Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[JAL]

You didn't wait for my next post, which I interpret that the posts I did not read at that time are unimportant, so I will not read them.

Nice copout.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Incomprehensible. He is omnipresent, but not in our universe? He's in a different space-dimension? He walks hand in hand with us, but is in a different time-dimension?

Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension", which does not exclude He is "here". Like a space includes a plane, God's world includes our universe.

Sheer assertion. You haven't exhausted the possibilities.

Explain how the Creator does exist within the time He created.

Then I have no idea what your point was.

Look at the context.

You denied God's foreknowledge, using your philosophy. I cited biblical verses that show that God decided to save us in Christ even before He created the world. It's simply a matter of Bible vs. your world-view with your aspiration to understand everything.

To be more precise. I'm the only one I know of who renders it consistently …

Sounds like hybris.

Where did I say to take Newton literally? About 3 time nows I said NOT to do so, right?

I have difficulties to see how this relates to what I have said. What I said was not about how to understand Newton, but about things that seem to contradict common sense, like "clocks" running at different speeds, no difference between waves and particles, or non-Euklidean spacetime. Experiments show that the reality is such when you enter micro- or macrocosm. You declared things that are proven by experiments as "illogical". And if such statements are not based of a sort of Newtonian way to describe the world: What else can you bring against modern science?

Totally dishonest. I edited my summary of your statement because I thought YOU had it wrong. Then I realized we were saying the same thing.

Dishonest? You said to me: "You had it correct", which I understood as implying "I was wrong".

I'm getting sick of the way you always suspect me being dishonest when there is a misunderstanding (you don't understand me, or - as in this case - I misunderstand you).

You're funny. You evidently think that inifinity is a specific integer, because you fought me on this point every time I raised it.

To make is as clear as possible:

• "Infinity" is not clear, because there is more than one Infinity.
• Aleph-0 is an example of a specific infinity.
• A specific infinity is an infinity, and no integer. But it is specific.

I never said otherwise.

I implied that expansion into nothingess is ridiculous. Which is what you just said, so we are in agreement.

But why did you raise this topic? No-one speaks of an expansion into nothingness. Definitely not the "big-bang"-theory as used in nowadays astrophysics.

For me, the only explanation was: You misunderstood the sentence you highlighted as speaking of an expansion into nothingness..

The only other option is creation of space ex nihilo

No. Expansion of space is not about new space added to old one, but of a feature of spacetime. Distances (not every distance, but rather the long distances, to say it in a simplified way) increase over time. You may call this movement, but this kind of »movement« follows different rules than normal moves, so it is described as expansion of space and not retraction of objects in long distance.

Total dishonesty. The facticity itself is a lie. You and I are in disagreement about the facticity of light-constancy. You then point to experiments whose conclusions presume the light-constancy assumption. In effect, you presume what's in dispute and then call it a proven fact.

I pointed to a specific experiment, thought as a means to determine the velocity of the earth in the aether. It turned out that the velocity is zero, and that this does not change over time, which seems to mean the earth does not move (not even rotate!).

This was the starting point of a discussion which took more other issues, e.g. some findings that an electron gets somewhat compressed when moving (I don't know details, but if you look into the web you may find out more, it is related to Lorentz transformations). Then Mr. Einstein presented a paper about the electrodynamics of moving object („Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”) …

I never pointed to experiments that presume the light-constancy assumption. If you think there is such an implicit assumption (not discovered by science so far), explain it to me.

Dishonesty. It's not an imprecision in nature itself. It's a limitation of humans and human instruments.

Quantum mechanics says otherwise.

An elementary object (photon. electron, …) can be describes as particle or wave. Waves are mathematically described by sinus functions. A simple sinus function has a definite wavelength, but stretches into infinity (from -∞ to +∞). If you have a finite wave, a mathematical method called Fourier analyses describes it as a bundle of infinite waves with different wavelengths, adding up to a finite wave. So you have some range of wavelength, and a range of space. In quantum physics, the wavelength of the wave is the pulse of the corresponding particle, which means, you have an imprecision of he place of an particle (the space of the finite wave) and an imprecision of the pulse of this particle (the range of wavelengths of the wave).

