My rock challenge

[PsychoSarah]

Something can't have two different physical ages, but something can indeed have two different ages: one existential and one physical.

As I understand it, some rocks "reset" themselves or something.

Meaning the atoms that make up this "new" rock have been around for thousands of years, but the rock itself is brand new.

QV: My Canoe Challenge

That isn't having 2 different ages simultaneously. And I was talking about physical ages.

 

[AV1611VET]

That isn't having 2 different ages simultaneously.

Yes it is.

And I was talking about physical ages.

Fair enough ... I'll withdraw from the conversation, since we are in agreement.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes it is.

Fair enough ... I'll withdraw from the conversation, since we are in agreement.

I would have to wonder how a lifeless bit of rock could have any non physical age anyways.

 

[juvenissun]

no, please do show us how something can have two different ages (the whole, not parts).

I have my physical age and my psychological age. For example.

 

[Kylie]

For example, time does not work the same way nearby a blackhole.
There are many other examples. I am not a physicist, so I am not good in explaining this. But you can take a look on a few popular shows about Time on the Discovery Channel. Or, I quickly find a link for you to browse. So you know I am not cheating you.

We only roughly know how does time work nearby the earth. We know very little on how does it work at other places.

That is true, however it isn't relevant to a discussion on whether the earth is younger than it appears. Unless the earth is near a black hole, which it is not.

So like I said, not relevant to this discussion.

 

[juvenissun]

That is true, however it isn't relevant to a discussion on whether the earth is younger than it appears. Unless the earth is near a black hole, which it is not.

So like I said, not relevant to this discussion.

As I said, we do not know what time really is. We only know how time behaves in our daily life. Well, I don't have confidence on that knowledge at all.

So, back to the issue, when we see something related to time (in fact, related to anything) which does not make sense, do not rush to blame God. On the opposite, we should thank God to give us this hard question to work on.

And, in talking abut theology, if you accused God cheating by ANY reason, then you violated the most fundamental principle of Christian theology. In other word, you are wrong at the very first beginning.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have my physical age and my psychological age. For example.

Now apply that to an inanimate object. Also, those are the ages of two different things, one age for each.

 

[juvenissun]

Now apply that to an inanimate object. Also, those are the ages of two different things, one age for each.

Sharp mind.

OK, my bottom-line: the point at the intersection of two time lines.
Don't ask me more. I don't know much about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sharp mind.

OK, my bottom-line: the point at the intersection of two time lines.
Don't ask me more. I don't know much about it.

Well then don't mention what you don't know dingus

You can't use this as a response, you don't even quite get what it means! Like literally you have exited geology and entered theoretical physics it sounds like.

 

[Kylie]

As I said, we do not know what time really is. We only know how time behaves in our daily life. Well, I don't have confidence on that knowledge at all.

Well, given that we know that time is different only near black holes and things like that, and also given that we are not currently near a black hole, I;d say it's a safe bet that it doesn't apply to us and that time has been fairly constant since the earth was formed.

So, back to the issue, when we see something related to time (in fact, related to anything) which does not make sense, do not rush to blame God. On the opposite, we should thank God to give us this hard question to work on.

Not that hard to figure out the answer unless you are trying to reconcile contradictory information between mythology and science.

And, in talking abut theology, if you accused God cheating by ANY reason, then you violated the most fundamental principle of Christian theology. In other word, you are wrong at the very first beginning.

So in other words, Christianity is right because if I say otherwise Christianity is wrong, and it can't be wrong because it's right.

Doesn't work that way.

You want me to accept that this fundamental principle of Christian theology is right, you first have to show me that it is right. You have not.

 

[juvenissun]

Well then don't mention what you don't know dingus

You can't use this as a response, you don't even quite get what it means! Like literally you have exited geology and entered theoretical physics it sounds like.

Why can't I just talk about it? It is very important to use this information in the weaving of some basic concept. We only know very little thing at a high certainty. We accept most (nearly all) information that we do not know much about. And we do use those information for some very practical purposes.

A 5D space is a very important idea in my faith system.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, given that we know that time is different only near black holes and things like that, and also given that we are not currently near a black hole, I;d say it's a safe bet that it doesn't apply to us and that time has been fairly constant since the earth was formed.



Not that hard to figure out the answer unless you are trying to reconcile contradictory information between mythology and science.



So in other words, Christianity is right because if I say otherwise Christianity is wrong, and it can't be wrong because it's right.

Doesn't work that way.

You want me to accept that this fundamental principle of Christian theology is right, you first have to show me that it is right. You have not.

Exactly. That is what is called a "definition". We are talking about the definition of the Christian God, not Christianity.

Christian God is defined as One Who does not cheat. If a god cheats, then he is not the Christian God. Very simple.

So if you think the embedded age is a deception, then it definitely does not come from God. However, I do think it comes from God. So it is NOT a deception.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly. That is what is called a "definition". We are talking about the definition of the Christian God, not Christianity.

Christian God is defined as One Who does not cheat. If a god cheats, then he is not the Christian God. Very simple.

So if you think the embedded age is a deception, then it definitely does not come from God. However, I do think it comes from God. So it is NOT a deception.

Let's define "Kylie" as "One who is always right."

This proves that there is no God, because I say there is not, and if there is a god of any sort then I am wrong. And I can't be wrong because that would be a violation of the most fundamental principle of me being the person that I am. Since I obviously can't violate the fundamental principles of myself, I am therefore proof that there is no god.

Case closed. (Or do you now see that your argument is flawed?)

 

[juvenissun]

Let's define "Kylie" as "One who is always right."

This proves that there is no God, because I say there is not, and if there is a god of any sort then I am wrong. And I can't be wrong because that would be a violation of the most fundamental principle of me being the person that I am. Since I obviously can't violate the fundamental principles of myself, I am therefore proof that there is no god.

Case closed. (Or do you now see that your argument is flawed?)

No flaw. You certainly can define yourself that way, to begin with.

At the end, you will have to abandon that definition and define yourself again. Because you can start with that definition, but it will not bring your through. You will have to withdraw that definition by yourself. Otherwise, you do not make sense to yourself.

God is defined in the Pentateuch. And miraculously, we never have any need to modify that definition under any circumstance. The definition of God is perfect to start with.

I am talking about logic. To make such a definition on anything is very very difficult.

 

[RickG]

As I understand it, some rocks "reset" themselves or something.

It's called contact metamorphism.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called contact metamorphism.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Kylie]

No flaw. You certainly can define yourself that way, to begin with.

At the end, you will have to abandon that definition and define yourself again. Because you can start with that definition, but it will not bring your through. You will have to withdraw that definition by yourself. Otherwise, you do not make sense to yourself.

I make perfect sense to myself. Why do you think I will have to withdraw it? You claim it won't get me through. Through to what?

God is defined in the Pentateuch. And miraculously, we never have any need to modify that definition under any circumstance. The definition of God is perfect to start with.

And I defined myself in my post previous to this one. I've never needed to alter that, therefore the definition of myself is perfect to begin with.

I am talking about logic. To make such a definition on anything is very very difficult.

I know, you want to keep it flexible enough that you can alter meanings to support changing views and avoid criticisms by saying, "No, it never meant that" where convenient.

 

[RickG]

Thank you, sir!

Wouldn't it be nice to reset our clocks AV? I would love to 5 again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't it be nice to reset our clocks AV? I would love to 5 again.

You betcha! 17 for me!

 

[PsychoSarah]

You betcha! 17 for me!

Who would want to go through puberty and teenage angst again?