the_answer The Truth The Answer to the question about infinite is this: Einstein prooved to us that Newton's laws of thermonuclear dynamics are accurate. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every occurance, in other words, there is a reason for that occurance. Ok? So what does this have to do with infinite? Simply this: If every reaction was caused by a previous action, then those systems would form trails of traceable events leading back to the Origin, right? For example, if you look at set up of dominoes, push one over, the next one falls, then that pushes over the next one, and so on. And if you saw a string of already toppled dominoes, you would be able to assertain what happened by tracing back the events of fallen dominoes to that first domino. This is the same reasoning we used to acquire the Big Bang knowledge. If you had a circular domino tract, they would not fall down forever. They would need to be resurrected before the cycle could continue. So since we live in a domino reality of action-reaction, there must be an unseen force that lays out the domino pattern, and that sets up domioes once they have fallen. And! there must be an original force to push over that first domino. Now, the universe is much more complex than any domino set up imaginable, and yet it retains it's perfect balance, glorious beauty and harmony ceaslessly! All living things can be traced to once source or cell. All stellar things can be traced to one source or point. The pattern of the universe's history, if diagrammed, would look more like a tree than a circle. A circle is infinite, while trees are unique, and structured. The order of the universe stems back to a definite beginning point, therefore our universe is not infinite, it can only be an extension of the source, which is infinite, God, perfect order, whatever you want to call it. So each component of the systems of the universe came into being as a direct reaction from a previous action. And so on and so forth back until you have a single and solitary action which started it all. That initial action must have been precisely calculated in order to bring about the exact results that it did. In otherwords, the endless beauty and complexity of the perfect balance of the universe doesn't just happen by accident, ya dig? 010411 ... mpayton "That initial action must have been precisely calculated in order to bring about the exact results that it did." -The Truth That is incorrect. 010411 ... The Truth Prove it? 010412 ... kx21 Refer to Q_As... 010412 ... kx21 How do you prove "Time really exists"? 010412 ... mpayton The Truth, I'm sorry, I didn't think I needed to prove my statements. But that I mean since you were not proving your statements, I thought this was some kind of "Make bold but unproven statements topic" Welcome to Philosophy 110, "Introduction to Logic": Fallacies of logic: Affirming the Consequent: Definition: Any argument of the following form is invalid: If A then B B Therefore, A examples: #1 (if A then B) When it rains, the grass gets wet. (B) The grass is wet. (Therefore, A) Therefore, it has rained. #2 (if A then B) A thinking and planning entity can create moving objects. (B) moving objects exist. (therefore, A) Therefore, A thinking and planning entity must exist. quod erat demonstrandum 010412 ... daylitedreamer i know the answer. the answer is love. i dont know who is asking.. that's the question 010412 ... babel fish forty_two 010413 ... The Truth Well, I wasn't really asking you to prove it, I left a subtle (?) at the end of the statement that you interpreted as a command. I was simply illustrating a point about God/Life/The Universe/Time... You can NOT definitively, categorically PROVE any of these things, nor can you definitively, categorically DISPROVE any these things. They are only the containers of our reality. 010413 ... mpayton sure you can. In the bible, god 'proves' he exists a lot. And I 'proved' your statements wrong by a very simple proof. 010413 ... kx21 All Proofs are based on unproven assumption(s). e.g. Proofs of God, Time, all physical laws and theories (e.g. e=mc**2), M_Theory, etc... All proofs / answers are questionable... Tell me The_Truth, and I can prove that how wonder you are... 010414 ... mpayton kx21, what part of my proof, of Mr. Truth's statements were incorrect, was based upon unproven assumptions? 010414 ... kx21 Each Definition is a very unique and special assumption... Which is the most powerful entity in U? God or Nothing? 010415 ... kx21 Is Logic relevant / applicable to Everything in U? 010415 ... mpayton Is God or nothing my only choice? I live in a world based upon rules. You may call these rules logic if you like. I can pretend these rules need not apply to me, but even if I do, the will still apply to the real world in which I live. So, if you wish to call these real world rules logic then yes, the are applicable to everything. 010415 ... Casey The answer to everthing in the universe and all exictense is...42 (Hitchikers Guild To The Galaxy) 010415 ... mpayton Casey, You my friend, are correct. See Also: 42. 010416 ... The Truth wow... you sound confused. Your "proofs" demonstrated absolutely nothing. Perhaps the fact that they were incomprehensible may have something to do with it. Or perhaps you are far more intelligent than I am and I simply couldn't grasp your statement's relavence. But I doubt it, since you contradicted yourself many times...My logic leads me to believe that you are confused. 010416 ... The Truth You see, you cannot make a stament like "Your statements are incorrect" and not include an accompanying explanation, if you'd like to retain any sort of respectful currency. Your Intro to Logic textbook excerpts were a nice touch, but they failed to credit this discussion with any sort of relavant substance. My only assumption was that this is a "conversation", and now I may wonder if this assumption is incorrect because I seem to be the only one participating. It is as if you did not read/understand my statements, yet you commented on them anyway. 