|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 16, 2021 16:36:27 GMT
I would say that the real position of a "materialist/naturalist" is "We don't know yet.". It's one model of many.
What is certain is that if there are no dimensions to move in and no entropy changing, it's impossible to anything to move or exist. What I'm really saying is that there is a direct conflict between theology and science.
You've missed my argument from the beginning. Who says "there are no dimensions to move in"? "Eternity" would be an order of dimensions higher than time. Eternity to time should be akin to three dimensions to two dimensions. If a "two-dimensional entity" moves from two-dimensions to three-dimensions, does it have less capability of movement? Or more? It's absurd to presume that the eternity, in which our timeline is embedded, is some kind of "timeless," as in, a "single point of time." You could argue that we experience time along two dimensions--there is past and there is future (although we can only move in one "direction" in time). A single moment would be "one dimension of time." Our experience is a "line"--two dimensions of time. Eternity should be (at least) three "dimensions in time." Which means that it is not static, or a single "timeless moment." That conjecture is absurd.
I'm going with the beginning, where there was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 16, 2021 20:50:17 GMT
You've missed my argument from the beginning. Who says "there are no dimensions to move in"? "Eternity" would be an order of dimensions higher than time. Eternity to time should be akin to three dimensions to two dimensions. If a "two-dimensional entity" moves from two-dimensions to three-dimensions, does it have less capability of movement? Or more? It's absurd to presume that the eternity, in which our timeline is embedded, is some kind of "timeless," as in, a "single point of time." You could argue that we experience time along two dimensions--there is past and there is future (although we can only move in one "direction" in time). A single moment would be "one dimension of time." Our experience is a "line"--two dimensions of time. Eternity should be (at least) three "dimensions in time." Which means that it is not static, or a single "timeless moment." That conjecture is absurd.
I'm going with the beginning, where there was nothing.
"In the beginning God..." That's not nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 16, 2021 21:47:57 GMT
I'm going with the beginning, where there was nothing.
"In the beginning God..." That's not nothing.
It's also not eternal. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 17, 2021 17:19:32 GMT
"In the beginning God..." That's not nothing.
It's also not eternal. :-)
By definition it is. EDIT: Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding...I'm responding that God is by definition eternal. Are you suggesting that because "there is a beginning" it's not eternal? If that's what you're suggesting, then I'm starting to suspect you haven't really read any of my posts. Eternity is not "the enternal now," a single dimension of time. I've argued from the beginning that eternity is not "less than time," it's "more than time." In which case, there's nothing wrong, incongruous, or illogical about "a beginning" within eternity. Just as a point is possible in a line and a line is possible on a plane and a plane is possible in a 3-dimensional environment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 11:28:05 GMT
It's usually specified in that way. Outside time and space. It's usually to refute the "big bang" origin of the universe.
I can't speculate on other things there is no evidence for or against.
Sure. But the argument itself is speculation--and based on flawed logic. Is there anything in this subject that isn't speculation and flawed logic? We're talking about bullshit based on nothing but what some unknown pulled out of their asses thousands of years ago!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 11:31:23 GMT
Sure. But the argument itself is speculation--and based on flawed logic. Is there anything in this subject that isn't speculation and flawed logic? We're talking about bullshit based on nothing but what some unknown pulled out of their asses thousands of years ago!!! By definition eternity goes both ways, it has no beginning and no end. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 11:32:57 GMT
It's also not eternal. :-)
By definition it is. EDIT: Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding...I'm responding that God is by definition eternal. Are you suggesting that because "there is a beginning" it's not eternal? If that's what you're suggesting, then I'm starting to suspect you haven't really read any of my posts. Eternity is not "the enternal now," a single dimension of time. I've argued from the beginning that eternity is not "less than time," it's "more than time." In which case, there's nothing wrong, incongruous, or illogical about "a beginning" within eternity. Just as a point is possible in a line and a line is possible on a plane and a plane is possible in a 3-dimensional environment. BY definition eternity goes both ways, it has no beginning and no end. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2021 18:09:32 GMT
Sure. But the argument itself is speculation--and based on flawed logic. Is there anything in this subject that isn't speculation and flawed logic? We're talking about bullshit based on nothing but what some unknown pulled out of their asses thousands of years ago!!! What do you mean by "nothing"? I think it's been made pretty clear in this conversation that "nothing" doesn't exist. But thanks for the valuable contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2021 18:11:14 GMT
By definition it is. EDIT: Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding...I'm responding that God is by definition eternal. Are you suggesting that because "there is a beginning" it's not eternal? If that's what you're suggesting, then I'm starting to suspect you haven't really read any of my posts. Eternity is not "the enternal now," a single dimension of time. I've argued from the beginning that eternity is not "less than time," it's "more than time." In which case, there's nothing wrong, incongruous, or illogical about "a beginning" within eternity. Just as a point is possible in a line and a line is possible on a plane and a plane is possible in a 3-dimensional environment. BY definition eternity goes both ways, it has no beginning and no end. Right. And a finite cube can exist within an infinite space. In the same way a finite timeline with a beginning can exist within eternity. I don't understand why people find this so difficult to grasp. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 18:23:13 GMT
