How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

[Neverbeendead]

In your logic a big crunch can take time and space and matter out existence.
In your logic a big bang can give existence to the absense of time and space and matter.
So let’s call the absense of time and space and matter situation A.

Situation A took everything that exists, time and space and matter out of existence or is non existence itself.
So how can something that doesn’t even exist be a big bang that creates existing things there where there is nothing existent? It can’t.
It’s like saying: God does not exist but you you better do what he says because you don’t want to make him mad.
But i’ll follow your wrong logic one more time.
This time we add fixed coordinates to space. Infinite space is the maximum amount of space and every point in it has a coordinate. It is written down as (X,Y,Z) and the letters represent mathematical numbers.
And so the entire infinite space is every fixed coordinate where X and Y and Z go from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Nobody can map them all because it is a process that takes forever, if Google maps includes space the job is never done.
But let’s assume a Google maps that has them all. And assume that it can guarantee fixed coordinates because this special google maps does not need to put a marker at the point (0,0,0) to remember where that point exactly is so that every point is without question fixed.
Now let’s go back to my previous post about person B1 and person B2 and let’s say that they tun out to be a mile away from each other according to this special google maps with guaranteed fixed coordinates.
Then person B1 could go to the coordinates of person B2 if he had them to check if person B2 is there. If not, then he already knows that person B2 is not thinking like him at the same time. He then knows that person B2 is thinking the same as him in the place where he is standing at a point in history of that place or at a point in the future of that place.
And if it is in the near future all he has to do is wait in that place to see person B2 coming in to do some same thinking.
And so the conclusion in my previous post remains the same.

 

[Candide_West]

Situation A took everything that exists, time and space and matter out of existence or is non existence itself.
So how can something that doesn’t even exist be a big bang that creates existing things there where there is nothing existent? It can’t.

? I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to claim that the big crunch is impossible? Or that the big bang is? Or something else?

In any case, remember we need to be careful with claiming things to be impossible. Especially when they are well supported by evidence (like the big bang).

It’s like saying: God does not exist but you you better do what he says because you don’t want to make him mad.

I’ve heard that one before from theists trying to convince me to convert funnily enough. It’s rather off topic though.

But i’ll follow your wrong logic one more time.

Once again, you are giving me far too much credit. These are theories worked out by some of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. I’ve learned to understand them, but none of this work is “mine”.

This time we add fixed coordinates to space. Infinite space is the maximum amount of space and every point in it has a coordinate. It is written down as (X,Y,Z) and the letters represent mathematical numbers.
And so the entire infinite space is every fixed coordinate where X and Y and Z go from minus infinity to plus infinity.

Well here we kinda hit another problem. We don’t know if space is infinite or not. Equally, as far as we can tell space appears to be expanding. So space itself is moving outwards and you can’t consider it to be fixed.

The other problem is as I said the space itself warps around gravity. So does your co-ordinate system bend with it or ignore it? Either way you have problems with mapping.*

Nobody can map them all because it is a process that takes forever, if Google maps includes space the job is never done.
But let’s assume a Google maps that has them all. And assume that it can guarantee fixed coordinates because this special google maps does not need to put a marker at the point (0,0,0) to remember where that point exactly is so that every point is without question fixed.

Well here we hit another problem, how do you fix a point on a scale (space) when space itself is expanding? What does “fixed” even mean in this context?*

Now let’s go back to my previous post about person B1 and person B2 and let’s say that they tun out to be a mile away from each other according to this special google maps with guaranteed fixed coordinates.
Then person B1 could go to the coordinates of person B2 if he had them to check if person B2 is there. If not, then he already knows that person B2 is not thinking like him at the same time. He then knows that person B2 is thinking the same as him in the place where he is standing at a point in history of that place or at a point in the future of that place.
And if it is in the near future all he has to do is wait in that place to see person B2 coming in to do some same thinking.

I’m not sure what this is trying to say. If you are talking about the separate universes you were talking about in your previous posts then this really doesn’t work.*

And so the conclusion in my previous post remains the same.

The conclusion of your previous post was that something impossible has happened. I think I’ve shown why this conclusion doesn’t make any sense.*

Let me know if you need more explanation.

 

[Neverbeendead]

In your logic a big crunch can take time and space and matter out existence.
In your logic a big bang can give existence to the absense of time and space and matter.
So let’s call the absense of time and space and matter situation A.

Situation A took everything that exists, time and space and matter out of existence or is non existence itself.
So how can something that doesn’t even exist be a big bang that creates existing things there where there is nothing existent? It can’t.

