Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 10:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, I'm reading Seth's book, Deconverted ... signed copy Cool ... and was reminded of his four categories of apologists:
1) The Feeler
2) The Theologian
3) The Folklorist
4) The Foot Soldier

I think we have one here who's most definitely in the latter category. All bluster but no substance.

Big Grin

Laugh out load Give a break down of what each of those categories mean.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 04:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 10:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, I'm reading Seth's book, Deconverted ... signed copy Cool ... and was reminded of his four categories of apologists:
1) The Feeler
2) The Theologian
3) The Folklorist
4) The Foot Soldier

I think we have one here who's most definitely in the latter category. All bluster but no substance.

Big Grin

Laugh out load Give a break down of what each of those categories mean.

*means

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 10:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  "Then" was my word which seems necessary, yet doesn't make sense in your context.

But if it doesn't apply to what I said, then why is it necessary?


(26-03-2015 10:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  And yet you offer no explanation. Just a claim that my post is "misinformed".

It didnt' correspond to the point that I was making whatsoever. Is that clear enough?

(26-03-2015 10:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I'm only trying to understand your "logic". If I got it wrong, then please do correct me, but with details that can help me to understand.

That was so sincere, so genuine...It almost made me cry Sadcryface2

This is what I am saying...this is a full breakdown. Check this out; due to the impossibility of infinite regress (an infinite number of events in time), we have to think of a way as to how time could have began to exist...this is very difficult and it goes against our every day intuition. However, it is conceivable, and as far as I can see, it is the only way it could have occurred.

The only way time could have began to exist would be for there to have been a personal, timeless, free agent. Now, if we can imagine a man that has been sitting perfectly still in a chair for all eternity (God). You follow me so far? Since the man has been sitting for eternity, perfectly still...time does not exist. Why doesn't time exist? Because there were no moments BEFORE he sat, and if there were no moments before, there is no moments AFTER...so time doesn't exist.

Now, suppose the man begins to stand? That FIRST instant of motion would represent the beginning of time...this represents the past boundary of time, the point at which time cannot be traversed backwards.

So, here as we stand, time seems to be moving (for lack of better term) progressively forward into the future, but as you go back in time, you will eventually reach a past boundary, which is right back to the first moment of creation (the big bang).

You follow?

Now, want to point out and emphasize as much as I can regarding the problem that atheists have with the concept of infinity...it can be proven that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality...so therefore, time MUST have had a beginning. This proof is so powerful that it is completely independent of physics, cosmology, or any other discipline of science. So it doesn't matter what the lastest finding in cosmology is, or what mathematical equation some atheist mathematician is toting around. It is that powerful.

So if you people are open-minded as you would like others to believe, you should simply admit that a First Cause is necessary for anything to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 04:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 04:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Laugh out load Give a break down of what each of those categories mean.

*means

Thank you for that unsolicited correction, sir Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 10:41 AM)Impulse Wrote:  This is the part where we're all supposed to go "*gasp*, he used that word!" so you can laugh to yourself and feel somehow bigger for using it.

What word? Laugh out load

(26-03-2015 10:41 AM)Impulse Wrote:  No gasping here. No shock at all. Just a recognition of how utterly stupid it makes you look and just one more item of that type to add to the ever growing pile. Drinking Beverage

Easy, Magellan...it was just a rap lyic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 04:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 10:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, I'm reading Seth's book, Deconverted ... signed copy Cool ... and was reminded of his four categories of apologists:
1) The Feeler
2) The Theologian
3) The Folklorist
4) The Foot Soldier

I think we have one here who's most definitely in the latter category. All bluster but no substance.

Big Grin

Laugh out load Give a break down of what each of those categories mean.

Buy the book.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
27-03-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But if it doesn't apply to what I said, then why is it necessary?

Because your context doesn't make sense either. It does apply in your context, I just don't expect you to admit it. My point was it's necessary, but you don't think so. Therefore, something is wrong with your viewpoint - which should become obvious, but apparently it didn't. Dodgy

And you skipped answering why you think I'm 100% correct about eternity.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It didnt' correspond to the point that I was making whatsoever. Is that clear enough?
No more clear than what I asked you to clarify. But the rest of your reply will do. So no need to bother now.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That was so sincere, so genuine...It almost made me cry Sadcryface2
Unlike you, some of us here are sincere. Drinking Beverage

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  This is what I am saying...this is a full breakdown. Check this out; due to the impossibility of infinite regress (an infinite number of events in time),...

