God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

Paulomycin,

I see you keep using the word "universe" and refuse to tell us what you mean when you say "universe". No problem. I will just ask again. Can you please tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe"?

Are you ex-LDS? Just curious.

No.

Like God?

You say this in response to, "When I speak of all of reality, I am referring to what well could [be] much more than just that which came from the Big Bang."

Yes, of course "all of reality" includes any God, Bigfoot, or cranky stinky-dinky lanky honky-tonky winky wonky donkey that exists. Why do you ask?

Maybe because I don't believe you really want an answer, in any case.

Ah, so you keep using the word "universe" and you refuse to tell us what you mean by it. And you admit that you refuse to tell us what you mean by it.

"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" (I Corinthians 14:8) Would you please make clear sounds?

No matter what I define the "universe" as, you'll just force it back to the same ambiguity, so why bother?

Because there are people that really want an answer. What do you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

Can't we just agree that the universe is finite?

No.

The universe that can be observed is finite, limited by the speed of light.

But what is beyond that limit? We don't know. It might be infinite.

Or are you insisting on shoehorning-in steady state theory after it was already scientifically falsified?

No.

^ Whoops, this is definitely word salad. What an amusing game you invented. Can I play?

You write that in response to:

So to make any sense of your word salad, you are going to need to tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe". Can you answer the question, please?​

Sometimes I write things that are not worded well, but quite honestly, I cannot understand how you would complain about the above. Can you truly not understand it?

So, to make any sense of Merle's word salad, Merle is going to need to tell us what he means when he uses the word "word salad," as well as "universe," oh, and the word "sense" as well, since he demands equivocating words in-order to stall any further progress in the thread.

I suppose I could respond by questioning your sincerity in asking. But hey, I will play along. This is what I mean when I use these words.

Word salad: A jumble of words that makes little sense.

Universe: It can mean the observable universe, the entire result of the Big Bang, or all of existence. When I use the word, I usually try to make it clear which I mean.

Sense: In the sentence above, it meant "a comprehendible meaning". I was trying to find a comprehendible meaning in the word salad you had thrown at us.

Can you answer the question, please?

Yes.

Your turn. Can you tell us what you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

I'll just keep insisting on it until you do, because it's a fun little tactic.

Ah, but you only get to do it once, because I answered.

Your turn.

 

[Paulomycin]

Paulomycin,

I see you keep using the word "universe" and refuse to tell us what you mean when you say "universe". No problem. I will just ask again. Can you please tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe"?


No.

You say this in response to, "When I speak of all of reality, I am referring to what well could [be] much more than just that which came from the Big Bang."

Yes, of course "all of reality" includes any God, Bigfoot, or cranky stinky-dinky lanky honky-tonky winky wonky donkey that exists. Why do you ask?


Ah, so you keep using the word "universe" and you refuse to tell us what you mean by it. And you admit that you refuse to tell us what you mean by it.

"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" (I Corinthians 14:8) Would you please make clear sounds?


Because there are people that really want an answer. What do you mean when you use the word, "universe"?



No.

The universe that can be observed is finite, limited by the speed of light and the length of time.

But what is beyond that limit? We don't know. It might be infinite.



No.

You write that in response to:

So to make any sense of your word salad, you are going to need to tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe". Can you answer the question, please?​

Sometimes I write things that are not worded well, but quite honestly, I cannot understand how you would complain about the above. Can you truly not understand it?

I suppose I could respond by questioning your sincerity in asking. But hey, I will play along, as though you are serious. This is what I mean when I use these words.

Word salad: A jumble of words that makes little sense.

Universe: It can mean the observable universe, the entire result of the Big Bang, or all of existence. When I use the word, I usually try to make it clear which I mean.

Sense: In the sentence above, it meant "a comprehendible meaning". I was trying to find a comprehendible meaning in the word salad you had thrown at us.



Yes.

Your turn. Can you tell us what you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

Ah, but you only get to do it once, because I answered.

Your turn.

According to your rules, this entire post is nothing more than "word salad." We simply cannot go on until you define every-single-word you used in this post.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We simply cannot go on until you define every-single-word you used in this post.

Really? You want a definition of every word in the English language that I use?

Here -- Read this. Amazon.com: Merriam-Webster Dictionary (9780877792956): Merriam-Webster: Books

Now, can you answer my question? What do you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

 

[Paulomycin]

Really? You want a definition of every word in the English language that I use?

Because, according to the rules of your little head game, I declared "word salad." Yeah. Or, you can take your unfounded accusation back and we can just move on. Or, you can do one better and admit you're hanging onto a completely ambiguous definition of "universe" yourself, and don't want to discuss it further.

Here -- Read this. Amazon.com: Merriam-Webster Dictionary (9780877792956): Merriam-Webster: Books

I'm sorry Merle. According to your rules, your claim of word salad is only remedied by "what's your definition?" Not, "every possible definition in the dictionary."

Now answer my question.

 

[Paulomycin]

Now, can you answer my question? What do you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

If we're talking about purely scientific/materialistic definitions of the word "universe," why would you hold out for potentially unscientific definitions of the universe? To get out from under the proof of God by any means necessary? I think you would.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why would you hold out for potentially unscientific definitions of the universe?

I wouldn't.