? I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to claim that the big crunch is impossible? Or that the big bang is? Or something else?

In any case, remember we need to be careful with claiming things to be impossible. Especially when they are well supported by evidence (like the big bang).

Here you only explain your belief that only logical things have happened and that only logical things will ever happen so that whatever people are about to discover, they can already attribute that to it before all their upcoming discoveries.
And so here you only explain that when something that doesn’t even exist is responsible for something that exists only something plain, simple and logical has happened.
But that is not the case as i had written before.
And as far as the fixed coordinates go: When you say that space is not infinite you can also assume for a second that every non existing space behind the boundaries of non infinite space tomorrow gets the gift of what your big bangs can do so that tomorrow space is infinite and then this special Google maps makes a list of every coordinate in infinite space. Special enough to let you search it so that it always tells you which coordinates are existent and which have become non existent or ex coordinates. For example: ex coordinate (556773238I,8765655645565,-9776455495).
And while he always knows their name for what it is compared to the infinite different others or all different others, he has each one fixed because he is special enough not to need a marker for the (0,0,0) point and so my previous post is still correct just like every other post.

 

[Candide_West]

Here you only explain your belief that only logical things have happened and that only logical things will ever happen so that whatever people are about to discover, they can already attribute that to it before all their upcoming discoveries.

Afraid I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re referring to impossible things being impossible then I stand by that statement. If your claim is that impossible things can happen, then you have made the word “impossible” meaningless.*

And so here you only explain that when something that doesn’t even exist is responsible for something that exists only something plain, simple and logical has happened.

I have said nothing of the sort. As I explained, we don’t know the cause of the big bang. There are many theories, but nothing definite yet.*

But that is not the case as i had written before.

What you wrote was that something impossible happened. This is a meaningless statement. Again, if it is impossible it did not happen. By definition.*

And as far as the fixed coordinates go: When you say that space is not infinite you can also assume for a second that every non existing space behind the boundaries of non infinite space tomorrow gets the gift of what your big bangs can do so that tomorrow space is infinite and then this special Google maps makes a list of every coordinate in infinite space.*

No, you misunderstand, there is no space outside the universe. If space is finite, then it is finite and that means there is no space outside it. It is not expanding “into” anything, it is just expanding.

And once again, it is not my big bang. If you’re interested I can direct you to some sites which explain the history of the theory and the supporting evidence for it.

Special enough to let you search it so that it always tells you which coordinates are existent and which have become non existent or ex coordinates. For example: ex coordinate (556773238I,8765655645565,-9776455495).

What do you mean by ex coordinate? If you mean that your coordinate system is moving continuously to expand with space then all of the co-ordinates change at each instant of time.*

And again, assuming the universe is not infinite in size (currently unknown but seems unlikely to me) then it would need to expand for an infinite period of time to reach an infinite size.*

So your infinite coordinate system is not possible.

And while he always knows their name for what it is compared to the infinite different others or all different others, he has each one fixed because he is special enough not to need a marker for the (0,0,0) point and so my previous post is still correct just like every other post.

Again, if this is referring to your idea of something impossible happening then I’ve explained why this makes no *sense.

As for your other posts, I think I’ve identified most of your errors and explained them. If you need more detail then I’m more than happy to give it as long as you let me know what you need more information about.

 

[Neverbeendead]

To prove that a counting to infinity had happened i only had to prove that there exists something that has always existed.
When you then count how long it has already existed you would have counted to infinity while that can’t be done because counting to infinity is a process that never ends.
And so i had proven that the impossible is possible.

You read what i had written and only knew that i was wrong because you know that the impossible ( like having counted to infinity ) is not possible.

To prove me wrong you came up with a story that there was a situation where nothing existed.
Now i had to believe this and accept that i was wrong because i now could no longer write that there was something that has always existed.
But when nothing existed only something that doesn’t even exist could have been responsible for the creation of the first existing things and that is the logical contradiction in your logic.
So you have only two options.
-To accept that what i had written is true. It is impossible to count to infinity because it never stops while something has completely done that, if it had a voice it would say so.
To accept that an impossibility has happened and revealed itself as possible.
-To accept that what you had written is true. Something that doesn’t even exist can never be responsible for something that starts to exist or for a change in something that exists.
You wrote that that impossibility turned out to be what happened and then you also have to accept that an impossibility has happened and revealed itself as possible.
If you like to start analyzing reality with the possible impossibility that you had written down to prove me wrong first, i will not stop you because that is also a good way to start.

 

[Candide_West]

To prove that a counting to infinity had happened i only had to prove that there exists something that has always existed.

