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

[Neverbeendead]

So when we take my previous post to the language you prefer we get this:

There was no time when time wasn’t there

We rewrite your specification:
There was no time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there.
No we go straight to my rewritten specification in the language you prefer:
Everything or every thing was timeless is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
You can’t say that my specification is wrong and yours right because then my specification has to be written like this:
There was at least one thing that was not timeless is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
It is wrong to read that something untimeless relates only to something that is timeless and it does not prove what comes after.
Which means that my specification is right as it always was and that means that the post before my previous one is still also correct.

 

[Neverbeendead]

And so the whole thing becomes this:

There was no time when time wasn’t there.

This is Truth 1 that you made up.
Rewritten Truth 1:
There was no time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there.
Specified Rewritten Truth 1:
Everything or every thing was timeless is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
The specification is correct because the only way to write the six words Everything or every thing was timeless different before the three words is my specification is this:
There was at least one thing that was not timeless is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.
And that is wrong because something untimeless relates only to something timeless and does not prove what comes after.
Specified Rewritten Truth 1 is correct.

If everything is timeless then nothing can move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything.

This is Truth 2
When we make a combination of Specified Rewritten Truth 1 and Truth 2 these two truths result in another truth:
Everything or everything was unable to move forward in time because there is nothing existent outside something called everything and that’s when time wasn’t there.
Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’t there.
The combination of two truths turns out to be a lie.
And that’s because Rewritten Specified Truth 1 is a lie.
Everything or every thing was timeless is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there is a theory that does not hold water.
Time has always been something untimeless no matter how far one goes back into the past.
Only to learn that that theory also holds no water because of the finished infinity.
But since one of them is the truth, we can get to pick our favorite possible impossibility to start examining the world of possible impossibilities.

 

[Neverbeendead]

And a recap

There was no time when time wasn’t there.

When you put some other words before when time wasn’t there you get:
Nothing was able to reach the year 2012 because nothing could move forward in time and that’s when time wasn’t there.
That is sufficient enough to see that when time wasn’t there is wrong and that the past is infinite to welcome the world of possible impossibilities.
I had to give you the detailed proof in my previous post and chances are that you still do not get it.
Like you still do not get the lyrics but as i had written: one day you will get them and then they won’t be that sugarcoated anymore.

 

[Candide_West]

You’ve put there was no time before when time wasn’t there and that is your specification.

Not quite I said there was no time when time wasn’t there. There’s no meaning to putting “before” in the sentence above.

So we can rewrite that in your place:
There was no time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there.

So you’re talking about whatever exists beyond the temporal bounds of our universe. In other words your specification specifically excludes all of time, which is everything in our universe.*

I wrote my specification and added why

Right, and I explained your error to you.

So now i rewrite my specification with the addition:
There was nothing existent in time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.

Right, what you’ve essentially said is that our universe (and time) don’t exist outside our universe (and time). Which is true, if rather tautological.*

So yes, your theory that you can go back infinitely far in time is incorrect.*Yes, well done.

When my specification is wrong the only remaining correct one according to you is:
There was at least one thing existent in time is my specification that relates only to the situation called when time wasn’t there which proves that the theory that something has always existed, no matter how far back in time you go, is wrong.

Er, what? This seems like a meaningless jumble.*

I’ll try to make this nice and simple. What I’ve explained to you is:

1. that time only exists in the universe. Time is the rate of change of things (the measure of flow of physical processes) in our universe, so by definition it doesn’t apply outside our universe.
2. the universe started 13.7 billion years ago,*
3. so the total amount of time which has ever elapsed is 13.7 billion years.
4. This is a long time but definitely not infinite.*

But this only remaining one is obviously wrong and that means that my original specification just like my previous post is still correct.

Nope, I’ve explained your errors in detail, perhaps you could let me know what you’re struggling with and I’ll see if I can help.

 

[Neverbeendead]

You’ve put there was no time before when time wasn’t there and that is your specification

Not quite I said there was no time when time wasn’t there. There’s no meaning to putting “before” in the sentence above.

The meaning of before is putting four words before the word when obviously.
But you’ve skipped a few posts of mine as i am already further

 

[Candide_West]

The meaning of before is putting four words before the word when obviously.
But you’ve skipped a few posts of mine as i am already further

We seem to be going around and around the same loop here. Where:

1. I say there was never a time when time wasn’t there (because time is a property of our universe so is always occurring in it and doesn’t occur outside it).
2. You agree with me.
3. You directly contradict 2. by saying that EVERYTHING was once timeless (including our universe) thus the 13.7 billion years couldn’t have happened.
4. I explain that you’ve made the error of assuming that our universe is timeless and that this is a mistake because there was never a time when time wasn’t there.
5. You agree with me.
6. You directly contradict 5…

This seems like a fruitless cycle and we’ve been around it several times now.*

How about we use the simple logic I already provided (here it is in 4 simple steps) to help you see how this works.

