lifegazer said:
You said that since the universe did exist, that it could, evidently, exist within nothing. That's a poor response because it doesn't explain why. There's no sense there.
It's an unbelievable statement.
You must have missed my proof above. If the universe is all that exists, then ideed there cannot be anything external that embraces it, since that thing would necessarily be part of the universe.
I take care (though probably make the occasional gaffe) not to use the term "infinite", because I'm of the reasoned-opinion that there is no life/meaning/tangibility/reality within that term.
Great, so you're using the term "infinite" without really knowing what it means.
It's simply a [eternally unfulfilled] potential of an entity.
I tried to explain to you in my previous post (or the post to Russ) that a boundless-singularity does not have true extension.
A new term- "true extension"- also undefined. You seem to like terms you can't or won't define. You certainly
asserted that there is no extent to your 'singularity', but since you defined that 'singularity' as being the totality of existence, you must logically show that distance is without meaning in the universe, which ought to be challenging.
Distance has to be an illusion. Therefore, the term "infinity" is purely conceptual.
More like pure flummery.
Even God itself cannot embrace infinity. If God could embrace infinity, then God's potential/power would be finite/limited.
I don't know why you even bring this up, but again it doesn't follow. If 'infinity' is unbounded "power or potential" and God embraced it, wouldn't that imply that God did indeed have "unbounded power or potential"?
There can be no external reality to a boundless singularity.
Basically a flowery way of saying that "There cannot exist anything not belonging to the set of "things that exist", which is obviously true. Of course, the 'boundless' qualifier is irrelevant, because the statement remains obviously true even if existence is bounded.
So now we're left with deciding what is included in "the whole of existence". You posit the universe + something else making up a totality that is god. The problem is that it is not necessary to add anything beyond the universe. That has been the fundemental problem since we began. It doesn't matter how many times you assert or define that the universe alone cannot be all that exists- you need to give support.
Read my post (tonight) to Russ. You're merely subjectifying the concept of "volume" whilst simultaneously trying to defend the objectivity of that characteristic. Your argument is self-defeating.
This is not about objectivity- it's about what makes volume a coherent concept (Space). If volume only has meaning in the context of space, it is meaningless to apply it outside space.
Once again we arrive at the root of your problem .You are stuck
assuming an overarching reality beyond the universe; you probably don't even realize you're doing it. Such an assumption is unnecessary.
Assertions are not support. I can crow on and on about how it is obvious that all chicken are blue and it's irrational to say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.
Our knowledge of the universe stretches-out to our combined awareness of it. My knowledge of the universe stretches-out to my awareness of it, which stretches-out to the knowledge embraced by everyone within it.
Now we're talking about "collective awareness" , eh? The whole of the human race still isn't aware of distant galaxies. No human is even aware of the entirety of the his fellow humans.
The perception of colour and shade and brightness is given (and taken) to/from me, by/from my Mind itself. Like pain, my mind chooses what it becomes aware of... and what it does not. The [supposed] external realm has no creative input regarding abstract sensation.
All entities create their own abstract realities.
Yay- solipsism. We all create our own realities. Of course, that means that everyone I talk to is just a creation of my mind, therefore my reality is the only reality. If other minds had independent existence, then their existence would therefore be
obejctive, contradicting the claim that we all made our own realities. Solipsism is self-defeating.
Whatever. That's irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is that you see my usage of the term makes sense. If you don't say why.
Your usage of the term is without merit as it only servers to muddy the waters. If you define singularity as the whole of existence, then of course the universe exists as a singularity... but we haven't learned anything by saying that. We cannot derive additional properties for the whole of existence by making up a new word.
Mathematics is simply a tool for formalizing reason. I use it to avoid the pitfalls that come with talking about infinities, distance, containment, time, space, etc. without clearly-defined terms. Mathematical proofs are clear and unambiguous. Mathematics is neither the master nor the slave of reason. It
is reason, formalized.