Not quite I’m afraid, no. You would have had to have proven that something had existed for an infinite period of time. If the state before the universe was timeless (as many theologians have held) then all the time that has ever existed is the 13.7 billion years of our universe. Hence not infinite.*

In order for you to prove your hypothesis you would have to prove that in all states of being there is always some form of time. This will of course trap God (if your hypothesis includes some form of God) in time. This would be a radically different notion of God to that held by most Catholic theologians.

When you then count how long it has already existed you would have counted to infinity while that can’t be done because counting to infinity is a process that never ends.
And so i had proven that the impossible is possible.*

No, you have not as explained above.*

However, if you HAD succeeded in showing that something was infinitely old you would STILL not have shown that the impossible is possible. You would have just shown that people were wrong about counting to infinity being impossible.*

As I have explained previously impossible events do not happen. Ever. That’s what impossible means. If they have happened, or ever will happen, then by definition they ARE NOT impossible.
*

You read what i had written and only knew that i was wrong because you know that the impossible ( like having counted to infinity ) is not possible.

No, again I explained the various errors you made. If you need further explanation about one of your errors then by all means tell me which and I’ll happily help.
*

To prove me wrong you came up with a story that there was a situation where nothing existed.

Nope, I never did.*

What I did do was explain the basics of one of the big bang theory.

Now i had to believe this and accept that i was wrong because i now could no longer write that there was something that has always existed.

Ok. I assume you mean nothing in our universe here (I explained about time and space specifically). As I explained we don’t yet have any means to know what existed outside the temporal boundaries of our universe.

But when nothing existed only something that doesn’t even exist could have been responsible for the creation of the first existing things and that is the logical contradiction in your logic.

Nope. Again, we don’t know what if anything existed or exists outside the bounds of our universe. Or what caused our universe to exist. Again, as I explained. There are many theories but none of them is decisive yet.

So you have only two options.
-To accept that what i had written is true. It is impossible to count to infinity because it never stops while something has completely done that, if it had a voice it would say so.
To accept that an impossibility has happened and revealed itself as possible.

No, that would be incorrect. As explained, no impossibilities have ever happened.

-To accept that what you had written is true. Something that doesn’t even exist can never be responsible for something that starts to exist or for a change in something that exists.

No, I wrote that the cause is unknown. I stand by that.*

You wrote that that impossibility turned out to be what happened and then you also have to accept that an impossibility has happened and revealed itself as possible.

Nope, again if you remember, impossibilities have never happened.

Perhaps you’re using the wrong word here. Maybe you are aiming for the word “unusual” or “inexplicable” or “unlikely” or even “unique”? Events of those types can happen. Impossible events cannot. Unless you want to redefine the word “impossible” to mean something like “relatively unlikely”.

If you like to start analyzing reality with the possible impossibility that you had written down to prove me wrong first, i will not stop you because that is also a good way to start.

Ok. So fingers crossed you now understand that a “possible impossibility” is a meaningless statement in English and we’ll be able to move forwards.

 

[Neverbeendead]

You are certain that space has not existed an infinite amount of time. Otherwise, if this done infinite amount of time were to be able to redo itself starting now, we would only see that an infinite amount of time never stops or that it cannot redo itself with logic alone.
So you came up with a big bang that created the first existing space and first existing time.
When you give an imaginary voice to something that cannot talk it’s fake and you have to ignore the reality of that but in many cases it can help to understand better what that something is.
So we give this big bang an imaginary voice.
-Hi, i was nowhere when i created the first existing time and first existing space and i did that in exactly 0 seconds.
I soon figured out that i had to call my place nowhere because i was the one who was going to create the first existing space. Have you noticed that special thing about me whenever i perform a job with a beginning and an end to that job. For me the beginning is always the end because i always do everything i do in exactly 0 seconds since i am the one outside time who has to create the first existing time. My job is to change the absense of space and time into the first existing space and first existing time. The begin is what i have to start with or the absense of space of time and what i have to end with is the first existing space and first existing time. And since for me the begin is always the end because i always do everything i do in exactly 0 seconds, the absense of space and time is at the same time the first existing space and first existing time. Now how can that be? Could be because i was made up by someone who wrote stuff for people who he thought he could mislead for a long long time.
Egyptian Reggae long long time.

 

[Candide_West]

You are certain that space has not existed an infinite amount of time.*

The space in our universe began at the big bang, yes. That is most likely correct given the evidence.*

So you came up with a big bang that created the first existing space and first existing time.

No, I didn’t come up with it.

