3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…For example, a phrase like “X existed before time” can be demonstrated via logical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.
[b]====================
For example, a phrase like “X existed before time” can be demonstrated via logical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.
=================================
But it is hard to express something like the eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe That doesn't make it impossible. It may mean that we don't know enough.[/b]
=================================
But it is HARD to express something like the eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe.
… (my emphasis)
No it isn’t -you just said it as “eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe”! and PROVIDING you don’t also insist there was a “before time” (a self-contradiction) then there is no logical contradiction in that statement.
what would be “HARD” to express is, not surprisingly, some logical self-contradiction that is supposed to (according to the person making the assertion) represent reality (such as “before time&ldquo😉 because that cannot be part of reality -that’s all I am saying!
….but for me the idea of space being "curved" is very profound and hard to explain in human language.
. …
But it can be expressed, with difficulty, without logical self-contradiction but "before time" is a logical self-contradiction so you cannot compare one with the other.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton======================
[b]…For example, a phrase like “X existed before time” can be demonstrated via logical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.
=================================
But it is HARD to express something like the eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe.
… (my emp lity (such as “before time&ldquo😉 because that cannot be part of reality -that’s all I am saying![/b]
No it isn’t -you just said it as “eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe”! and PROVIDING you don’t also insist there was a “before time” (a self-contradiction) then there is no logical contradiction in that statement.
==================================
That may be why it is wisest for Christians to utter things the way the Bible put it.
"From eternity to eternity, You are God".
This also shows why I care what is in the Book, and don't go along with your attitude that it doesn't matter .
I am not sure I know what Time is. Or I'll put it this way. I know it but when I begin to explain it eludes my ability to explain.
================================
what would be “HARD” to express is, not surprisingly, some logical self-contradiction that is supposed to represent reality (such as “before time&ldquo😉 because that cannot be part of reality -that’s all I am saying!
=============================
Maybe you could shed some light on how nothing can be curved.
That's a real contradiction to me - curved space. But I think Einstien was a reasonably logical man.
Originally posted by jaywill….I think Matt Slick and some others say Atheism cannot ACCOUNT for the existence of Rationality. . … (my emphasis)
Andrew,
I think Matt Slick and some others say Atheism cannot account for the existence of Rationality.
Would you like to debate him on it ? I could probably have it arranged on CARM. Been there already ?
He'll get into you ball park and play.
What is it about “the existence of Rationality” that requires “accounting” for?
Is there some subtle mystery about “the existence of Rationality” that I am strangely unaware of?
Originally posted by jaywill….Maybe you could shed some light on how NOTHING can be curved.
[b]======================
No it isn’t -you just said it as “eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe”! and PROVIDING you don’t also insist there was a “before time” (a self-contradiction) then there is no logical contradiction in that statement.
==================================
That may be why it is wises ...[text shortened]... contradiction to me - curved space. But I think Einstien was a reasonably logical man.[/b]
. … (my emphasis)
Space isn’t “NOTHING”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou might as well get it from the man's own mouth.
[b]….I think Matt Slick and some others say Atheism cannot ACCOUNT for the existence of Rationality. . … (my emphasis)
What is it about “the existence of Rationality” that requires “accounting” for?
Is there some subtle mystery about “the existence of Rationality” that I am strangely unaware of?[/b]
The way Matt Slick put it was something like "Atheism['s] ... inability to account for Rationality".
Here's a short video where Matt Slick explains himself:
Originally posted by jaywillIts the three dimensions we can use to define the reletive positions of things using arbitrary coordinates in the given frame of reference.
[b]===================
Space isn’t “NOTHING”.
======================
Okay. I'm all ears. What is it then ?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
You might as well get it from the man's own mouth.
The way Matt Slick put it was something like "Atheism['s] ... inability to account for Rationality".
Here's a short video where Matt Slick explains himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EYQHd4LeKU
He says:
“…IF these universal laws (he means laws of logic) change depending on the situation, location, time or an individual persons preferences then there is no bases of rationality…”
But then fails to explain how the laws of logic can change as a result of a “situation” etc nor how you can have both P and not P 😛
I challenge anyone to show just one example of an example of a “situation, location, time or an individual persons preferences” that would result in both P and not P being true!!!! (where P is a proposition that can only be either true or false)
Then he says:
“…the universal truth statements are conceptual by nature. Why? Because they require statements. Statements require minds…”
So what?
Then he says:
“…If the atheists where to say that logical processes are not of the mind or truth statements are not of the mind…”
Why would a atheist say that? I don’t.
Then he says:
“…Atheists can state that the laws of logic are based on human minds but this cannot be BECAUSE human minds are different and often contradict each other…”
But, obviously, that isn’t true because only if the particular human minds are making logical flaws would they disagree over the laws of logic.
If two humans are thinking with flawless logic then they couldn’t possibly came to disagree on a universal law of logic -I challenge anyone to explain an example of how they could come to disagree if they are using flawless logic!
-so all of his arguments are logically flawed.
So my assertion still stands: atheists have nothing to “account” for about “the existence of rationality”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat is what is said to be curved - the vacuum of space.
The vacuum of space. Note that “vacuum of space” isn’t “nothing” in physics.
Whatever is there, strings or whatever, there has to be the vacuum of space between them.
That is what Einstien believed is curved, if I understand him. But how can the vacuum of space be curved ?
I don't understand it yet.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…That is what is said to be curved - the VACUUM of space.
That is what is said to be curved - the vacuum of space.
Whatever is there, strings or whatever, there has to be the vacuum of space between them.
That is what Einstien believed is curved, if I understand him. But how can the vacuum of space be curved ?
I don't understand it yet.
… (my emphasis)
No -just the 3D space.