infinite, eternal universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ANS: it is too simple,the circle is fine but there is no breaking out point from the circle. that is a contradiction from your stance from the logical to the illogical,since the circle has no break out point from being either logical or illogical.it is illogical to start with or it is logical,but this picture allows no flexibility from either one to the other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you saying you want me to put a hole in it? A hose? A spigot? Then there would be no contradiction. That's the whole point of the circle (sphere). Without contradiction I couldn't tell snot from a public bathroom wall. There is no flexibility here - You either have snot, or not snot. What a thing is, is equally dependent on what it is not.

---

-

"One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist."
_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ANS: it is not common!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Give me an example.

Skarp

also,that picture,where are the other geometric shapes,triangles,rectangles,squares etc.? they cannot be drawn out from this picture, now they would be more common by far than a circle.what represents colours? what represents matter? there is no way to get the Periodic Table from this picture.

this picture is devoid of anything that life has.look at yourself,you must drink to survive,how do i get the possibility of water from this picture!? or yourself for that matter!

this picture is not even close to representing our reality!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also,that picture,where are the other geometric shapes,triangles,rectangles,squares etc.? they cannot be drawn out from this picture, now they would be more common by far than a circle.what represents colours? what represents matter? there is no way to get the Periodic Table from this picture.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> All of Existence stems from this simple construct. Without a clear understanding of zero and one - I can't even begin to explain how you could be sitting down with a bowl of soup.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">this picture is not even close to representing our reality!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It's not meant to be a depiction of you having a bowl of soup, but a depiction of what reality is, as opposed to what isn't.

Skarp

as Tom say's,it's time make sense.

make clear my understanding of zero and one!

describe step by step how from this picture i would get to one of anything.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">as Tom say's,it's time make sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Problem here is that Tom makes an assumption based on not lifting a finger. He relies on no effort to guide his way, or the lack of effort on your part. Here is an example of his logic based entirely on a question? His conclusion is nothing more than a creed.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How can it not continue forever in all directions? To my mind, visualizing an end to space is impossible, leading me to conclude there can be no such end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The emporor has no clothes, but don't tell him that - cuz he's not listening. Essentially he's not worthy of knowing under the circumstances.


And then yet again another assumption. Actually the same assumption in another question. Can you hear the mantra of his creed? He's asking for the great one to bring him an answer. Here we have an assumption based on a prayer. It goes like this -

How can it continue?
How can it continue?
What boundry could it have?
What boundry could it have?
Halalujah Halalujah
How can it continue?
How can it continue?
What boundry could it have?
What boundry could it have?
Halalujah Halalujah

Repeat 50 times and your belief will be intact.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Although I cannot visualize a physical infinity, I can deal with the simplest meaning of the word: "unbounded". That much makes good sense to me because surely space must be unbounded. What manner of boundry could it possibly have?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Halalujah!




And finally - The path that faith leads you to. A.K.A. - The promised land.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am saying something much stronger than simply that I cannot imagine a boundary to space. The problem is not with limits to my imagination. Rather, my mind concludes that such a boundary is impossible because a boundary divides two entities, one of which must be space and the other non-space by meaning of the words "a boundary to space". But a place that exists but has no space is a contradiction to the meaning of existence in my vocabulary: "occupies space".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Where logic takes on a whole new meaning, and anything is possible. This one is for the books! Halalujah! Halalujah!

I'd like to continue here, but taxes are due. I don't have them done because I have been asking (praying) that somehow they would get done without my involment. Well - Guess what? Reality set in, and I'm lifting my own finger toward the completion of the task wherein there shall be no mistakes - At least thats the idea.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf] am saying something much stronger than simply that I cannot imagine a boundary to space. The problem is not with limits to my imagination. Rather, my mind concludes that such a boundary is impossible because a boundary divides two entities, one of which must be space and the other non-space by meaning of the words "a boundary to space". But a place that exists but has no space is a contradiction to the meaning of existence in my vocabulary: "occupies space".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Where logic takes on a whole new meaning, and anything is possible. This one is for the books! Halalujah! Halalujah!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see lots of derision in your message, but no answers, no alternatives, indeed no substance whatever.

I outlined a set of simple logical syllogisms. Either space has a boundary, or it does not. (This dichotomy covers all possibilities.) If space has a boundary, then the boundary must separate space from non-space. (A boundary that separated space from other space would not be a "boundary to space", by definition.) But existence means "occupying space", so non-space cannot exist. Therefore, the premise that "space has a boundary" is excluded. And that proves that space has no boundary.

Instead of digressing about how much I remind you of your crazy Aunt Matilda, or ducking the challenge by referring to other non-responsive words on your web site, how about showing that you recognize a logical syllogism when you see one, and addressing its reasoning logically.

To defeat a syllogism, one must show an invalid premise or a violation of the rules of logic. Please direct your attention exclusively to this point, and avoid all cutsey attempts to deflect attention from the point on the table -- no matter how uncomfortable you might be with where the reasoning takes us -- because the use of reasoning is a primary way for us to distinguish a scientific conclusion from a religious one. -|Tom|-