How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?

[brokenhead]

I understand it very well. It applies everywhere, without exception, at all times

Except, that is, with living organisms. It is this very clear-cut difference which points to a qualitative property that is special and that we have called life.

Kevin, I in no way disparage your views, in fact, they fascinate me. The resoluteness with which you cling to them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is something I have encountered only from one other source, and that is the delightful Jehovah's Witnesses who visit me regularly.

[Kevin Solway]

You don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't apply in local areas.

I understand it very well. It applies everywhere, without exception, at all times.

If it applied everywhere, at all times, you would never see the formation of things like stars (increasing heat and pressure, etc).

To deny the patently obvious qualitative difference between a living thing and a dead thing is a decision that you have made and one which is baffling.

Is a virus alive or dead?

The definition of life is a very murky thing.

[brokenhead]

Is a virus alive or dead?
The definition of life is a very murky thing.

A virus is alive. "Murky" to whom?
A physical system - any physical system - does not spontaneously begin to order itself. Matter does not behave that way.
How can you hold a philosophical system together when your definitions are murky? I comlpetely understand your point of view, that is, what you are saying, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why you would want to maintain it.

[Kevin Solway]

Is a virus alive or dead?
The definition of life is a very murky thing.

A virus is alive. "Murky" to whom?

See here and here for example.

A physical system - any physical system - does not spontaneously begin to order itself. Matter does not behave that way.

So you reject all the evidence for evolution?

Ordering happens all the time, quite naturally.

What I find funny is that even if you imagine the existence of an alien creator, you have to ask yourself who created that creator? As I say, even imagining the existence of an alien creator - not that there's any compelling evidence that there might be one - doesn't answer any significant questions.

[Pincho Paxton]

God doesn't exist, I can tell you that for a fact. If it took him 7 days to create the Earth, how long would it take him to create the other zillion planets? Doesn't he ever get bored???

Just a silly argument there, but add it to the junkpile of why God doesn't exist. It's a huge junkpile I can tell you. Believing in God is for suckers. Humans exist, and Humans can soon create Humans. We might have started off as monkeys, but now we are the infinate loop of creation in the universe. Earth is just a mirror, look into the mirror and see yourself creating yourself. It's not a Paradox, because it starts with a monkey, and moves forwards. God does not start with a monkey, and that's the Paradox! If God starts with a monkey, then God is Man, and that's another Paradox. Man created Earth, because Earth is a second Heaven, and that's another Mirror.

Heaven evolves, Evolution creates Monkey, Monkey Evolves Man, Man creates Man, Man Creates Earth, Man creates Bible, Man invents God. Absolutely no Paradoxes, no problems!

[brokenhead]

So you reject all the evidence for evolution?

Of course not. The evidence of evolution is on my side of the question. That's the very preponderance of evidence I am speaking of. I just can't shrug off life that easily.

Ordering happens all the time, quite naturally.

Spontaneous ordering most certainly does not happen all the time. Entropy flows one way, in the direction of "Time's Arrow." The "all the time" occurrences involve living things. I don't want this to be a discussion over semantics, because then it would be a waste of time.

[brokenhead]

Just a silly argument there

No shit.

[Kevin Solway]

Spontaneous ordering most certainly does not happen all the time. Entropy flows one way, in the direction of "Time's Arrow."

I've already demonstrated that if that was the case over all time frames then there wouldn't be the formation of things like stars, which involve an increase in temperature, pressure, concentration of matter, etc.

Also be careful not to confuse entropy with ordering. The two are completely different things. As entropy increases, things can become more ordered.

The "all the time" occurrences involve living things.

So what is your definition of "life", and why do you think viruses are alive?

Viruses can reproduce with the help of the living cells of other organisms. Files on your computer can reproduce with the help of things like an operating system and an operator. Does that mean the files on your computer are alive?

[Jamesh]

Spontaneous ordering most certainly does not happen all the time.

