Well, that is a rather incorrect reading of my post. I didn't mention you or your motives at all... I mentioned only my own beliefs.
And - read again - I did say nothing about "your definition of these terms".
What I said was: I have these beliefs. "This" - the belief - is heavily dependent on the definitions used, and this - the belief - is not always backed up rationally.
If you cannot consider a post without thinking it is a personal attack... you should really reconsider your stance.
Its important to agree on a definition of terms in order to understand each other. I try to define terms in the most reasonable way possible and I expect others to do the same, or else there being unreasonable. I don't consider anything you say a personal attack, I view our dialogue as a friendly discussion.
And I couldn't keep noticing that, while you managed to misinterprete this posting as an attack on your motives and telling me what I "assume"... you also managed to completely ignore the point that I was making, in direct response to your question:
The universe is not dependent on my consciousness. That doesn't say anything about what the universe might be dependent on.
But if we're being reasonable and we believe the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds, then isn't it most reasonable to believe that the universe is dependent on unalterable laws or truths? And if we continue to be reasonable and we consider the fact that our conscious minds are required in order for us to realize a degree of those unalterable laws or truths, it then becomes reasonable to believe that those unalterable laws or truths are "realized" by an unalterable conscious mind that is timeless, thus is conscious and exists simultaneously and infinitely.
There are different definitions. This is a fact in the field of philosophy. I assume that we use different definitions... and this my assumption is shown correct by the rest of your post: You mix temporal and atemporal definitions.
You are talking about "ceasing to exist". Does that term have any meaning for you?
The only meaning is has is that it seems impossible for something to cease to exist.
Categories, dear Chriliman, categories. We humans tend to think in them. Atoms are such a category. "Physical things" is another one. "Consciousness" is another.
Take a glass of water. Drop it. Smash it. It isn't a glass anymore. It is a bunch of wet shards.
Scope up the water. Send a lot of electricity through it. It isn't water anymore... it is a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Bombard the oxygen atoms with neutrons. You will get a bunch of different atoms and other particles... but no more oxygen.
With the correct settings, you could even convert these "physical things" (made of atoms) into pure energy. Some GigaJoule of energy.
Is that still a glass of water? Or has the glass of water ceased to exist? Can you still drink it? No.
The particles that made up the glass of water have always existed within the universe, so these particles went from not forming a glass of water to being formed into a glass of water and then being smashed into a broken glass of water. Now all of this forming and smashing required space and time, which also exist within the universe. So if you imagine yourself able to step outside of space/time you'd view the glass of water as taking all possible forms simultaneously in a single instance of timelessness. So from your subjective view it appears as if the glass of water ceases to exist, when in reality it has always existed in some form within the universe.
That would mean that your reasoning, based on the apparent contradiction of "unchangable truth of existence" and "non-existence", is false. If you assume a "beginning", you assert a state of non-existence.
Nope, not a contradiction because my beginning is dependent on God infinity existing in timelessness. So before me was God and God is infinite and timeless so saying that I non-exist before my beginning is pointless because what was before me is infinite timeless existence.
Did things not-exist at a point of time before their beginning? Or did they exist?
Before the beginning of anything there was infinite timeless existence. Before anything there was God. This is what I believe.
Your position is based on faulty conclusions... as I have just shown, here in the last paragraph.
No, my reasoning is based on my limited understanding of infinite timeless existence and I only have this limited understanding because I believe in God and have accepted the sacrifice of His son for my sins.