That's not a given. Infinite regress, something always existing, and something from nothing are three concepts that all appear to be impossible and yet it seems one of them must be true. You assume it's not infinite regress because that would mean there is no god who started everything else.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...we have to think of a way as to how time could have began to exist...this is very difficult and it goes against our every day intuition. However, it is conceivable, and as far as I can see, it is the only way it could have occurred.

If you assume infinite regress is impossible, the you have to show either that something always existed or, if not that, conclude that everything began to exist. The latter would include your god so I'm sure that won't make you happy. So you put god outside time and, while you didn't explicitly say so, it seems you must mean that god always existed. (For the sake of discussion, I'll overlook the point that "always" is related to time, for now.)

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The only way time could have began to exist would be for there to have been a personal, timeless, free agent.

Whoa, that's a big leap. If time began to exist, it could have been the first anything to exist. If it wasn't, whatever was first could have existed in another time dimension. If, in fact, it did exist in a timeless state, "free agent" would only mean free from time. It implies nothing else - specifically no consciousness, free will, ability to move, or anything else. See how many things are wrong with your viewpoint?

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, if we can imagine a man that has been sitting perfectly still in a chair for all eternity (God). You follow me so far?

Yes, I follow. You're imagining... Drinking Beverage

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Since the man has been sitting for eternity, perfectly still...time does not exist.

And now we get back to my question about why I was 100% correct. The reason I asked is you can't have eternity without having time...

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why doesn't time exist? Because there were no moments BEFORE he sat, and if there were no moments before, there is no moments AFTER...so time doesn't exist.

Nice fantasy.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, suppose the man begins to stand? That FIRST instant of motion would represent the beginning of time...this represents the past boundary of time, the point at which time cannot be traversed backwards.

...the point at which this time cannot be traversed backwards.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, here as we stand, time seems to be moving (for lack of better term) progressively forward into the future, but as you go back in time, you will eventually reach a past boundary, which is right back to the first moment of creation (the big bang).

Yes, it may be that time in this universe began with the big bang. That says nothing about other universes, other time dimensions, or what (if anything) existed before the big bang. Your claim about god moving and therefore starting time and therefore starting the big bang is based on nothing but wishful thinking - because you want an explanation, because it satisfies your preconceptions, and because it's comfortable - and you completely ignore that it makes no sense.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You follow?

Yup, I do. It's complete fantasy with no more merit than the idea that a pink unicorn is your god that began to move and started time.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, want to point out and emphasize as much as I can regarding the problem that atheists have with the concept of infinity...it can be proven that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality...so therefore, time MUST have had a beginning.
There are so many things wrong with this. But all I need to say here is, even if you are correct, you would be "proving" only that time had a beginning - nothing about any god.

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So if you people are open-minded as you would like others to believe, you should simply admit that a First Cause is necessary for anything to exist.

If true, that of course includes your god, but you give god a special pass because it's convenient.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
27-03-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(26-03-2015 06:21 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 04:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Laugh out load Give a break down of what each of those categories mean.

Buy the book.

Tongue

Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Because your context doesn't make sense either. It does apply in your context, I just don't expect you to admit it. My point was it's necessary, but you don't think so. Therefore, something is wrong with your viewpoint - which should become obvious, but apparently it didn't. Dodgy

And you skipped answering why you think I'm 100% correct about eternity.

I forgot what we were even talking about Consider

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  That's not a given. Infinite regress, something always existing, and something from nothing are three concepts that all appear to be impossible and yet it seems one of them must be true. You assume it's not infinite regress because that would mean there is no god who started everything else.

Well, at least the concept of something always existing is conceivable. I cannot (and neither can you) conceive the concept of infinite regress...and I cannot conceive of something from nothing being described by natural law, and without God, this would have had to been the case.