Of course it does. It is just causal action equalising over time.

Entropy flows one way, in the direction of "Time's Arrow."

Only in "isolated" systems, but there are no 100% isolated systems. Don't read the word isolated as being "closed". Entropy is a load of crap from a whole of reality point of view.

[Jamesh]

Kevin wrote

That's right, and that's precisely why the All (all things which exist) is not a thing, and can't be said to exist.

Can you understand how the All is not a thing, and is not bounded?

So, since it has nothing with which it can be contrasted, it cannot be said to exist. That is perfectly logical, is it not? (given our previous definition of what it means to exist)

It is not logical to say The All “can’t be said to exist”. While one is defining The All to have no outside, that does not mean its existence cannot equally be determined by what is inside, by what is divisible within The All.

It is also not fully logical to say that The All is “Not a Thing”. All named concepts are things, by default. A thing is anything that manifests itself to consciousness, and The All is just the Set of all such manifestations logically grouped under the one concept.

It is also illogical to say that The All is “not bounded”. It is bounded, but not by anything external to it, but it is bounded by its internal causal actions, as this action set limits on the nature in which The All manifests.

I guess this point hinges on whether one regards the all as being caused, or not caused. If it is not caused, then it cannot be bounded, if it is caused, then it is bounded by the limitations of these causes.

Something that is not caused could have no form or nature, but clearly the totality does have, so therefore it is caused. There is nothing to suggest that causes have to only be external to a thing - which is something you and David seem to take for granted in your conception of reality. Causes are clearly not just external, as when a thing is caused to change form, the thing itself presents a boundary to the external causes and the thing will only change form when the external causes are more powerful than the causes that hold the thing together. Such boundaries are opposing internal causes to external causes. With regard the totality, such causes are all internal, as there can be no external. They arise from “what already exists”.

[and now for some stuff that doesn’t make sense. Just posting in case I later form a more coherent reasoning for the self-caused nature of The All]

In the case of the Totality itself “what already exists” and what cannot not exist, is Time. The totality manifests by the effect of Expansionary time upon Contracting Time. Which can also be referred to as Now time upon Past time, or Causally Self-Active time upon Causally Self-Inactive time. (I used the term Self-inactive, as even if something is not in iteself active, to something else it can still be causally active as a boundary).

Contracting/Past/Inactive time, in the total sense, is always in the state of becoming increasingly more causally powerful in comparison to the Expansionary/Now/Active time. The causal power of Active time is spread out thinner and thinner upon all of the existence of Inactive time.

Active time spreads inactive time out, but it also thickens it over time, creating layer upon layer of aether, with the most recent layers being the most active. Inactive time creates Boundedness of Active time. In the early stages of the big bang, the ratio of Inactive time to Active time was miniscule, so things were able to change and grow immensely rapidly, but as time passes and Active Time becomes spent and becomes Inactive, the totality gradually heads towards entropy.

Paradoxically, relative to what already exists as things Inactive Time is always displaying the appearance of “becoming increasingly smaller”. This is an illusion - it is actually doing the opposite. Inactive time appears to be something of a contracting or gravitational nature, whereas in reality its only power is as a thinner of the power of Active Time, by the action of spreading this finite power out. Active time is caused by inactive time to become larger in spatial size, but its power though permanent, is made finite by that, and as time passes, as it enlarges, it has less power per spatial area. [unfinished – need to think more about this]

[Kevin Solway]

It is also not fully logical to say that The All is “Not a Thing”. All named concepts are things, by default.

It depends how you define "thing". I define a thing to be that which has a boundary around it.

Something that is not caused could have no form or nature, but clearly the totality does have, so therefore it is caused.

The things within the Totality have form or nature, but not the Totality itself. "Form" or "nature" only mean something when compared to something else. But there is nothing else than the Totality (by definition).

. . . [unfinished – need to think more about this]

Regarding time, since time is part of the Totality, the Totality doesn't exist in time.

