It should have been "I think, therefore I might be". — whollyrolling

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose though? Descartes found certainty in himself for the reason that he thinks, if he applies his skepticism into that, what's the point?

And yet here you are writing your sentences one at a time. That's odd, isn't it, considering that we can program machines to write millions of sentences simultaneously? — YuZhonglu

I am sorry.

Machines are programmed to do, humans are programmed to learn the process and hence be able to do, although not as powerful as machines would be able to.

Like humans, machines also encounter the programming process; in which it involves a step-by-step system, it requires an arranged algorithmic system like Binary, so subsequently the machine will be able to construct millions of sentences simultaneously. Moreover, machines also do not have the ability to comprehend things without the programming process, they do not possess the rationality to be able to think, they are merely programmed to construct these sentences.

Me writing my sentences are arranged to be one-by-one, because they are by intuitions and not algorithmic, I only know how to write sentences as communication, but not to write millions of them simultaneously. I was programmed to be able to write various sentences, in which they are transformed to concepts in your mind, in fact right now. Machines write sentences they are commanded to, but certainly not to rationalize concepts (unless of course, the ability of the AI is maximized to highest potential).

Returning to the bananas-oranges thought challenge you instated, our thoughts mostly rely on the capacity of our intuitions and transcendental idealism; wherein our rational capability and empirical viewpoints are merged to be able rationalize worldly events and logic. If we practice to think even just two thoughts at the same time, we are programming our selves into that step-by-step process in order to be able to simultaneously do the both of them, and then our intuitions (in that particular situation) just disappear. Simply elucidated, our intuitions drive our very way of life.

I hope I answered your question.

your response doesn't answer any of the questions. — YuZhonglu

Perhaps this will satisfy you.

The bananas-oranges statement would be more similar to this multitasking action, it is as it follows;

With your left hand, draw a square — whilst on your right hand, draw a circle. Both actions must occur at the same exact moment. You can't do that by intuition, can you? It is because our thoughts are intertwining between each other, not to command one of our body parts to demonstrate a particular action distinct from the rest, let alone it being in a step-by-step process.

Stand on one leg, rub your tummy with your left hand, and the top of your head with your right hand. You can do that, right? — YuZhonglu

That is a step-by-step process, the given instructions are transformed to moving our physical bodies as a output. Our thoughts on the other hand are not.

Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).

You can't do that.

Why not? — YuZhonglu

For the reason that our thoughts are only focusing to one-at-a-time intuitions. You certainly cannot think of two statements. Literally it's so simple; you're over-complicating it.

So, then, on a mechanical level, how does Descartes think? — YuZhonglu

It does not matter how he thinks, but when he thinks. The capability to comprehend implies the ability to exist in a semantic, metaphysical reality.

Any other universe that has a causal relationship with our universe can be said to be part of the same reality - the multiverse. — Harry Hindu

English Archaeologist and Philosopher R.G Collingwood viewed these various Universes of discourse as a work of Art; he believed that our Aesthetic appreciation had something to do with their existences and how it mutually returns to us a semantic process. These separate existences do have a causal relationship with our reality by affecting our experiences, and subsequently our Self-Actualization. Collingwood then labelled this one-way path of causality as a form of Magic Art. Magic Art, which counterparts Amusement Art, prescribes us with our act of utility, rather than to distract us from our known metaphysical reality.

Differently, Magic Art instills our acts of utility, and use it for our known reality — like how Harry Potter teaches Hard-Work, Friendship, and determination. Meanwhile, Amusement Art is to act as a nuisance to our finite process of being in this metaphysical reality.

To our old pal Meinong and his Jungle, he separated indirect causality like fictional virtue and much remarkably, numbers to different paradigms outside existence. Instead, Meinong arranged them to subsistent and Absistent factors. Numbers, correct me if I am wrong, but are subsistent factors, for they are conceptual intuitions that are only processed in the human mind. Fiction, are absistent factors, for although they do not exist in our metaphysical reality, they exist in a particular universe of discourse.

Both Numbers and Fictional Virtue do, comprehend causality to our metaphysical reality.

"Fictional" refers to the idea of nonexistence. — Harry Hindu

Well, no. Fiction is realism in a different universe of discourse, wherein the paradigmatic properties of the particular discourse changes entirely.

