Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I hope you have a lot of spell check programs in your quiver. Since I never ever gave that explanation for anything whatever I do not have to defend it. Wherever you invented that claim from it had nothing to do with my quiver. It is far too early for you guys to be getting me laughing this hard. When you decide to debate something I actually said you let me know.
Are you setting up timespace in opposition to space time? I have never heard that wording before but I agree that some notion of time might very well have always existed but it would have very little relationship with space time. What certainly did not exist eternally is the natural concepts of space, time, or matter as we know them. I have no idea what this other time would be or how it would function but intuition suggests it must exist in some manner. However I am uncomfortable in the realm of speculation and try to only stick to what can be deduced from reliable data. No natural infinites are eternal. If you want to research it Craig is the only one I have ever heard mention the subject of (for lack of a better word) supernatural time. He is very knowledgeable about time but it just makes my head hurt. That is why I only state what is reliable and virtually certain as I have bolded above.
Then pray tell what natural infinites do you refer. The last time I checked not a single natural infinite has ever been discovered. My background is mathematics. Not only do infinites fly in the face of every observation when you try and trick reality and instead do some math using infinity it almost always causes mathematical nonsense like division by zero or self contradictory results. It also serves routinely as the limit to which a function cannot reach. It does not matter whether you look at the universe or try and dream up possible infinites using natural law they simply don't and more often than not only serve to indicate the boundary of something.
Maybe your using the natural in another way. Nature is usually defined as that to which natural law applies. Do you believe God is limited by natural law? While what you state is technically untrue the thoughst behind it are logical. I once heard a apologist describe God that way. He was just as wrong but the principle is valid. God is not out of place in the world, but he is not bound by it nor it's laws. He does not need nor is it rational to require anything eternal beyond himself. If any other thing was eternal then it would rival God and God would cease to be a maximal being at all.
Space time is an abstract relationship between matter and duration. Time is not material though it does relate to the material. I will not read anything after Riemann is mentioned. That equation almost cause me to quit in my sophomore year. I must have see4n two hundred hours of debates about time. Not a single person ever described I this way nor do I see any need to. What are all these terms supposed to demonstrate. Are you suggesting time is not necessarily related to matter and has always existed?
What the heck are you talking about? In ten years of school, a life long interest in scientific theory, 20 years either watching or involved in debates, and a job that requires I make timing changes based on coordination with a cesium atom in an oven a hundred miles or more above the surface of earth and not one description you have made have I ever even heard before. I tell you what I will give you the benefit of assuming I'm am an idiot. I work with a Phd that specialized in information theory and is current on all dominant models relating to physics. Unless you object I will ask him if he can understand what you are saying. I will post it in my words but if you doubt my representation of his response I will get you in touch with him. He is brilliant and the nicest person I have ever met. I am not suggesting this in an attempt to embarrass you, but only to get a higher opinion than myself. He may say I am ignorant about time but I doubt it. Deal?
In your previous post you said time was an actual object, now your saying it is an illusion. They are mutually exclusive and it can't be both. Which is it? Your not in support of this ultra-modern idea that time is not true and that I am not who I was a Nano-second ago that Hawking's sometimes coughs up are you? or are you interpreting Einstein's diagrams as literal structures that actually exist?
The obvious, being that he was the most brilliant physicist to have lived prior to the 18th century perhaps. My physics textbooks sure spoke highly of him, were they apologists and biased as well? I do not have a firm position on Newton, Einstein, Kant, Berkley, Leibnitz, or any of these very speculative views. My only firm position is that time is tensed. I tend to not wander to far off where evidence ends. I lost any memorization caused by degrees and terminology long ago. I only go where the evidence leads and no much further.
Much to my disappointment I was sick yesterday and so my time that can devote to this post will be less that I wished. IOW instead of debating these issues in the flowery rhetoric they were given in I will have to be Blount and efficient. What I will hint at in my first response seems to indicative of your whole view point.
