# Existence

237 posts / 0 new

Lol i am not ignoring math but you haven't addressed but ignore the glaring holes in your argument

"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?"

The proof is complete, Zero. It's like 2+2=4. If you still want to believe that there are holes in 2+2=4, then you will have proven something after all--that you are mentally incompetent. Let me put the proof into a somewhat more formal form:

Given that object "B" exists AFTER 11:00 am and ceases to exist AFTER 3:00 pm of the same day, prove that it has no starting point. That is, prove that it does not come into existence at any point in time, that it has no first point of existence in time.

Assume that there is a starting time for object "B." Call that starting time t0 and define it as: t0 = 11:00 am + t. (That is, the starting time t0 (if it exists) occurs t minutes after 11:00 am, where t is any real number.) Now, consider time t1 defined as: t1 = 11:00 am + t/2. Since t0 - t1 is positive, [i.e. (11:00 am + t) - (11:00 am + t/2) = t/2 > 0], t1 happened BEFORE t0. And, t1 also happened after 11:00 am. But no point in object "B" can come before t0 because we defined t0 as the starting point. (If there is a starting point, it must be t0) Yet, t1 is in object "B" and comes before t0. Therefore, we have a contradiction, meaning that the original assumption (that there is a starting point for object "B") is false.

Therefore, you have the 4th case that you asked us for.

ZERO - Lol i am not ignoring math

Actually you have repeatedly ignored it, but hopefully by this you mean you will stop doing it. Which would be a good thing.
-----------------------------------------
ZERO - "the glaring holes in your argument"

We aren't really presenting arguments, we are presenting proofs by counter-example.
---------------------------------------------------------
ZERO - "once infinite stops it is no longer infinite"

That statement is demonstrably false. We've already given you several counter-examples that demonstrate this. This is not a good sign in regards to your pledge that you are not ignoring math. A simple example is sqrt(-t + 2). It has an infinite length and it stops at time = 2. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=0kn&channel=fs&q=graph+sq...
---------------------------------------------------------
Finally, could you please restate the current incarnation of your argument. Right now it is pretty undecipherable. Please use short sentences and be explicit.

I think its not the math its the general definition of words that YOU guys are misunderstanding even though i do not know trigonometry and that is not simple math.

the biggest point in my argument is that it has to "START" which the verb definition of start is to come into existence. So weather or not its has a certain time it comes into existence which i don't even know why i debated that point because its not important.the point of it being created, to come into existence is what important about object b. so you have a problem with the word start the verb definition of it and that definition of start would be to be created to come into existence and by definition that fits into the 2 categorys i have claimed something to exist either to "START"
Or to always exist which is proof that this is not a 3rd way for something to exist because it fits in the category of 2 ways i have already explained.is this not proof?

Nyarlathotep
You made a statement earlier in the thread that no matter what your are talking about in this system i can widen the scope or something, which is my point no matter what you do everything you can imagine applies to this philosophy even the impossible!

ZERO: So weather or not its has a certain time it comes into existence which i don't even know why i debated that point because its not important.

If it isn't important then you probably shouldn't have told us that everything either always existed or was created, and that created meant it had a starting point!

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

Garbage in, garbage out.

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

The definition of start is to come into existence.

The definition of create is to come into existence

So they have the same meaning so start can mean create and create can mean to start so i wasnt wrong but whats is important is the meaning of both words which would be to come into existence.is this not proof that object b is not a 3rd possibility for something to exist?

You've made so many false statements, self contradictions, and alterations to your argument that I have asked you to please restate it clearly and carefully. So far you have ignored this request.

Really i havent my original point was that its only 2 possibilities for something to exist.

To always exist or to start/be created which means to "COME INTO EXISTANCE" you have denied this claim with so many false examples and contradictions. My stance has been solid this whole time, on side topics i might have changed my stance but on the topic of this thread and my original point i have made clear and have proven multiple of times.

ZERO: My stance has been solid this whole time

VS.

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

ZERO: to start/be created which means to "COME INTO EXISTANCE"

Until you abandon one of those definitions, you are in contradiction.

How is that a contradiction when start and create means the same thing? I think your just trolling now not humble enough to admit that you are wrong!

The same thing, eh?

I started a building.
I created a race(the running kind).

Do those make any sense to you?

DEF1: My definition of created is something that has a starting point.

DEF2: to start/be created which means to "COME INTO EXISTANCE"

ZERO: How is that a contradiction when start and create means the same thing?

