Hahahaha.... He can't. Since you simply cannot measure infinity, even objects, spatial breadths, distances, as with numbers, cannot be defined in any "physical" terms. However one can measure "infinity" abstractly by having an infinite number set, and choosing arbitrarily any number wished. Thus 0, -12, 10^10,000,000,000 and it's all falling within the bounds. Again though this is a level of abstraction that removes the necessity to define a range which does not end. The problem herein is that a range is finite, and infinity is not, yet paradoxically it is a range. Makes your head hurt to think of it. Even thinking in hypothetical physical situations, one cannot think of it well: I have a bag, inside the bag is an infinite amount of space filled with infinite number of objects. Now if you reach into this bag and pull out an orange, place it on a table. The paradox arises now in that, if you removed the orange from a bag full of infinite objects, is that orange still in the bag; if no, then infinity does not exist, as it would HAVE to contain the very orange you just removed; if yes, then where is the orange you just removed, in the bag or on the table. The main thing here is that an infinite object existing in true infinity, would consist of an infinite repetitive nature. ie, if the universe is infinite, one must conclude that there is another earth, since in infinity there must be everything, and single objects must exist elsewhere, since the very object must exist an infinite number of times. Every subsection of infinity is infinite itself due to inheritance.
The belief in a higher power is "logical" if one basis the premise of a higher power on circumstantial evidence and that which one already knows, due to the circumstance and prior assumptions, one could conclude such logical IF there is no other explanation. This is of course, the definition of logic, the analysis of inference; inference is the coming to an assumption based on circumstances and prior conclusions. If the prior conclusions are that of a higher power, one could argue that logic, by DEFINITION, could be a valid label. However, in the face of alternative conclusions and evidence, ignoring the evidence to argue with circular logic (the reference here is more of a sarcasm than intending "logic"), is NOT logic.
I can't read all his posts.
they look like this.
it's quite annoying.
so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
maybe I'll read it later.
I really just wanted to address those two points.
it's early, I should sleep.
bye
oh yeah, does this annoy you guys too?
does me.
ok.
I'm leaving now.
really.
night.