However, how can you be absolutely certain your not also a fictional character? — Purple Pond

Reality varies in different universes of discourse. In the real world, Harry Potter does not think for he does not exist to begin with, however in his universe, he exists and therefore can think. Like how Austrian Philosopher Meinong arranged numerous, possible variables to paradigmatic prepositions.

Meinong arranged it in three different concentric prepositions. Absistence, Subsistence, and Existence.

It was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest. — Purple Pond

It was. People still believe in the Flat-Earth theory, despite it being scientifically justified.

I'm not sure if I need to put my definition in the Frege or Wittgenstein box. 'Religion' is not like a mathematical definition with an exact meaning. — Purple Pond

All good.

Then let's pick a definition that's most relevant. How about by 'religion' it means anything on this list? — Purple Pond

Same word remains for me; I don't see how any way the presence of religion is required for humans to garner, as you mentioned;

From social gatherings, to giving us a sense of purpose and meaning, religion brings a lot to the table. — Purple Pond

For the mentioned factors are contributed by family, other ministries, etc. I agree, religion is a profound contributor to our essential characteristics, but that does not mean it is the: main, sole-central source of purpose and sense of belongingness.

I thought it was ridiculous that I was just answering the question rather than pointing out the linguistic challenges — Merkwurdichliebe

Lmao. It is true though, the meticulous details of our words contribute to to the certainty of our conclusions.

No, it's a definition — Purple Pond

Here we get a bit apprehensive. Frege believed in rigid, permanent definitions, Wittgenstein believed in cluster concepts, that use is meaning. Which one does that definition fall into?

Pick your favorite definition of religion. — Purple Pond

If so, then our conclusions would all be subjective, and not necessarily true, because our conclusions vary by its premises; which includes the definition of 'religion'. These shifting variations shadow the answer to your question. Your definition, like I said, is a presupposition, and therefore begs the question. If a permanent, stable definition of religion is not provided, then the answer will vary — that's not to say that's a bad thing. Otherwise, it's just chunking up words without developing an answer.

But one way or the other, my answer remains back in my first comment, religion is not essential to our voyage of purpose and constant pursuit of meaning. The benefits of religion and the absence of religion is not mutually exclusive.

Religion is a set of beliefs about spirituality, bringing people together and giving them a sense of community. — Purple Pond

Is that a universal truth? or is it only a substrata taken off subjective reflection? and whether that's so or not, is Atheism a religion? if not only about spirituality, is a political party a religion?

It is ridiculous that I am pointing out linguistic challenges rather than just answering the question, however presupposing the definition of religion in order to gain a conclusion is begging the question. Man can live without any form of belief, religion doesn't have to be the unambiguous source of purpose and natural meaning, it can be anything in our daily lives. So I believe so, that you do not necessarily abstain from the benefits of religion without having one.

Analyzing your comments, it concludes that our experiences revolve around our moral objectivity. I think otherwise, because if it were to be by experience, then our moral ontology would be all subjective. There would be no objective morality.

For example, if the Nazis succeeded in developing a universal basis on morality, then that would be seen as moral objectivity. The universalizing process affects our moral decisiveness, through experience. Our moral actions would then be basing on Nazi principle — The Nazi moral system would be identified universally as moral good, and obviously, that's not the case. But that does not imply it's objective. Thus;

After these steps we try to spread our morality to others as a sense of approval — hachit

_______________________________________________________

rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from. — hachit

I believe our human moral ontology and moral grounds, as a theist, would be from God.

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

You compared that to a god, is the defective. You are correct, whether the entirety of the universe or just that limited interstice you mentioned does not contain any sentient being, it cannot logically lead to a nonexistence conclusion.

However, a comparison to that of a supernatural transcendence, is just flawed. Yes you can assert that the absence of evidence for God does not imply evidence of absence for God, and I stand with that argument for God consistently. Such differently, a transcendent being cannot be limited to resource or value, it is only whether he exists or not, thus, inductive; or argument by probability, is not logically capable to comprehend an agnostic view towards a god. For the reason that it is also possible that God cannot be present conceivably in the universe, the need for thorough examination or by probability can just not work for his existence.

And since you dislike using specific terms, I do remember your viewpoint towards the existence of God.