For some time, physicist saw this as a real difference between waves and particles: "We can see the trace of an electron in our cloud chamber". But then came Heisenberg and showed: What can be seen has the same imprecision as the imprecision of the wave, there is no inherent precision in the path of an electron.

That's what quantum mechanics says. Maybe you were mislead by some "popular science" articles.

But stop saying "dishonest" when we disagree. Better ask. I could have called you dishonest because you said that the Michelson-Morley experiment presumed the constancy ot the speed of light. But I think you were not dishonest, but rather believed that.

BTW: If it were only about inability to observe, Einstein would not have protested against the uncertainty principle.

Xeno's paradox shows that the distance traveled is potentially an infinite number of segments (snapshots).

You can use the same approach I outlined above to show that there is an imprecision of time and energy: The shorter the time segment you are looking at, the broader the range of amounts of energy of the object you observes may have. If you constantly shorten the length of segments, you will end up with snapshots that give you no information at all about the state ot the objects you watch.

Xeno's paradox therefore turns out to be just playing with mathematics without any consequence for physical reality.

but your supposedly infinite God sees and knows everything.

He certainly knows the exact function of uncertainty for such "snapshots".

And I don't understand why you stick to this point. I have already said: If you want to introduce an infinite number of snapshots … just use the method I suggested.

Actually I only read the first couple of paragraphs of the article. I just read another paragraph on the sidebar of the article. It says:

"Two different infinite sets have the same size when each element of one set can be paired with an element of the second."

And they have different size when such a matching is not possible.

And it gives an example. If one set is ALL the integers, and the other set is only the EVEN numbers, then it's "two different infinities".

Is this the formulation of that articles? That is like saying "The number of months in the year and the number of the tribes in Israel, that's two different numbers". Well, both numbers are the same, namely 12. And so the infinite cardinalities in your examples are the same, namely Aleph-0.

(Guffaw). So what? This is completely irrelevant to our debate.

Your example is. I already mentioned two different infinities: Aleph-1 is greater than Aleph-0. Proof: Cantor's diagonal argument. You use an irrelevant example and overlooked what is relevant. You would say "straw man" to this.

Huh? I didn't get you. Earlier I suggested that the end of reality probably forms a continuum to the opposite end such that you would reenter there.

If spaced is curved positively, this will be so. Therefore I left open whether space is finite (i.e. your suggestion is correct), or whether it is infinite (flat or negative curvature) of space. BTW: Local curvature out of gravity is neglected in such "global" pictures of the universe.

There is no "infinite distance" (a region of infinite meters measured) since there is no specific integer infinity.

Integer infinity is a contradiction in terms. The set of integers (i.e. natural numbers, zero, plus the negatives of natural numbers) does not contain an infinite number. There are specific non-integer infinities, as the cardinalities of infinite sets, or the ±∞ values used in describing limits.

I can't see why the non-integrality of definite infinite values is any argument against their existence in the real world.

I can't prove anything 100%, but the twofold argument for finitude is the most cogent position.
...(1) All we know for sure are finite objects. This makes finitude an ordinary claim. Anything else would an extraordinary claim, basically a fairy-tale, and thus a cult-like assertion.

Hmmm … I heard this before, or rather a variation of it:
»All we observe and explore in science, is not God. This makes God an extra-ordinary claim, basically a fairy-tale, and thus a cult-like assertion.«

I am on what you or atheists call »cult-like«. And I am not alone.

Basically, the counter-arguments against such claims are always the same. Features of our nature (we are unable to perceive infinities or to detect God in a scientific way) tell something about us, not about the possibilities of existence, be it God or infinity.

Unless we want to behave like a cult, we should accept the most cogent position.

The most cogent position is: What we cannot determine because we are limited, should not excluded on merely theoretical beliefs.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Nice copout.

Posting more in a debate where sometimes there are texts that are longer than the limit for posts here, is quite natural, Bur to respond while the other guy is still reading and thinking about what you read before, is like interrupting a dialogue partner while he speaks.

I announced that I would not read what you wrote before if you "interrupt" me, and so I did when it happend.

 

[JAL]

Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension", which does not exclude He is "here". Like a space includes a plane, God's world includes our universe.

Incomprehensible. Any cult could speak of "a higher dimension". Nobody knows what that means. And you just said He is "not within our universe." And yet omnipresent? Sounds like the riddles of a Yoga instructor.

