Have you honestly never even taken a basic intro to logic? Not a contradiction with something you said (that there can be nothing greater than all finite numbers), but a self-contradiction. If X is logically impossible, that means X entails a contradiction: it is self-contradictory. But you have not even attempted to derive any self-contradiction from an infinite past, you've only contradicted it with your own assertion to the contrary.

And that last is the real fly in your pudding here- your premise is the same as the conclusion; infinite past cannot exist, because infinite sequences cannot exist. But whether infinite sequences or an eternal past can exist is the claim in question, so taking as a premise that it cannot (as an argument for why it cannot, no less) is viciously circular and question-begging: you aren't even providing a substantive argument at all, just a restatement of the conclusion, making this all amount to no more than a bit of personal trivia about your own personal articles of faith. And that's great... its just not philosophically interesting and so you're operating with the benefit of extreme forbearance of the moderators here.

3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct
5) So Euclid, Cantor and co MUST HAVE IT WRONG!
6) QED I am not a kook!
— Devans99

You have 3) backwards. It's point length/line length. e.g. if we have 2cm points and a 10cm line then there are 2/10 = 5 points on the line. — Michael

You are not paying attention clearly!

If you wish to establish how many points are on a line, its LINE LENGTH / POINT LENGTH.

For a line segment length 1 with 0 lengthen points, that 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.

You can ignore what I said. I'm replying to you whilst watching TV and was concentrating. — Michael

Maybe that is the problem! You have to read through my arguments carefully and think about them - they demonstrate major flaw in our understanding of maths - so they challenge well established assumptions - hence you need to think about this stuff from first principles.

Maybe that is the problem! You have to read through my arguments carefully and think about them - they demonstrate major flaw in our understanding of maths - so they challenge well established assumptions - hence you need to think about this stuff from first principles. — Devans99

I can safely say that Cantor and Euclid know more about maths than you do. Otherwise you would be publishing your ground-breaking thesis right now, not making terrible arguments on here.

What are you talking about! Look at the statement:

'Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever'

That means:

'Something must be greater than all finite numbers but nothing can be greater than all finite numbers'

Thats a contradiction! — Devans99

Look how can something be BOTH:

- Greater than than X
- And not greater than X

At the same time? - that's a contradiction!

I can safely say that Cantor and Euclid know more about maths than you do. Otherwise you would be publishing your ground-breaking thesis right now, not making terrible arguments on here. — Michael

You have not understood my arguments. None of your counter arguments have had any merit.

A contradiction- between your assertion (that nothing can be greater than "all finite numbers"), and the proposition in question (an infinite sequence). So, not a self-contradiction. So, no proof, no reductio, no logical impossibility. Show that an infinite past or infinite sequence contradicts itself, not that it contradicts your personal views on the matter.

This is really rather amusing, in a grotesque and sad sort of way. Even Thomas is rolling in his grave at this point; at least he paid lip service to basic logic and reasoning.

An infinite past implies the possibility of an infinity of humans, which is absurd

A contradiction- between your assertion (that nothing can be greater than "all finite numbers"), and the proposition in question (an infinite sequence). Not a self-contradiction. So, no proof, no reductio, no logical impossibility. Show that an infinite past or infinite sequence contradicts itself, not that it contradicts your personal views on the matter. — Enai De A Lukal

Oh my...

How can something be larger than something that goes on for?

Think it through carefully please!

Theism is absurd too. What father would let his daughter be raped as a child for three years simply because she could gain infinite joy from it after death? I thought creation mirrors God? What an ugly God!

You have not understood my arguments. None of your counter arguments have had any merit. — Devans99

I haven't understand your arguments because they are nonsense as shown here and here.

[

I didn't understand your arguments on probability because they were nonsense as shown here and here. — Michael

How exactly can you demonstrate something is nonsense if you don't even understand it?

Lol oh dear. So you're now just waving the white flag. Probably a good move.

How exactly can you demonstrate something is nonsense if you don't even understand it? — Devans99

Nonsense can't be understood, that's why it's nonsense.

Is this thread in the Lounge/Casual section I hope? Not any philosophy here, just the OP's personal confession.

I thought creation mirrors God? What an ugly God! — Gregory

My guess is its all randomly generated - God initiated it (the BB) - what he initiated was brute force generation of life.

The idea being that we would sort of work things out for ourselves.

As time goes on, life gets better, so it seems reasonable.

Is this thread in the Lounge/Casual section I hope? Not any philosophy here, just the OP's personal confession. — Enai De A Lukal

WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOUR COUNTER ARGUMENTS?

I just demonstrated perfectly that infinite past time leads to a contradiction.

You have not pointed out a single flaw in my argument!

Nonsense can't be understood, that's why it's nonsense. — Michael

Other people on the forum got it. One did anyway - he said so.

Your problem is that you are not willing to spend sufficient time considering ideas outside established dogma.

How about this:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

I've pointed out your continued failure to derive a self-contradiction from, or provide a non-circular or question-begging argument against, an infinite sequence or eternal past. Which, given the nature of your argument, means the argument fails.

So not only a flaw, two fatal ones. But at this point it really doesn't look like you're familiar enough with this subject matter to be able to hold up your end of any serious discussion here. And I'm certainly not interested in playing games, which is what it appears this is devolving into.

I've pointed out your continued failure to derive a self-contradiction from, or provide a non-circular or question-begging argument against an infinite sequence or eternal past — Enai De A Lukal

WHERE?

directly above.. but then you already knew that. You're playing games now, and I'm not interested so thanks for playing (and better luck next time).

directly above.. — Enai De A Lukal

Quote it for me... I will demonstrate you are wrong!

If you are referring to me, yes I understood what you were trying (poorly) to say and the miscommunication that was happening. I also understand that you are wrong, do not understand what you are talking about and have been as thoroughly refuted as Ive ever seen on this forum. Michael has been patient, clear, concise and gracious in this discussion and you didnt listen and dont understand whats being said to you.
You sir, are the living embodiment the Dunning Krueger effect. You are too ignorant about probability and logic to understand why you are in gross error here.
Im not trying to be rude. My hope is that you will be helped by these criticisms in the future, but its crystal clear that whatever learning you’ve done on probability and logic was the bare minimum education you needed in order to utilise these subjects to reinforce a conclusion you already reached/held. Ad Hoc I believe its called.
So Im sincerely sorry to be the one to tell you that your critical thinking, logic and understanding of basic probability are very poor and fundamentally flawed. If you have any interest in understanding ideas like this you will need to learn or be taught basic critical thinking and logic.
Maybe you really are some kind of genius at probability, destined for nobel prize and overturning all the experts in those fields with your new way of looking at them but you haven’t demonstrated that. You have only demonstrated where you lack understanding, which makes it all the more difficult to believe you are correct and we are to simple to understand your genius contribution to probability theory and logic.
I know its going to feel like im attacking you, but Im not. Education sometimes feels that way when you have made large fundamental errors. This is a good example of Dunning-Krueger but if you think it isnt then please tell me how you excluded that as a possibility. — DingoJones