Hey, we just spent several pages explaining this! One last try:

According to DEF1: object (A) which came into existence but which has no starting point, is not created.
According to DEF2: object (A) which came into existence but which has no starting point, is created.

Therefore: DEF1 ≠ DEF2.

The simplest solution is just to abandon one of them. In any case you need to do something, because this is a contradiction.

DEF1: My definition of created is something that has a starting point.

DEF2: to start/be created which means to "COME INTO EXISTANCE

They both mean to come into existence i dont know what your talking about i already gave you the definition they are just worded differently both definitions mean to be creatd and to start which both definitions means to come into existence.

Start- to come into existence

Create- to come into existence

I dont even know why i keep letting you bait me in to this point when i have already explained that whats important is the definition of both words which you have yet to address. Once you address that you will realize that you have no were to go in your argument.

But, the two are for different situations, and are the fore not interchangeable.

The can be the same situation which would be to come into existence which is the definition of both words wouldn't that be the same situation?

The mathematical proof is in, Zero, so there's nothing more to discuss regarding your original proposition. Your proposition of 3 possible cases is certifiably wrong. It is a fact (now proven) that a finite object need not have a starting or creation point. Therefore, you have a 4th category to your classification system.

Admit that you were wrong or play the role of a fool who is blissfully unaware of what a mathematical proof means!

Well Greensnake's suggestion presents a 3rd way so long as you continue to endorse DEF1, which you just did. So case closed.

To come into existence is not a 3rd possibility
Your math is off buddy! That is in the 2 ways i claim something can exist.

So if i use the word "start" which means to come into existence the definition is more important than the word.

"It is a fact (now proven) that a finite object need not have a starting or creation point."

Now you just starting to sound crazy because your argument was that its impossible to measure the start point not that object b didn't have one at all. Object b came into existence after 11 am which is the starting point Weather or not you can know the exact time is irrelevant.
Coming into existence is one of the categories i stated something can exist. Is this not proof that your example is not a 3 way for something to exist?

If you are building a car, your not going to say "Guess what! I started a car!" You say "Guess what! I'm creating a car!"

Likewise, if your in a marathon, you won't say "I created the race!" When you start running. You will say "I started the race!"

Different words for different scenarios.

Coming into existence is not a 3rd way for something to exist.

What your math has proven that object b is impossible to calculate its starting point not that object b doesn't have one at all.

When will you address that start means to come into existence and that object b comes into existence?

And yet you ignore my pointing out of your grammatically incorrect thinking. Shame on you!

ZERO: What your math has proven that object b is impossible to calculate its starting point not that object b doesn't have one at all.

This is incorrect. You need to reread Greensnake's proof. Remember he didn't try to calculate the starting point. He just assumed it had a starting point and labelled it as (11:00 am + t), then showed that this assumption leads to a contradiction. Therefore the assumption that it has a starting point MUST be false. We have explained this to you several times now.

Lol even if it doesn't have a starting point which is irrelevant it still comes into existence which is my biggest point which i have explained multiple times and you have yet to address.

ZERO: Lol even if it doesn't have a starting point which is irrelevant...

I think it would be irrelevant except that is how you defined created (DEF1):

ZERO: My definition of created is something that has a starting point

The sad thing is all you need to do to fit Greensnakes example into your 2 category system is to abandon DEF1, but you continue to refuse. There really isn't much more to say until you do so (or change something else to remove this contradiction).

Lol i have already explained that start by definition means to come into existence
so to come into existence is the most important part of the argument which is the definition of start will you address that fact please!

Please be clear. Are you abandoning DEF1?

/e:

Zero: to come into existence is the most important part of the argument

If that is the case, then you should probably abandon DEF1 since it contradicts "the most important part of your argument".

Start means to come into existence when will you address that and admit that green snake example is not 3rd way for something to exist? and how is that a contradiction the definition of start and create means to come into existence i don't know why you can't understand such a trivial meaning of words.

If you are building a car, your not going to say "Guess what! I started a car!" You say "Guess what! I'm creating a car!"

you could say i started to build a old school car.

Likewise, if your in a marathon, you won't say "I created the race!" When you start running. You will say "I started the race!"

You could say i created a new race style for people in wheel chairs.

So like you said
Different words for different scenarios.

The scenario we are talking about is to come into existence which start and create both have that definition.you would have to use the words the right way for it to apply if you use the wrong definition of a word then of course what ever the topic is could change.BUT YET!

When will you address that start means to come into existence and that object b comes into existence?

When will you address that you cannot use start and create at the same time for this topic?

When will you address that coming into existence is the definition of both words which is not a 3rd way for something to exist?

## 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.