You can pretend to comprehend this kind of stuff if you want to. As does the Yoga instructor.

Explain how the Creator does exist within the time He created.

Pearls that I don't want to share with you. I explained why.

Look at the context.

You denied God's foreknowledge, using your philosophy. I cited biblical verses that show that God decided to save us in Christ even before He created the world. It's simply a matter of Bible vs. your world-view with your aspiration to understand everything.

Oh I'm fine with that. As I mentioned earlier, I hope you don't think this necessitates the Calvinistic conclusion of double-predestination. Anyone can be saved. If you don't see why, try thinking outside the box. But don't ask me to share those pearls with you.

Here's what I will share. I explained my understanding of election on several Calvinist threads, asking them to apprise me if they could fine even one verse incompatible with it. Not one verse ever got volunteered.

I have difficulties to see how this relates to what I have said. What I said was not about how to understand Newton, but about things that seem to contradict common sense, like "clocks" running at different speeds, no difference between waves and particles, or non-Euklidean spacetime. Experiments show that the reality is such when you enter micro- or macrocosm. You declared things that are proven by experiments as "illogical". And if such statements are not based of a sort of Newtonian way to describe the world:

Again, time dilation is not proven. It is a (gibberish) interpretation of the data based on the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy. Thus the two go hand in hand, and I submitted three separate objections:
....(1) Common sense objection based on two trucks having relative speeds. Asking me to make an exception for light-quanta is like asking me to renounce basic math.
....(2) The obvious ability of divine Particles (such as divine Light) to assume relative speeds.
....(3) The proof by the physics professor which I outlined, regarding the observer seeing light on the railroad tracks.

What else can you bring against modern science?

Is this a serious question? Are you that narrow-minded? Are you so easily indoctrinated? Einstein has you brainwashed? Chances are there will always be models alternative to Einstein's framework such as string-theory. Every model has its pros and cons. Given divine intervention in our universe, it's possible that no one will produce a model that perfectly mirrors our reality. It's even possible that Einstein's model is the closest we'll get. But to assume that he got it 100% correct is naive.

To make is as clear as possible:

• "Infinity" is not clear, because there is more than one Infinity.
• Aleph-0 is an example of a specific infinity.
• A specific infinity is an infinity, and no integer. But it is specific.

Right, but my problem with this is that you KNEW that's not the way I was using the term 'specific'. I made it clear multiple times that I was referring to a specific regular number reachable by several increments (or one large addition) with clearly identifiable digits. That's why I kept asking you tell me the exact number (exact digits).

But why did you raise this topic? No-one speaks of an expansion into nothingness. Definitely not the "big-bang"-theory as used in nowadays astrophysics.

For me, the only explanation was: You misunderstood the sentence you highlighted as speaking of an expansion into nothingness..

No. Expansion of space is not about new space added to old one, but of a feature of spacetime. Distances (not every distance, but rather the long distances, to say it in a simplified way) increase over time. You may call this movement, but this kind of »movement« follows different rules than normal moves, so it is described as expansion of space and not retraction of objects in long distance.

One standard analogy is blowing up a balloon. Note that this causes expansion into an outer region.

(Sigh). The atheist is trapped in an incomprehensible position (gibberish). We can't even discuss it without resorting to gibberish. And yet you claim your gibberish-description is better than mine. Why are you nitpicking? Nobody can make sense of your statements either! Example, where you earlier said:

"An expansion of space is not expansion into nothing. I tried to explain it to you. It means that distances are growing, but there is no outside nothing filled by expansion"

Who can make sense of these words? So a balloon can inflate without expanding? Where does it expand to if there is nowhere to expand? Nothing to expand into? I am not saying your version is wrong. It's just as much gibberish as anyone's version. And yet you cited these kinds of statements as "proof" that you're more scientifically advanced than I am! Since when goes gibberish make you smarter?

But why did you raise this topic?

(Sigh). Again, the Big Bang is relevant because it is widely believed - believed to be "scientific", and yet is gibberish. You seem to think that just because science experiments have "demonstrated" something, it must be fact.

But stop saying "dishonest" when we disagree. Better ask. I could have called you dishonest because you said that the Michelson-Morley experiment presumed the constancy ot the speed of light. But I think you were not dishonest, but rather believed that.

