Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
JBrian said:The concept of lattitude has nothing to do with time. It is a false analogy.
Eudaimonist said:That does not invalidate the analogy. As an analogy, the concept of latitude does not have to do anything with time. That's why it's an analogy.
JBrian said:An infinite regress is impossible.
It is not contradictory to talk about something being outside of time.
You believe whatever nonsense you like. When it comes to questions about time and space, I'll stick to what the physicists tell me, and what the evidence reveals.JBrian said:I know the definition of eternal is disputed. However, I agree with philosophers who say that it cannot be the totality of time,
I could have predicted this claim as surely as I could have predicted that the sun would rise tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is as false as your earlier claims. Even more unfortunately, and as politely as I can put this, I have no reason to believe that you will recognize the refutation of your claim if I presented it to you.since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. An infinite regress is impossible.
It totally perplexes me that you would continue to assert something that I have shown to be so utterly false.It is not contradictory to talk about something being outside of time.
Eudaimonist said:Non sequitur. Your premise does not logically lead to the conclusion.
:æ: said:You believe whatever nonsense you like. When it comes to questions about time and space, I'll stick to what the physicists tell me, and what the evidence reveals.
I could have predicted this claim as surely as I could have predicted that the sun would rise tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is as false as your earlier claims. Even more unfortunately, and as politely as I can put this, I have no reason to believe that you will recognize the refutation of your claim if I presented it to you.
Regardless, you're invited to read the discussion on Zeno's paradox available here. Note that there are additional pages that are hyperlinked at the bottom of each page.
It totally perplexes me that you would continue to assert something that I have shown to be so utterly false.
Quote yourself asserting that. Point me to the post in which that assertion appears, because I never saw you make that assertion, and for that reason I believe you are lying.JBrian said:While I have asserted that time is a physical characteristic of the universe I am not sure if that is correct.
Please, oh please, do not tell me this is a serious argument.It is also a misunderstanding to say that time has a value. Value is something given in an exchange of some sort. However nothing is given or received in regards to value concerning time, therefore time does not have value.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22481132&postcount=157How do you know we can't talk about something outsided of time? Just because you don't know how doens't mean it can't be done.
Riiiiigggghht... and "square" doesn't mean "has four corners and straight edges." I see. You've decided to invent your own language where "outside" doesn't mean "outside." What DOES it mean then? *THAT* is the question you cannot answer.The term "outside" is an analogical term that does not presuppose a spatio-temporal relation.
How in the world does that follow? I don't need to know every goose in the world to know that a collection of geese is called a gaggle. I don't need to know every fish in the world to know that if you collected them all together, the collection would still be called a school. So, how then does it follow that I must know everything that exists in order to know that the collection of everything that exists is called the universe?You said, " When I speak about "the universe," I speak about the collection of everything that exists. I think that is most common usage of the term, and under that usage your proposition does not make any sense. Anything not part of the collection of everything that exists, does not exist. If it existed, it would be part of the collection of everything that exists."
However, this presupposes that you know everything that exists, which is of course not the case.
I am literally and utterly dumbfounded at what you try to pass for "reason" in your arguments.If you do not know everything then it is safe to say that it is possible that there is something not contained in this universe that you do not know about.
No, they're not. Rather, they are discovering that the structure of the universe is in fact a complex collection of dimensional manifolds that individually we used to call "the universe" when we thought there was only one.In fact quantum physicists are saying that other universes exist outside of ours.
I'm quite sure the exquisite irony of this statement totally escapes you. Let me remind you that YOUR ARGUMENT is founded on a very particular and uncommon definition of a word -- a definition that I've shown leads to contradictions.The truth of this claim is beside the point. Therefore you cannot pretend to know "everything that exists." It is a logical fallacy to prove a claim by defining it a certain way.
It it not an assumption, it is a definition, and one that is the most common and useful.You assume that everything that exists must do so in our universe, however you have not shown that.
Since time is a characteristic of the universe all outside of time means is that time as we know it in our universe does not apply to something outside of the universe.
JBrian said:Again, something that is eternal is outside of time and therefore outside of change. If the universe is outside of time it can't change. If it is within time, and it is changing, then it can't be eternal, and hence was created. Therefore the pulsating universe theory does not work.
JBrian said:Because He is outside of time. That is exactly what eternal means. Why does God need time in order to exist?
JBrian said:When something ceases to exist it cannot change because it doesn't exist anymore. When something is created it is simply created, there is no change, since nothing exists in order to change. Think of it as a tree. When a tree grows it changes (accidentally-that is, its height, etc.). However, if someone uprooted it and replace it with a bigger tree that is not a change in the tree but simply a new tree. The analogy is not perfect, but in order for a change to take place something must remain the same in the substance. When something is created there is no change since no-thing cannot change, and nothing stays the same. It is simply the creation of a thing.
Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win said:If something is not eternal, does it necessarily mean that it was created?
Don't you think that the action of creation involves time and change.
Even thinking involves change.
If God existed outside of time, he would not have acted, because action is change.
Did not....then did. In the absence of time....JBrian said:That's what creation means, that something did not exist and then it did.
quatona said:Did not....then did. In the absence of time....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?