proof of the existence of God, maybe...

this is difficult for me to explain but whatever

to get from point A to point C you must first get to point B (in this example B is halfway to C) before you get to point B you must 1st get halfway there also. so take this principle and apply it to much smaller decimals of distance. this suggests that you cant get anywhere without getting halfway there first. so how do we get anywhere? how is movement possible? There has to be some kind of vice grip on our reality making movements fluid. i like to think of this vice grip as God. what do you guys think?

I understand what you're saying by the whole point things, being in Geometry, I've had many questions like that myself and have thought of the issue a lot.

But...what?

What does that at all have to do with the idea of God?

Elaborate, please, I'm interested, but I can't understand the connection.

the question im raising is how is movement possible without some form of a higher power because- how would we get from a to b without having our movements connected. since its a fact that we cant get anywhere without getting somewhere before our destination and somewhere before that. either our movement is an illusion or possibly, a higher power or energy is connecting our movements. and if it is an illusion, something has to be causing this illusion.

This still isn't making any sense to me. What do the two have in common? Why must one mean the other? It sounds to me like you're saying "We move, so there is god."

Just because you have to get to point B from point A to point C.

But -you're- getting there. You decided to take the step from point A in the first place.

I'm probably not understanding the concept as clearly as it is presented in your mind.

this concept of mine is difficult to explain without drawing it out. at least for me.. umm i think the pre-socrates philosopher Darius had this idea. try looking that up. i will too.

yea this kind of tripped me out when I was like ten... haven't thought about the concept in a while.

In order to get from one red dot to another red dot you must first travel to the blue dot which is the halfway point, but there are halfway points into infinitum, so how can we even get to the other red dot? Do we ever really go anywhere? Not sure that this proves the existence of a higher entity, but it does call attention to some things about our perceived reality.

This video explains it well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u42Y3RbP7JE

Also look up Zeno's Paradoxes and The Arrow Paradox. There are logical and mathematical solutions to this problem, but I have found most to be flawed in some way. The most logical in my opinion is Peter Lynds explanation that people wrongly assume that there is a definable moment of rest, when in fact everything is in a constant state of motion.

I understand that, I just wanted to make sure I was getting it right. I've questioned that myself, but don't see much of a point of it, after talking to my Geometry teacher about it. Long story short, I found out that 0.999999...continuing is equal to 1 using simple division.

And something about a line that will forever ride against the X axis without ever crossing or touching it, because it won't ever equal 0, because they're always a smaller number for whatever number you have.

I found this fascinating, though confusing, and did not link it to any higher power. What I made of this problem that they presented to me was this:

If there is a midpoint between point A and point C, and that's B, then there is a midpoint between point B and point C, also. And if you use that logic all the way throughout the line (which is just a bunch of connected points), you get just that. A line to follow. A path. From point A to point C.

I don't understand what's so paradoxical and divine about it.

You aren't thinking about time in your equation. If there is an infinite number of midpoints and each take an amount of time to reach, then that should equal infinity. If it takes an infinite amount of time to reach a midpoint then reaching your destination is impossible.

There are equations that attempt to explain that as you divide into infinity eventually you reach zero, but I don't see how you can have movement without time, so this seems flawed to me. If things are in constant motion, it is impossible to create a definable midpoint and so this solves the paradox in my opinion.

Ahh, I see what you're saying now. If you don't amount time in the matter, then you aren't moving in the first place, you're stationary at Point A, despite where point B, or C are. Or at least I think I get it. But anyway, it's not one I want to put too much thought into. I've dwelled on it long enough as it is.

haha well im glad this is settled...

This is all just supposition, but...
The smallest indivisible parts of matter (also for us) are elementary particles...
The smallest indivisible part of space is a point...

It may be possible to say that each of these elementary particles themselves are points. And there exist no points outside of the total number of elementary particles that currently exist...

So, Point A would not be 'somewhere in space', it would be 'a point locatable' (in regards to other points that exist)...

For movement to occur, it would happen at the elementary level, and what would be happening is the swapping of places of points... The swapping of points being the resultant to the physical forces at play...
Not all of the 'moving' body may be moving at one time (eg. Your stomach vs. it's contents when you're on a roller-coaster).
So, the movement of a body is the sum of all the movement of it's elementary particles...
Point A, B, and C are all relative, in regards to things outside the system of A,B, and C... And are found based on their 'defining attributes' (in other words the concept of them)...

For this to work, it would be based on a few things:-
each elementary particles is in fact a point, and there are no points that exist otherwise...
for something to move, it comes from the movement of the sum of it's elements...
no elementary particle can claim space occupied by another elementary particle...

Essentially this suggests there being no real Point A or Point B, except when you look from outside the system, a system which brings context to where exactly each particle or 'space' is...
If an elementary particles is a point, and is then located in a different spot (in regards to elements outside the system) at any moment it may have been somewhere between Point A and Point B..
(Point A and Point B being merely relative)...

is this like heisenberg's uncertainty principle? im not quite sure i understand.

"is this like heisenberg's uncertainty principle? im not quite sure i understand."

Sounds more like the next evolution of Intelligent Design to me, to be frank.

Yes this is one of Zeno's paradox's. Except he uses the example of the tortoise and Achilles in a race. Achilles feeling over confident gives the tortoise a head start. Achilles is unable to catch up to the tortoise because when Achilles begins the race the tortoise is already at point a. By the time Achilles reaches point A the tortoise has moved to a new position point b. By the time Achilles reaches point b the tortoise has moved on to another point known as point c. etcetera.

The problem with this paradox is that there are no measurements given. There is no distance given between the points.

Check out this proof I posted earlier
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/74724/saint-anselm-proof-for-the-exis
tence-of-god.htm#74724