Maybe we had a disconnect here. I heard about MIckelson-Morely probably about 20 years ago and forgot about it. But I have NEVER believed that their experiment presumed light-constancy. Not even for a moment. On the contrary, light-constancy is allegedly a kind of corollary widely presumed to best explain their test results.

I pointed to a specific experiment, thought as a means to determine the velocity of the earth in the aether. It turned out that the velocity is zero, and that this does not change over time, which seems to mean the earth does not move (not even rotate!).

Maybe this was where the disconnect occurred (I'd have to go back and check) since I had forgotten, over those 20 years, that the experiment was aether-related. In any case, my real objection was to the additive-velocity experiments, and time-dilation experiments, that you seemed to be hinting at. THOSE two categories of experiments DO seem to presume light-constancy.

I never pointed to experiments that presume the light-constancy assumption. If you think there is such an implicit assumption (not discovered by science so far), explain it to me.

Then why did you keep talking about additive velocity, for example?

Quantum mechanics says otherwise.

That doesn't make sense to me. God suffers from an uncertainty principle? How likely is that? In my view, the divine Word not only tracks particles, He effectively constitutes them, by supplying the needed forces such as gravity and electricity. "In Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17) because He "sustains all things by the [divine] Word of his power" (Heb 1:3). For example nuclear force is defined as:

"A strong attractive force between nucleons in the atomic nucleus that holds the nucleus together".

That's probably God holding together a nucleus. Secondly, any seeming unpredictability/chaos in a particle could itself be the divine hand a work. Thirdly, human instruments usually introduce alien factors into the environment of the particle, such as light, thereby affecting the behavior of what is being observed. Fourth, we don't even know for sure whether the wave-particle duality is what God sees. Perhaps He subscribes to a better model where He sees a synthesis, and thus only needs a sufficient number of snapshots. Fifth, scholars have historically debated over the proper interpretation of quantum uncertainties.

An elementary object (photon. electron, …) can be describes as particle or wave. Waves are mathematically described by sinus functions. A simple sinus function has a definite wavelength, but stretches into infinity (from -∞ to +∞). If you have a finite wave, a mathematical method called Fourier analyses describes it as a bundle of infinite waves with different wavelengths, adding up to a finite wave. So you have some range of wavelength, and a range of space. In quantum physics, the wavelength of the wave is the pulse of the corresponding particle, which means, you have an imprecision of he place of an particle (the space of the finite wave) and an imprecision of the pulse of this particle (the range of wavelengths of the wave).

For some time, physicist saw this as a real difference between waves and particles: "We can see the trace of an electron in our cloud chamber". But then came Heisenberg and showed: What can be seen has the same imprecision as the imprecision of the wave, there is no inherent precision in the path of an electron.

That's what quantum mechanics says. Maybe you were mislead by some "popular science" articles.

BTW: If it were only about inability to observe, Einstein would not have protested against the uncertainty principle.

I really don't see what's uncertain if God has an infinity of snapshots containing all the information, especially if His influence is highly deterministic except to the degree that He allows free will to interfere.

You can use the same approach I outlined above to show that there is an imprecision of time and energy: The shorter the time segment you are looking at, the broader the range of amounts of energy of the object you observes may have. If you constantly shorten the length of segments, you will end up with snapshots that give you no information at all about the state ot the objects you watch.

That may be true for a man. Not likely true for the divine Word.

I can't see why the non-integrality of definite infinite values is any argument against their existence in the real world.

What are you talking about? Take the number of years transpired. You seem to be saying that, even though the year infinity is not possible to reach as an integer, we can reach it as a non-integer? That is, some large number plus a decimal portion? I don't care how large is that number, we can always add more to it right? So infinity isn't any specific number by any stretch of the imagination. Reality is an identifiable sphere of existence present right now. It IS specific. Infinity isn't attainable.

Every time I make this point, you object, and it feels like insanity.

Hmmm … I heard this before, or rather a variation of it:
»All we observe and explore in science, is not God. This makes God an extra-ordinary claim, basically a fairy-tale, and thus a cult-like assertion.«

This is why you'll never understand the Incarnation, incredibly simple as it is. Think outside the box.