What is the term "square" doing in there. Time is linear not parabolic. The only way distance is relevant is in a hypothetic or model for convenience. In reality you and they dinosaur have no distance relationship because neither of you existed on the same physical plane. There is natural surface what so ever in which you and the dinosaur both exist. That is not even core relativity to begin with. Relativity has to do with the "appearance" of time from a hypothetical view point, Or relative to another. Nothing about the theory concerns a material plane on which you and any dinosaur actually exist unless you mean the models used for convenience.
Much of what you said is science but how you use and link it is not. Einstein said his biggest profession mistake is to make a static assumption about the universe. He even invented out of thin air a constant to make the math work out. I don't know in general but I definitely disagree with the quote you attribute to him. He sure did spend a lot of time defining the nature of that illusion.
WL Craig does, for obvious reasons. Classical geometry does not incorporate time at all. It involves distances and relationship of things that exist or are taken to exist at the same instance. the quadratic formula, law of sins, or the Pythagorean theorem have nothing to do with time. If you have dug up some obscure use of geometry your going to have to cite it specifically.
Manifolds are not natural entities that exist beyond our creation. I can look back in time and very shortly run out of manifolds, graphs, and symbols, or any other abstract representation. They are no more eternal than my signature. The rest of that paragraph was lost on me. I do not really use Kalam specifically but it just as alive today as it ever was. Not a single point has ever been overturned or even touched except by rhetoric. However even if manifolds were natural objects they would share the same fate as the universe, It's fate is:
By what standard am I required to do that? I can love what I wish, hate what I wish, define what I wish, and evaluate what I wish about a concept without proving anything. In fact by your criteria not one scientific claim can ever be evaluated because not one a true to a certainty beyond the fact that we think. My argument is not circular. I take he evidence we have and evaluate it in conjunction with a hypothesis. In my case it is even easier and more justifiable hat that because I happen to know the hypotheses' existence concerns a true being. The same cannot be said for dark matter, multiple universes, or abiogenesis. However as I stated my original comments had nothing to do with the supernatural anyway.
It is the only game which given it's existence could without any doubt explain reality in totality. IOW if God exists he would be the ultimate source of reality, even if your other concepts truly existed you would still have al your work left in using them to explain reality as a whole.
That is extremely biased and unfounded. I have never heard even the most virulent of atheist claim that all evidence factors for God have a value of zero. That is hyperbolic non-sense. While it would always be a subjective the value of the evidence certainly has objective value at some level. Four examples: The majority of NT scholars grant the following as historically reliable regardless what their faith is.
I have explained several times why that is not the case. It is merely that life prohibiting universe theoretically vastly (infinitely) out weigh life permitting ones, (that is if you make the ridiculous assumption that nothing can produce something to begin with.
You are still grossly missundertanding my claim. A universe that would permit any theoretically possible life for even a non-second would still have a miniscule chance of actually existing if universe were randomly generated without intention.
That was not really an answer.
He and Occam were wrong except about speculation. Things should be what they are regardless of complexity. In this case the most simplistic explanation happens to be consistent with the evidence.
To begin with I have little faith in the appearances of Mary but would not (based on their pervasiveness hold they position they are not true in general, but most specific cases I hold with skepticism. However let's pretend we know that a few are true. Do they make sense to occur in Catholic places? Using only the bible and common sense they certainly do. Signs are given for a purpose. They are not randomly generated and dispersed for political correctness. A type of sign many times has to do with who it given. For example they are mostly earthly things cows, weather, food, etc... They are tailored to be meaningful to those to whom they are given. Another issue is hat God judge's corporately as well as personally. A nation who denies God will not have many signs given at all. IOW there may be good reasons to be skeptical of any one Mary appearance but enough justification to believe they have occurred.
99.99999% of Christians have never what you suggest so your example is anything but the best way to explain anything except wishful thinking on the part a tiny group of people. My position on who best illustrates faith is the much larger group that held to their faith in spite of entire empire's persecuting them. At the very least the man who lies down his life for his faith is sincere. Most Christians would instantly be suspicious of a weeping statue and reject it in almost every case. This is not reason, it is propaganda.
I cannot generalize on what has caused faith. There are w huge range of reasons. I can only tell you that for the majority of Christians I know their heritage provided as many reasons to deny faith and resent as accept it. That is why the old saying about preachers kids is so often the case. Familiarity produce contempt and rebellion especially if it requires submission.