[Laird]

Kevin,

I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion with brokenhead but I only came across this thread yesterday and I feel the need to respond to something that you wrote a few days ago.

*A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

This is very vague. Could you elaborate?

If I might speculate what this is about. It sounds like an argument that Laird was using recently here on the forum.

If you travel back along this causal chain, one cause at a time, you will never reach infinitely far along the chain, because there is always another cause beyond where you are. Therefore . . . there is no such thing as an infinite chain.

Hmmm.

Convincing, eh?

Not when it's expressed like that, no. That's a pretty weak paraphrasing leading me to believe that you didn't really understand me in the first place - either that or you forgot what I wrote.

My actual argument was against the notion of a beginningless past and can be seen from two perspectives. In the first perspective it is recognised that from the "beginningless past" to the present moment an infinite amount of time must have been traversed, whereas we know that an infinite amount of time cannot ever be travelled (we can only approach infinity, never reach it) - so the notion of the beginningless past requires an impossible feat.

In the second perspective a look is taken backwards from the present moment. The marker of time must have travelled over all of the past moments - because such is the definition of "past" - yet again it is noted that the early infinity cannot ever be reached, only moved towards, so that there is a conceptual realm (the earliest infinity) of time that the marker of time cannot ever have been at - contradicting the idea that this region of time is "the past".

[Jamesh]

Jamesh wrote:
It is also not fully logical to say that The All is “Not a Thing”. All named concepts are things, by default.

Kevin: It depends how you define "thing". I define a thing to be that which has a boundary around it.

Well, we shall define differently. What in your definition of a thing is the boundary of space, or the boundary of time?

Quote:
Something that is not caused could have no form or nature, but clearly the totality does have, so therefore it is caused.

The things within the Totality have form or nature, but not the Totality itself. "Form" or "nature" only mean something when compared to something else. But there is nothing else than the Totality (by definition).

Well as mentioned I look at it differently, I compare the totality to the parts of the totality I observe. There is something else than the totality, because there are the parts of the totality.

Do the parts of the totality make up the totality or does the totality make its parts? You seem to view it as the latter, whereas I view it as the former, because that is what we see in things.

Quote:
. . . [unfinished – need to think more about this]

Regarding time, since time is part of the Totality, the Totality doesn't exist in time.

While time can be part of the totality, and it is the way in which we observe it, namely as a measure of change, it must also causally precede all things, all form. What part of the totality is Time? is it not evident, everywhere in all things, which would mean it is not part of the totality, but all the parts of the totality?

Time is not simply just an effect of the Totality but it is the most fundamental existence of all. Causality cannot work, unless it works over time. The entire totality is causal, and therefore to me the Totality is Time, and things within the totality are just layered variations of this time.

The totality is timeless [as in without the boundary of a beginning or ending], because it is none other than time.

[Kevin Solway]

What in your definition of a thing is the boundary of space, or the boundary of time?

The boundary of space is identical with the boundary of "not-space" and the boundary of time is identical with the boundary of "not-time".

While time can be part of the totality

Not "can" - it must be, by definition.

[Sapius]

James to Kevin;

If I may...

Well as mentioned I look at it differently, I compare the totality to the parts of the totality I observe. There is something else than the totality, because there are the parts of the totality.

James, I look at it differently than either of you two. Totality is not a thing we actually “observe”, but abstractly see it as in mentally “totalising” the parts; parts that we can and do observe, otherwise we could not have arrived at the purely abstract “totalising”.

Do the parts of the totality make up the totality or does the totality make its parts? You seem to view it as the latter, whereas I view it as the former, because that is what we see in things.

