The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Infinite=not finite.

Finite subject to time and space.

Infinite not subject to time and space.

There are an infinite number of points on a limited line.

How is that possible if the limited line is subject to the rules of time and space?

It is because the conceptual point has no size, it only has a conceptual size.

In fact, the concept of size is not actually relevant to the concept of of points on a line.

I repeat, you are stuck in classic materialistic relativistic logic, and naturally confused about that which is not material or existing in relation to something it is not.

You want to apply the rules of materialistic logic (science of parts, time, and space...and the relation of those parts to each other) to that which is a whole value beyond the rules of time and space...

Now who is being nonsensical?

LOL!!!

Who's being nonsensical? You are.

How do you know infinite is not subject to time and space? Infinite time coupled with infinite space is merely unending. A concept that can be understood because of understanding in material relativistic logic as you call it. In your line example, you can merely stretch out the line on both ends to be infinite. (also, the line since it has a finite form, does not have infinite subdivisions. There will come a point when an additional unit of the smallest possible subdivisions can no longer fit within the boundaries of the line - no matter how much regression you try to apply). But that it is a line forces it to be understood via material logic. Now had you said that a concept such as a line cannot even exist in the infinite because a line has a distinguishable form (height/width and length) then maybe we would be getting somewhere. But you keep intermingling material concepts with infinite ones while pretending that a higher plain of understanding is required.

Demonstrate some mutual exclusiveness which would nullify any conceptualization or understanding using "material relativistic logic." It will be impossible because your mind is bound to understanding things in linear, sequential, and material concepts first before postulating things that are not. Which in turn renders all conceptualizations, no matter how high flamboyant, as having a basis in the material.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You are like a child demanding that someone play by your child rules...

I expect a tantrum next...

Quote from PatternRec:

Who's being nonsensical? You are.

How do you know infinite is not subject to time and space? Infinite time coupled with infinite space is merely unending. A concept that can be understood because of understanding in material relativistic logic as you call it. In your line example, you can merely stretch out the line on both ends to be infinite. (also, the line since it has a finite form, does not have infinite subdivisions. There will come a point when an additional unit of the smallest possible subdivisions can no longer fit within the boundaries of the line - no matter how much regression you try to apply). But that it is a line forces it to be understood via material logic. Now had you said that a concept such as a line cannot even exist in the infinite because a line has a distinguishable form (height/width and length) then maybe we would be getting somewhere. But you keep intermingling material concepts with infinite ones while pretending that a higher plain of understanding is required.

Demonstrate some mutual exclusiveness which would nullify any conceptualization or understanding using "material relativistic logic." It will be impossible because your mind is bound to understanding things in linear, sequential, and material concepts first before postulating things that are not. Which in turn renders all conceptualizations, no matter how high flamboyant, as having a basis in the material.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You are like a child demanding that someone play by your child rules...

I expect a tantrum next...

No tantrum. Simply prove your assertions. You do know who to do that don't you?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You really don't get it do you?

Imagine a child drawing a line on a sheet of paper. A line drawn of fixed size, depth, color, etc.

Then someone says that there are an infinite number of points on that line.

The child says "I don't see them. I can't even fit an infinite number of points from one end of the line to the other end of the line. So what you are saying is nonsensical."

The teacher tries to explain the concepts of an infinite number of points to the child, that the points he is referring to something abstract, not concrete. The child just doesn't get it. Doesn't have the mental development for it.

The child struggles. Can't figure it out. He doesn't have the development to grasp the concepts.

He gets angry and says "Prove it to me. Fit these points you are talking about onto the line I drew." He rages and complains that the person discussing advanced concepts is not following the rules he understands.

It is so bloody obvious that someone who examines the parts alone, who thinks of parts alone will never understand the concept of the whole...not to even mention that the sum of those individual parts is less than the value of the whole.

You are so fixated on materialistic logic, so demanding of material logic...which of course is your right...that you are not going to move outside of the comfort zone of your little box.

God by definition has no opposite value.

Which makes the entire position of non God senseless...

Quote from PatternRec:

No tantrum. Simply prove your assertions. You do know who to do that don't you?

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You really don't get it do you?

Imagine a child drawing a line on a sheet of paper. A line drawn of fixed size, depth, color, etc.

Then someone says that there are an infinite number of points on that line.

The child says "I don't see them. I can't even fit an infinite number of points from one end of the line to the other end of the line. So what you are saying is nonsensical."

The teacher tries to explain the concepts of an infinite number of points to the child, that the points he is referring to something abstract, not concrete. The child just doesn't get it. Doesn't have the mental development for it.

The child struggles. Can't figure it out. He doesn't have the development to grasp the concepts.

He gets angry and says "Prove it to me. Fit these points you are talking about onto the line I drew." He rages and complains that the person discussing advanced concepts is not following the rules he understands.

It is so bloody obvious that someone who examines the parts alone, who thinks of parts alone will never understand the concept of the whole...not to even mention that the sum of those individual parts is less than the value of the whole.

You are so fixated on materialistic logic, so demanding of material logic...which of course is your right...that you are not going to move outside of the comfort zone of your little box.

God by definition has no opposite value.

Which makes the entire position of non God senseless...

A child? OK. Nice delusion of grandeur you've got going on there. But the best thing you said was "abstract." That says it all.

Though you could have simply said, "I can't prove any of my assertions to you or anyone on Earth. I'm just theorizing impossible possibilities. And I only believe these things to be possible."

But your overwrought pride tries to make you out to be something you are not. As if you have some superhuman-extraordinary facility for understanding. *rolleyes*.

We're done.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"*rolleyes*.

We're done."

Apparently you are done...and no need to respond to this then, is there?

LOL!!!

Quote from PatternRec:

A child? OK. Nice delusion of grandeur you've got going on there. But the best thing you said was "abstract." That says it all.

Though you could have simply said, "I can't prove any of my assertions to you or anyone on Earth. I'm just theorizing impossible possibilities. And I only believe these things to be possible."

But your overwrought pride tries to make you out to be something you are not. As if you have some superhuman-extraordinary facility for understanding. *rolleyes*.

We're done.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"*rolleyes*.

We're done."

Apparently you are done...and no need to respond to this then, is there?

LOL!!!

It's just that your TAIL CHASING gets annoying after a a few thousand posts

 

[OPTIONAL777]

So easily annoyed...so much for atheism bringing tranquility to the mind...

Quote from killthesunshine:

It's just that your TAIL CHASING gets annoying after a a few thousand posts

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So easily annoyed...so much for atheism bringing tranquility to the mind...

Let's start again from the beginning... shall we

If YOU make the claim of "God" or "Totality" it behooves YOU to provide the proof or evidence.

It is YOU that must make the cogent argument "for" it is not MY burden to prove IT false.

Do YOU understand the words that are coming out of my mouth

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Let's start with what I actually claimed:

Totality exists, and I have faith in God.

That's it.

You can start with an argument that Totality does not exist.

Good luck with that...

Quote from killthesunshine:

Let's start again from the beginning... shall we

If YOU make the claim of "God" or "Totality" it behooves YOU to provide the proof or evidence.

It is YOU that must make the cogent argument "for" it is not MY burden to prove IT false.

Do YOU understand the words that are coming out of my mouth