When you give an imaginary voice to something that cannot talk it’s fake and you have to ignore the reality of that but in many cases it can help to understand better what that something is.
So we give this big bang an imaginary voice.
-Hi, i was nowhere when i created the first existing time and first existing space and i did that in exactly 0 seconds.

Once again we DO NOT KNOW what existed or exists outside the boundaries of our universe (“before” it if you prefer using that inaccurate term).*

I soon figured out that i had to call my place nowhere because i was the one who was going to create the first existing space. Have you noticed that special thing about me whenever i perform a job with a beginning and an end to that job. For me the beginning is always the end because i always do everything i do in exactly 0 seconds since i am the one outside time who has to create the first existing time. My job is to change the absense of space and time into the first existing space and first existing time. The begin is what i have to start with or the absense of space of time and what i have to end with is the first existing space and first existing time. And since for me the begin is always the end because i always do everything i do in exactly 0 seconds, the absense of space and time is at the same time the first existing space and first existing time. Now how can that be? Could be because i was made up by someone who wrote stuff for people who he thought he could mislead for a long long time.
Egyptian Reggae long long time.

Ok, the errors in this are as follows:

First, I DID NOT “make up” the big bang theory. It is one of the most successful and famous theories in history. It’s simply silly of you to continue saying I invented it.*

Secondly, you are assuming that the big bang “caused” the universe. That is incorrect. The big bang is the first event at the start of our universe. If you prefer such terms, it happened “inside” our universe, and “on” our timeline. It is the point at which time began and space began.*

We don’t yet know what (if anything) caused the big bang.*I have already explained this several times. Is this one of the things you don’t understand?

 

[Neverbeendead]

Secondly, you are assuming that the big bang “caused” the universe. That is incorrect. The big bang is the first event at the start of our universe. If you prefer such terms, it happened “inside” our universe, and “on” our timeline. It is the point at which time began and space began.*?

When you say that there was a situation where space and time and matter were absent people have the right to ask the question what it was that created the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter out of the absense of themselves. Whatever it was that did that, it has to be given a name.

Something is going to create the first existing time and first existing space and first existing matter and so whatever it is, it is none of those three.
Whatever it is, it is by definition the absense of time and space and matter.
And what do we know about a situation like that?
With an imaginary voice it says that it calls home nowhere and does whatever it can do in exactly 0 seconds.
And so it is going to create the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter in exactly 0 seconds from a home called nowhere.
In exactly 0 seconds means that its begin is always exactly the same as its end.
And so the creation of the first existing time and first existing space and first existing matter is a process where the begin is the absense of all three and the end the presence of all three. Or how the absense was always the presence at the same time which is a logical contradiction.
Or how a theory about the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter never holds water.
That means that the absense of the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter is the one that holds water but i have also written that that doesn’t because then a counting to infinity has occured by an imaginary voice.
Ans so reality does not hold water because an impossibility has revealed itself as possible and it is also a good one to start with.

 

[Candide_West]

When you say that there was a situation where space and time and matter were absent people have the right to ask the question what it was that created the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter out of the absense of themselves. Whatever it was that did that, it has to be given a name.

Prime mover (PM) is one which has a lengthy history. How about we use that?*
*

Something is going to create the first existing time and first existing space and first existing matter and so whatever it is, it is none of those three.
Whatever it is, it is by definition the absense of time and space and matter.

Not quite, we have no particular reason to define the PM by an absence. Sure, it doesn’t exist in slave and time. But it isn’t by definition the absence of those things, because we don’t yet know if it also exists in the universe as well.*

And what do we know about a situation like that?
With an imaginary voice it says that it calls home nowhere and does whatever it can do in exactly 0 seconds.

Nope and nope.*

Nowhere is a spacial description. Without space it is simply not meaningful. Equally seconds are a measure of time, talking about events occurring with a chronology (in x seconds) in a timeless existence is meaningless.

And so it is going to create the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter in exactly 0 seconds from a home called nowhere.
In exactly 0 seconds means that its begin is always exactly the same as its end.

Your terms aren’t meaningful in these sentences.*

And so the creation of the first existing time and first existing space and first existing matter is a process where the begin is the absense of all three and the end the presence of all three. Or how the absense was always the presence at the same time which is a logical contradiction.

I’ll repeat myself again, we don’t know what the cause of the universe was. But there is no contradiction here. You have tried to produce one by insisting on using a form of chronology in a timeless environment.

Or how a theory about the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter never holds water.
That means that the absense of the first existing space and first existing time and first existing matter is the one that holds water but i have also written that that doesn’t because then a counting to infinity has occured by an imaginary voice.