So I think we should stick with the one that we can both conceive...which is the second one you mentioned.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  If you assume infinite regress is impossible, the you have to show either that something always existed

Actually, I don't need to assume..you know why? Because if infinite regress is impossible, then it logically follows that something has always existed.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  or, if not that, conclude that everything began to exist. The latter would include your god so I'm sure that won't make you happy.

The "something has always existed* concept...

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  So you put god outside time and, while you didn't explicitly say so, it seems you must mean that god always existed. (For the sake of discussion, I'll overlook the point that "always" is related to time, for now.)

Bingo amigo!!!

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Whoa, that's a big leap. If time began to exist, it could have been the first anything to exist.

What could be the originator of time itself, without itself being IN time?? You say "if time began to exist", the only way it could begin to exist is if for its originator to be...timeless.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  If it wasn't, whatever was first could have existed in another time dimension.

Infinite time is still infinite time.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  If, in fact, it did exist in a timeless state, "free agent" would only mean free from time. It implies nothing else - specifically no consciousness, free will, ability to move, or anything else. See how many things are wrong with your viewpoint?

How many things are wrong? Dude, you haven't refuted anything, so don't flatter yourself. First off, for you to say it does not imply consciousness or anything else is to just ignore the explantory value that a free agent would have in light of what we know about the physical world. This free agent had the power to create not only the universe, but intelligent life, and since this free agent is a moral being, that would make this free agent a personal being.

So we are talking about a free PERSONAL agent, that had the will and power to create a universe from nothing, and with mathematical precision.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Yes, I follow. You're imagining... Drinking Beverage

I can imagine only what I can conceive...and I will tell you what; I can't imagine infinite regression.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  And now we get back to my question about why I was 100% correct. The reason I asked is you can't have eternity without having time...

That would be true ONLY if you assume that there is only one definition of "eternity", which does have a temporal aspect to it. However, "eternity" can also mean atemporal, or timeless, which is how the term is used in relation to God before creation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#EteVie

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Nice fantasy.

No, you want to know what a fantasy is? Check out your quote below...

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  ...the point at which this time cannot be traversed backwards.

Nice fantasy.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Yes, it may be that time in this universe began with the big bang. That says nothing about other universes, other time dimensions, or what (if anything) existed before the big bang. Your claim about god moving and therefore starting time and therefore starting the big bang is based on nothing but wishful thinking - because you want an explanation, because it satisfies your preconceptions, and because it's comfortable - and you completely ignore that it makes no sense.

Laugh out load Dude, I don't think it is even possible to make your DODGING of the central points I am making any more obviously. First off, as I said and will continue to say (and prove), with infinity, it doesn't matter a lick about other "time dimensions" or "other universes"...the arguments against infinity are PHILOSOPHICAL arguments, and philsophical arguments are independent of the physical universe. So you can postulate any bullshit pre-big bang scenario, or any multiverse scenario you want, the problem of infinity ain't going anywhere.

So if there is anyone here that is wishful thinking it is you.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Yup, I do. It's complete fantasy with no more merit than the idea that a pink unicorn is your god that began to move and started time.

This is an obvious distraction to not deal with the direct points, but to resort to baseless rhetoric.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  There are so many things wrong with this. But all I need to say here is, even if you are correct, you would be "proving" only that time had a beginning - nothing about any god.

I will give you the last word on this subject...if you don't see the implication of what it means for time itself to have a freakin' beginning...if it isn't registrying in your brain of what it means for TIME......TIME..to have a beginning, then your mind is so closed that logic and reason is completely shut out...or you do understand, you just would rather believe in logical absurdities than believe in God. Both reasons are pathetic, in my opinion.

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  If true, that of course includes your god, but you give god a special pass because it's convenient.

Then you say this nonsense...just lets me know that you just...don't...get it. I'm done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 02:49 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I forgot what we were even talking about Consider

One of the nice things about a message board is the conversation never goes away so you can always go back and look... (I even make sure the little green arrow is there in every quote to make it extra easy for you.) Drinking Beverage

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, at least the concept of something always existing is conceivable. I cannot (and neither can you) conceive the concept of infinite regress...and I cannot conceive of something from nothing being described by natural law, and without God, this would have had to been the case.

So I think we should stick with the one that we can both conceive...which is the second one you mentioned.

