Tigron-X

Firstly, I am not arguing any point what-so-ever. I'm simply stating that faith derives from impossibilities, and the sheer unknown. Also, that faith, and your question will present an answer that is nothing more than something which is philosophical in nature. Therefore, from that I summarised the futility of both your question, and the answers which it will receive. I also don't see how I've put words in your mouth, if anything you've put words into the mouths of others. I also find your reference of Cantor equating the Absolute Infinite with God to be very manipulative to this argument. Just because his belief of the Absolute Infinite is God, doesn't make your theory any more compelling. Somebody who has studied infinity all their lives are still just as useless to this argument, as infinity has no end in any case. What = Infinity How = Theory of Infinity Why = Philosophy to drive proof form that theory = impossibility. -L What question did I pose? There's no question mark in my initial post. I posed a challenge. Let me rephrase it for you: I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity. I'm not saying or implying: if you can't prove infiinity, God exists. I'm not making any conclusions or arguments. I am posing a challenge. You say, "First, I'm not arguing any point what-so-ever." Then you say, "I also find your reference of Cantor equating the Absolute Infinite with God to be very manipulative to this argument." You're in an argument, yet you're not arguing any point what-so-over? So what are you doing? Instead of accepting the challenge or not saying anything at all, you've posed an objection (which is an argument) to my challenge. And you have changed the subject matter to 'faith.' Now, why would I discuss faith with you when you haven't seriously committed to my challenge?

My guess is that he's probablly hearing it to prevent people from taking matters into their own hands.

Seeing as how you've capatalized Church, I'm going to assume you mean the Catholic Church. Now, this is the same Church that advocates false ideals like hell, purgatory, a trinity, that Jesus died on a cross, that your soul is eternal, that your soul is something other than just your body, and so on. This is the same Church that sought to hide knowledge from people. This Church is also found to be the Harlet in Revelations. To touch on your points specifically... (1) Moved is synonymous with shaken. Meaning there is a set course. I fail to see how that hinders science. (2) All that says is that the sun rises from the same side that it did the previous day. Even today we still say the sun rises. The poem does nothing but point out the consistency of certain natural phenomenon. But most of all, this is the Church hindering science, not God. Let me get this straight... You put words in my mouth and claim that you're disproving my notion? Show me where I claimed that God requires infinity to be a creator-God. I don't even understand what you mean when you say, "...he requires infities." I never said he required anything. If anything, I'd be implying that God is infinity. I'm not arrogant enough to impose requirments on God. The universe might be finite, but I don't figure that existence (or life) is finite. To say the least, the aspects of the Big Bang are irrelevant to this conversation. It's not that God has infinite power; it's that God is infinite power. That's just by definition. "God" is a title given to an almighty, eternal being. Eternal is synonymous with infinite. Almight is synonymous with infinite-power. If you disagree to that, then you have your own definition of "God." Now, I've presented mine. You should present yours. Well i don't really think it's worded correctly. To deny truth would be to see a truth and then reject it. I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief' date=' but you can't justify anything as true. You have an almost infinite regression of justification for beliefs until you hit upon an assumption that isn't completely justified. But to get back on point, if you or I were to never seek knowledge then we still wouldn't be denying truth by your definition as by my understanding truth is unattainable.[/quote'] You're right. Truth is something that cannot be possessed. However, an understanding of the truth is attainable, and that's the point. "I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible." I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly... Are you claiming that you're all knowing? I find that knowledge has a lot more to do with awareness than it does belief. I would say "theory" is defined as justified true belief. I'd have to look into this further. I may not have fully grasped what you're saying. Logical deduction is the best process we believe for seeking truth' date=' but it won't give us knowledge.[/quote'] I don't entirely agree with that because it gives wisdom.