010416 ... mpayton Mr. Truth. Do you understand this? Any argument of the following form is invalid: If A then B B Therefore, A Now, I will type slowly here. Your initial "answer" .. is .. in .. that .. form. Therefore, it is .. well, invalid. Ya dig? 010416 ... Pythagorus mpayton, I am amazed at your immense difficulty to understand The Truth. However, the juevenile tone embedded within your words will assuredly not help you out. Maybe I should explain it in simpler terms: Use that scroll bar on the right hand side of your screen (or the mouse wheel, if you have one) and move it up until the top of this page is visible. Then, begin reading, and re-reading until you realize one of two things: Either A)that you've misdiagnosed his argument, or B) you ____actually, I wont say it (but it was funny!). At no time, whatsoever does The Truth's statement follow the definition you've provided. If the Universe is based on physics, and physics are based on action-reaction LAWS ( You see, LAWS kinda cancels out the IF part, heh? get it?), and that can be compared to a succession of dominoes, That MUST mean, the universe can be compared to a succession of dominoes!! OK! So, the actual formula for this argument is (A + B) + C = D There is no "if" necessary in his (or her) statement!! I just checked again, just to make sure I don't make any mistakes and yes!! It's simple arithmetic. CAN YOU DIG IT? 010416 ... mpayton Mr. Truth's argument is really just St. Thomas Aquinas "First Mover" notion. Which is taken from Aristotle's notion of a Prime Mover. Mr. Truth, seeing how he just copied his entire work from St. Thomas Aquinas makes the same mistake that he made. He is attempting to prove the existence of a all power entity by describing that entities qualities. Which in no way demonstrates anything, and is called "Affirming the Consequent". There has been volume's of work try to support St. Thomas Aquinas and his First Mover notion and an equal if not greater volume of work proving him wrong. I do not feel like repeating all of it here. 010417 ... The Truth Actually, I don't think it's A+B+C=D, I don't think you can prove (Mathimatically, or scientifically) that these things exist: GOD LIFE UNIVERSE TIME You can only use logic to prove these. They are only containers for our reality, by that I mean our existence is contained inside of God, inside of life, inside the universe, and inside of time. There may be scholarly debates about these topics, and famous philosphers may have similar arguments as mine, but I can't comment on those because I really haven't studied them, and it would be ignorant of me to pretend that I know anything about the subject. All of my philosophy comes from within, usually through marijuana induced introspection and thoughts about God, When I would deeply, deeply think about God, about how wonderful and creative he is, These philosophies would sort of just come to me, in the form of answers, and I believe them. I no longer wish to debate them. 010417 ... sabbie its easy. weve all been taught it since before primary school. grow up. go to university. get a job. get married. have kids. live happily ever after. die. it always works on tv 010417 ... mpayton Mr. Truth, But it was just getting good. 010417 ... kx32 The_Truth:- Any logical answer will generate new logical / illogical Q_As... 010419 ... The Truth Good things are best when they are finished. 010430 ... The Truth Arguments_about_the_Answer can not be a part of the answer. They are only a part of the question 010430 ... kx21 Give me any Answer with no further Q_As. And I will tell you how wonder you are 010430 ... lost Wow, I'm stunned, two people, at blather, on the internet, on the Earth, in the Milky Way, In who knows what part of the universe, have just tried to understand several questions that cannot be answered at the present time. And here I was thinking that all the people in the world would rather talk about a reality television series then debate the mysteries of the universe and in such a polite and decent way if I might add, what with all the previous philosophical research and quotations. Shame on me. But don't stop now, I've been racking my brain to find out what the Meaning Of Life is, maybe you two may help me indirrectly. -Lost 010626 ... Sol the light on the willow on the moonless night. 010626 ... Dafremen The steam from the crock of crap from which arose said civil discussion of philisophical nonsense. 010626 ... Sol re: Truth, are you arguing that every single occurance has taken place as a direct result of a previous one, and that it is only possible for an action to happen if one has led up to it? If that is the case then the evident flaw to my eyes is that the original action must be due to a previous action, and on ad infinitum, having no start. If not then the 'laws' which you have used to justify your case are incomplete and must allow for actions (or at least one action) that has occurred singly without past to bring it to occurr, thereby indicating that a direct line of action is not present to be followed back to a starting point, as there is a possibility that along the 'line' another unaccompanied incident has occurred. explain? 010626 ... dB I am still of the opinion that you can't rationally argue the existance of god. To those who believe, he does. To those who don't believ, he doesn't. As for ALL events leading into each other... bollocks. Some do, somw don't. That is all. 010626 ... that damn bird at the top of the page: "Einstein prooved to us that Newton's laws of thermonuclear dynamics are accurate. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every occurance, in other words, there is a reason for that occurance" Ahem. ~cough cough~(well it was either that or fall out of my chair laughing at how poorly researched that statement was) Newton had no concept of "thermonuclear dynamics", Becquerel and Curie et cie, were the first to come across the concept of radioactive emission (radiation being a key factor in the cause of any thermonuclear reaction) you've just served to further insure that i will place little faith in further efforts to prove (or proove, for that matter) that this