So hopefully you now understand why this is incorrect.*

Ans so reality does not hold water because an impossibility has revealed itself as possible and it is also a good one to start with.

Read what you have written.*

“an impossibility has revealed itself as possible”*

… So that means it was NOT impossible. By definition. Stating “impossible events are possible” is literally a meaningless statement.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

Theory A
There exists something that can only exist.
Then there is another way to write that down.
Something that exists can only have a next existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the future and can only have had a previous existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the past.
That was what i wrote. You did not believe that, because then you had to accept that something that exists has already counted to infinity if it had an imaginary voice.
And how would i write down what i wrote if i also did not believe that?
Theory B
There does not exist something that can only exist.
Then there is another way to write that down.
Something that exists cannot only have a next existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the future and cannot only have had a previous existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the past.
When there does not exist something that can only exist we can describe the path of any something.
A something is going from one existing version of itself to the next existing version of itself for a while and then stops doing what is was doing.
What does that mean when we give it an imaginary voice?
-I am going from one existing version of myself to the next existing version of myself for a while and then i am going to stop doing that. When i am the last existing version of myself, there is not going to be a next existing version of myself so i am just going to stay in this moment forever that you may call the last existing version of myself.
When it said not to go further anymore but to stay forever in the moment of the last existing version of itself, it can no longer be a consequence of theory B.
Because when something that exists stays in the last moment of its existence instead of going further to the next existing version of itself like it used to, it is really just duplicating that moment in ongoing time and is really not in its last moment of existence.
Like when an object hangs perfectly still in empty space, it can do that more than an hour with the ability to look back on that part of reality as a part that duplicated one moment of itself for an hour.
For it to really be in theory B it needs to go further and needs to go to the next non existing version of itself.
That also means that when we follow it in the direction of the past it went to the previous non existing version of itself instead of on and on forever to a previous duplicate of itself.
When there does not exist something that can only exist we can go back in time with our imagination to the point in time where the first existing thing began.
For that to be in theory B it had to have had a previous non existing version of itself.
This previous non existing version describes the absence of everything that exists and goes to a next version that describes the first existing thing.
How does the absence of everything that exists, the non existence of everything that exists or something that doesn’t even exist or a version that doesn’t even exist, go to a next version that describes the first existing thing?
It can’t. It cannot go to a next version because it doesn’t even exist.
And so theory B was made up by someone who was not aware that when one decides this theory to be the truth one also has to decide that something that can’t possibly happen, because of the restrictions that logic mark, actually happened because of having gone further than the restrictions that logic mark.
And when people feel more comfortable believing that theory A is the truth it is not a problem because there too it is about having gone further than the restrictions that logic mark and that is always a good way to start.

 

[Candide_West]

Theory A
There exists something that can only exist.
Then there is another way to write that down.
Something that exists can only have a next existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the future and can only have had a previous existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the past.
That was what i wrote. You did not believe that, because then you had to accept that something that exists has already counted to infinity if it had an imaginary voice.

Nope, your error here is in assuming that time cannot start. I have explained this in detail already. If you don’t understand just ask and I’ll explain again.*

Theory B
There does not exist something that can only exist.
Then there is another way to write that down.
Something that exists cannot only have a next existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the future and cannot only have had a previous existing version of itself when we follow this something that exists in the direction of the past.

Ok, thats a really complex way of saying “the universe started”.

When there does not exist something that can only exist we can describe the path of any something.
A something is going from one existing version of itself to the next existing version of itself for a while and then stops doing what is was doing.

Again this is a very complex way of saying “things do things”.*

What does that mean when we give it an imaginary voice?
-I am going from one existing version of myself to the next existing version of myself for a while and then i am going to stop doing that. When i am the last existing version of myself, there is not going to be a next existing version of myself so i am just going to stay in this moment forever that you may call the last existing version of myself.

So this is a very complex way of saying “the universe ends”.

When it said not to go further anymore but to stay forever in the moment of the last existing version of itself, it can no longer be a consequence of theory B.

Same error again I’m afraid. You just ended time, so there is no more time to do “forever” in.*

Because when something that exists stays in the last moment of its existence instead of going further to the next existing version of itself like it used to, it is really just duplicating that moment in ongoing time and is really not in its last moment of existence.

Again, you’re assuming time is still running even though you just ended it. Doesn’t make any sense.

Like when an object hangs perfectly still in empty space, it can do that more than an hour with the ability to look back on that part of reality as a part that duplicated one moment of itself for an hour.

Still the same error, but now you’ve got it happening in space even though you just ended space too.*

How does the absence of everything that exists, the non existence of everything that exists or something that doesn’t even exist or a version that doesn’t even exist, go to a next version that describes the first existing thing?