The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. — Frank Apisa

That's a different counterargument for the same conclusion.

You and I can agree that the universe is ever-expanding, or infinite. The universe's infinity implies infinite resources and infinite time. If so, we can logically assume, that the chances for sentient beings outside us humans to live on planets is quite high. So out of the 'no evidence' argument that you proposed, which is as it follows;

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets. — Frank Apisa

How that argument is flawed is that you neglected the concept of perceivable infinity, which makes other sentient beings more probable to exist because of that infinity. For God, it doesn't necessarily mean hat way — for it is also probable, that his existence is not attached to matter despite his omnipresence, that he is imperceptible.

Now what I meant by inductive argument, wherein I assumed you already knew, is that I utilized the representational proportions of probability to depict the possibility of existence. For God, you certainly cannot start at 50/50 as its probability because that confuses the disparity between probability and possibility — there is no epistemic justification behind that, no value under metaphysical and epistemological territory. For the existence of aliens, you can presume that with infinity as its epistemic justification.

Suppose a brain scientist could turn off the anger part of brain. — Purple Pond

That's where it gets terminologically semantic. Anger is an emotion described and viewed upon by us, it's a word recognized by a linguistic community: humans. But that doesn't elucidate the causes of anger, we just recognize it as an emotional response. Just like every emotional, inner sensation, the causes of it is in regards to the structure of the human brain.

When a certain, intrinsic disposition of the brain is triggered, like anger, we choose to label it together as a linguistic community. Anger as we see it, has specifically something to do with our adrenaline rush, our distorted emotions, and scientific psychology. WE discovered Anger's roots by our research, but that's not the same as how us humans, identify anger and other abstract concepts intuitively.

Without anger, our descriptions of the world will not be as how it is today, the natural phenomena occurring behind that is relative to existences today.

Even attacking, as well as defending, can come not out of anger, but out of necessity. — Purple Pond

Emotions fuel the way we act, it's very powerful and controlling. Think of the Platonic tripartite theory. The constructed tripartite theory consists of three things: the rational aspect, the emotional aspect, and the appetitive aspect. Mutually, these three aspects support each other in synergy.

Our rationality and emotions fuel our appetitive desires like protecting ourselves, and having to eat. Likewise, our appetitive aspect reminds the other aspects of our bodily needs.

Conclusion

• Anger, just like the rest of our emotions, is substantially valuable to our daily livelihood.

• Too much of any emotion like: Happiness or Sadness, can jeopardize our standardized intuitions.

• Our perspective of emotions and rationality has shaped our contemporary realities.

• Anger, to a certain degree can be excessively harmful and thus unimportant, but a right amount of it, is fundamental.

Therefore, anger is, necessary.

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you crafted it.

The semantics behind what you are saying, I would say is erroneous. For you are comparing the existence of two different things. An external, undiscovered race, Aliens, will be just like us — not necessarily by rationality or practice, but that we are natural, contingent beings. Another external, unseen being, God, but holding a difference that he is a supernatural, necessary being. Comparatively, God's transcendent oneness is not like that of a human's or contingent being's existence.

Simply put, for the reason that God is supernatural, his existence is beyond natural presuppositions like: atomic nuclei, content and state of matter, or if he has a respiratory system or not, he is not relative to that of a human. Humans, are presumably similar to other races: natural, specific arrangement of species, and develop life. By those premises, you can assume that external races from human discovery or humans ourselves, do exist. It's not like that of a god, that you can assert his existence because the universe is not completely examined in its entirety. You can't say 'we haven't found him yet' like that of an external race.

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

This is where you argue inductively. The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. For God, it requires abductive and even much simply deductive arguments. If God is imperceptible to the Earth, then why should he be perceptible in the universe? Although we have not examined the universe in its entirety, it might be a fair evaluation to say that God is not perceivable in the universe despite his omnipresence. For sentient beings - or aliens, it is also a fair evaluation to convey that the infinity of the universe, can most probably imply that there are, aliens.

You still remember I am, theistic right?

No one gets on their keyboard or walks down the street of their city insistently communicating to everyone that automobiles or buildings exist, so then why does anyone insistently communicate that some form, typically their personal brand, of god or gods exists? — whollyrolling

Evangelism is the advertisement of religion. Humans encounter 4,000 to 10,000 ads a day, whether it be cars, or buildings. The advertisement benefits them, allows the people to know about their investments and proliferates their money growth rates. For religion, it expands themselves and seals the belief of other people, but still, it benefits them.