BY definition eternity goes both ways, it has no beginning and no end. Right. And a finite cube can exist within an infinite space. In the same way a finite timeline with a beginning can exist within eternity. I don't understand why people find this so difficult to grasp. Let's get some things straight.This is not based on anything in the bible. The bible was written by a bunch of ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that insects have six legs or that a whale is not a fish. They wouldn't have said anything like "god is outside of time" because they wouldn't have known what it means. This crap has been pulled out of some asses long AFTER the bible has been written. So it's no more valid (relatively to your so-called sacred texts) than saying that god has two heads and three dicks and that he can pee French wine!!! The idea that time is a dimension was more alien to the bozos that wrote the bible than say a computer or a supersonic jet! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 21:26:28 GMT
Is there anything in this subject that isn't speculation and flawed logic? We're talking about bullshit based on nothing but what some unknown pulled out of their asses thousands of years ago!!! What do you mean by "nothing"? I think it's been made pretty clear in this conversation that "nothing" doesn't exist. But thanks for the valuable contribution. Except that eternity poses an infinite regression problem. Whatever "god" start at a certain point in time, that means that he's spent an infinite time before that doing NOTHING, that seems like an awfully long time doing nothing for a being that is supposedly "creative". The problem about god is that there is no way of presenting it that doesn't make it appear like an infinitely lazy indifferent, pointless piece of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2021 1:23:08 GMT
What do you mean by "nothing"? I think it's been made pretty clear in this conversation that "nothing" doesn't exist. But thanks for the valuable contribution. Except that eternity poses an infinite regression problem. Whatever "god" start at a certain point in time, that means that he's spent an infinite time before that doing NOTHING, that seems like an awfully long time doing nothing for a being that is supposedly "creative". The problem about god is that there is no way of presenting it that doesn't make it appear like an infinitely lazy indifferent, pointless piece of crap. The problem is you're treating "eternity" as a single timeline with the front and back ends extending forever. I'm suggesting that our experience is "two dimensions of 'time'" and eternity is more. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2021 1:26:09 GMT
Right. And a finite cube can exist within an infinite space. In the same way a finite timeline with a beginning can exist within eternity. I don't understand why people find this so difficult to grasp. Let's get some things straight.This is not based on anything in the bible. The bible was written by a bunch of ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that insects have six legs or that a whale is not a fish. They wouldn't have said anything like "god is outside of time" because they wouldn't have known what it means. This crap has been pulled out of some asses long AFTER the bible has been written. So it's no more valid (relatively to your so-called sacred texts) than saying that god has two heads and three dicks and that he can pee French wine!!! The idea that time is a dimension was more alien to the bozos that wrote the bible than say a computer or a supersonic jet! That the very intelligent authors, compilers, and editors of biblical texts didn't follow the rules of modern taxonomy doesn't make them "ignorant imbeciles." And you seem to be completely unfamiliar with the text you criticize. I mean, seriously, you think it says "whale." It doesn't say whale at all. How recently did people have to become "intelligent enough" to posit "God outside of time"? Because Augustine did. Seventeen hundred years ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 17:34:58 GMT
Let's get some things straight.This is not based on anything in the bible. The bible was written by a bunch of ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that insects have six legs or that a whale is not a fish. They wouldn't have said anything like "god is outside of time" because they wouldn't have known what it means. This crap has been pulled out of some asses long AFTER the bible has been written. So it's no more valid (relatively to your so-called sacred texts) than saying that god has two heads and three dicks and that he can pee French wine!!! The idea that time is a dimension was more alien to the bozos that wrote the bible than say a computer or a supersonic jet! That the very intelligent authors, compilers, and editors of biblical texts didn't follow the rules of modern taxonomy doesn't make them "ignorant imbeciles." No, what makes them ignorant imbeciles is the sheer number of things that are idiotic. Just throw a dart at any page and you'll find something that's outrageous. Be it because of scientific inaccuracy or unconscionable barbarism or simply an insult to common sense. It doesn't matter what it says. The stupidity of someone being swallowed by a fish and then spit out alive is tolerable in a Disney cartoon but not anywhere else. I never said it was intelligent. It's pretty stupid actually but it's informed stupid as opposed to the ignorant stupid that's common fare in the bible. There are plenty of things totally undefendable in the bible like the whole story of the flood. Which is moronic in each of its detail like the simple fact that a ship in wood that big would tear itself apart in a matter of minutes after it's been launched. You see there are limits to how big a wooden ship can get. Something the fabulists of the bible obviously didn't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2021 21:10:01 GMT