1. time always occurs in our universe and only occurs in the universe. Time is the rate of change of things (the measure of flow of physical processes) in our universe, so by definition it doesn’t apply outside our universe.
2. the universe started 13.7 billion years ago,*
3. so the total amount of time which has ever elapsed is 13.7 billion years.
4. This is a long time but definitely not infinite.*

Perhaps you can tell me which of these four you have difficulty understanding and I’ll do my best to explain further.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

It’s you who keeps getting it wrong.
When time wasn’t there is a truth or reality that you wrote.
The thing about a reality is that it is real.
There really was nothing able to move forward in time when time wasn’t there.
There really was nothing able to reach the year 2012 because there really was nothing able to move forward in time when time wasn’t there.

This the simple logic that you don’t understand and the reason why you keep on being wrong thinking that when time wasn’t there was when a reality took place.

So let’s ask something different.
The first point in time was created by whatever while we now call that first point in time 13.7 billion years ago.

A-Did this whatever have intelligence that deliberately chose the first point in time to be what we now call 13.7 billion years ago?

B-Did this whatever have no intelligence but was it bound to mathematical laws of physics so that there is a formula about this whatever that points out that the first point in time is what we now call 13.7 billion years ago?

C-Did this whatever have no intelligence while it was not bound to mathematical laws of physics so that there is no formula about this whatever that points to the first point in time so that the first point in time that we now call 13.7 billion years ago was created by whatever with a pure random choice?

Notice that the question relates to whatever it was that created the first point in time and not to the human study of the universe that decided on 13,7 billion years ago.

 

[Candide_West]

It’s you who keeps getting it wrong.
When time wasn’t there is a truth or reality that you wrote.
The thing about a reality is that it is real.
There really was nothing able to move forward in time when time wasn’t there.

So we can safely conclude from this that whatever lies OUTSIDE the temporal boundaries of our universe is not affected by time. Yes, that’s correct.

There really was nothing able to reach the year 2012 because there really was nothing able to move forward in time when time wasn’t there.

…and this is where you have implicitely introduced your error, you have assumed that because whatever is outside the universe is timeless, then what is inside the universe must be timeless too. This is not true, we already know that the universe does experience time.

This the simple logic that you don’t understand and the reason why you keep on being wrong thinking that when time wasn’t there was when a reality took place.

Once again, there are 4 points to the logic here, they are all quite simple. If you think there is an error here then by all means point it out, or tell me which point you don’t understand. Repeating the same error which I have already shown you that you made again and again is not going to get us any further forwards. Here are the 4 points to the logic again.

1. time always occurs in our universe and only occurs in the universe. Time is the rate of change of things (the measure of flow of physical processes) in our universe, so by definition it doesn’t apply outside our universe.
2. the universe started 13.7 billion years ago,
3. so the total amount of time which has ever elapsed is 13.7 billion years.
4. This is a long time but definitely not infinite.

So let’s ask something different.
The first point in time was created by whatever while we now call that first point in time 13.7 billion years ago.

Careful, you are already using loaded terminology “created” implies a “creator” since that is your conclusion using that term would be implying you’ve assumed your conclusion, which is a logical error. Lets use the term “caused” instead, it’s more straightforwards.

A-Did this whatever have intelligence that deliberately chose the first point in time to be what we now call 13.7 billion years ago?

We do not know yet what caused the universe, there are many theories none of them are decisive as yet.

Incidentally you are again speaking as if there was chronology outside of the universe, this does not make sense. It would be like asking if the earth was positioned where it is on a north-south axis to make the north pole right where it is. - There is no north-south axis once you leave the planet so positioning the planet somewhere on a north-south axis is meaningless.

B-Did this whatever have no intelligence but was it bound to mathematical laws of physics so that there is a formula about this whatever that points out that the first point in time is what we now call 13.7 billion years ago?

Once again, we do not know yet what caused the universe, there are many theories none of them are decisive as yet.

Once again, you have made the error of assuming the big bang happened in some pre-existing chronology, this is meaningless. There is no chronology beyond the universe because there is no time, you cannot put events into a chronological sequence when there is no time.