The most cogent position is: What we cannot determine because we are limited, should not excluded on merely theoretical beliefs.

The most cogent position is Occam's Razor, not adding cult-like fairy-tales to simple reality and the simplicity of the Incarnation.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Incomprehensible. Any cult could speak of "a higher dimension". Nobody knows what that means. And you just said He is "not within our universe." And yet omnipresent? Sounds like the riddles of a Yoga instructor.

Maybe I took the wrong term. I thought „the USA are within New York” means that the USA are not outside new York, so „the USA are not within New York” is a true statement. Was I wrong in that?

Again, time dilation is not proven. It is a (gibberish) interpretation of the data based on the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy.

Take one example (I mentioned it before, now comes the long version):

There is a type of particles called mesons. They are all unstable, i.e. they decay in short time. Sometimes mesons are produced in interaction between atomic nuclei and radioactive radiation. Which happen in higher regions of the atmosphere (Van Allen radiation belt etc.).

We know the Half-life of mesons, the rate at which mesons are produced can be measured, and therefor the amount of mesons expected to arrive at ground. But more mesons arrive there. It seems that their half-life is prolonged during their coming down to ground. Which fits perfectly to the prediction of relativistic theory about time-dilation.

Where is there any base of "the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy"? I can't see any.

Thus the two go hand in hand, and I submitted three separate objections:
....(1) Common sense objection based on two trucks having relative speeds. Asking me to make an exception for light-quanta is like asking me to renounce basic math.

I already told you that I don't ask you to renounce basic math, but to accept that the formula for "adding" two velocities v1 and v2 is not just (v1+v2), but rather (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c2). This is math. When I say that (0.001c+c)/(c+0.001c*1c/c²)= c, I don't ask you to renounce that 0.001c+c=1.001c.

And that is it. I warned you that I know more about science than you (I can see it by the errors you make). I will no longer discuss with a guy that always comes with statements that are blatantly wrong, so much of our debate is about some (ad-hoc?) thesis from you that I have to correct.

Your view is that of 19-th century science, and all your arguments you pile against modern science are based on misunderstandings out of ignorance. If I were in your mood, I woulds certainly call you an shallow outright liar. But I am not you.

When you stop arguing as if you know more than me, I can (if you want) answer to every point you brought up here. But don't ignore what I say and don't give more objections based on wrong assumptions. I don't believe you will do it, so unless you write that you understood and changed your behavior, I will no longer write here. Pr 26:4-5.

If you like, you may claim that you have won the debate.

PS:
I told you I'm no Calvinist, and even that Calvin himself was less Calvinistic than his followers. That you repeatedly come back with that topic shows a fixation on Calvinism (the reason for that I do not speculate about).

And if you really want me to understand what you discussed with some »Calvinist« (the way you talk lets me doubt whether they were real Calvinists), you should give a link to at least one thread. I will not spend days to look for the place where your "irrefutable" views are written down. I myself made no secret about what I think.

 

[JAL]

Maybe I took the wrong term. I thought „the USA are within New York” means that the USA are not outside new York, so „the USA are not within New York” is a true statement. Was I wrong in that?

This is what you said:

"We know the Creator of our universe is not in our universe."

That's a reference to a person. For example if you had said:

"We know that Mike is not in our universe."

I would take that to mean that Mike is not in our universe. At this point I don't what you're saying or what point you're trying to make. Which is largely my complaint with traditional thinking. Nobody can figure out precisely what is being said! It sounds like gibberish!

Take one example (I mentioned it before, now comes the long version):

There is a type of particles called mesons. They are all unstable, i.e. they decay in short time. Sometimes mesons are produced in interaction between atomic nuclei and radioactive radiation. Which happen in higher regions of the atmosphere (Van Allen radiation belt etc.).

We know the Half-life of mesons, the rate at which mesons are produced can be measured, and therefor the amount of mesons expected to arrive at ground. But more mesons arrive there. It seems that their half-life is prolonged during their coming down to ground. Which fits perfectly to the prediction of relativistic theory about time-dilation.

Where is there any base of "the ASSUMPTION of light-constancy"? I can't see any.

First of all, time-dilation seems just as much of a gibberish-claim as light-constancy and curvature of space. I don't think that gibberish can be experimentally proven. "I just proved a concept incomprehensible to the human mind."