I feel I’ve been quite clear on this point, repeatedly in fact.*

We do not yet know how what caused the universe to exist. We also do not know what, if anything exists or existed other than our universe.

And so theory B was made up by someone who was not aware that when one decides this theory to be the truth one also has to decide that something that can’t possibly happen, because of the restrictions that logic mark, actually happened because of having gone further than the restrictions that logic mark.

Nope. If you’re going to get any progress here you’re best off to try to use simple language. All these attempts of making up imaginary voices is causing you to make some simple mistakes. I’m sure you’d spot yourself if you used a simpler structure to your writing.

And when people feel more comfortable believing that theory A is the truth it is not a problem because there too it is about having gone further than the restrictions that logic mark and that is always a good way to start.

? What do you mean here?*

"gonefurther than the restrictions that logic mark"*

To me this sounds very much like “decided to abandon any attempt to use reason or logic”. If this is your starting point then anything that follows is meaningless. Especially if you’re trying to form some kind of proof since they rely on reason and logic.

 

[Neverbeendead]

If you did not use selective quotes in your previous post you would see the answers to your remarks like: you’ve just ended time so how can time sill go on forever.
A car is an existing thing and is driving on the road. It is going from one existing version of itself to the next existing version of itself.
Each next existing version of itself is a little bit further on the road then the previous existing version of itself.
When this car no longer goes to a next existing version like that, there are only two possibilities.
It stopped and is standing perfectly still on the road and is still in time because one can count how long it is standing perfectly still.
Its when the car stays in the moment of an existing version of itself and duplicates it.
That is not theory B
The car cannot stay in the moment of an existing version of itself to duplicate that in time but has to go one moment further to the non existent version of itself to be in theory B.
Our imagination is good enough to see a car driving on the road and then suddenly that whole car is no longer existent. It went to the next non existing version of itself.
You will say that this is not a good example because the laws of physics do not allow a whole car to suddenly become non existent.
But we can use that type of imagination perfectly to study things like the first and the last existing thing to conclude that my previous is correct.

 

[Candide_West]

If you did not use selective quotes in your previous post you would see the answers to your remarks like: you’ve just ended time so how can time sill go on forever.

I’m afraid you misunderstood, I wasn’t asking a question, I was pointing out your error. And my quotes were only selective in that I removed most of what was irrelevant.*

A car is an existing thing and is driving on the road. It is going from one existing version of itself to the next existing version of itself.
Each next existing version of itself is a little bit further on the road then the previous existing version of itself.

No, the car is moving along the road and time is passing. It is pointless to talk about it changing from one version of itself to another. It creates all sorts of identity issues (for example, the car you get into us a different car to the one you drive, park and get out of. It also means you’ve never met the same person twice, you live in a different house each night, and what you did yesterday was done by a different person).

It’s rather silly and is the kind of overly complex language which has caused you to make errors in previous posts.*

When this car no longer goes to a next existing version like that, there are only two possibilities.
It stopped and is standing perfectly still on the road and is still in time because one can count how long it is standing perfectly still.
Its when the car stays in the moment of an existing version of itself and duplicates it.

Again, see excessively complex and unclear language. I cannot tell in the scenario above if you’ve just parked the car abd wandered off or you’ve stopped time.*

In either case, the car is not duplicating itself.*

That is not theory B
The car cannot stay in the moment of an existing version of itself to duplicate that in time but has to go one moment further to the non existent version of itself to be in theory B.

Fortunately this is not a problem as the car does not and has no need to duplicate itself.*

Our imagination is good enough to see a car driving on the road and then suddenly that whole car is no longer existent. It went to the next non existing version of itself.
You will say that this is not a good example because the laws of physics do not allow a whole car to suddenly become non existent.

Nope, we can achieve this with a missile easily enough. Your error here is in assuming some kind of ongoing self duplication activity which can be stopped resulting in annihilation.*

But we can use that type of imagination perfectly to study things like the first and the last existing thing to conclude that my previous is correct.

However, as we know from the errors in your previous post (how you stopped time then expected it to keep running), your previous conclusion was not correct.*

Again if you try to use simpler language I’m sure you’ll be able to prevent yourself making these kinds of errors. I’m sure that it’s just because you structure your arguments in such complex ways that you miss them yourself.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

In this clip the imagination will also be good enough to imagine not the guy disappearing but the car becoming suddenly non existent.
Because i obviously had written in that context and not in context of a missile that leaves existing parts of the car on the road.
A context that pointed to similar imagination for the last existing thing in my previous and also correct post.