Neither actually; because there isn’t a possibility of such a “thing” as Totality to begin with, since there are no ends to parts itself, so where can one draw the line except abstractly? That would be the greatest and the most deluded mental projection if mental projections were all that we are capable of! Without parts; existence ceases to be, and existence not being is extremely unlikely to say the least. The word ‘Totality” itself is a conceptual boundary, without which one would not be able to think or talk about “IT”. The only thing it provides is support for ones personal wishful idea of the Absolute, God, Non-duality, or whatever of the likes; otherwise there is no logical reason to even assume such an imaginary "non" boundary.

A statement can be absolutely true as and when compared to that which is false, but both put together have no external verification point because there isn’t one to begin with; so which Absolute sense can one apply to it? There isn't an Absolute sense to begin with, except that which is comparably absolute.

However, I have no objections as to how one conceives of “Totality”, it yet remains a comparable concept, as against that which it is not, namely, a part; by definitions I take it.

[Kevin Solway]

we can only approach infinity, never reach it - so the notion of the beginningless past requires an impossible feat.

That's precisely why it's called "beginningless" - because you can never reach the beginning.

If you wanted to start at the beginningless past and head towards the present you would never be able to even begin, because wherever you chose to start would have infinite prior moments.

In the second perspective a look is taken backwards from the present moment. The marker of time must have travelled over all of the past moments - because such is the definition of "past" - yet again it is noted that the early infinity cannot ever be reached, only moved towards, so that there is a conceptual realm (the earliest infinity) of time that the marker of time cannot ever have been at - contradicting the idea that this region of time is "the past".

This is the same as the sophistic argument about the ball which, when you throw it at a wall, can never reach the wall, because it has to traverse an infinite number of finite distances before it reaches the wall - which it can never do.

[Jamesh]

Neither actually; because there isn’t a possibility of such a “thing” as Totality to begin with, since there are no ends to parts itself, so where can one draw the line except abstractly?

The thing is to work out how to prove this statement.

Without parts; existence ceases to be, and existence not being is extremely unlikely to say the least.

So what is the duality of one side only of the absolute duality?

The word ‘Totality” itself is a conceptual boundary, without which one would not be able to think or talk about “IT”. The only thing it provides is support for ones personal wishful idea of the Absolute, God, Non-duality, or whatever of the likes; otherwise there is no logical reason to even assume such an imaginary "non" boundary.

It's valid to help show the logical limitation of the Christian type God. Is valid to remove the concept of non-existence as a possibility.

I like it because of its sheer inexplicability. It gives me something to apply pure logic to, and because it is inexplicable it forces me to go over and over the concept of infinity, which while it does not explain infinity to me, it does help to explain what ity is not, and teaches me more about the nature of things.

I actually want to prove that the totality is not infinite, that there is not an infinite number of things, but no smoking gun has appeared as yet - logic is pointing to an infinity of things, but a henid feeling that this is not right remains. I want to find the logical mobius strip where What Is curls back into itself, and the universe can thus be self-causing.

I started to reply to your last post on the other thread but instead of just concentrating on responding to your comments, I got massively sidetracked and found myself going round in circles and lost for answers. Got the shits with it now :)

[Sapius]

James;

S: Neither actually; because there isn’t a possibility of such a “thing” as Totality to begin with, since there are no ends to parts itself, so where can one draw the line except abstractly?

J: The thing is to work out how to prove this statement.

This “part” and “whole” thing has confused my expressions. By “parts” I mean ‘boundaries’, and not necessarily infinite number of boundaries, but that existence cannot be without at least a single boundary being there, so the nature, as in its ‘boundary-ness’, is infinite.

Lets see if I can explain it better…

Do you see the possibility of say absolutely nothing happening within a point of singularity for example? Do you see the possibility of the two forces you talk about, ever not having a dividing boundary and becoming an absolutely single force? What would that single force actually be capable of? ‘Boundaries (parts) all the way’ means that a non-boundary existence is impossible, irrelevant of the number of the boundaries that may fluctuate as and according to causal conditions. That does not mean that boundaries itself remain permanently infinite in number. We already know that boundaries are not permanent, nor could there number be, but it is impossible for existence to be without at lease one boundary being there; for example between the two interactivly swaying forces. It is the nature of existence that is infinite, not necessarily the number of boundaries.