Secondly, I cited from an article on time dilation indicating that it is indeed predicated on special relativity.

Third, suppose a particle moving at velocity V arrives at its destination one second late per classical physics (but we didn't know it was due to how the divine Word intervenes in nature). Einstein comes along and says, "I have a formula involving time dilation that resolves the discrepancy." And because the divine intervention is consistent, experimental results always "confirm" Einstein's formula. Does this prove that time dilation is real? No, it only proves what I said before: Einstein produced some brilliant formulas. You don't seem to get this.

I already told you that I don't ask you to renounce basic math, but to accept that the formula for "adding" two velocities v1 and v2 is not just (v1+v2), but rather (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c2). This is math. When I say that (0.001c+c)/(c+0.001c*1c/c²)= c, I don't ask you to renounce that 0.001c+c=1.001c.

What are you talking about? Where did I say that was not math? I merely cited an article indicating it was math predicated on the assumption of light-constancy. I also said that accepting Einstein's gibberish-concepts - taking them literally - is as absurd as renouncing basic math.

And that is it. I warned you that I know more about science than you (I can see it by the errors you make). I will no longer discuss with a guy that always comes with statements that are blatantly wrong, so much of our debate is about some (ad-hoc?) thesis from you that I have to correct.

Why would I want to discuss with someone whose stance is, "I know more science, therefore my theology is better than yours?"

Your view is that of 19-th century science, and all your arguments you pile against modern science are based on misunderstandings out of ignorance.

Including the proof from the physics professor that special relativity is a logical contradiction? Something that was obvious to me long before I read his article?

When you stop arguing as if you know more than me,

Where did I say that? I seem to stand on the correct side of a few important theological issues, so in that sense I believe myself to know three or four facts that most people don't seem to know. Certainly I don't claim to know more facts than most people.

I can (if you want) answer to every point you brought up here. But don't ignore what I say and don't give more objections based on wrong assumptions. I don't believe you will do it, so unless you write that you understood and changed your behavior, I will no longer write here. Pr 26:4-5.

Like when you told me that the Hypostatic Union does not involve a created human soul? Is that what you mean by objections based on wrong assumptions? Just to be clear.

If you like, you may claim that you have won the debate.

It's hard to make any kind of evaluation, since the conversation got bogged down with strawmen.

This whole post is your insinuation that you are the one debating honestly but I saw tons of hand-waving and dismissal coming from your end. You never even acknowledged the problematical state of the two-natured theory (Hypostatic Union), even when I gave you examples like this:

"Not sure if I should risk trying to sit down on my material chair today, because it has a second nature - an immaterial nature."

Maybe a more scientific example would help? After all, you seem to want to argue that science disproves my conclusions.

"This piece of matter is 100% titanium. Of course it is also 100% uranium, because it has a second nature."

Not only that - I even cited Norm Geisler (and I could cite others) FRANKLY ADMITTING that the two-natured theory imposes contradictions upon the human mind. And still you wouldn't even admit there's a problem here. In fact, some theologians became liberal, abandoning a literal approach to Scripture, because of the Hypostatic Union. Paul Tilich called it a set of “inescapable contradictions and absurdities”.

You still won't even admit that infinity affords us no specific number! I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this recognition. For example:

"Infinity is not a number, but if it were, it would be the largest number. Of course, such a largest number does not exist in a strict sense: if some number n were the largest number, then n+1 would be even larger, leading to a contradiction. Hence infinity is a concept rather than a number. Put another way, infinity is the concept that there is no largest number. Infinity is used to describe quantities which go on forever without end.

Infinity | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki

Infinity is the concept of an object that is larger than any number. When used in the context "...infinitely small," it can also describe an object that is smaller than any number. It is important to take special note that infinity is not a number; rather, it exists only as an abstract concept...

brilliant.org

"There is no biggest, last number … except infinity. Except infinity isn’t a number. But some infinities are literally bigger than others. "

How to count past infinity

There is no biggest, last number … except infinity. Except infinity isn’t a number. But some infinities are literally bigger than others. Let’s visit some of them and count past them. Video source: Vsauce / YouTube.

www.science.org.au

Ok admittedly there's your point about different-sized infinities, but that seems to be merely a theoretical distinction useful for math purposes - for example it possibly helps mathematicians differentiate between sets (e.g. a set of all numbers versus the set of even numbers). Clearly every infinity is undefined in terms of being a specific number.

