# Existence

237 posts / 0 new

Like i have said stating how something doesn't exist is not a way for something to exist.its not explaining how it exist" stating something is limited in existence is not explaining the WAY it exist thus is what you have yet to address.

Your OP says nothing about how something exists. It nearly talks about whether or not it exists. Stick to your own OP, god damnit.

These are objective facts stating how something is limited is not a way to exist.stating how something doesn't exist is not a way for something to exist. My op has nothing to do with that truth.still waiting for acknowledgement of this.

First, I think you made that "truth" up.

2, we have not been saying how something does not exist. Your just flipping our words.

To sum up some of my earlier posts, finite object "B" exists after 11:00 am and up to and including 3:00 pm of that same day. It has no first point of existence, and I can prove that mathematically. Therefore, we have a finite object (less than 5 hours old at 3:00 pm) that did not come into existence at any particular point of time. That puts it into a 4th class of your objects. With a rigorous mathematical proof in hand, there is no need to consider your various meandering arguments.

Object b exist after 11 am but you put the restriction that you cant say it came into existence that is like sayin are you alive or dead but you cant say alive even though all the evidence and the circumstances implies that you are alive. That would be a invalid question your original post claimed that it came into existence if you take that out of the equation you are left with object b being a infinte object you cannot measure or calculate its existence.
so greensnake does this not prove that your example is not a 3rd possibility something can exist?

Zero,

Object "B" has no starting point even though it exists at all times after 11:00 am to (and including) 3:00 pm. That is mathematically proven and not subject to doubt. I'm not saying that it never came into existence, which would be absurd given that it does not exist at or before 11:00 am and does exist after 11:00 am. I am saying that there is no first point, no creation time, and that fact can be proven mathematically. There is no doubt. Hence, we have a 4th category in your scheme of things.

"Object "B" has no starting point"

"I'm not saying that it never came into existence, which would be absurd "

Definition of start:
1. come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

2. the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of
something

So by definition and logic for something to start means to come into existence.

Mathematically, it can be shown that object "B" has no definite starting point even though it exists after 11:00 am up to and inclusive of 3:00 pm. However it made the transition between non-existence and existence, it was not by way of a first point in time. Thus, regarding the definition you give for "start," there was no start. There was no first point. Nevertheless, object "B" exists after 11:00 am up to and including 3:00 pm, and it did not exist before 11:00 am or at 11:00 am. How it made that transition I don't know, that being a subtle matter, but a mathematical proof rules out any first point of time for object "B."

so when ever it comes into existence wouldn't be the start time? The transition period, the exact point were object b comes into existence wouldn't be considered the start of existence for object b? I think your confusing not being able to know the start time with object b not having a start time at all but like i said even if i go with what your saying it can still be infinite(which can start, always exist, or to start off as infinite and stop at some point,once infinite stops it is no longer infinite) which always existing and starting is the 2 ways i claim something can exist. Does this not prove that your example is not a 3rd way for something to exist?

ZERO - "so when ever it comes into existence wouldn't be the start time?"

There was no point in time in which it came into existence, and this is why it has no start time. It can't have one. Because if it had a start time---even if we didn't know what it was---we could label it as A. But we can immediately show that even that is false: clearly it already existed at time 11:00AM + (A - 11:00AM)/2 which is earlier than A. This process can be repeated ad infinitum, eliminating all possible points as being the start time. This is why it can't have a start time.

"There was no point in time in which it came into existence,"

Greensnake clearly claims that it does

"I'm not saying that it never came into existence, which would be absurd "

Oh no, read closely: I never said it didn't come into existence, I said there is no point in time in which it came into existence, which is what Greensnake said. You have to abandon this "point in time/starting point" idea. It's doomed.

/e You might wonder why Greensnake and I agree on all this stuff. It isn't a conspiracy, it isn't ideology, I've hardly even talked to him. It's mathematics, plain and simple.

Sorry if my wording confused you. A more accurate expression, versions of which I have used in other posts, would be: "Object B exists AFTER 11:00 am but not at 11:00 am or before it." In a loose sense it "comes into existence" as the clock passes 11:00 am, but you should not take that to mean that there is an actual point of time when this happened. Mathematically, that's impossible.

