t from t=-1 to t=0 is infinite, has a starting point, and stops. Back to the drawing board!

"The arc length of -1/t from t=-1 to t=0 is infinite, has a starting point, and stops. Back to the drawing board!"

Your proving my original point that something has to be infinite which you have redefined the definition of infinite where my understanding was that it would have to start or always exist you added the idea of it stopping at some point but still doesn't take away to my orginal point for something to EXIST lol your example only works because you stated the 2 ways i claim something exist IF YOU TAKE THEM OUT YOU HAVE NO WAY FOR YOUR EXAMPLE TO EXIST therefore still haven't made a valid argument for a 3RD WAY for something to exist not the 2 ways that i have already claimed.

Andrewcgs - "lol your example only works because you stated the 2 ways i claim something exist IF YOU TAKE THEM OUT YOU HAVE NO WAY FOR YOUR EXAMPLE TO EXIST"

So let me get this straight: you're complaining that I followed the guidelines you set?
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrewcgs - "you have redefined the definition of infinite"

Now that is just not true.
-------------------
Andrewcgs - "therefore still haven't made a valid argument for a 3RD WAY"

You seem to have forgotten these:

the graph of t^(1/2)/t between t=0 and t=1. It is finite, but has no start point.

The area under sin(1/t)/t is finite and has no start point.

You have claimed infinite has the capabilities to stop which is no part of the definition. But i rest my case on that.

You only state that it is limited in existence and have no start time in BOTH examples ,i see no explanation of HOW it exist or the explanation of how it exist you just stating how it doesn't. How something doesn't exist is not a WAY for something to exist and really think you got valid examples and proved me wrong when the reality is you havent even been close! as i have said to you before you critical thinking skills need improvement based on this!

"You have claimed infinite has the capabilities to stop which is no part of the definition."

If you don't think something infinite can stop consider the graph of sqrt(-t), it is infinite and it stops, check the graph yourself: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=graph+sqrt%28-t...

I'm still waiting for you to address this very interesting example: the area under the curve of sin(1/t))/t. It has several peculiar properties:

1. it has no start: no matter how far back you go in time, it exists
2. it has no end: no matter how far forward you go into time, it exists.
3. it is finite (it has a value of exactly pi≈3.14)

Like i said explaining how something doesn't exist is not a way for something to exist this example is not a 3rd way for something to exist its only stating it has no start time and is finite your not explaining the WAY IT EXIST once you do that then its a valid argument.

I don't understand your complaint: "your not explaining the WAY IT EXIST". It's the area under a curve, I even linked you a graph.

For example if an object is limited in existence a WAY for it to exist is to have a starting point.what do you mean by "its the area under the curve"that just stating were it is located not how it exist.

Andrewcgs - "The definition of infinite 'limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.'

something that is infinite would have to always exist or its not infinite..."

We've already given you examples where that is false.

Andrewcgs,

Let me just say that object "B" (see my later post to reference this post) does not "start." All we can say is that it exists AFTER 11:00 am. But, that existence does not begin at a particular point in time! Therefore, no creation date for that finite object! It seems to defy common sense because it is a kind of paradox. Its truth, though, is not the least in question. The best way to understand it in a non-mathematical manner is to see if you can come up with a legitimate starting date. If you make that effort, you should soon see why there can't be a starting date.

As to Nyarlathotep example i would classify object b as infinite as you cannot measure or impossible to measure would still be in the category of 1 of the 2 ways i have claimed.im telling you this is a universal system that works with everything you can imagine.

@ Andrewcgs

The word "created" automatically implies a creator. It's a "loaded" word.
Why not just say something that does not have hidden implications? Like "came into existence", "became", "materialize", "burst forth", "sprung out", etc.

I GOT YOU GREENSNAKE.
1 of my possibilities are infinite and you are using a timeline for that that possibility were it is timeless. I think in your example you are only considering something that has a start time and not something that is infinite which cannot be put on a timeline your example is invalid!

If anyone requested an example of casuistry, I would wholeheartedly recommend this thread.