You wouldn't even admit that there was some merit/cogency to my theory of merit (pardon the pun). I never claimed to have proven it 100%, but surely it has a plausible degree of cogency.

You didn't even seem to acknowledge that my objection to the Big Bang theory was plausible.

You pretended it was okay to ignore multiple objections to infinitude, for example infinite love fails to explain the Problem of Evil and un-atoned angels.


After all this, you sit here and pretend to be the one who was debating honestly?

Please DON'T continue this debate. I've "had it up to here".

PS:
I told you I'm no Calvinist, and even that Calvin himself was less Calvinistic than his followers. That you repeatedly come back with that topic shows a fixation on Calvinism (the reason for that I do not speculate about).

And if you really want me to understand what you discussed with some »Calvinist« (the way you talk lets me doubt whether they were real Calvinists), you should give a link to at least one thread. I will not spend days to look for the place where your "irrefutable" views are written down. I myself made no secret about what I think.

Disconnects happen in these debates. It's not a fixation. You cited verses that Calvinists normally use against me. So I asked you a question, "Is this a Calvinist argument?" You do know what a question is, right?

And since you sometimes need 2 full days to respond to me, and I didn't want the exchange to stretch out to 4 days (life is short), I figured I would get the ball rolling, even before you responded, by telling you where I stand on Calvinism. Calling that a "fixation" is your issue. I call it "exasperation with having to wait four days just to begin another strawman exchange".

 

[Helmut-WK]

This is what you said:

"We know the Creator of our universe is not in our universe."

No, I wrote:
Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension"
You the criticized the "within", and when I asked whether I took the wrong English term, you wrote as if I never wrote the above sentence.

I leave it up to you whether this is carelessness to the highest degree or outright lying.

The last point I say here: When God does something consistently, this is what science calls a „natural law”. Dilating the tome of movinmg particles is just some example.

And now I throw this thread out of my watch list.

 

[JAL]

No, I wrote:
Good point. I should better have said "He is not within our universe, but in a higher dimension"
You the criticized the "within", and when I asked whether I took the wrong English term, you wrote as if I never wrote the above sentence.

No? You did NOT make that statement? Could somebody please take a look at post 219 and tell me who is lying here? Because this is what I seem to read:

"I refine my analogy: We know a certain object is not in the room we are in (we know the Creator of our universe is not in pour universe). "

I leave it up to you whether this is carelessness to the highest degree or outright lying.

My sentiments exactly.

The last point I say here: When God does something consistently, this is what science calls a „natural law”. Dilating the tome of movinmg particles is just some example.

And now I throw this thread out of my watch list.

Strawman. Obviously, the question I raised is whether "time dilation" is a misnomer for and misunderstanding of what He is doing consistently. This strawman-response is your version of honest debate? I've had enough.

 

[JAL]

@helmut,

And in that same post (219), you made a similar statement that reads the same to me:

"If God created space, he is not inside the space, and if he created our time, he is not inside our time. "

To a native English reader, both statements SEEM to be clearly stating that God is somehow not in our universe/dimension.

I ask you again: are you a moving target?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.

In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.

I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.

That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.

What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?

Exodus 20:11 is simply a reference back to the creation story; and so the theology of the Sabbath day is nested in the theology of creation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[coffee4u]

@BNR32FAN

Just make sure you're not being stubborn here. You praise God for 1 day on the cross but not for 13 billion years of labor? You really want to risk robbing Him of that glory and having to confess it to Him on the last day? Be properly cautious about all this. Try not to rush prematurely to a preconceived conclusion.

If the scriptures told us that God had laboured for 13 billion then we would praise Him for them. It doesn't.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Told to us so we would not be swayed by men claiming to age things 13 billion years.

 

[JAL]

If the scriptures told us that God had laboured for 13 billion then we would praise Him for them. It doesn't.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Told to us so we would not be swayed by men claiming to age things 13 billion years.

If the Scripture used the word "Trinity" I would believe in the Trinity.

Oh that's right. I believe in the Trinity even though Scripture never states that doctrine explicitly.