C-Did this whatever have no intelligence while it was not bound to mathematical laws of physics so that there is no formula about this whatever that points to the first point in time so that the first point in time that we now call 13.7 billion years ago was created by whatever with a pure random choice?

Once again, we do not know yet what caused the universe, there are many theories none of them are decisive as yet.

Once again same error with assuming a chronology outside of time.

Notice that the question relates to whatever it was that created the first point in time and not to the human study of the universe that decided on 13,7 billion years ago.

Your question makes no sense. It’s like asking “how far north is the Andromeda galaxy” there is no answer, because the question is meaningless. The reason for this is that you cannot put events into a chronology outside of time.

We’ve been over this several times, remember “there was no time when time wasn’t there”

 

[Neverbeendead]

We’ve been over this several times, remember “there was no time when time wasn’t there”

What i remember is that you cannot even fill in the dots:
When time wasn’t there i was…

Let’s start with the simple ones. Was it existent or non existent or maybe a third option that everybody finds ridiculous just mentioning it?

 

[Neverbeendead]

Meanwhile in this second post after your last.
You could have figured out that the answer is not B.
If a formula exists the data that people would put in it would be data from the existing universe but we are not allowed to use such a formula because the formula is only allowed to get data from when time wasn’t there.
Because that would be the formula that reveals in terms of causality where the first point in time is and how we will try to calculate that point based on data from the existing universe.
And then it doesn’t take long to see that the formula does not exist because there is not much data to work with.
The abcense of data will reveal where the first point in time is located and how we will try to calculate that point based on data from the existing universe. The formula is not a constant but a variable, fill in the answer yourself and if you’re lucky you filled in the right answer.
There is also nothing that can explain what makes the first point in time special.
A teacher draws a horizontal line and says:
This is a timeline that goes up all the way to infinity to the right and all the way down to infinity to the left.
Some of you might say that this timeline is not real but don’t worry, we’re only using it to check if there is something special about the first point in time.
If there is something special about the first point in time there is a special and unique point on this timeline.
So we imagine that we are in the situation when time wasn’t there and from there we have to see whether it is possible to draw a special point on the timeline and explain why.
As a student it does not take long to realise that there is no special point. Any point is fit to be a candidate in the lottery that picks a first point in time on this timeline that contains all the available candidates for being the first point in time.
Then there is the imaginary game where you go back in the past to find out that the lottery is always two steps ahead of you, two steps further in the past so that in this game you can go back in time forever without ever reaching a first point in time.
Or how the lottery that picks the first point in time also reveals the infinite nature of the past besides the finite nature of the past.
Or how time can have counted to infinity.
It also explains how the four words when time wasn’t there make no sense combined but that is still also to difficult for you to understand.

Then the teacher has a bonus for people like you.
He draws a point on the timeline and says that it is the present. Then he draws another point to the right and says that it’s 1 billion years after the present.
Then he asks to make the timeline look a bit more real according to the information you believe in.
And then they draw a point 13,7 billion years to the left of the present and erase the timeline to the left of that point and then they put a question mark on the right side of the timeline.

 

[Florence8802]

Blizzard’s planet of Warcraft is recognized like a mind with regards to for the internet. quite a few many years quickly after its recognized release, the Mmog (massively multi-player for the internet role-playing sport) persists to hold out outstandingly also it has effectively saved gamers amused with new expansions. Like each and every and every even more gaming within genre, character growth can be the certainly essence of each and every and every sport. For each and every and every Mmog, character progression is truly very carefully linked to producing the in-game overseas currency. within of Wow, the overseas currency is recognized as useful metal.

Cheap Wow Gold
Coach Outlet

 

[Neverbeendead]