That the very intelligent authors, compilers, and editors of biblical texts didn't follow the rules of modern taxonomy doesn't make them "ignorant imbeciles." No, what makes them ignorant imbeciles is the sheer number of things that are idiotic. Just throw a dart at any page and you'll find something that's outrageous. Be it because of scientific inaccuracy or unconscionable barbarism or simply an insult to common sense. Would you say that your appraisal is..."balanced and unbiased"? Your criticism was that a whale is not a fish. Have you actually read the text or are you going by the Sunday School version? So...you're backing away from your prior claim that people weren't intelligent enough to suggest that God existed outside of time? Because it looks like you did a drastic change of subject there... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 22:25:34 GMT
No, what makes them ignorant imbeciles is the sheer number of things that are idiotic. Just throw a dart at any page and you'll find something that's outrageous. Be it because of scientific inaccuracy or unconscionable barbarism or simply an insult to common sense. Would you say that your appraisal is..."balanced and unbiased"? Your criticism was that a whale is not a fish. Have you actually read the text or are you going by the Sunday School version? They don't teach the bible in any Sunday schools that I know of. IOW, you know that the flood is undefendable and idiotic so you'll just pretend that I didn't say anything. I know you too well. "Outside of time" in and of itself doesn't mean anything, it could be some kind of "poetic metaphor" that some bozo pulled out of his. What's too smart for a bible hack is the idea that time is a dimension and that's what you keep trying to peddle. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 21, 2021 15:40:05 GMT
Would you say that your appraisal is..."balanced and unbiased"? Your criticism was that a whale is not a fish. Have you actually read the text or are you going by the Sunday School version? They don't teach the bible in any Sunday schools that I know of. IOW, you know that the flood is undefendable and idiotic so you'll just pretend that I didn't say anything. I know you too well. "Outside of time" in and of itself doesn't mean anything, it could be some kind of "poetic metaphor" that some bozo pulled out of his. What's too smart for a bible hack is the idea that time is a dimension and that's what you keep trying to peddle. No. You want to talk about the flood? Fine. But in terms of this conversation, it's completely irrelevant. You're obviously using it as a cheap tactic to change the subject because you've been backed in the corner. There's already a thread on the flood. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2021 17:35:59 GMT
They don't teach the bible in any Sunday schools that I know of. IOW, you know that the flood is undefendable and idiotic so you'll just pretend that I didn't say anything. I know you too well. "Outside of time" in and of itself doesn't mean anything, it could be some kind of "poetic metaphor" that some bozo pulled out of his. What's too smart for a bible hack is the idea that time is a dimension and that's what you keep trying to peddle. No. You want to talk about the flood? Fine. But in terms of this conversation, it's completely irrelevant. You're obviously using it as a cheap tactic to change the subject because you've been backed in the corner. There's already a thread on the flood. What corner would that be? Or is that a secret? The flood is not the only things that's stupid through and through. Exodus is far more pernicious because it says that teh Hebrews had been slaves of the Egyptians for centuries and as anyone who's opinon is worth anything knows, it's a complete lie. There's even a dumb ass Israelite official who said publicly that the Hebrews had built the pyramids and it's provoked quite a stir. You see the imbecilic actions your bible lead otherwise sensible people to do? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 21, 2021 17:55:19 GMT
No. You want to talk about the flood? Fine. But in terms of this conversation, it's completely irrelevant. You're obviously using it as a cheap tactic to change the subject because you've been backed in the corner. There's already a thread on the flood. What corner would that be? Or is that a secret? The flood is not the only things that's stupid through and through. Exodus is far more pernicious because it says that teh Hebrews had been slaves of the Egyptians for centuries and as anyone who's opinon is worth anything knows, it's a complete lie. There's even a dumb ass Israelite official who said publicly that the Hebrews had built the pyramids and it's provoked quite a stir. You see the imbecilic actions your bible lead otherwise sensible people to do? Tangent. Your "trash the Bible points" are off-topic. Which is fine, I guess, but it betrays the desperation of someone who is out of his depth. Because you can't address the point at hand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2021 21:13:34 GMT
What corner would that be? Or is that a secret? The flood is not the only things that's stupid through and through. Exodus is far more pernicious because it says that teh Hebrews had been slaves of the Egyptians for centuries and as anyone who's opinon is worth anything knows, it's a complete lie. There's even a dumb ass Israelite official who said publicly that the Hebrews had built the pyramids and it's provoked quite a stir. You see the imbecilic actions your bible lead otherwise sensible people to do? Tangent. Your "trash the Bible points" are off-topic. Which is fine, I guess, but it betrays the desperation of someone who is out of his depth. Because you can't address the point at hand. So I take it you will never respond to any of these!!! What an ass!!! You can take your idiotic bible with it's fables, and lies of all kinds and shove it up your breeze way!! "Which is fine"!!! You condescending little lying shit!!! I don't care if you think it's fine!!! Go fuck yourself!!! I've wasted enough of my time with you. Although I understand why you won't even try to defend that pile of shit!!! the labors of Hercules seem like a walk in the park in comparison. |
|