 

[Candide_West]

In this clip the imagination will also be good enough to imagine not the guy disappearing but the car becoming suddenly non existent.
Because i obviously had written in that context and not in context of a missile that leaves existing parts of the car on the road.
A context that pointed to similar imagination for the last existing thing in my previous and also correct post.

Righto, obviously that makes no difference to the errors in your post. As I explained, the car is not “duplicating itself”, and if you stop time then no more time passes.*

Fingers crossed this is sorted now. Let me know if you need more explanation.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

The clip shows that when an object, in this case a guy just when a car is about to hit him, suddenly becomes completely nothing we can isolate two frames from the video footage.
Frame 1 is the last frame with the guy on it and frame 2 is the first frame without the guy.
If the footage is 30 frames/second then frame 1 is X and frame 2 is X+1 or one frame further.
It explains how it takes time for an object to become non existent, if one believes such a thing to be possible with only logic as you do and i do not because everybody knows that the clip is videoshopped and not real from a logical point of view which is why things can only exist, and this time period can be as close to zero as possible without being zero.
When somebody says in 0,0000000000000000001 seconds someone else can say in 0,00000000000000000001 seconds and so on and on adding the zeros.
The more zeros the better your camera has to be to isolate frame 1 and frame 2.
That means that when you say that it is impossible that something exists that can only exist, as it therefor will not always exist and has not always existed, we can take a look at frame 1 and frame 2 of the last existing thing.
In frame 1 the last existing thing is still existent and in frame 2 no longer existent.
In frame 2 is the absence of everything that exists.
The same logic goes for the opposite or the first existing thing.
In frame 1 is the absence of everything that exists and in frame 2 the first existing thing is existent.
At its shortest, the time between frame 1 and frame 2 is the shortest number to zero but not zero itself, while your logic says that there is no time between frame 1 and frame 2 because nothing exists in frame 1 including time.
And so your theory about the first and last existing thing can’t be concluded as logical.
The only thing that remains then is theory A from my previous posts and that can’t be concluded as logical too because that is what happens when one takes a more detailed look at reality. Reality where an impossibility is possible known as a possible impossibility and yes, i am aware of how contradictional something like a possible impossibility reads and sounds.
But when it is proven with logic, it is proven with logic.

 

[Candide_West]

The clip shows that when an object, in this case a guy just when a car is about to hit him, suddenly becomes completely nothing we can isolate two frames from the video footage.
Frame 1 is the last frame with the guy on it and frame 2 is the first frame without the guy.
If the footage is 30 frames/second then frame 1 is X and frame 2 is X+1 or one frame further.
It explains how it takes time for an object to become non existent, if one believes such a thing to be possible with only logic as you do and i do not because everybody knows that the clip is videoshopped and not real from a logical point of view which is why things can only exist, and this time period can be as close to zero as possible without being zero.
When somebody says in 0,0000000000000000001 seconds someone else can say in 0,00000000000000000001 seconds and so on and on adding the zeros.

Right, in classical physics, real macroscopic objects don’t just appear or disappear instantaneously. So what, I never claimed they did.

In fact I even made the point about this by suggesting you could destroy the car using a missile (remember, when you were making your error about the car duplicating itself).

Nothing here causes any problems to big bang theory.

The more zeros the better your camera has to be to isolate frame 1 and frame 2.
That means that when you say that it is impossible that something exists that can only exist, as it therefor will not always exist and has not always existed, we can take a look at frame 1 and frame 2 of the last existing thing.

In frame 1 the last existing thing is still existent and in frame 2 no longer existent.
In frame 2 is the absence of everything that exists.

Ok, this seems like a really awkward complex way of saying " the last moment of time". Remember as well that “frame 2” is not part of the chronological sequence of the universe. It’s a like a theoretical point which is slightly north of the north pole.*

The same logic goes for the opposite or the first existing thing.
In frame 1 is the absence of everything that exists and in frame 2 the first existing thing is existent.
At its shortest, the time between frame 1 and frame 2 is the shortest number to zero but not zero itself, while your logic says that there is no time between frame 1 and frame 2 because nothing exists in frame 1 including time.

Error here I’m afraid, you are trying to put frame 1 in a chronological sequence, when it just isn’t. It’s like trying to put the point which is south of the south pole on a map.*

There was never a “time” when the universe didn’t exist, in the same way that there is no place which is south of the south pole.*

Straightforward enough?