Meanwhile back at the range my third post after your last.
Another cool fact about time is the real next moment in time.
If the first existing point in time or first moment in time is 0 then the real next moment or point in time is not 0,1 because 0,01 is a better candidate for the real next moment or point in time.
If the first point or moment in time is 0 then the real next one is described with a number bigger then 0. So let’s define the real next moment or point in time as X and X is bigger than 0.
Is X really the definition of the real next moment or point in time?
No because mathematics teaches that a number bigger than zero can always be divided by 2 which again results in a number bigger than 0.
The real next moment or point in time cannot be defined.
And why is that?
Because there is always a better candidate and because it turns out that the distance in time between a moment or point in time and itself is zero or timeless or how time is the sum of timeless points or moments.
Logic says that the sum of timeless things only results in a timeless thing.
So why is it not the case in reality?
Because another possible impossibility has been brought to light as all the others i have already written down in this topic from the very first post.
The reason why the real next moment or point in time cannot be defined with logic is because the previous real moment or point in time is also in its state of timelessness and unable to move forward in time.
It teaches us that timelessness is movement in time and logic will never explain why.
And so your There was no time when time wasn’t there becomes There was time when time wasn’t there and i’ve already written that and proven that a lot of times and logic will never explain why.
It teaches us that the past is infinite and that the past has counted to infinity and logic will never explain why that is possible.
Out of this possible impossibility the study of the world of possible impossibilities can begin and i recommend not to go about it like a Harry Potter.
After all, that’s already been done.
And then whilst occupied with this study realisation will come that everything i wrote was correct.
Like when non existing things become existent. Turns out that logic will also never explain why.
Like when life is not in the full part and needs to be found in the empty part. Logic will also never explain why.

 

[Candide_West]

You could have figured out that the answer is not B.
If a formula exists the data that people would put in it would be data from the existing universe but we are not allowed to use such a formula because the formula is only allowed to get data from when time wasn’t there.

As I said, we don’t yet know what caused the universe to exist, there are many theories but none are decisive as yet.*

A teacher draws a horizontal line and says:
This is a timeline that goes up all the way to infinity to the right and all the way down to infinity to the left.*

And here’s your error, the timeline doesn’t go to infinity on the left (the past) it starts 13.7 billion years ago.*

Some of you might say that this timeline is not real but don’t worry, we’re only using it to check if there is something special about the first point in time.
If there is something special about the first point in time there is a special and unique point on this timeline.
So we imagine that we are in the situation when time wasn’t there and from there we have to see whether it is possible to draw a special point on the timeline and explain why.

Right, so we know that the “time” when time wasn’t there is nowhere on the timeline. I’ve said this several times, you keep agreeing with it then contradicting it. I’m not sure why?

As a student it does not take long to realise that there is no special point. Any point is fit to be a candidate in the lottery that picks a first point in time on this timeline that contains all the available candidates for being the first point in time.
Then there is the imaginary game where you go back in the past to find out that the lottery is always two steps ahead of you, two steps further in the past so that in this game you can go back in time forever without ever reaching a first point in time.

Yes, that would be the case if the timeline was infinite. As we’ve established though, that isn’t the case. Time started 13.7 billion years ago.*

Or how the lottery that picks the first point in time also reveals the infinite nature of the past besides the finite nature of the past.
Or how time can have counted to infinity.

Nope, still no infinite past. What you’ve done again here is assumed that there is an infinite timeline running before the start of time.*

It also explains how the four words when time wasn’t there make no sense combined but that is still also to difficult for you to understand.*

No problem for me old bean, as I’ve said, repeatedly, there was no time when time wasn’t there. You keep agreeing with this statement then contradicting it.*

It does make it rather hard to understand your position. Again, here are the four points to the logic here, they are nice and simple, tell me where you’re having difficulty and I’ll do my best to help out.*

1. that time only exists in the universe. Time is the rate of change of things (the measure of flow of physical processes) in our universe, so by definition it doesn’t apply outside our universe.
2. the universe started 13.7 billion years ago,*
3. so the total amount of time which has ever elapsed is 13.7 billion years.
4. This is a long time but definitely not infinite.*

Then the teacher has a bonus for people like you.
He draws a point on the timeline and says that it is the present. Then he draws another point to the right and says that it’s 1 billion years after the present.
Then he asks to make the timeline look a bit more real according to the information you believe in.
And then they draw a point 13,7 billion years to the left of the present and erase the timeline to the left of that point and then they put a question mark on the right side of the timeline.

Right, so this demonstrates the point quite nicely, well done. Time began 13.7 billion years ago. We don’t know what if anything exists beyond the temporal boundaries of our universe. So it’s correct that the timeline starts 13.7 billion years to the left of “now”*

Off to the right we have the future, we don’t know how much future there is. Some theories put the universe collapsing back in a big crunch, some predict it’s expansion until the point of heat death. No doubt we will one eat be able to predict that definitively, the evidence at the moment leans towards the heat death, but as I said, it’s not certain as yet.*

No because mathematics teaches that a number bigger than zero can always be divided by 2 which again results in a number bigger than 0.
The real next moment or point in time cannot be defined.
…
Logic says that the sum of timeless things only results in a timeless thing.

From your most recent post I’m only going to reply to this part for the sake of brevity (and because your error is presented nice and clearly here).