There are literally tens or hundreds of millions of cases where a person developed faith in God even though that faith was anything but convenience. Of course there will be more Christians in a Christian nation that has more access to information and is more accepting than a middle east nation where to believe is to risk death but there are far too many Christians in those latter countries to dismiss faith as merely cultural. The most influential Christian nation in history outside the US was a pagan empire before it gave in to faith. The memory of roasting Christians saw the adopting of the same faith by the same people.
Why is it that the only realm of science that is used to counter the bible the most theoretical and speculative of any? BTW if it is a matter of meters between you and a dinosaur then please paint a line from you to one and take a picture of it. Tensed time is the most intuitive and rational, and no one lives as if it untrue even if they claim it illusory using $100terminology. My perception literal duration is a trustworthy as my perception of anything.
I have had relativity in college and work with GPS on a daily basis though I do not claim to fully understand either, but I do not think your understanding is correct. If it was then I have a challenge for you. If you think the difference between you and a dinosaur is merely one of distance then I will buy you as much paint as you need if you will paint a line from you to a . If you can't, then meters are not the proper units to have used. Anything which time is involved with is expressed in either pure durational units or in duration distance relationships. Relationships are between two distinct items are not between one alone.
This is a good example of one of the worst mistakes made by secular folks. You try and condemn a concept by condemning your understanding of a word translated thousands of years later. If you want to know what X meant then we must try as hard as possible to determine how X intended the word. We need the word first.
It was not an example of anything useless so you will have to try another. It was a perfectly accurate description of what had been true at the time.
They still suck.Oh, dear. You are without hope
Ok, now in what way was this relevant?
It is never a scientific text. A text is a manuscript with a purpose. It was never intended to have a scientific purpose. probably because science is so low on the list of what really matters in comparison. Are you asking me how I can judge what is intended literally versus allegorically? However this does not alter the fact the biblically was scientifically correct about a great many very important things like hygiene that scientists were ignorant of even 2oo years ago and hundreds of thousands lost their lives for.
Ok interpret the statement that two plus two equals for as being consistent with the fact that 2 + 2 = 27.5 meters.
Nope but since you cannot lack something you never had he will not suffer because of it.
I wonder why you wonder?
It would have been good for about half a million plus in the 1860's who would have survived science had the scientists simply practiced what the Hebrews knew 2500 years ago. Science so far has not saved a single person in the long run in it's entire history but has produced the potential to wipe out all life in existence and the moral insanity to almost have done so more than once. If you looking for hope and goodness you won't find it in an equation. In fact without God there exists no basis for ultimate hope what so ever and goodness is almost meaningless and relative.
That is what I said.
You have no evidence you can create or destroy consciousness with anything. I and the bible claim that aspects of consciousness can be influenced by other factors so you claim is no threat to either. I am not even sure your statement is valid exactly anyway. You may effect the way consciousness filters or apprehends the external world or your perception of how wit does but without a precise understanding of what it is to begin with claims about changing it are pre-mature. I can change matter with chemicals but I can't make it cease to exist or begin to exist.
Hold the phone there hop-a-long. I have never said anything about consciousness is proven. I only mentioned that the trend in philosophy, etc... as usual seems to be in the biblical direction. Speculative at best but many legendary scholars think this is true. I cannot nor have I claimed to even be able to understand their argument.
What?
Anything I have no choice in believing should be trusted. Suppose I put more than enough pressure on you through whatever manipulation was necessary to force you to believe X is true. If you have taken any military interrogation classes you would know it is a matter of when not if anyone breaks down. There would be no reason to trust what they believed. In fact it is constantly stated "you can't believe him he has to say that". It could very well be that the only deterministic fact that ever existed was the one hat led you to believe it was true. This is merely paradoxical musing but if you want an argument: If determinism was true then it would be unintentional and the state of intentionality does not exist. Why then can I have a question and instantly discover the answer constantly? I doubt determinism would be rational enough to even form a question but even if so it has no interest in a answer and would not constantly be so obliging as to provide both the need and the satisfaction of it constantly for billions of lives.
"Te veo despues"