You've done nothing but put words in my mouth and argue a point I've never made. And it wasn't a question, but a challenge of equal magnitude so that people could realize the futility of requesting for proof of God. The impossibility of proving infinity isn't a matter of perspective or knowledge; it is a matter of reality. It is impossible to prove infinity by definition. It is a concept that is widely accepted in the math community without question. It is used in calculus and transfinite arithmitic. Google "Georg Cantor" and you will come across set theory which is a theory that leads to the concept of infinity of infinities! Yet, there is no proof that infinity even exists. It is simply accepted by faith. In fact, Cantor even equated the Absolute Infinite with God. And that is coming from someone who is well versed in the concept of infinity.

For argument sake, could you name or site one example of how God has set back science for centuries? Here is the dilema. Instead of proving infinity, you are trying to disassociate infinity with God. Therefore defining God within your own terms and conditions. Thus, you've already decided who or what God is. Furthermore, your comment, " for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable," is one leap in logic. For arguments sake let's say that the Big Bang didn't need infinite energy as you claim. The appropriate logical deduction to follow would be: Therefore a creator wouldn't need to apply infinite power. More so, I fail to see how the neccessities of the Big Bang restrict the powers of God. Seek it yes. Deny it... how? I put it to you, how can someone ever know what the truth is? There is a great quote by a man named Xenophanes. He lived in Ancient Greece two and a half millenia ago, he said: "No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so." It's worth thinking about that one for a while. Denying truth is denying onself of knowledge and understading with regards to existence. You can do that by never seeking knowledge. Logical deduction will provide answers regarding the truth. Thus gaining a larger perspective of reality. As we are not omnipresent beings, then we will never gain an entire perspective of reality. We are limited to individual realities. So we will never grasp the whole truth. That doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. Xenophanes' only point is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the truth. Is that not truth in itself?

Are you speaking from experience? And, does that mean extraordinary political quizzes would really tell me everything about myself? Honestly though, if I'm seeking to know who I am, and I result to political quizes for my answer, whether they be ordinary or extraordinary, then I am damned from the start. Moderate means moderate? How profound. Centrist is moderate. Moderate is a relative term. And I refuse to engage into a semantical argument regarding 'conglomerate' when the point was that 'moderate' is not the absence of left wing, right wing ideals. A "moderate" tends to (or it's not uncommon for a moderate to) share ideals with both sides, very rarely going into the extremes of either side, but still remaining within a particular body of politics. The overall point I was making in my previous post was that it is asinine to assume that everyone defaults into the body of politics you have contracted into by your own accord.

It's not within my authority to define a being that has jurisdiction over me. I can only seek to understand. It is obvious that you have defined "god" by your own terms and conditions. To me, the term God, when capatalized, referes to an almighty, eternal being. It is a title of honor. And this being that I vaguely refer to is almighty and eternal, which is equivalent to infinity by definition, an infinite of infinites even. To claim that "God has done nothing but set back science for thousands of years," is to presume that God and religion are the same thing. However, God is who or whatever He proves to be, and religion is the contemplation of who or what God is. And you, by your own will, determine who or what God is. However, individual reality is not reality. There is a definite truth, and it is your choice to seek it or deny it. My choice is to seek understanding. And in that journey I will contemplate love, righteousness, morality, justice and so on. In that pursuit, I will gain awareness as to who or what God is. But, I will never presume to tell you that I have the whole truth and nothing but the truth because I am just a man living in a finite capacity, and my comprehension is limited to my imagination.

What crime is needed to be investigated again?

I understand that there is reality and we all have our own individual reality, which is nothing more than a perspective of the whole. And as for me, I cannot conceive of an existence where there is no almighty being that created existence. For those who seek proof of such a being, do you even know what you're looking for? What are the identifying traits of such a being? And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.

then you are moderate.. neither left nor right How presumptuous of you to assume that this spectrum of liberal to moderate to conservative actually encompasses all perspectives of political philosophies or ideals of governance. Not to mention that moderate would actually be a conglomerate of left and right, not an absence of the two as you imply.