The disparity whether a deity and something humanly or perceivable exists, is simply because the existence of a deity is sealed unto argument; hence why it's very controversial and has been discussed monotonously since the ancient ages to the renaissance. The fruits for the existence or nonexistence of a deity is life-changing, it decides the epistemological and metaphysical principles of our existence: meaning, purpose, and all sorts of ontological reasoning, thus they are really different.

Just to help, if you want to quote someone, just highlight their text from their original comment and it should provide you an option to 'quote'. Hope that helped, @Maureen.

I'm not sure exactly what is so hard to understand about any of this, but the ONLY point that I am trying to make is that no one knows if God does or does not exist. If you can agree that no one knows if God does or does not exist, then there should be no need for further discussion or argument on this post, and frankly I'm not even sure I have any idea why anyone here continues to argue or what point they are trying to make with regards to something so simple. — Maureen

Well...

Firstly, nobody ever disagreed, from I know, regarding your conclusion in the OP. However, the analogies and subsequent premises you proposed are erroneous — regarding the principles of epistemology: absolute truth, beliefs, and knowledge.

Secondly, it should be intrinsically accepted in forums like this that you must have a main proposition, people can agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily your process. Nobody ever disagreed with you that no rational person can assert absolute truth regarding the existence of a god, people only disagreed with your proposed analogies to reinforce that.

Like proving the non-existence of something, external discussions shadowed the idea you're trying to convey. thus;

But Maureen hasn't made clear the meaning she intended for this discussion, and until she does, we are at risk of talking past each other.

For some reason, she has decided to completely ignore this problem, instead of addressing it — S

You must outline your proposition first, because if people are not satisfied with the clarity of your proposition, things like this can happen. So, commit to a conclusion based on your premises, whether or not they are: deductive, inductive, or abductive arguments.

No need to discordantly address @Frank Apisa's and my, as you believe, inability to see the main idea. Because clearly, it's you who are missing the point. Anyway, I hope that's all good and behind us, have a great week :D

:up:

:lol:

and I expected this forum to be absolutely toxic-free.

I am not talking about intuition or reasonable expectation though — Maureen

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly.

@Devans99

I have been there with his argument on the creation of the universe. I personally think it's flawed by an epistemological and metaphysical basis.

So only because I talk of 'isms' is it then a problem?

You are accusing though, you have concluded that these utilization of 'isms' is a problem and must be addressed to change. If you meant personal beliefs for enquiry and accusation, then my question remains.

I am talking about a specific, standpoint of these mentioned 'isms' though; which is the middle point. So it is not of much difference to isms, but still different.

:lol:

Elucidation?

To begin, the reason why us human beings know pleasure, is because we experience pain. Now, the reason why pain resurfaces intermittently, and likewise for pleasure, varies from experience. Experience for each of us is a prevalent factor for our Self-Actualization.

Moreover, when we are born to this world, we begin to acquire developmental concepts in our minds, inherently. These mindful concepts are labelled intuitions, an example would be Time and Space. It's not sensible, therefore not empirical — it's not by assumptions either, so not rational; so it must be isolated, it must be instantaneous. These intuitions drives our directions of life, another prevalent factor for our Self-Actualization.

Lastly, our moral values. Our moral values are initialized by the last two factors, objectivity and subjectivity. But likewise, they affect our intuitions, but indirectly our experiences. Like how a Jewish person by intuition would not eat pork, and by experience they don't know what pork tastes like.

To conclude, this systematic cycle of Maslow's Self-Actualization activates our approach to life. Whether it be nihilism, pursuit of Eudamonia, or dedicating your life to theism, that's self-Actualization.

Is Hedonism a bad philosophical stance to take in reaction to Existentialism? If it isn't, how is it justified? — Jenn

To answer that question...

It would be conditional on Self-Actualization. Hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure, does not necessarily imply having to perpetrate or condone immorality, like: sexual assault because you felt like it, or stealing that EB games gift card because you wanted to get RDR2. Self-Actualization is not immorality. So perhaps for as much as hedonist motivations are still ethical or moral, then it should be alright.