Your confusion is in mistaking “infinitesimal” (infinitely small) for “zero” (non-existent in the case you’re talking about).

An infinitely short period of time is 0.000’1 (where the ’ indicates “recurring” so there an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1) where as 0 is just 0.

Now for practical everyday purposes an infinitesimal is more or less the same as zero. But it’s not mathematically true. This is because an infinite number of zeros is still zero, while an infinite number of infinitesimals is a real, finite number.*

I can walk you through the maths behind this if you like, it’s pretty straightforwards. But maybe you’ll understand just from the description above? I don’t want to insult your intelligence by breaking it down more than you need me to.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

From your most recent post I’m only going to reply to this part for the sake of brevity (and because your error is presented nice and clearly here).

Your confusion is in mistaking “infinitesimal” (infinitely small) for “zero” (non-existent in the case you’re talking about).

An infinitely short period of time is 0.000’1 (where the ’ indicates “recurring” so there an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1) where as 0 is just 0.

Now for practical everyday purposes an infinitesimal is more or less the same as zero. But it’s not mathematically true. This is because an infinite number of zeros is still zero, while an infinite number of infinitesimals is a real, finite number.*

I can walk you through the maths behind this if you like, it’s pretty straightforwards. But maybe you’ll understand just from the description above? I don’t want to insult your intelligence by breaking it down more than you need me to.*

You say that when the first point in time is zero the real next one is 0.000’1.
The distance in time between those two points is 0.000’1 - 0=0,000’1.
A positive distance.
As i already wrote, mathematics says that a positive distance can always be divided in two half and also positive distances.
In this case you have to imagine that you really wrote an infinite amount of zeros after 0, and when that was done you had put the 1 after that. But when that was done you could have also easily had put 01 after that to get 0,000’01.
And so the real next point in time cannot be defined because once done there is always a better candidate.

And then you also conveniently did not read that i wrote that the distance in time from a point in time to itself is zero which makes it a timeless point just like all others.
And when the sum of timeless things is not timeless logic will never explain why.

 

[Neverbeendead]

You probably are not going to get the imagine part in my previous post.
And so according to you people can write down the number 0,000’1 in its real form and not in its shorted form.
They put 0, on a piece of paper and then forever they start writing zeros and when forever or infinity has been finished they write the 1 and in the process have consumed more paper than there are trees.
Or how you wrote that an infinity can be finished or how something can have counted to infinity to see that the past is infinite.

 

[Candide_West]

You say that when the first point in time is zero the real next one is 0.000’1.
The distance in time between those two points is 0.000’1 - 0=0,000’1.
A positive distance.
As i already wrote, mathematics says that a positive distance can always be divided in two half and also positive distances.

…and this is your error, you have assumed you can divide an infinitesimal by two and have a smaller number. You cannot. By definition it is the smallest non-zero number possible.*

In this case you have to imagine that you really wrote an infinite amount of zeros after 0, and when that was done you had put the 1 after that. But when that was done you could have also easily had put 01 after that to get 0,000’01.
And so the real next point in time cannot be defined because once done there is always a better candidate.

Nope, the best candidate is always going to be the next infinitesimal along.*
*

And then you also conveniently did not read that i wrote that the distance in time from a point in time to itself is zero which makes it a timeless point just like all others.

Oh I read it, remember I pointed out that this is where you made your error - I explained how infinitesimal is not equal to zero, it’s just as close as you can get without being zero.

And when the sum of timeless things is not timeless logic will never explain why.

Because they aren’t timeless, they’re just infinitely short periods of time.*

You probably are not going to get the imagine part in my previous post.
And so according to you people can write down the number 0,000’1 in its real form and not in its shorted form.

I said nothing of the sort. Where on earth did you get that from? We use the shortened notation for just this reason.

If you are struggling with the use of “recurring” here, or think its impossible or whatever, then just remember that the same rule applies to many fractions. For example 1/3 = 0.333’ such things are relatively straightforward to handle mathematically but impossible to write out in full.

They put 0, on a piece of paper and then forever they start writing zeros and when forever or infinity has been finished they write the 1 and in the process have consumed more paper than there are trees.

So we don’t need to worry about anyone doing that then. Lucky we have short forms which are practically useable isn’t it. Otherwise we’d get into a right pickle.

Or how you wrote that an infinity can be finished or how something can have counted to infinity to see that the past is infinite.

I never wrote an infinite can be counted to, or that the past is infinite. Why are you claiming that I made the errors that you did?