So what is the duality of one side only of the absolute duality?

What absolute duality, James? Don’t you realize that you are trying to paint it Absolute from an external point of view while still remaining in and of duality? There isn’t a “beyond” at all, so “absolute” or “non-absolute” does not apply at all. Duality is the core nature of existence, just as causality is, (without which even causallity cannot be), so what could or necessarily be on the other side of it? Non-existence? Non-causality? Do you see that as a logical possibility? Non-duality, just as non-causality, is not possible.

It's valid to help show the logical limitation of the Christian type God. Is valid to remove the concept of non-existence as a possibility.

Are you sure about the latter? Do you ever find me arguing for non-existence? And if Duality has to necessarily have non-duality to counter balance it, then why can’t the same principle be applied to existence or causality? Are you saying that there has to necessarily be non-existence for existence to be, and non-causality for causality to be? Same goes for duality.

I actually want to prove that the totality is not infinite, that there is not an infinite number of things, but no smoking gun has appeared as yet - logic is pointing to an infinity of things, but a henid feeling that this is not right remains. I want to find the logical mobius strip where What Is curls back into itself, and the universe can thus be self-causing.

I wish you all the best, but that wouldn’t prove self-causation either, because that begs the question; what caused THAT logical mobius strip to begin with. Plus, that could possibly be one of the infinite numbers of mobius strips if it is limited by its self-curling nature, leaving space beyond it within which it curls. If you say your “universe” encompasses ALL, then “curling” does not apply to IT. I could possibly see the universe as self-sustaining rather than self-causing.

[brokenhead]

Kevin wrote:

So what is your definition of "life", and why do you think viruses are alive?

I do not have to define it in order for it to exist, or for me to know it when I see it. There are plenty of definitions out there and they all have some merit. Viruses are alive because they can be killed. And they often are killed to make vaccines. The specific ordering of DNA with its protein coat is not sufficient for the virus to be alive any more than a fresh human corpse's specific molecular arrangement alone accounts for the life it has newly lost.
Clearly it is not the level of complexity alone that determines whether or not a group of molecules is alive.

And once again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists!
I'm trying to demonstrate the obvious glaring weaknesses in your philosophical generalizations. I'm not surprised you do not see them - it is quite clear you desire not to and have exercised your intellect vigorously toward that end.
But that doesn't, of course, make you right in denying, for instance, the qualitative difference a living thing has as opposed to a nonliving thing. That is something you are doing because you need to in order to consistently deny trhat God exists.
I am saying if you cannot prove He exists (this thread's topic), then you cannot prove He does not. I feel your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is tenuous in spots. Physicists are pretty specific about what they mean by open and closed systems. The notion is simple but admittedly a bit slippery: a closed system is one that is not acted upon in any way by outside influences. Where you draw that boundary is crucial to any ontological discussion like we are having. (And by rights, we should be having it over scotch and cigars somewhere Down Under, where philosophical notions seem to grow in their own unique directions, much like animals born with pouches.)
You are leaving little room for things like Love and Courage and reducing Faith and Hope and Charity to more or less artifacts of molecular complexity. I assume a notion like the Soul and the finer one of the Spirit are likewise such artifacts.
This is not a fulfilling philosophy. It is certainly not an intellectually satisfying one. The most consistent aspect of it is the repeated denials it requires. I get the impression, Kevin, that you personally find faith in a god to be sentimental and weak, and something you would fastidiously pluck from yourself if it got on you, much like so many cobwebs.
And to be honest with you, I often find it so myself. It is irritating when someone finds God and tries to "give" him to you as if you were the one that lost him. I do love my Jehovah's Witness friends dearly, but the knee-jerk reaction to appealing to the Bible makes me crazy. I am a Christian. I do not cease seeking or questioning. Or doubting - doubting with an open mind. I do not need the OT, but find it absorbing at times.
If I do not believe in magic, I do believe in miracles. You seems to view them as the same thing.