Because pleasure, in my premise of experience, varies for each person, yours can be productivity and hard-work, whilst your mum's can be chocolate, relaxation, or winter-nights with a campfire and marshmallows. WE are all different, and if we are not, the world would be really boring.

I am willing to further expound things, but I do hope I answered your question. I also hope you live a life that you're in pursuit of. Welcome to the Philosophy Forum :D

Now, after we have established the problem. I would like to address something that was left unanswered.

A middle section of two extremely opposite aspects is inevitable to surface into a discussion by consequential considerations. Evaluating proposed dispositions of each aspect, it is inevitable that people would want the established problem to be resolved by another aspect that's just: moderate, common, the exact middle. For example, atheism and theism = agnosticism. Determinism and free-will = compatibilism. Would that middle section, which is inherently not any different from an ism, be a problem as well?

Theism and Atheism, if you're a coherent person, don't really exist either. It just defines where you're inclining to, even though you assure to your interlocutors that your suppositions can be erroneous. Although another problem would occur from there, does agnosticism exists?

Or does compatibilism of determinism and free-will exists? All moderately balanced aspects between each opposing extremes according to you, would be inappropriate.

There are subtle linings of error to that, but I don't really see how:

it turns into mere hyperbolic attacks and sidetracks the heart of the discussion. — I like sushi

Supernatural beings are just things beyond matter and definitive construct of the world in itself. So you're correct.

It seems to be anything that isn't yet a part of physics. — i aM

___________

I had in mind the Bell Inequality theorems and experiments which imply that a "realist" "causal" world cannot be supported. — i aM

Can you cite an example how realism and causal reductionism are incompatible? I am really sorry, I don't understand much - a further extrapolation of your point will help.

When someone says they became an atheist at age 12, i would say that is too early to make that decision because there is some much information that a 12 year old no matter how smart he/she just doesn't have. — christian2017

Really? I think that's a fine decision.

Yes. I am a theist, that is really proactive regarding my faith, acknowledges that my suppositions can be mistaken. But for debate, that can flaw your points — so it should be acknowledged by both sides of this god debate beforehand.

What is meant by "materialist"? Usually when people use that word they mean "causal reductionism". — i aM

To begin, I don't see any direct correlation. Materialism would be the presupposition that only matter exists and nothing beyond that can possibly exist. Reductionism by cause is just, correct me if I am wrong, the concept of cause and effect. That every known form of existence of today can be logically reduced into a beginning. A simple example would be: dominoes moving each other. Such motion can be reduced back to an initiating domino that was moved by an unmoved mover, or totally something else. Thus, I see no direct correlation.

Uniquely, Reductionism can be practiced by: Super-naturalist and/or naturalist. A naturalist can presuppose that the causal origins of the universe was only instigated by more nature. A super-naturalist, against to a naturalist, would presuppose that something or someone beyond nature, was involved in the origins of the universe. That's the best correlation I can see, although it's indirect.

A few questions.

But when you follow our science to its logical end "causal reductionism" doesn't hold water. It leads to contradictions and inconsistencies. — i aM

I am a theist, but atheistic viewpoints have proposed, I would say, logical assumptions for the beginning of the universe. So, I think that causal reductionism would work finely for assumed beginnings — regardless of course if those assumptions were true. So please, elucidate a few contradictions and inconsistencies.

Obviously , there must be something beyond that, but whether or not that something can be considered "material" I don't know. But I suspect not. — i aM

As a theist, I suspect not as well. If you're inclining to a creator, then the creator would be immaterial, he/she would be beyond nature. But as I proposed, a materialist, naturalist, or a super-naturalist can still be causal reductionist. How is materialism and reductionism by cause not mutually exclusive?

Pride can be arrogant, thus

their religious faiths spill over into politics, public life, school curricula, impact others, etc, then it becomes a problem. — jorndoe

Pride can be cowardly, thus

Humility is a vice, it is a chain that weighs down on men of knowledge, and to even hint at it being a virtue you are putting yourselves in the company of men who thought of their mental slavery as the highest prize they could aspire. — Louco

But if pride were to be balanced, it is the actual form of humility. Humility as objective moral standards would define it.