 

[Neverbeendead]

Since you still don’t get it we will write the number 0,000’1 in a more logical wordstring.
zero,an-infinite-neverending-string-of-zeros-so-dont-put-a-one-after-it-because-the-string-never-ends.
For 1/3 we get zero,a-neverending-string-of-threes-so-we-dont-put-something-else-after-this-neverending-string.
And then you still conveniently did not read that i wrote that the distance in time from a point in time to itself is zero which makes it a timeless point just like all others.
And when the sum of timeless things is not timeless like we learned from study of reality logic will never explain why.

 

[Candide_West]

Since you still don’t get it we will write the number 0,000’1 in a more logical wordstring.
zero,an-infinite-neverending-string-of-zeros-so-dont-put-a-one-after-it-because-the-string-never-ends.

Right, you can’t write an infinite number of zeros. That’s why we use shortened notation. It makes it practical.*

If it makes it easier for you think of it as 1 / infinity. Just like 1 / 3.

For 1/3 we get zero,a-neverending-string-of-threes-so-we-dont-put-something-else-after-this-neverending-string.

Right, or you can write it as 1/3.

And then you still conveniently did not read that i wrote that the distance in time from a point in time to itself is zero which makes it a timeless point just like all others.

No, once again, I DID read it. As I already explained that’s where you made your error. An infinitesimal is NOT equal to zero. It’s just the closest you can get without being zero.*

The really silly thing here is that you are simultaneously arguing that there are numbers closer to zero than an infinitesimal and at the same time arguing that an infinitesimal is the same as zero. Obviously these are directly contradictory.

And when the sum of timeless things is not timeless like we learned from study of reality logic will never explain why.

Because its not correct. Instants of time are by definition NOT timeless.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

0,000’1 in your logic stands for 0,an-infinite-zeros-1 or 0,A1
A is the infinity that you trapped between 0, and 1 but an infinity can’t be trapped between something. If the future is infinite you can’t trap it between a begin and an end.
After an infinite amount of zeros i put a 1 as the end of the infinite amount of zeros.
Like saying: after my infinite amount of living they put my death as the end of my infinite amount of living.
But when one lives forever there is no death.
The distance in time between a point in time and itself is still zero.
The first point in time on the timeline is called 0 seconds.
The distance in time between the point 0 seconds and the point that stands for 5 seconds is 5 seconds, 5 seconds minus 0 seconds.
Between 7 seconds and 3 seconds? 7 seconds minus 3 seconds is 4 seconds.
Between 7 seconds and itself? 7 seconds minus 7 seconds is 0 seconds is timeless.
All points in time are timeless and the sum of timeless things logically only results in a timeless thing but reality shows otherwise and logic will never explain why.

 

[Candide_West]

0,000’1 in your logic stands for 0,an-infinite-zeros-1 or 0,A1
A is the infinity that you trapped between 0, and 1 but an infinity can’t be trapped between something. If the future is infinite you can’t trap it between a begin and an end.
After an infinite amount of zeros i put a 1 as the end of the infinite amount of zeros.
Like saying: after my infinite amount of living they put my death as the end of my infinite amount of living.
But when one lives forever there is no death.

Nothing relevant for me to reply to here. An infinitesimal is 1 / infinity which is often written as 0.000’1. You can tell me all you like that it can’t be but that doesn’t change the fact of what it is.*

If you need me to I can hunt around the Internet and find you some easy to understand explanations. Do you think that would help?

The distance in time between a point in time and itself is still zero.

Right, but that’s got nothing to do with this because we are talking about infinitesimal divisions of time, specifically and definately NOT “distance in time between a point in time and itself” that is just another meaningless term.

The first point in time on the timeline is called 0 seconds.
The distance in time between the point 0 seconds and the point that stands for 5 seconds is 5 seconds, 5 seconds minus 0 seconds.
Between 7 seconds and 3 seconds? 7 seconds minus 3 seconds is 4 seconds.
Between 7 seconds and itself? 7 seconds minus 7 seconds is 0 seconds is timeless.

And here for some reason again you are talking about the amount of time between two times which are the same time. Clearly this is meaningless.*

Again you’ve made your error nice and clear - an infinitesimal is NOT equal to zero.*

All points in time are timeless and the sum of timeless things logically only results in a timeless thing but reality shows otherwise and logic will never explain why.

Nope, it’s all entirely logical and reasonable as long as you don’t introduce errors and incorrect assumptions. In this case your error*is to assume 1/infinity = zero. This is NOT the case.