Now back to my question.

Nobody here understands what you mean when you use the word universe. You could clear it up by telling us what you mean.

Are you interested in being understood?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'll go talk to a wall instead. I expect better results.

That is not a very Christian response.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You’re familiar with the Aristotelian laws of logic, then? The relationship between cause and effect as defined by the pseudo-law you’re referring to is merely an application of the law of identity, (something wholly separate from Aristotle’s speculative law of causality, which isn’t a law of logic).

I know it is no longer considered a law, but it was by Aristotle. I know now it is just considered a rule of logic. But either way I can make my points seen below.

g4: Everything that happens as a result of something else is defined as an effect, and everything that makes other things happen is defined as a cause. That’s all well and good, but the problem occurs when apologists try to use these definitions to extrapolate facts about reality.

Not just apologists, but also scientists use those definitions everyday. And they make conclusions about reality using them.

g4: That’s not how logic works. Logic tells us how to make coherent statements about reality, not what reality is obligated to be. In reality, we can’t actually determine causal relationships with metaphysical certainty. Causation is an inference we make based on a variety of correlative factors. We cannot, therefore, determine whether the universe was caused to exist by something else merely by playing with the definitions of cause and effect.

I am not claiming certainty. I am claiming inference to the best explanation. Scientists study the characteristics of effects everyday to determine their cause. By doing so, they can decide the most likely cause. And that is what I am doing with the universe, we study the characteristics of the universe such as having all the characteristics of an effect, therefore most likely it has a cause. Then you can look at more of its characteristics to determine characteristics of that cause.

 

[disciple Clint]

And how exactly do you know that there cannot possibly be two uncaused causes?

Let's say that what you say is true, that there can only be one uncaused cause. How do you know that the universe itself is not that one and only uncaused cause?

the universe is physical, we have knowledge that physical structures require a cause. God is a spirit and not subject to physical laws.

 

[disciple Clint]

Ah, so you use the proof from flying balls.

The proof from flying balls
1. A flying ball needs a cause.
2. Therefore the universe also needs a cause.
3. Of all the possible causes of the universe, I pick God.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Needless to say, your argument is bunkers.

Feel free to provide alternate causes for the universe that you would not consider to be bunkers. I have an answer do you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Paulomycin,

I see you keep using the word "universe" and refuse to tell us what you mean when you say "universe". No problem. I will just ask again. Can you please tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe"?


No.

You say this in response to, "When I speak of all of reality, I am referring to what well could [be] much more than just that which came from the Big Bang."

Yes, of course "all of reality" includes any God, Bigfoot, or cranky stinky-dinky lanky honky-tonky winky wonky donkey that exists. Why do you ask?


Ah, so you keep using the word "universe" and you refuse to tell us what you mean by it. And you admit that you refuse to tell us what you mean by it.

"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" (I Corinthians 14:8) Would you please make clear sounds?


Because there are people that really want an answer. What do you mean when you use the word, "universe"?



No.

The universe that can be observed is finite, limited by the speed of light.

But what is beyond that limit? We don't know. It might be infinite.



No.

You write that in response to:

So to make any sense of your word salad, you are going to need to tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe". Can you answer the question, please?​

Sometimes I write things that are not worded well, but quite honestly, I cannot understand how you would complain about the above. Can you truly not understand it?

I suppose I could respond by questioning your sincerity in asking. But hey, I will play along. This is what I mean when I use these words.

Word salad: A jumble of words that makes little sense.

Universe: It can mean the observable universe, the entire result of the Big Bang, or all of existence. When I use the word, I usually try to make it clear which I mean.

Sense: In the sentence above, it meant "a comprehendible meaning". I was trying to find a comprehendible meaning in the word salad you had thrown at us.



Yes.

Your turn. Can you tell us what you mean when you use the word, "universe"?

Ah, but you only get to do it once, because I answered.

Your turn.

He probably didn't know the difference between a Hubble sphere, the universe, and all potential reality before the conversation, and now refuses to admit that he had to look it up.

So I say, continue to hammer the question until he answers it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That is not a very Christian response.

You're right. Christians are generally much more hostile to me than that.

 

[Paulomycin]

You're right. Christians are generally much more hostile to me than that.

We value you personally far more than non-stamp collecting. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[Paulomycin]

I wouldn't.

Then that narrows the options down a lot.

Nobody here understands what you mean when you use the word universe. You could clear it up by telling us what you mean.

What are my options that you promise not to equivocate or play silly manipulative "gotcha games" with?

I'm referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which includes all empirical matter. Anything that came before that is trying to smuggle in an already falsified steady state theory.

 

[Paulomycin]

Edit.

 

[Pommer]

What would a universe that definitely does not have a God in it look like?

 

[Paulomycin]

What would a universe that definitely does not have a God in it look like?

Complete chaos, or literally nothing. Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. Order necessarily requires an orderer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What would a universe that definitely does not have a God in it look like?

Exactly like the universe we're in now.

 

[disciple Clint]

What would a universe that definitely does not have a God in it look like?

Hopeless, no God no hope.

 

[Paulomycin]

Exactly like the universe we're in now.

Only if you enjoy forcing a universal question-begging fallacy.

Order
Necessitates
An Orderer

Order
Necessitates
An Ordainer