God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

[JoeyKnothead]

So let me rephrase the question...if I were counting all of the segments in numerical order with ever step, and I stopped counting once I arrived at the street corner, which number would represent the "corner segment"?

Your first step traverses infinite segments between your starting point and the spot where you are standing regardless of the length of that single step. Therefore, according to your logic, how were you able to take a single step in order to have traversed infinite segments?

If I can traverse an infinite amount of segments, then I should be able to COUNT each segment that I traversed.

So how is it that I can traverse infinite segments with no problem with a single step...but I am unable to reach a single step if I count all of the segments between the first and second step?

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

I think the answer is simply to remove the segments as they only confuse what it is that infinity represents - not the stuff happening within it...but the concept itself. It cannot measure itself as 'segments' unless there are beginnings and endings [signifying a segment] Infinity must have to loop back in on itself in order to become infinite... to lose the segments...

In anything that can be measur3d, an infinite amount of segments can be found.

Including measurements such as infinity.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard on folks.

[JoeyKnothead]

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

Nahhh, we dont agree...because I understand that infinity cannot be traversed, nor is it an amount that can be possessed (having an infinite amount of marbles, for example).

If i cant successfully count all of the infinite amount of segments to get to a single segment, then I cant traverse infinity to arrive at single segment (with one step).

If i cant do one, I cant do the other.

Take a step.

Measure that step.

Start dividing that measurent by twos.

You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.

Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

[William]

So let me rephrase the question...if I were counting all of the segments in numerical order with ever step, and I stopped counting once I arrived at the street corner, which number would represent the "corner segment"?

Your first step traverses infinite segments between your starting point and the spot where you are standing regardless of the length of that single step. Therefore, according to your logic, how were you able to take a single step in order to have traversed infinite segments?

If I can traverse an infinite amount of segments, then I should be able to COUNT each segment that I traversed.

So how is it that I can traverse infinite segments with no problem with a single step...but I am unable to reach a single step if I count all of the segments between the first and second step?

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

I think the answer is simply to remove the segments as they only confuse what it is that infinity represents - not the stuff happening within it...but the concept itself. It cannot measure itself as 'segments' unless there are beginnings and endings [signifying a segment] Infinity must have to loop back in on itself in order to become infinite... to lose the segments...

In anything that can be measur3d, an infinite amount of segments can be found.

Including measurements such as infinity.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard on folks.

Including measurements such as infinity?

[bluegreenearth]

Because there is not an infinite number of any thing...

How about "infinite amount?" Avoids the word "number," more straight forward than "an infinity of..."

I'd adjust, amend, alter, append, stipulate, restate, reconfigure, change, adulterate, or otherwise relandscape my use of the word "numbers" to this new nomenclaturial paradigm.

I "liked" your post because it made me chuckle. Your sense of humor is very much appreciated.

[JoeyKnothead]

...

In anything that can be measured, an infinite amount of segments can be found.

Including measurements such as infinity.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard on folks.

Including measurements such as infinity?

...

Divide infinity by two. Now there's two infinities stemming from the one.

Divide infinity by three. Now there's three infinities stemming from the one.

On and on and on we go, til we divide infinity by infinity and there's an infinite amount of infinities stemming from the one infinity.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156] Amount?

Isn't it better just to accept that measurements and counting is as useful a device in an infinite universe, as a doorknob is, in a door-less universe?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156] Amount?

Isn't it better just to accept that measurements and counting is as useful a device in an infinite universe, as a doorknob is, in a door-less universe?

Lol I hear ya.

I got into this about how a step, and infinite divisions of it.

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156] Amount?

Isn't it better just to accept that measurements and counting is as useful a device in an infinite universe, as a doorknob is, in a door-less universe?

Lol I hear ya.

I got into this about how a step, and infinite divisions of it.

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

I don't think either a finite or an infinite universe discounts that we exist within a creation.

[JoeyKnothead]

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

I don't think either a finite or an infinite universe discounts that we exist within a creation.

Yeah, I never found either of it very compelling as relates to proving / disproving much of anything. If God's god and all, I'd think how long he's been around is kinda moot. I just happen to think he ain't never been around.

But, as relates to the OP, I hear often that "God always existed", and that does engage the whole infinite past deal. But again, considering the paucity of evidence, I still conclude gods are the product of human thought and imagination.

That said, I think you do, here and elsewhere, present some innovative thinking and arguments that have taught me a good bunch about how a god could potentially, possibly exist within a reasoned and logical set of rules or ideas. I find em a bit difficult to argue against, beyond "na-ah!" You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is.

[bluegreenearth]

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

I don't think either a finite or an infinite universe discounts that we exist within a creation.

Yeah, I never found either of it very compelling as relates to proving / disproving much of anything. If God's god and all, I'd think how long he's been around is kinda moot. I just happen to think he ain't never been around.

But, as relates to the OP, I hear often that "God always existed", and that does engage the whole infinite past deal. But again, considering the paucity of evidence, I still conclude gods are the product of human thought and imagination.

That said, I think you do, here and elsewhere, present some innovative thinking and arguments that have taught me a good bunch about how a god could potentially, possibly exist within a reasoned and logical set of rules or ideas. I find em a bit difficult to argue against, beyond "na-ah!" You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is.

If you define "atheism" in the strong sense, then I can understand the distinction from agnosticism. However, many people who lack a god belief describe themselves as agnostic atheists. In other words, they are agnostics because they cannot know if a god does not exist but are also atheists because they lack belief in the existence of a god. Similarly, people who believe a god exists could be agnostic theists if they do not claim to know a god exists.