If pride was monotonously endowed to arrogance, I would be

a barbarian who hates civilization! — yupamiralda

Of course, being a man of knowledge requires an inordinate amount of pride: you notice the cutting edge of imagination and try to go beyond. — Louco

Pride is not arrogance. I agree with you there, knowledge does involve pride. Take it from Aristotle's mean measurement of extremes; too much pride, is arrogance, equally, a scarcity of pride is cowardice.

The way you developed a conclusion from premises that has no moral basis, can be really misinterpreted. Just because you know the truth, although it can still be subjective, does not give you any right to degrade other human beings. You're not educating them; you're unjustly showing extravagant superiority that is not justified. Such hypocrisy, a man of knowledge would respectfully present his opinion, not assert to the latter.

Humility is a vice, it is a chain that weighs down on men of knowledge, and to even hint at it being a virtue you are putting yourselves in the company of men who thought of their mental slavery as the highest prize they could aspire. — Louco

Before anything else, humility is a value, it's intent is morally, objectively, good — if you would understand it as a vice, then it's not humility, it has got to be something else. Secondly, humility, as I define it; won't weigh you down from opportunity to knowledge, instead it's a decision to not show your knowledge, not having to prove yourself, for you know it only leads to invaluable justification. The thought that your actions are not influenced by your thinking, so you have to emphasize that thinking to verbal communication. Consequently, that verbal communication can perpetrate the people around you, it builds humanly adversaries to happiness: false superiority, elitism, and bigotry.

Analyzing your point, Only just because I so fervently think it is a virtue, makes me just a man so foolish only on the basis that you disagree with me? only because you think I am mentally enslaved, I am indoctrinated? Because inadvertently, that gives me an analogy. I think humility is a virtue, you think otherwise, does that make me somewhat by your terminological premises, mentally enslaved?

When you see a grown man sucking on a pacifier, slap him hard. — Louco

Or just ignore it. Things that do not disrupt your oneness on ongoing journey of life should be neglected, unless it is morally good, or unless you would personally permit others to do so to you.

Knowledge elitism is arrogance and indirect discrimination.

↪SethRy Modern physics seems to be leaning in the direction of spacetime having a start: — Devans99

If you're going to take it from a theistic point of view, the universe does have a beginning.

Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who was also a devoted Aristotelian, argued that; God, who should be known to possess and harness infinite resources, must be able to create the universe with a stagnant beginning, but in a way that it was and will always be, infinite.

Us Humans as contingent beings, may not look upon it as a concept that is logically possible, because of our humanly intuitions. We cannot comprehend the presence of both at the same status temporally, we think they are not mutually exclusive. So I would conclude, that the universe is infinite yet inheres a beginning.

Now the reason why we don't understand that as humans, is because we know infinity (For a Godly concept, not fractalism) cannot inhere a beginning.

Just to remind, , if you would say that infinity does have a beginning, your atheistic viewpoint will collapse, or if not, weaken. If you say otherwise, your 'impossibility of infinity' viewpoint will collapse as an already precarious theory.

- There are no proofs that infinity does exist. — Devans99

The circumference of the topographical position of any country, is infinite. To begin, you measure distance of the shore by kilometers, but as you zoom in, more corrugations start to appear. From meters, centimeters, millimeters, to intangible and imperceptible microscopic substances, corrugations constantly appear. That's fractalism; fractalism is argued to consist of a beginning, but not an end.

However, infinity can consist of a beginning. Suppose there was a race track shaped like the infinity symbol, it has no substantial beginning, nor an end — but it's infinite, it's constantly going on. A race-car, which is not infinite, due to it's analytical limitations, might have an end - that's not evidence to say the race track is not.

The point is, infinity is not something comprehensible to empirical sense, infinity is a concept that requires our ability to rationalize. Far greatly: Space, Time, and other abstract concepts rely on rationalization, it is a common intuition that is driven by our humanly perspective; our ability to rationalize.

In english, this means there exists something that when you change it, it does not change. Absolute nonsense. — Devans99

The universe is not one point with the other; it's not a beginning with an end, wherein the end is ever-growing from the beginning. The universe, following the infinity concept, has no end nor a beginning; so interstitial positions between matter and particles are increasing, it's growing further from each particle.

So the universe is infinite.