The paradox with infinity is that no number is beyond infinity but there is no limit to how big a number can be. That is if infinity would be a number. I see it as nothing. The inevitable underlying blank which will always exist beyond what ever number you make and always be the inevitable canvass for abstraction. Since it's observable it exists though it's the only immaterial thing which can be observed except operation. There is no paradox. No matter the size of a cube or quantity of numbers you percieve infinity will exist beyond.

hej sötis:)<3

The infinite blank of time and room should be counted as invevitable and the nothing. It has to exist. Though an infinite number of things which has to be put somewhere in the blanks can't exist in either thought nor the universe. Thus only a finite number of things exist and rearrange within the universe. The universe just is.

The infinite blank of time and room should be counted as invevitable and the nothing. It has to exist. Though an infinite number of things hich has to be put somewhere in the blanks can't exist in either thought nor the universe.

Would it be that the christian god's omnipotence can not rid the world from "evil" or does not want to. Is hi will so firm on a principle that there should be evil in the world and that it's worth eternal immense suffering in the afterlife and all the suffering in this world. What would the reasoning be? I think it would be easier for a Christian to assume even the most powerful being can't estinguish "evil". Which by the way doesn't apply to concrete reality as things are with lack of insights are scriptured in the bible, not even for the time period.

Atheist infer a type of belief system. An atheist can be religious and institutions are growing but generally atheists aren't religious. It's a lot more common for theists to be religious and there are a lot of institutions. I don't believe there is a god and I believe there is no god implies the same thing. The latter is more specific about the persons position indicating agnostic atheism rather than gnostic atheism but both sentences would be valid since the first doesn't really claim certainty(gnosticism). Only it doesn't infer agnostic atheism, it inferms neither that not gnostic atheism. I don't believe in god is just a less specific sentence. Then the person might or might not ADD whether he claims certainty or agnostic atheism and in that case perhaps the extent of belief. Your model is slightly wrong, VenomFangX.

Various features are more prominent in some areas and some tend to be more common in people. But they are not bound universally//naturally in compounds. The divisions are circumstantial and modular.

- KurdishMuslimGirl: Tack tack.

söt bild:)

Time can't logically exist. When we try to grasp time completely we fail because it can't be a consistent model. The only model we can do that works is that "time" is an eternity, It would be the same thing as if there was no time just that time is substantiated and the delusion can be explained and the best model being that time is another delusion. There would be movement and space (infinite). Universe reforming within it's capacity. The substraction of moments is not really a problem and just means that our minds could abstracly divide anything finitely but it doesn't have any bearing on a models consistensy.