So, because you're uncomfortable with the idea, that a reality might exist that you don't currently understand, you dismiss it as impossible. That might make you feel better, but it has no impact on reality. The three possibilities I mentioned stand until any of them are proved or disproved.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Actually, I don't need to assume..you know why? Because if infinite regress is impossible, then it logically follows that something has always existed.

It's an assumption that infinite regress is impossible and, even if it is impossible, there are two other possibilities (at least) that I mentioned only one of which is something always existed.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  or, if not that, conclude that everything began to exist. The latter would include your god so I'm sure that won't make you happy.

The "something has always existed* concept...

Let me remind you of something you said:

(26-03-2015 04:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, want to point out and emphasize as much as I can regarding the problem that atheists have with the concept of infinity...it can be proven that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality...so therefore, time MUST have had a beginning.

If infinity doesn't exist, then everything must have had a beginning and nothing always existed. Even your god is supposed to be "infinite", but you say it can be proven that infinity cannot exist. Drinking Beverage

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What could be the originator of time itself, without itself being IN time?? You say "if time began to exist", the only way it could begin to exist is if for its originator to be...timeless.

Not timeless, but outside of this time. If you understand the big bang, then you understand that time in this universe began with the big bang. That may or may not be all time everywhere. If time exists outside this universe, it is a different time dimension.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  How many things are wrong? Dude, you haven't refuted anything, so don't flatter yourself. First off, for you to say it does not imply consciousness or anything else is to just ignore the explantory value that a free agent would have in light of what we know about the physical world. This free agent had the power to create not only the universe, but intelligent life, and since this free agent is a moral being, that would make this free agent a personal being.

So we are talking about a free PERSONAL agent, that had the will and power to create a universe from nothing, and with mathematical precision.

I showed you there are other possibilities where you claimed there was only one. So yes, your point was refuted. The rest of this part of your post is pure, unfounded speculation that doesn't even have logical merit.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I can imagine only what I can conceive...and I will tell you what; I can't imagine infinite regression.

I can imagine it. It doesn't make it reality, but I can imagine it. But whether anyone can imagine it has nothing at all to do with what is real. So you're making no point here.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That would be true ONLY if you assume that there is only one definition of "eternity", which does have a temporal aspect to it. However, "eternity" can also mean atemporal, or timeless, which is how the term is used in relation to God before creation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#EteVie

I've never been sure that "timeless" is anything more than the stuff of science fiction. But ok, I'll allow it for the sake of discussion and to keep an open mind. But, even so, you've clarified only time and shown no evidence or logic pointing to any god.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Nice fantasy.

No, you want to know what a fantasy is? Check out your quote below...

(27-03-2015 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  ...the point at which this time cannot be traversed backwards.

Nice fantasy.

See what I wrote above about time as it relates to this universe specifically. It's not fantasy. It's a real possibility. It's ok if you believe there is no time outside this universe as long as you admit it's a belief and we really don't know either way.

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Laugh out load Dude, I don't think it is even possible to make your DODGING of the central points I am making any more obviously. First off, as I said and will continue to say (and prove), with infinity, it doesn't matter a lick about other "time dimensions" or "other universes"...the arguments against infinity are PHILOSOPHICAL arguments, and philsophical arguments are independent of the physical universe. So you can postulate any bullshit pre-big bang scenario, or any multiverse scenario you want, the problem of infinity ain't going anywhere.

Philosophy is not fact and much of it is ripe with errors. When it comes to concepts like infinity, I trust math far more than philosophy. Oooh look, your problems with infinity just went somewhere. Drinking Beverage


(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will give you the last word on this subject...if you don't see the implication of what it means for time itself to have a freakin' beginning...if it isn't registrying in your brain of what it means for TIME......TIME..to have a beginning, then your mind is so closed that logic and reason is completely shut out...or you do understand, you just would rather believe in logical absurdities than believe in God. Both reasons are pathetic, in my opinion.

The irony is overwhelming. Yes, what does it mean for time to have a BEGINNING? It's not me who doesn't get it. Consider

(27-03-2015 01:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then you say this nonsense...just lets me know that you just...don't...get it. I'm done.

Your done? Right... Drinking Beverage

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: