What do you guys think about my Ontological Argument?

[shunyadragon]

Then see below where I respond to your counter-arguments.

Nothing below responded adequately to my counter arguments.

Then refute my proof of it.

I have, you have failed to demonstrate that our physical existence is finite and temporal.

Only if you define "nature" as "the greatest possible being", in which case you're just using a different word for God.

No, the existence of any being regardless of name is a question of faith.

Finally you say something smart!

You misunderstood, prove that a natural cause for everything is not possible.

How are you defining "natural" and "divine"?

Natural - The source of everything is natural.

Divine - The source of everything is God(s).

I don't see anything in there that has anything to do with my argument.

It demonstrates that you cannot argue for a finite temporal physical existence using 'actual infinities'

What's the definition of a "spacial infinity"?

The definition of infinity has three parts as shown in #3.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinity

in·fin·i·ty   [in-fin-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or state of being infinite.
2. something that is infinite.
3. infinite space, time, or quantity.
4. an infinite extent, amount, or number.
5. an indefinitely great amount or number.

© source where applicable

spacial infinity is represented by vectors in any direction that are boundless in space, no numbers. Any point selected is arbitrary. Actual and potential infinities are defined in #4 and #5, and category 'quantity' in #3. Actual and potential infinities do not have any relevance as to whether the space' of our physical existence is possible infinite.

The definition you quote after that seems to agree with me.

Nothing in this definitions indicates that time is a rate 'rate of change,' It does not define a 'rate.' It simple says, ' A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.' Time is not dependent on the events, events simply take place in time.

Something can't be both timeless and in time.

This is an assertion you cannot back up. Why not?

The second part of the #3 definition above is 'temporal infinity' which is represented by a two arrowed vector, one pointed in the past the other in the future. There are no numbers on these vectors, they are simply boundless. Any starting point selected on the vector is arbitrary. In the definitions in Rucker's book, the 'infinite temporal' vector would be infinite and boundless, p 16, Figure. 13A

You still haven't explained what you even mean by that. Give a specific response to my argument, is that so hard? It seems like you always, no matter what the topic is, dodge actually dealing with the data.

You have not provided any data, except an example (not sure how good it is) of an actual infinity, which does not apply to 'spatial nor temporal infinities.'

No dodge here except on your part. You have not responded to the argument that actual infinities do not limit the space nor time of our physical existence.

[Zeta Metroid]

I have, you have failed to demonstrate that our physical existence is finite and temporal.

Holy crap
I…I never thought I’d really see someone say something like this. I just…dude, you’ve gotta be a bot.
Demonstrate that our existence is temporal? Are you serious? Do clocks tick? Do things change? Time applies to us, so we’re temporal.
Demonstrate that its finite? Have we lived forever? No? Then our existence is finite!

No, the existence of any being regardless of name is a question of faith.

Do you have “faith” that you exist? No! You’re self-aware, you know you exist.

You misunderstood, prove that a natural cause for everything is not possible.

That’s what I did in the very first post.

Natural - The source of everything is natural.

You can’t use a term to define itself! That robs it of all meaning. I asked how defined “natural”. Saying “natural means natural” isn’t an answer.
This is beyond a bad argument, this is just common sense!

spacial infinity is represented by vectors in any direction that are boundless in space, no numbers. Any point selected is arbitrary. Actual and potential infinities are defined in #4 and #5, and category 'quantity' in #3. Actual and potential infinities do not have any relevance as to whether the space' of our physical existence is possible infinite.

This post just keeps getting worse and worse
What you’re saying honestly has nothing to do with what I said. What you’re talking about is like the surface of a sphere (it seems, you're not really explaining), how you can keep going in one direction forever. That's a potential infinite. You could potentially keep going around and around, but the sphere still has a certain size. That’s completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. I was showing why an infinite number of past events can’t exist. At best what you're saying might be useful against someone who was saying time must have an end because it had a beginning.

Time is not dependent on the events, events simply take place in time.

So then what is “time”? What is that “continuum”?

This is an assertion you cannot back up.

I’ve concluded you’re not being serious.
God help us if you are. If you’re in time, you can’t be timeless. If you’re timeless, time, by definition, doesn’t apply to you.

There are no numbers on these vectors, they are simply boundless.

Well duh. Nobody thinks an infinite past has a beginning boundary. I don’t see what this has to do with my point.

which does not apply to 'spatial nor temporal infinities.'

Yes it does. I already know an infinite series of something has no beginning or end boundary, that’s actually required for what I was saying about them to be true.

[shunyadragon]

Holy crap
I…I never thought I’d really see someone say something like this. I just…dude, you’ve gotta be a bot.
Demonstrate that our existence is temporal? Are you serious? Do clocks tick? Do things change? Time applies to us, so we’re temporal.
Demonstrate that its finite? Have we lived forever? No? Then our existence is finite!

Most definitely finite time applies to us, clocks and change, but I was referring to our physical existence as whole as possibly infinite and eternal, not us as individuals.

Do you have “faith” that you exist? No! You’re self-aware, you know you exist.

I wa referring to the supreme being in your argument.

That’s what I did in the very first post.

No, you made an assertion, and a poor argument that does not work.

You can’t use a term to define itself! That robs it of all meaning. I asked how defined “natural”. Saying “natural means natural” isn’t an answer.
This is beyond a bad argument, this is just common sense!

Natural means a product of our greater physical existence and the Laws of Nature.

This post just keeps getting worse and worse
What you’re saying honestly has nothing to do with what I said. What you’re talking about is like the surface of a sphere, how you can keep going in one direction forever. That’s completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. I was showing why an infinite number of past events can’t exist.

No i was not referring to a sphere, which is defined as 'finite and unbounded. I was talking about vectors (straight lines with arrows at either end) which represents an 'infinite and unbounded. spacial infinities have no numbers. You may have shown that, but that is an actual infinity of the 'number of past events.' As per the definition I provided events occur in space and time, but they do not define 'space and time.'

So then what is “time”? What is that “continuum”?

Time is as defined in the past definition provided. Continuum? The whole of the subject under consideration. In this case time.

I've concluded you’re not being serious.
God help us if you are. If you’re in time, you can’t be timeless. If you’re timeless, time, by definition, doesn’t apply to you.

I am not timeless, of course, never claimed to be. I am very serious.

Again, you made an assertion and cannot back it up.

Well duh. Nobody thinks an infinite past has a beginning boundary. I don’t see what this has to do with my point.

Apparently you do not think the past is infinite. Has that changed?

Yes it does. I already know an infinite series of something has no beginning or end boundary, that’s actually required for what I was saying about them to be true.

Neither spacial nor temporal infinities are infinite series. To have infinite series you must either define them as an actual infinity as set of whatever you want to define as that series, or a potential infinity with a starting point with an infinite series that follows.

Actually Lucretious understood the problem thousands of years ago, but you fail to grasp it today.

[Zeta Metroid]

Time applies to us, I was referring to our physical existence as whole, not us as individuals.

By "our physical existence", do you mean our mortal lives, or the universe?

I wa referring to the supreme being in your argument.

Then why did you say "any"?

Natural means a product of our greater physical existence and the Laws of Nature.

The fact the laws of nature exist means an omnipotent being must exist. The laws of the universe cannot have arisen by themselves, obviously, as there would have had to be deeper laws already in place on the formation of new laws. So, something that no laws apply to must be their ultimate source. (As, obviously, if laws beyond something's control apply to it, it can't be their source). Something which no laws apply to can do anything, which is the definition of omnipotence.
So, since the laws exist, so does an omnipotent being.

I was talking about vectors (straight lines with arrows at either end) which represents an 'infinite and unbounded. spacial infinities have no numbers.

Sure they do. Size is an inherent property of space. So, that line would be an infinite number of meters long. But, a line cannot be infinitely long, as you run into the problem I pointed out in the very first post. So this “special infinity” is impossible.

There's a difference between lacking useful reference points and lacking size.

As per the definition I provided events occur in space and time, but they do not define 'space and time.'

If the universe has an infinite past, it'd be an infinite number of hours old. So, you’d run into a similar problem the “spacial infinity” has above: its still a self-contradicting actual infinite.

Continuum? The whole of the subject under consideration. In this case time.

You defined time as some sort of "continuum". What's the definition of that "continuum"? What're its essential properties?

Again, you made an assertion and cannot back it up.

Being timeless while being in time is a contradiction. If you're in time, by definition you're not timeless (as time applies to you), and if you're timeless then by definition time doesn't apply to you.

Apparently you do not think the past is infinite. Has that changed?

I was speaking hypothetically. If the past were infinite (which it isn't), then it wouldn't have a beginning boundary.

Neither spacial nor temporal infinities are infinite series.

How is an infinite past not an infinite series of past moments and events? How could it lead to the present if it wasn't?

Actually Lucretious understood the problem thousands of years ago, but you fail to grasp it today.

"Look at me! I'm name-dropping philosophers! That makes up for my confused and nonsensical arguments, right?”

[shunyadragon]

By "our physical existence", do you mean our mortal lives, or the universe?

No, the physical existence as whole that contains these.

Then why did you say "any"?

I was referring to any possible supreme being that you could possible believe in.

The fact the laws of nature exist means an omnipotent being must exist. The laws of the universe cannot have arisen by themselves, obviously, as there would have had to be deeper laws already in place on the formation of new laws.

The deeper Laws could be natural.

So, something that no laws apply to must be their ultimate source. (As, obviously, if laws beyond something's control apply to it, it can't be their source). Something which no laws apply to can do anything, which is the definition of omnipotence.
So, since the laws exist, so does an omnipotent being.

Not necessary. deeper Natural Laws are sufficient, turtles all the way down.

Sure they do. Size is an inherent property of space.

No it is not, size is not an inherent property of 'spacial infinities,' by definition.

So, that line would be an infinite number of meters long. But, a line cannot be infinitely long, as you run into the problem I pointed out in the very first post. So this “special infinity” is impossible.

No by definition spacial infinities have no numbers and are boundless, by definition. I gave a definition in the dictionary and a thread, including a very well written referenced book to back it up, and you have provided nothing but assertions.

There's a difference between lacking useful reference points and lacking size.

Yes there is, spacial infinities lack reference points and size by definition, there is no ending nor beginning points.

If the universe has an infinite past, it'd be an infinite number of hours old. So, you’d run into a similar problem the “spacial infinity” has above: its still a self-contradicting actual infinite.

No, temporal infinities lack units of time, they are simply infinite. If you define something in terms of units of time and assign a point 0. Then you are defining a 'potential infinity of the human Mindscape.

You defined time as some sort of "continuum". What's the definition of that "continuum"? What're its essential properties?

The essential properties of any continuum is defined by the subject. The definition describes the essential property of this continuum as 'time.' Events occur within time and space they do not define time and space.

Being timeless while being in time is a contradiction. If you're in time, by definition you're not timeless (as time applies to you), and if you're timeless then by definition time doesn't apply to you.

Time being infinite is not dependent on events and things within time by the definition I provided.

I was speaking hypothetically. If the past were infinite (which it isn't), then it wouldn't have a beginning boundary.

By definition of infinite time 'temporal infinity' is 'infinite' by the definition in the dictionary. Nothing in the dictionary definition limits time as not infinite in the past nor future. I also gave a good source of a book, but you chose to ignore it. Therefore I will give more references. You have provided none. .

How is an infinite past not an infinite series of past moments and events? How could it lead to the present if it wasn't?

By definition any events or series occur in time, they do not define or limit time by the definitions and references I provide.

"Look at me! I'm name-dropping philosophers! That makes up for my confused and nonsensical arguments, right?”

You do not know who Lucretious is do you? I provide references, you have provided nothing.

[Zeta Metroid]

No, the physical existence as whole that contains these.

Ah, I see. In that case, I don't see any reason to defend the idea that all matter is necessarily temporal.
Though it is necessarily finite, as true infinites are impossible.

I was referring to any possible supreme being that you could possible believe in.

There's a pretty big difference between "any being" and "any possible supreme being"!

The deeper Laws could be natural.

The issue with that is, you get into an infinite regression. Which isn't possible.

No it is not, size is not an inherent property of 'spacial infinities,' by definition.

If you're talking about the stuff we live in, space, then yes it is. Space has area, you can put objects in it. How many and what sizes of objects you can put in it depend on its size. What even is space without size? It'd be nonexistent.

All you're doing is talking about an infinitely big space. That's it. Its nothing as special as you seem to think it is. (Either that, or I'm misunderstanding because you're barely making sense. [It can be a bit hard to tell what a guy is saying when he uses "any being" to mean "potential supreme beings" and "our physical existence" to mean "all matter”])

No by definition spacial infinities have no numbers and are boundless, by definition.

Then that's a contradiction. You can't have space without size. "Size" just means "how much space". No size means no space.

No, temporal infinities lack units of time, they are simply infinite.

"Infinite" because they're made up of an infinite number of moments.
"Time", in the sense I'm using it when I say there can't be an infinite past time that's the cause of the present, is the progression of changes from one state of reality to another. If you try and remove those states (each individual state is called a "moment"), then the entire argument that the past is infinite collapses. You're doing exactly what you did with the space thing above: taking time out of time so you're left with a self-contradiction.

Time being infinite is not dependent on events and things within time by the definition I provided.

Let's clear things up then: when I said "time" in the first post, I was defining it as "the progression of change from one state of reality to another". We don't even have to call it time if you'd rather stick with your barely intelligible definition, we can call it "mintsponge" or whatever else you'd like. It doesn't really matter, all that matters it that its the progression of change from one state of reality to another we’re talking about.
And there can't have been an infinite number of such changes.

By definition any events or series occur in time,

Its those events and series I'm referring to in the first post, anything else is irrelevant.

And I do know of Lucretius. Not very impressive. A suicidal, moronic hedonist. Guess its not surprising you're a fan of his

[shunyadragon]

Ah, I see. In that case, I don't see any reason to defend the idea that all matter is necessarily temporal.
Though it is necessarily finite, as true infinites are impossible.

True infinities are very possible, your stuck in the ancient history of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. I have provided definitions and sources, and I will provide more sources.

There's a pretty big difference between "any being" and "any possible supreme being"!

Yes there is, and I have made it clear what I was referring to, now let's go on.

The issue with that is, you get into an infinite regression. Which isn't possible.

Again, infinite regression is an actual infinity, temporal infinities do not have numbers.



If you're talking about the stuff we live in, space, then yes it is. Space has area, you can put objects in it. How many and what sizes of objects you can put in it depend on its size. What even is space without size? It'd be nonexistent. [/quote]

False, the size and extent of space is not dependent on how many and what size of objects are in it. Infinite space is without size and is not nonexistent.

All you're doing is talking about an infinitely big space. That's it. Its nothing as special as you seem to think it is. (Either that, or I'm misunderstanding because you're barely making sense. [It can be a bit hard to tell what a guy is saying when he uses "any being" to mean "potential supreme beings" and "our physical existence" to mean "all matter”])

I clarified my reference to 'being,' now let's go on. I am not referring to 'big' space. I am referring to infinite space with references, you have provided no references that temporal and spacial infinities are not possible, other than your assertions on faith.

Then that's a contradiction. You can't have space without size. "Size" just means "how much space". No size means no space.

Your view is a contradiction. Infinite space does not have a measured size. Yes, 'size' would mean how much space, but infinite space does not have a limiting size.

"Infinite" because they're made up of an infinite number of moments.

Nothing made up, except your view. Moments are a human convention like seconds and hors. There are not any moments in time, The definition defines it as a continuum without divisions.

"Time", in the sense I'm using it when I say there can't be an infinite past time that's the cause of the present, is the progression of changes from one state of reality to another. If you try and remove those states (each individual state is called a "moment"), then the entire argument that the past is infinite collapses. You're doing exactly what you did with the space thing above: taking time out of time so you're left with a self-contradiction.

How you choose to use it is not relevant unless you can provide a definition that considers cause a part of time. By definition time is not causal, nor is it a progression of changes from one state of reality to another. Events, changes, progressions occur within time by definition. I am not trying to remove anything. These events occur within time and do not define time.

Let's clear things up then: when I said "time" in the first post, I was defining it as "the progression of change from one state of reality to another". We don't even have to call it time if you'd rather stick with your barely intelligible definition, we can call it "mintsponge" or whatever else you'd like. It doesn't really matter, all that matters it that its the progression of change from one state of reality to another we’re talking about.And there can't have been an infinite number of such changes.

Clear things up? Your creating definitions with no references to suit your argument. I and citing definitions and sources from math, physics, and cosmology as to how they are actually used to describe the cosmos. Let's call it 'time' by acceptable English definitions, and 'infinity' by accepted Engish definitions and references, and not a self defined fantasy world.

There are definitions of time used in the everyday temporal sense. I am using a definition specifically for how time is considered in math, physics, and the cosmos

'A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.'

Its those events and series I'm referring to in the first post, anything else is irrelevant.

Than provide good academic sources and definitions that support your view. Actually by definition the the events and series are not relevant to the definition and concept of time, they occur within time, but do not define it.

And I do know of Lucretius. Not very impressive. A suicidal, moronic hedonist. Guess its not surprising you're a fan of his

Logical Fallacy big time. If you you know of Lucertius, you would know how he described and infinite vector logically and rationally.

[Zeta Metroid]

I have provided definitions

Your definitions barely make sense, Mr. "any" and "all possible greatest beings" are synonyms.

Yes there is, and I have made it clear what I was referring to, now let's go on.

Nearly everything you've been saying is like that: you put it in barely sensical terms and assume other people know what you're talking about.
Even when you quote from a dictionary, you can’t truly explain what you’re talking about.

...temporal infinities do not have numbers.

Since we're using the definition of "time" (we can call it something else if you'd feel more comfortable with that) I used in the above post (as any other definition is irrelevant), it does indeed have numbers. Each individual state of reality is a "moment", and it has an infinite number of moments.

False, the size and extent of space is not dependent on how many and what size of objects are in it.

Not only do your own words not make sense, but apparently you don't read other people's closely enough to even know what they're saying!

I didn't say it was dependent on what objects were in it, I said:

"How many and what sizes of objects you can put in it depend on its size."

Are you reading? Let me make it clearer, since apparently that's what you need:

"...sizes of objects you can put..."

"...can put..."

But someone who with your level of reading comprehension probably needs color coding:

"...can put..."
"...can..."

I said how much you could put, not how much was actually in there!

Infinite space is without size...

If its infinitely big then its not without size. You could put an infinite number of objects inside.

I am not referring to 'big' space. I am referring to infinite space

“Infinite” is a size. You’re describing how many objects could be put inside.
True or false: you could put an infinite number of Washington Monuments in an infinite space.

...you have provided no references that temporal and spacial infinities are not possible, other than your assertions on faith.

You’ve gotta be a bot. I’ve never seen or even heard of a literate human being with such a low level of reading comprehension (especially since you’ve already shown us you don’t know what “can” means).

I’m trying to prove your “temporal” and “spacial” infinities (despite the fact that your descriptions of them make about as much sense as your description of “being”) are just weird names for an infinite amount of time and space. Even if I’m wrong, its not just a blind faith assertion because I’m actually trying to prove it.
Seriously dude, your posts sound like a Cpedia article.

Infinite space does not have a measured size. Yes, 'size' would mean how much space, but infinite space does not have a limiting size.

There’s a big difference between having no limiting size and having no size at all!
You seriously don’t make any sense when you speak. “No” is not a synonym for “no limiting”!

There are not any moments in time, The definition defines it as a continuum without divisions.

The thing your definition describes isn’t what I was arguing against in the first post, so its completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

Again, if you wanna use a different word, we can. Just tell me what you wanna use. (Mintsponge?)

Your creating definitions with no references to suit your argument.

I don’t need references. I’m telling you what I’m talking about, what the initial argument was referring to. Let’s make up a term if that’s what you want.

I am using a definition specifically for how time is considered in math, physics, and the cosmos

You’re using a definition you can’t even explain. What is the “continuum”? Tell us everything you can about this “nonspatial continuum”.

Actually by definition the the events and series are not relevant to the definition and concept of time, they occur within time, but do not define it.

This “continuum” you’re referring to isn’t relevant to what I was talking about in the first post. I was arguing against the view that one state of reality is the cause of the next, and you can follow that back indefinitely. The vague “continuum” you’re talking about (and it makes about as much sense as your use of “being”) is irrelevant to the view that it was arguing against.

If you you know of Lucertius, you would know how he described and infinite vector logically and rationally.

Knowing of someone doesn’t mean you’ve got intimate knowledge of their works. I know some bare, basic stuff about the man, but haven’t read his works.
What’d he say about the subject?

[shunyadragon]

Your definitions barely make sense, Mr. "any" and "all possible greatest beings" are synonyms.

I clarified that point, give up the ghost.

Nearly everything you've been saying is like that: you put it in barely sensical terms and assume other people know what you're talking about.
Even when you quote from a dictionary, you can’t truly explain what you’re talking about.

I have explained, you apparently do not understand basic English. If you did the definitions and references I gave should make sense to you without explanations.

Since we're using the definition of "time" (we can call it something else if you'd feel more comfortable with that) I used in the above post (as any other definition is irrelevant), it does indeed have numbers. Each individual state of reality is a "moment", and it has an infinite number of moments.

No time is not defined as having numbers, Moments are human conventions, and not a property of time. From the human perspective and convenience you can say 'it has an infinite number of moments, but in reality time is defined as nothing of the sort.

Not only do your own words not make sense, but apparently you don't read other people's closely enough to even know what they're saying!

I didn't say it was dependent on what objects were in it, I said:

"How many and what sizes of objects you can put in it depend on its size."

Are you reading? Let me make it clearer, since apparently that's what you need: "...sizes of objects you can put..."

"...can put..."

But someone who with your level of reading comprehension probably needs color coding:

"...can put..."
"...can..."

I said how much you could put, not how much was actually in there!

There is no limited to the number of articles, things or whatever that can be put in an infinite space.

If its infinitely big then its not without size.

An infinite space does not have a measurable size.

You could put an infinite number of objects inside.

Yes you could.

“Infinite” is a size. You’re describing how many objects could be put inside.

No I am not describing where objects occur outside. Objects occur inside space. Spacial Infinities are boundless and are not defined by a limiting size. If you want to use 'infinite size' than the size of anything described as infinitely unlimited in size.

True or false: you could put an infinite number of Washington Monuments in an infinite space.

True you could, but actual infinities like 'the number of Washington monuments' do not define 'spacial infinities,' objects would exist in spacial infinities and not constrain the size of 'spacial infinities.' I am not sure, by your understanding of actual infinities that the set of 'the infinite number of Washington monuments' is possible, but than again you may be wrong.

I’m trying to prove your “temporal” and “spacial” infinities (despite the fact that your descriptions of them make about as much sense as your description of “being”) are just weird names for an infinite amount of time and space. Even if I’m wrong, its not just a blind faith assertion because I’m actually trying to prove it.
Seriously dude, your posts sound like a Cpedia article.

OK, 'Infinite Time' and 'Infinite Space.' if you wish. The terms I used are from scientific and math references, they are not mine.

If you are concerned about my description read up on them yourself. You have not provided any references to support your argument concerning time and space infinities.

There’s a big difference between having no limiting size and having no size at all!
You seriously don’t make any sense when you speak. “No” is not a synonym for “no limiting”!

OK, no limiting size if it pleases you. From a previous post, 'Your view is a contradiction. Infinite space does not have a measured size. Yes, 'size' would mean how much space, but infinite space does not have a limiting size.'

The thing your definition describes isn’t what I was arguing against in the first post, so its completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

It is relevant to whether the nature of our whole physical existence is infinite and eternal.

Again, if you wanna use a different word, we can. Just tell me what you wanna use. (Mintsponge?)

I do not want another word. I you use 'Mintsponge' than it is defined as - 'A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.'

There are in reality no moments in time, this is strictly a human convention of describing passage of time, as are seconds and hours.

I don’t need references. I’m telling you what I’m talking about, what the initial argument was referring to. Let’s make up a term if that’s what you want.

You need references if you're going to argue anything beyond 'assertions of faith.'

You’re using a definition you can’t even explain. What is the “continuum”? Tell us everything you can about this “nonspatial continuum”.

I have explained it already. non-spacial means that the continuum of time is independent of space. Continuum simple means 'continuing as a whole and no divisions.' as the the definition indicates

This “continuum” you’re referring to isn’t relevant to what I was talking about in the first post. I was arguing against the view that one state of reality is the cause of the next, and you can follow that back indefinitely. The vague “continuum” you’re talking about (and it makes about as much sense as your use of “being”) is irrelevant to the view that it was arguing against.

I made my reference to 'being' clear, please drop it.

The concept of continuum is clearly a part of the definition and meaningful. the problem is 'one state of reality as the cause of the next' is not part of the definition of time.

Knowing of someone doesn’t mean you’ve got intimate knowledge of their works. I know some bare, basic stuff about the man, but haven’t read his works.
What’d he say about the subject?

Knowledge is power, you can read the following article to understand him better.

I know considerable about Lucretius and you abusive name calling is unwarranted. It is understandable that traditional believers in Christianity would be uncomfortable with him, because in the 1st century BC he was in the vanguard of modern math and science in his views. In 1917 he was recognized for his contributions in this article cited here . . .

http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1918-24-07/S0002-9904-1918-03078-4/S0002-9904-1918-03078-4.pdf

In any adequate historical survey of the role of the notion of infinity in our human thinking a consideration of the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius will have to be accorded the position of an important chapter. Most of the many great merits of the work have been long [neglected], if not generally nor even widely, recognized. One of its recognized merits is its superb daring and the unsurpassed magnificence of its enterprise; another is its probably unmatched union of literary excellence with scientific spirit and aim; still another, which includes many, being a highly composite merit, is its confident and often acutely argued presentation, sometimes in detail and sometimes in clear and striking outline, of ideas and doctrines that came into their own only in modern science. I refer to such concepts and dogmas as natural law, the atomic constitution of matter, the conservation of mass and of energy, organic evolution, spontaneous or chance variation of life forms, struggle for existence, survival of the fit, and sensation as the ultimate basis of knowledge and the ultimate test of reality, not to mention other equally brilliant anticipations of modern scientific thought.

In attempts to appraise the work of Lucretius his employment of the notion of infinity is commonly indicated, but only more or less incidentally. For example, in Masson's large volume, Lucretius, Epicurean and Poet, the term infinite has only a subordinate place in the index of important terms; in Munro's very extensive Notes the term receives but scant attention; and it receives even less in the Notes found in Cyril Bailey's recent and deservedly much praised English translation of the poem. What is missed in such appreciations and commentaries and what I wish to signalize here is the fact that the concept of infinity—of infinite multitude and infinite magnitude—is not merely one among the many ideas, but is indeed the dominant idea, in the work of Lucretius.

© source where applicable

[Zeta Metroid]

I have explained, you apparently do not understand basic English.

Sorry, I forgot that in basic English, "can" has no meaning and "all possible greatest" and "any" mean the same thing.

...Moments are human conventions, and not a property of time.

lolololol
Suppose time were to stop, right now. Reality would be in a certain state. (I'd be about to hit the "R" key, Obama would be president, the sun would be burning, your mom would be looking at pictures of me, etc.) Resume time, and then stop it again. Reality would be in a different state (my finger would be slightly closer to the R key, your mom's finger would be [TEXT EDITED], Obama's remaining term would be slightly shorter, the sun would be a slightly different temperature, etc.). Those different states are "moments". If reality exists, and reality changes, then there are moments. (Otherwise, how could you say it changed? If something doesn't go from one state to another, by definition it isn't changing. The change being continuous just describes its rate.)

There is no limited to the number of articles, things or whatever that can be put in an infinite space.

Exactly, that's why its called infinite!

OK, 'Infinite Time' and 'Infinite Space.' if you wish.

Finally. Now, what's your solution to the mathematic problem I pointed out with such things in the first post?

OK, no limiting size if it pleases you. From a previous post, 'Your view is a contradiction. Infinite space does not have a measured size. Yes, 'size' would mean how much space, but infinite space does not have a limiting size.'

Erm...yeah, that was what I was responding to. Its not a matter of "if it pleases me", its what you said...

It is relevant to whether the nature of our whole physical existence is infinite and eternal.

What’s that go to do with what I said in the first post?

I you use 'Mintsponge' than it is defined as - 'A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.'

That’s completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about. I’m not concerned with vague, ethereal “continuums”.

You need references if you're going to argue anything beyond 'assertions of faith.'

The only reference that can truly be trusted, and the only reference that's ever needed, is logic itself.

non-spacial means that the continuum of time is independent of space. Continuum simple means 'continuing as a whole and no divisions.' as the the definition indicates

What exactly continues as a whole with no divisions? (Don’t say time. So far, your definition of that term is: “something other than space that continues as a whole with no divisions.” So, is anything other than space that continues as a whole with no divisions “time”?)

The concept of continuum is clearly a part of the definition and meaningful. the problem is 'one state of reality as the cause of the next' is not part of the definition of time.

Then the first post wasn’t talking about (what you call) time.
So stop with the semantics and get back on topic.

I know considerable about Lucretius and you abusive name calling is unwarranted.

Are you saying he was neither suicidal nor a hedonist? (An Epicurean that ended his own life sure sounds like he fits that description…)

I get that you’re a fan of his, now tell me what he said that was relevant.

[shunyadragon]

Suppose time were to stop, right now Reality would be in a certain state. (I'd be about to hit the "R" key, Obama would be president, the sun would be burning, your mom would be looking at pictures of me, etc.) Resume time, and then stop it again. Reality would be in a different state (my finger would be slightly closer to the R key, your mom's finger would be [TEXT EDITED], Obama's remaining term would be slightly shorter, the sun would be a slightly different temperature, etc.). Those different states are "moments". If reality exists, and reality changes, then there are moments. (Otherwise, how could you say it changed? If something doesn't go from one state to another, by definition it isn't changing. The change being continuous just describes its rate.).

Time will not stop just because you suppose it will.

Continuous does not have a rate assigned to it.

Finally. Now, what's your solution to the mathematic problem I pointed out with such things in the first post?

The actual infinity you used fails to support your argument. I proposed a 'potential infinity' that demonstrates an 'infinite past' using a Mindscape infinity with the human concept of 'moments.'

What’s that go to do with what I said in the first post?

You failed to demonstrate

That’s completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about. I’m not concerned with vague, ethereal “continuums”.

Conituum is not vague nor ethereal, and it is part of the recognized definition of time. If you cannot handle the English its your problem

The only reference that can truly be trusted, and the only reference that's ever needed, is logic itself.

Do not agree. Arguments that are valid still may be true or false. You need references to be convincing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument#Deductive_arguments

Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, and its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and a false conclusion.

Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid arguments. An argument form is valid if and only if all arguments of that form are valid. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid, and this can be done by giving another argument of the same form that has true premises but a false conclusion. In informal logic this is called a counter argument.

© source where applicable

What exactly continues as a whole with no divisions? (Don’t say time.

time

[quote] So far, your definition of that term is: “something other than space that continues as a whole with no divisions.” So, is anything other than space that continues as a whole with no divisions “time”?)

Time by definition.

Then the first post wasn’t talking about (what you call) time.
So stop with the semantics and get back on topic.

It is the recognized definition of time. I am on topic.

Are you saying he was neither suicidal nor a hedonist? (An Epicurean that ended his own life sure sounds like he fits that description…)

I get that you’re a fan of his, now tell me what he said that was relevant.

His personal life is really not relevant to the argument. His written works are what are relevant. What you are doing is commiting a fallacy in a logical argument 'Ad Hominem abusive.'

[shunyadragon]

A Mindscape Infinity using units you proposed, 'moments' in a potential infinity. It is a Mindscape infinity, because the human perspective of units of time are added to the time arrow.

Choose any arbitrary point in time as the starting point. The time arrow units are 'moments.' The momments extend into the past infinitely. No matter how far you go into the past there will always be more moments in the past.

[shunyadragon]

There is problem with your calculations. You are speaking of it as if "∞" is number with a value that changes in the formula. this incorrect. It is expressed as a limit, which remains "∞" regardless of the equation.

Strictly speaking, in the real number system, there is no "∞" but you can think of that as "shorthand" for limx→∞x/2. In that case, yes, that limit is ∞. It is not expressed an actual number so the value does not change. It never equals anything else.

I advise you catch up with your math if you plan to use it.

Leonhard also saw the problem here . . .

Originally posted by Zeta Metroid
An actually infinite chain doesn’t work either, as it’s a self-contradicting entity, like a triangle with 8 sides. You can demonstrate that mathematically:
∞-∞ = 0 (as you’re taking the entire thing away)
∞/2= ∞ (as if you take every other object out of an infinite number of objects, you’d still have infinite objects)

Uhm where is the self-contradiction? The two operations aren't equivalent, so its not surprising that they produce different results. There is an infinite number of ways to remove items from an ordered infinite set of distinguishable items and they produce an infinite number of different results depending on how they're carried out. If you want technical language, the set A you're removing from set B isn't equiponent in the two cases. If it was then you'd have shown how a contradictory result would emerge from equivalent operations, which would show that an absolute infinite is self-contradictory. It isn't. William Lane Craig who uses the impossibility of an absolute infinite as a ground argument for his Kalam Cosmological Argument agrees with this, but argues that its impossible for various metaphysical reasons.

An actual infinity is not a chain, it is a set.

[shunyadragon]

Concerning the life of Lucretius.

Apparently St Jerome indulges in a bit of 'Ad Hominem Abusive' in slandering Lucretius, because . . .

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/

Of Lucretius’ life remarkably little is known: he was an accomplished poet; he lived during the first century BC; he was devoted to the teachings of Epicurus; and he apparently died before his magnum opus, De Rerum Natura, was completed. Almost everything else we know (or think we know) about this elusive figure is a matter of conjecture, rumor, legend, or gossip.

© source where applicable

This slander is actually represents a contradiction of what is found in his writings with no reference during or shortly after his life to back it up. In his writings . . .

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/

Certainly the possibility that Lucretius (whose blistering, two hundred line denunciation of sexual love comprises one of the memorable highlights of the poem) may himself have fallen victim to a love potion is a superb irony. Unfortunately, there is not a shred of evidence to support the claim. Nor is it highly likely that Cicero (a skeptical-minded thinker with sympathies toward Stoicism) would have assisted to any large degree in the publication of an epic celebrating the Epicurean creed. As for the suggestion that Lucretius produced De Rerum Natura in lucid periods between intervals of raging insanity, the poem itself stands as a strong argument to the contrary. At the very least it must be considered improbable that a work of such scope and complexity, of such intellectual depth and sustained reasoning power, could have been the product of fitful composition and a diseased mind.

© source where applicable

The slander by St. Jerome was likely motivated by the philosophical, theological and scientific hostility toward Lucretius, and fell in lock step to the same drummer.

[Zeta Metroid]

Time will not stop just because you suppose it will.

...?
It was hypothetical. I wasn't saying it actually stopped! (Though, if it did, I doubt we'd know).

Continuous does not have a rate assigned to it.

That's...great? What's it got to do with what I said?
This entire response of your’s doesn’t really have much at all to do with what I said.

I proposed a 'potential infinity' that demonstrates an 'infinite past' using a Mindscape infinity with the human concept of 'moments.'

For the past to be "infinite" in the sense of "potentially infinite", it'd have to be always growing (and always would be growing). That couldn't give us our existence. What would be the source of those new past moments?

You failed to demonstrate

Failed to demonstrate what, exactly?

Arguments that are valid still may be true or false.

So challenge the assumptions present in the argument. Simple.

time

Your answer is circular. You're defining "time" as "time". If you define a term as itself, that robs it of meaning.

Time by definition.

My train of thought continues as a whole, with no divisions.
So my train of thought = time?
Also, my life continues as a whole, with no divisions (except arbitrary ones like “year 5” and then “year 6”.) So my life is time?

It is the recognized definition of time. I am on topic.

I've already said: if that's the definition of "time" you wanna use, then "time" is irrelevant, 100% irrelevant, to everything I said in the first post.

I’ve already told you what I was referring to in the first post. Why do you insist on dodging that, and instead try to make this about something else entirely?

His personal life is really not relevant to the argument.

When did I say it was?

Choose any arbitrary point in time as the starting point. The time arrow units are 'moments.' The momments extend into the past infinitely. No matter how far you go into the past there will always be more moments in the past.

Then you run into the problem in the first post. Something like that has mathematically contradictory properties.
And self-contradictions can’t exist.

It is expressed as a limit, which remains "∞" regardless of the equation.

Infinity isn't a limit. Its the complete lack of a limit. (If you disagree, tell me: what's the limit of infinity?)

Strictly speaking, in the real number system, there is no "∞" but you can think of that as "shorthand" for limx→∞x/2.

Who cares about an arbitrary number system? Infinity is as much a number as 2. Both describe how much of something there is. (Or hypothetically would be.)

It is not expressed an actual number so the value does not change.

What makes it not an actual number? (Except for the arbitrary rules of the system you're appealing to)

Leonhard also saw the problem here . . .

And it doesn't look like he's able or willing to defend that position, now does it?

An actual infinity is not a chain, it is a set.

You can have a chain with an infinite number of links. (Which is what the first post is arguing against)

Certainly the possibility that Lucretius (whose blistering, two hundred line denunciation of sexual love comprises one of the memorable highlights of the poem) may himself have fallen victim to a love potion is a superb irony. Unfortunately, there is not a shred of evidence to support the claim. Nor is it highly likely that Cicero...between fits of raging insanity...

I never said anything about Cicero, or a love potion, or insanity.