Faith, to me, is rather like headlights, headlights in a life that gets dark now and again. It enables you to see the proof you require. No headlights, no proof. The faith comes first - that is something I think you are not understanding. I can give examples of what I see under my headlights, but as you cannot (read: will not) switch yours on, you will never see what I am talking about. It costs you nothing. And headlights can always be turned off. But once you find the on button, you will want to keep it close to hand for those rainy dark nights on narrow winding roads.

Faith can be as minimal as an open mind, open to the testimony of good people who have had a variety of a religious experience. You simply cannot hold up the Tammy Faye Bakkers of the world as proof that all religious experiences are as bogus as three-dollar bills. It's disingenuous. It lacks intellectual rigor. So, in my opinion, does attending a service for an hour a week and never seeking the truth of who we are and how we got here at any other time.

When was the last time you found new meaning, new insight? You sound polished and rehearsed in your responses, as if everything I can throw your way you have heard before. That may very well be. I have said in these forums several times that I have never had an original idea in my life. I stand by that. What I haven't added is that I frequently have new ones - new to me - some I glean from other people, some just crop up. I often find myself unable to communicate them to my satisfaction, and often I feel like I'm am the only one who has them, but invariably I find I am not.

Whether you agree or do not, I have no ulterior motive for what I am telling you. If I have any motive, it's rather an altruistic one: my life is richer because I know there is a Creator, I feel other people would likely react the same way. Other people do. Not every one who recognizes God is out to get your money or else bash gays (see "godhatesfags.com")or make sure you vote Republican and support the NRA.

"There is more in the heavens..."

[Kevin Solway]

So what is your definition of "life", and why do you think viruses are alive?

I do not have to define it in order for it to exist

If you perceive life as existing then you must be defining what life is. It's just that you're not conscious of what you are doing.

And once again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists!

You are trying to prove the possibility of such a God, and I am demonstrating that you wrong to attempt to do so, because there is no possibility - other than the possibility of an alien creator being (possibly evil) who must themselves have been created.

I'm trying to demonstrate the obvious glaring weaknesses in your philosophical generalizations.

You haven't pointed out any weaknesses so far.

that doesn't, of course, make you right in denying, for instance, the qualitative difference a living thing has as opposed to a nonliving thing.

Since you won't define exactly what you mean by "life" (other than "can be killed") then anything you say about life doesn't really mean anything.

If you try to define life you will realize that it is an illusion.

I am saying if you cannot prove He exists (this thread's topic), then you cannot prove He does not.

You can prove that it is impossible for an existing thing (such as a possible alien creator being) to be uncreated.

This is not a fulfilling philosophy.

Truth is not fulfulling?

It is certainly not an intellectually satisfying one.

Truth is not satisfying?

These are not arguments.

If I do not believe in magic, I do believe in miracles. You seems to view them as the same thing.

Walking on water? Parting the red sea? It's not that I believe they are magic, but that I don't believe they ever happened.

my life is richer because I know there is a Creator

So long as you keep an open mind, and keep learning. We all have to start somewhere!

[Laird]

Laird: we can only approach infinity, never reach it - so the notion of the beginningless past requires an impossible feat.

Kevin: That's precisely why it's called "beginningless" - because you can never reach the beginning.

That's essentially my second perspective: if you can't ever reach the (infinitely distant) beginning then it can't have happened and yet it is supposedly part of the past so it needs to have happened.

If you wanted to start at the beginningless past and head towards the present you would never be able to even begin, because wherever you chose to start would have infinite prior moments.

And you really don't see the anomaly here? It's all very well to say that for the future you can never reach the end because wherever you go there are infinite future moments, but the past is supposed to have already happened - you need to be able to get to the beginning.

