27 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo i was not joking,, and all the asumptions you make are right in one sense or another.
Anything that logically contradicts itself cannot exist because for such a thing to exist would be a contradiction. Logically, you cannot have both ‘P’ and ‘not P’ in reality.
Therefore, if the universe is a contradiction, then it doesn’t exist. But it does exist, therefore it is not a contradiction.
…oh hang on; you were joking, right?
So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo your definition of the universe does not include all of time. Thats what I wanted to clarify.
My definition of the universe included those parts of the universe,
as human body parts make up the body. In other words from the
point of time the universe started it's time started; however, that does
not mean that 'all time' has to do with this universe. Even if I took your
beliefs about another dimension spilling/bleeding/pouring/big banging
so tha ...[text shortened]... an body has parts, you have a brain in yours, that doesn’t mean
all brains are yours.
Kelly
Now, does it include all space?
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou still haven't said what you mean by 'eternal'. Let my simplify it so I can understand what your answer is:
That is a good way of looking at it, you can claim all time that matters
is that in which we are part of, or that which the earth is a part of, or
that which our kids are a part of, or that which the sun is part of, or
that which the universe is a part of, or that which is all time for all
that there is every where across all boundries of every sort. If ...[text shortened]... dries don't take into
account everything else, I'm only speaking of a sub set of time.
Kelly
If something is eternal then it exists for:
a) all time.
b) a subset of all time.
c) 'eternal' means something else not just a timespan.
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd so far I have no problem with what you have said in that post. However, you are not answering the question. You have made arguments about the universe without specifying why they apply to the universe, instead you imply that they necessarily apply to anything and thus that the universe is subject to them. However you refuse to apply them to God. Your excuse is that the universe is an apple and God is an orange, yet you do not explain how you know whether the universe is an apple not an orange.
Look we don't know everything there is about the universe we take our
knowledge as far as we can, right now we suspect/believe (what ever)
that our universe has a beginning and some believe it is going to have
an end as well. We (those who do) who believe in God (the specific God
of the Bible) have beliefs about Him too, and they are different than
the ...[text shortened]... ay, and forever. Those are two
completely different beliefs about two different things.
Kelly
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt means all time without restriction! I thought I spelled it out in my
You still haven't said what you mean by 'eternal'. Let my simplify it so I can understand what your answer is:
If something is eternal then it exists for:
a) all time.
b) a subset of all time.
c) 'eternal' means something else not just a timespan.
last what part confused you?
Kelly
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWhich is why my first post in this thread was to point out that you are preaching to the choir. (or creating a strawman). Nobody believes or claims that the universe did or could come from nothing, and the only people who ever bring it up are those that wish to disprove it.
I'm claiming our universe cannot come from nothing, which is the long
and short of my discussion.
Any jumping through hoops after that is
to say where it could come from, and those reasons why we believe
what we do.
Yet you made the claim early on that a creator God was the only reasonable alternative. Now you call it 'jumping through hoops' - which is a much more accurate description.
I know some say we use God to fill in the blanks where
our knowledge fails us, but we tend to do that with other dimensions
and other things too! That is not a reason to dismiss God as a cause
because it is possible He is someone's crutch, when there is also a
chance that God is real and did do what was written about Him and the
other dimensions are a fill in the blank crutch.
Kelly
If it is just a crutch I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when you argue that it is a rational deduction from the observed facts. I also have a problem with some of the side effects of people crutches, but that is a different story altogether.
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is a matter of what I know about each, I don't need to know all
And so far I have no problem with what you have said in that post. However, you are not answering the question. You have made arguments about the universe without specifying why they apply to the universe, instead you imply that they necessarily apply to anything and thus that the universe is subject to them. However you refuse to apply them to God. Your ...[text shortened]... s an orange, yet you do not explain how you know whether the universe is an apple not an orange.
there is to know about a gold fish to know it is quite different than
the big toe on my left foot.
Kelly
27 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Well please tell me what caused the universe that makes sense to
Which is why my first post in this thread was to point out that you are preaching to the choir. (or creating a strawman). Nobody believes or claims that the universe did or could come from nothing, and the only people who ever bring it up are those that wish to disprove it.
[b]Any jumping through hoops after that is
to say where it could come from, an m with some of the side effects of people crutches, but that is a different story altogether.
you? My point again that we can dismiss nothing, and now we can
move on to the something that did do it.
Kelly
28 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczel…So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
No i was not joking,, and all the asumptions you make are right in one sense or another.
So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
…
I think therefore I am -so my mind exists.
As for my implicit assumption that my physical body (and the physical world) isn’t just an illusion -if it is in some sense an “illusion” then this “illusion” must exist and that would just merely mean we would have to redefine what we by “physical”.
28 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonis because your mind exists the reason for all the atoms staying in their little orbits and not spinning off wildly all over the place?
[b]…So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
…
I think therefore I am -so my mind exists.
As for my implicit assumption that my physical body (and the physical world) isn’t just an illusion -if it is in some sense an “illusion” then this “illusion” must exist and that would just merely mean we would have to redefine what we by “physical”.[/b]
28 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDo you have a solid foundation for anything if you believe all to just
[b]…So you assume we exist? do i have that right?
…
I think therefore I am -so my mind exists.
As for my implicit assumption that my physical body (and the physical world) isn’t just an illusion -if it is in some sense an “illusion” then this “illusion” must exist and that would just merely mean we would have to redefine what we by “physical”.[/b]
an 'illusion'?
Kelly