Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

I maintain this differential you asert between "Maturity without history" and "Maturity with history" is completetly made up.

Maturity without history is a working definition I came up with after taking it to God in prayer.

I needed something to differentiate the difference between Omphalos, Last Thursday, and Embedded Age.

I wanted to specifically avoid the terms "age" and "old" in my definition, not wanting to use a word in the definition that is in the term itself.

Like in grade school, when the teacher would say, "Define this word, without using that word in the definition itself."

Saying "maturity without age" is just plain wrong, as Adam is always depicted as a full-grown man.

Saying "created fully-mature" doesn't work, as it doesn't exclude Omphalos, which could say that he was fully-mature, had a navel, was skinned up, had tooth decay, 20/30 vision, etc.

And not only could have those, but could have those because Adam was aged (note: 'aged' --- a verb) to his current age.

In any event, I took it to God in prayer, and 'maturity without history' is the result.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Embedded Age is embedded age, whereas Omphalos is embedded history.

Age implies history. Hence, Embedded Age = Omphalos.

 

[AV1611VET]

Age implies history. Hence, Embedded Age = Omphalos.

If age only implied history, then Embedded Age would imply Omphalos, not necessarily equal it.

However, I am using definition #4 on answers.com.

4. The state of being old; old age: hair white with age.

 

[Freodin]

If age only implied history, then Embedded Age would imply Omphalos, not necessarily equal it.

However, I am using definition #4 on answers.com.

The state of being old... can you give us a definition of "being old"?

You will find it extremely difficult to define all these terms without getting a) circular or b) referring to TIME HAVING PASSED!

And "implying" means nothing but "meaning it without explicitly stating it".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

"The state of being old" implies history. Anything to do with age implies a period of time has passed. A period of time implies history.

You're still arguing for Omphalos.

 

[hangback]

If the subject under discussion is nonsense then the outcome from the discussion can only be even more nonsense, and embedded age is 100&#37; pure nonsense, to know it's nonsense requires about this much thought > <.

 

[Freodin]

If the subject under discussion is nonsense then the outcome from the discussion can only be even more nonsense, and embedded age is 100% pure nonsense, to know it's nonsense requires about this much thought > <.

This is not true. It takes quite some thought to find out why it is nonsense: in this case, it mostly rests on AV´s definition of "age" - or rather, what he thinks it is defined.

 

[hangback]

It takes quite some thought to find out why it is nonsense.

No it doesn't, the very idea of embedded age is idiotic.

 

[Freodin]

No it doesn't, the very idea of embedded age is idiotic.

Then I guess you wouldn´t have any difficulties to explain WHY it is idiotic.

It is just so easy to hear something, say "That´s stupid", and think that the topic is ended with that. Even if you think the resulting debate is "idiotic", just leave it at that. Better don´t comment, if you don´t have anything meaningful to say.

 

[hangback]

Then I guess you wouldn&#180;t have any difficulties to explain WHY it is idiotic.

It is just so easy to hear something, say "That&#180;s stupid", and think that the topic is ended with that. Even if you think the resulting debate is "idiotic", just leave it at that. Better don&#180;t comment, if you don&#180;t have anything meaningful to say.

Is discussing the length of a unicorns horn idiotic? is discussing the weight of Thors hammer idiotic?
would you have anything meaningful to say about them?

 

[MoonLancer]

If age only implied history, then Embedded Age would imply Omphalos, not necessarily equal it.

However, I am using definition #4 on answers.com.

the state of being old is only arrived at through time and in so doing history. White hair is akin to belly button. They both are types of physical history.

 

[Freodin]

Is discussing the length of a unicorns horn idiotic? is discussing the weight of Thors hammer idiotic?
would you have anything meaningful to say about them?

So you don´t believe that age exists or what?

You don´t see the difference? We are not debating the properties of imaginary items. We are debating a very real concept - Age. And the question what that means and how it is achived.

 

[sbvera13]

Embedded Age, by contrast, is one narrow explanation; and explains how the universe can be both old and young at the same time.Thank you!

I'm sure that if the Bible said 0=1 you'de believe it.

 

[sbvera13]

I put forth that "age without history" is nothing more then the illusion of age... age is the result of the passage of time. Without time having passed, there can be no aging.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I put forth that "age without history" is nothing more then the illusion of age... age is the result of the passage of time. Without time having passed, there can be no aging.

This is a debate that has gone on with AV ever since he first proposed "Embedded whatever..."

It is a "semantic game" and note how much effort he goes to make sure it isn't an "illusion" precisely because this concept paints God as a deciever and since that cannot be it means we must destroy all concepts of what the words mean.

The argument may as well be:

"God is a deciever, but in this special case 'deceiver' isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing because God is one!"

And then proceed to carry on the debate.

(I honestly understand his goal here. It would be wholly irrational for God to practice deceit, ergo the history of the earth must not be tainted with deceit. However the real problem for literalists is that when the facts on the ground don't line up with the statements in the book one worships, then something has to give. In the present case AV has decided the "give" has to be in logic and language. Words no longer have meaning and logic is no longer valid....but only for this point maybe one or two others...)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure that if the Bible said 0=1 you'de believe it.

You bet I would.

Do you know what creatio ex nihilo boils down to?

0 &#8594; MC[sup]2[/sup]

 

[AV1611VET]

I put forth that "age without history" is nothing more then the illusion of age...

And what do you put forth that "maturity without history" is?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a debate that has gone on with AV ever since he first proposed "Embedded whatever..."

It is a "semantic game" and note how much effort he goes to make sure it isn't an "illusion" precisely because this concept paints God as a deciever and since that cannot be it means we must destroy all concepts of what the words mean.

The argument may as well be:

"God is a deciever, but in this special case 'deceiver' isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing because God is one!"

And then proceed to carry on the debate.

(I honestly understand his goal here. It would be wholly irrational for God to practice deceit, ergo the history of the earth must not be tainted with deceit. However the real problem for literalists is that when the facts on the ground don't line up with the statements in the book one worships, then something has to give. In the present case AV has decided the "give" has to be in logic and language. Words no longer have meaning and logic is no longer valid....but only for this point maybe one or two others...)

LOL, Thaumaturgy.

Do you see what you just did?

It's maturity without history --- not age without history.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You bet I would.

Do you know what creatio ex nihilo boils down to?

0 &#8594; MC[sup]2[/sup]

What does that even mean? That there's no energy?

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL, Thaumaturgy.

Do you see what you just did?

It's maturity without history --- not age without history.

I'm glad you find your "word-game" as LOL-worthy.

I'm just trying to figure out why you feel the need to play such a game.