Laird: In the second perspective a look is taken backwards from the present moment. The marker of time must have travelled over all of the past moments - because such is the definition of "past" - yet again it is noted that the early infinity cannot ever be reached, only moved towards, so that there is a conceptual realm (the earliest infinity) of time that the marker of time cannot ever have been at - contradicting the idea that this region of time is "the past".

Kevin: This is the same as the sophistic argument about the ball which, when you throw it at a wall, can never reach the wall, because it has to traverse an infinite number of finite distances before it reaches the wall - which it can never do.

It is not the same, as I already explained in a separate thread, and it's weak of you to bring up this argument again without addressing my rebuttal of it which I've already provided elsewhere. It is a completely different argument because the ball travels a finite distance to the wall whereas you have already defined the "distance" to the beginningless past as infinite. The difference is that for the ball you generate an artificial infinity where one does not already exist whereas for the beginningless past the infinity is already there. And as I explained a while ago in my rebuttal in that other thread, each of the infinite number of distances that the ball must travel before it reaches the wall is not in fact finite, but is infinitesimally small. To travel over an infinitesimally small distance is to not move at all, which is the real flaw of this "sophistic argument" - it pretends to be a model of motion when in fact it is a model of standing still. In contrast, I am not splitting up the infinity of your beginningless past into any artificial set of distances, I am simply remarking that one cannot ever reach the beginning, which you already agree with (see your first quoted comment above).

[Kevin Solway]

if you can't ever reach the (infinitely distant) beginning then it can't have happened and yet it is supposedly part of the past so it needs to have happened.

There's no alternative to beginninglessness, so you're stuck with it.

If you wanted to start at the beginningless past and head towards the present you would never be able to even begin, because wherever you chose to start would have infinite prior moments.

And you really don't see the anomaly here?

Absolutely not. There is no possible alternative.

the past is supposed to have already happened - you need to be able to get to the beginning.

From any particular point in the past, there is a finite amount of time to the present.

So you can reach any point that you nominate.

"The infinite past" is not a point in the past, so it is not relevant to the discussion.

This is the same as the sophistic argument about the ball which, when you throw it at a wall, can never reach the wall, because it has to traverse an infinite number of finite distances before it reaches the wall - which it can never do.

And as I explained a while ago in my rebuttal in that other thread, each of the infinite number of distances that the ball must travel before it reaches the wall is not in fact finite, but is infinitesimally small.

In the example where each step towards the wall is half the remaining distance, each step is a non-zero, finite distance. So the problem is essentially the same.

In contrast, I am not splitting up the infinity of your beginningless past into any artificial set of distances, I am simply remarking that one cannot ever reach the beginning, which you already agree with (see your first quoted comment above).

David correctly remarked that the infinite past is not something you "reach", and nor is the present something you "reach". The concept of "reaching" involves artificially splitting the infinite up into segments.

[Jamesh]

In contrast, I am not splitting up the infinity of your beginningless past into any artificial set of distances, I am simply remarking that one cannot ever reach the beginning

Beginning and ending is always present in the Now. The universe alters by reconfiguration, not by overall growth or decline. While segments of the totality may grow and decline spatially, as per the nature of things, and indeed our whole observed universe may be doing so now, overall there is never any change to the degree of power or force contained within the process of existence.

[ataxas]

brokenhead and Kevin:

Do not confuse the existence of an immortal soul with the existence of God. One has no bearing upon the other, unless you consider textual evidence to be evidence, which you cannot, because the burden of proof is on those who declare something positively, rather than those who deny.

Both of you seem to muddy the waters on a regular basis in this thread, and I suggest that you clear them before proceeding.

[ataxas]

In the example where each step towards the wall is half the remaining distance, each step is a non-zero, finite distance. So the problem is essentially the same.

Xeno's paradox is nonsense, unless you believe that matter may be split infinitely small.

Edward Lear dealt with this eventuality quite nicely:

Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible slices, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.