"but like i said even if i go with what your saying it can still be infinite(which can start, always exist, or to start off as infinite and stop at some point,once infinite stops it is no longer infinite) which always existing and starting is the 2 ways i claim something can exist. Does this not prove that your example is not a 3rd way for something to exist?"

How many times did you tell us an object must always existed or have a starting point(and how many times did you insult me when I told you that was incorrect)? Let's see:
---------------------------------------
ZERO:

"that cycle would have to have a starting point"

"god would have to have a starting point or always exist"

"energy would have to have a starting point or always exist"

"universe or a multiverse would have to have a starting point"

"infinite cycle can only exist 2 ways a starting point or always exist"

"That is apart of my starting point claim."

"My definition of created is something that has a starting point."

"Either it has a starting point,it always existed, or nothing exist"

"EVERYTHING for example has only 2 possibilities of existence ethier they have starting points or they always existed."

"he only said 2 way something that is infinite and something that has a starting point which is my 2 ways"

"So its 3 possibilities and only 2 are in existence object 2 would have to have a starting point, always exist or it doesn't exist at all."

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

"you can't say somthing is limited in existence and have no start time"

"But still created and starting point means the same thing"

"if it has no starting point then that implies that it is not truly limited in existence"

"so the claim of a object that is finite in existence but has no starting point is just an invalid example"

-----------------------------------------
At this point I have to recommend you begin fresh again, because you have said so many demonstrably false things I can't make heads or tails out of your claim. I can't tell what false claims you are still making (if any) and which ones you have abandoned.

Zero,

Where do you get this infinite stuff? Object "B" exists from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (but not at 11:00 am). There is nothing infinite about it's existence! There are no infinite time spans involved.

Definition of start:
1. come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

2. the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of
something

You say your going off math im going off objective truth cold hard facts the definition of start is to come into existence its no way around it.

ZERO - "You say your going off math im going off objective truth"

LOL, I'll take calculus over what you think is the "objective truth" any day of the week, at any odds.

Definition of start:
1. come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

2. the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of
something

"Oh no, ready closely: I never said it didn't come into existence, I said there is no point in time in which it came into existence"

"There was no point in time in which it came into existence, and this is why it has no start time"

TO COME INTO EXISTENCE MEAN TO "START" BY DEFINITION YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESS THIS BIG HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT!

That definition is wrong.

Start
noun
1.
the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of something.

This does not fit your argument, ZERO.

The first definition of start is to come into existence so "MY" definition is not wrong.

verb
1.
come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

That's as a verb. Not as a noun. And yes, it matters.

Zero,

See my post on 09/04/2016 15:25 to clarify this point. There IS NO point of time, i.e. start time, for object "B" and that fact is proven mathematically. Indeed, Nyarlathotep gave you one version of that simple proof. Therefore, it is a fact of life and no argument you can come up with can overturn it. The proof is in and it's a done deal! If you wish to remain rational, Zero, you have to accept that fact.

It's a given fact that object "B" exists after 11:00 am until 3:00 pm; it is a mathematically proven fact that object "B" HAS NO STARTING POINT where it came into existence. It follows, with mathematical certainty, that some objects can move chronologically from a time of non-existence to a time of existence WITHOUT a specific starting time. However strange that may seem to you, however mysterious and contrary to common sense it appears to be, it follows directly from the mathematical proof whose idea Nyarlathotep gave.

Exactly which the verb is the action and the noun would just be the name and the verb being the action. Does this not prove the way that you are using the word start is not a way for it to exist?

Anoun is a person, place, or thing. Not "just a name".

"Anoun is a person, place, or thing."

It is used to identify a person, place or thing But is not a action.where as you state that object b comes into existence which the first definition of start which is a verb is to come into existence so does this not prove you are using the wrong definition of start?

This entire thing reeks of subjectivity.

Xavier de Forres - "This entire thing reeks of subjectivity."

Exactly. So long as ZERO continues to ignore mathematics in favor of his "objective truth(s)" the whole thing is doomed to being subject to his whims.

## 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.