Andrewcgs,

It's probably better if I recast the whole idea. At exactly 11:00 am on a certain day object "A" comes into existence, and it is still existing at 3 pm that day. Object "B" exists at exactly the same times EXCEPT for 11:00 am. That is, it has not yet come into existence at 11:00 am.

If you try to find the exact time that object "B" came into existence, you would soon (hopefully) realize that whatever time you choose would be wrong. It's a paradox, but there IS NO FIRST POINT of time for object "B" even though it did not exist on or before 11:00 am.!! By your definition, it was not created since that would happen at a very specific point in time, the very first point in time that the object existed. So, we have the 4th possibility--a finite object that was not created.

"Object "B" exists at exactly the same times EXCEPT for 11:00 am"

So what ever time object b came into existence wouldn't be the start time? and you state that it come into existence which is one of my 2 ways for something to exist weather you know when is not important which proves this is not a 3rd possibility for existance.

Remember you told us:

Andrewcgs - "if a object is finite in existence that would mean it has a starting point"

Clearly this is false.

I am humble enough to admit when i am wrong a charter trait that i have yet to see in you which i can very well bring up quotes were you was flat out wrong but you probably wont address it anyway so i wont stoop to those childish games.BUT by definition that is accurate so i wont even say i was wrong necessarily.

Object "B" exists after 11:00 am. We can say that much, but we cannot say that it came into existence at some particular time. If you try out some possible times you may see my point after a while.

Object b fits into the category of being infinite because you cannot measure it, it is impossible to calculate but if it exist after 11 am doesn't that imply that it has a starting point? and not knowing the exact time is irrelevant because you know it came into existence after 11 am idk why you can't say object b has a starting point when that is exactly what the circumstances is implying.from my understanding object b came into existence after 11 am and the exact time is not important.

Zero,

Object "B" is infinite?? It's not older than 4 hours, so how can it be infinite? Existing after 11:00 am does not imply that "B" has a specific starting point. It is not a matter of not being able to figure out the starting time. There IS NO starting point! I can prove that mathematically. I'm not guessing or imagining stuff.

My example is a mathematical fact as certain as 2+2=4 but a bit more subtle. This is not idle speculation! If you still see an error then you are either: 1) misreading my example; 2) assuming something that shouldn't be assumed; 3) reasoning incorrectly. Examples like this are why mathematicians insist on rigor. Common sense doesn't always work.

A summary of what has been discussed:

1.Something can always exist(infinite can work in 3 ways it can always exist, a starting point or a end point but only 2 ways to exist which is to always exist or a starting point.)

2.something can have a starting point (infinite can work in 3 ways it can always exist, a starting point or a end point but only 2 ways to exist which is to always exist or a starting point.)

3.something doesn't always exist(which is not infinite) how something doesn't exist is not a way for it to exist.how can something always exist? Having no start period which is number 1.

4. Something doesn't have a starting point(which is finite) its not explaining how it exist but only states that it is limited in existence.How can something be limited in existence? That would be a starting point which is number 2.

This proves that 3 and 4 are not other ways for something to exist. 3 and 4 only states to not exist in the 2 ways i claim to be the only ways for something to exist. I have corrected places were i feel i might have been off going off the general definition. I would like to know is this accurate and is there any holes in this argument.

You need to abaonded that "its not explaining how it exist"; since the example I gave clearly describes where it exists. I have no idea what you are trying to do with that.

But more importantly, you need to incorporate the follow facts somehow into your "system", because if you don't, it will be a trivial task for any calculus student to manufacture an infinite number of counter examples:

1) something can exist on any interval of time and be infinite.
2) something can exist on any interval of time and be finite.
3) something can start and stop as many times and needed and still be infinite.
4) something can start and stop as many times as needed and be finite.
5) something can have no starting point and be infinite.
6) something can have no starting point and be finite.
7) something can have no ending point and be infinite.
8) something can have no ending point and be finite.

Since I can mathematically prove that there is no starting point for object "B" (a finite object) it must be the case that your argument above is wrong. You have either misstated something, incorrectly assumed something, or reasoned incorrectly. Mathematics doesn't lie and the proof is not hard. Since I have a mathematical proof, there is no need to even look at your argument. It is either confused or wrong, those being the only possibilities left. Thus, we have the 4th possibility that you overlooked.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.