And so your theory about the first and last existing thing can’t be concluded as logical.
The only thing that remains then is theory A from my previous posts and that can’t be concluded as logical too because that is what happens when one takes a more detailed look at reality.*

Nope, again all the evidence, and (when properly examined) logic too. Hopefully you are now able to understand this.

Oh incidentally, remember that this isn’t “my” theory. It’s one of the most successful theories in physics. It’s important to remember this because it’s not just some random person on the Internet who you are trying to show to be wrong. It’s most of the last 100 years of physics and cosmology. It is possible you’re right and they’re wrong. But if you’re going to show this you’re going to need a lot more work.

Reality where an impossibility is possible known as a possible impossibility and yes, i am aware of how contradictional something like a possible impossibility reads and sounds.
But when it is proven with logic, it is proven with logic.

Fortunately though it is not proven. So we don’t have to just throw away all reasoned argument as worthless and decide that existence is utterly unintelligible. Phew, that’s a relief eh?

 

[Neverbeendead]

The clip is also good enough to imagine the opposite.
A car is driving forward and sudenly a guy appears behind the car.
In frame 1 the guy is non existent and in frame 2 existent.
It takes time for the non existent guy to become the existent guy. We can imagine the non existent guy having been the non existent guy the first 20 seconds of the clip and then he suddenly became the existent guy.
This shows how the non existence of something can take up a lot of time before it becomes existent.
And when something is in its non existent state, it is in its lowest imaginable state of existence because there does not exist a way to make something non existent even more non existent when everything about it that people call existent is already non existent.
And so we know that when everything that exists was non existent it could have also taken a lot of time before the first existing thing came to be.
Your theory that time does not tick for a non existent thing is wrong.
It ticks for one non existent thing, for two non existing things and so on for all non existing things.
Or how everything actually has always been non existent unless one or more things were existent before that because time also counts for the non existent things as shown in the opposite clip with the non existent guy in lowest imaginable state.
And so logic in this post also proves that the age of all the existent things combined with their non existent states together, in your wrong logic that you use as your own to prove me wrong, is infinite or how time has already counted to infinity for this combination and that reveals how something that is impossible did really happen and it is a good one to start with.

 

[Candide_West]

The clip is also good enough to imagine the opposite.
A car is driving forward and sudenly a guy appears behind the car.
In frame 1 the guy is non existent and in frame 2 existent.
It takes time for the non existent guy to become the existent guy. We can imagine the non existent guy having been the non existent guy the first 20 seconds of the clip and then he suddenly became the existent guy.
This shows how the non existence of something can take up a lot of time before it becomes existent.*

No idea how the clip shows that but it’s irrelevant anyway. The error you made was assuming that time kept running after you stopped it. Now you’re adding to it by assuming time was going on before it started too.

And when something is in its non existent state, it is in its lowest imaginable state of existence because there does not exist a way to make something non existent even more non existent when everything about it that people call existent is already non existent.
And so we know that when everything that exists was non existent it could have also taken a lot of time before the first existing thing came to be.

Nope, because before time started there wasn’t any time. This shouldn’t be hard to understand, what are you struggling to get your head around?*

Your theory that time does not tick for a non existent thing is wrong.

It ticks for one non existent thing, for two non existing things and so on for all non existing things.

That is your error again, what you are insisting here is like arguing that if you make a click and set it running, the clock will keep ticking even if we destroy it. It won’t after you destroy it, it has tick’d it’s last.

To get your head around this you need to understand what time is. Hmmm, how to explain…*

Ok, essentially time isn’t a “thing” in itself. Time is just measure of the rate and flow of physical processes. In other words it’s the rate of change of things. So before any things existed, nothing changed, so there was no time.*

If you can’t manage that, then think of time as an old fashioned clock. With each tick representing an instant of time passing. You destroy all things, including the clock, no more ticks.*

Easy enough?

Or how everything actually has always been non existent unless one or more things were existent before that because time also counts for the non existent things as shown in the opposite clip with the non existent guy in lowest imaginable state.

Same error again, if nothing exists, then time doesn’t exist. If you find it hard to think of time not being a thing in itself then just remember that if time was a thing in itself, then by definition “nothing” would exclude time.*

And so logic in this post also proves that the age of all the existent things combined with their non existent states together, in your wrong logic that you use as your own to prove me wrong, is infinite or how time has already counted to infinity for this combination and that reveals how something that is impossible did really happen and it is a good one to start with.

Nope, the universe started, and time doesn’t affect things which don’t exist (if you struggle with that one, then ask yourself how people who don’t exist get older! You immediately run into all kinds of silly situations).*

So again, the basis of rational thought is still safe (for now at least, tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of “Are Impossible Things Possible!”).

)

Take care