 |
Yes I did. Nothing important there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc.? These are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?
:)
.
.
Really? Abstract entities aren't real? That's going even farther than the positivists did. (Of course, concepts and thoughts are real too: I'm having thoughts right now, and using concepts to do so. They sure seem pretty real.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Let's take a simple proposition. "2+2=4". This is true. It is an a priori truth, so it isn't only contingently true--it is necessarily true. Is it not eternally true?
Mostly because it's false.Quote:
No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?
When you say "logically" I took you to be using it to refer to logic. But since no laws of logic militate against eternal existents, I guess you're using it the way Mr. Spock does on Star Trek, to mean something like "plausible". Am I mistaken?
Akoue,
Good question.
Live long and prosper,
Fred
I obviously referred to your previous statement, in which you postedQuote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there, as far as "eternal" is concerned. Unless of course you can provide any OSE for your suggestion that numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It is our way to calculate. Why the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 ? Why not the sequence 1,3,2,5,4 ? Because we humans decide to use the first sequence. It is not a universal truth. And certainly not eternal - the (intermediate) subject here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.
:)
.
.
Cred,
I'll do as I please and Akoue is right and far more logical than you have been on this.
You are desperately resisting the fact that there are things eternal.
Sorry for you about that.
But believe as you wish as always.
Fred
The numbers 1 2 3 4 5 are just labels for the concept of 1 2 3 4 5. It doesn't matter if we labeled them "a s d f g or "! " £ $ %" they are still the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 (using our conventional labels for the sake of clarity). Daniel Dennett has a very interesting discussion about this in his book Dawin's Dangerous Idea.
He also mentions what Akoue mentions about 2+2=4 being a true.
On a side note if you haven't read that book already you should because I think you would really enjoy it based on your discussions on these boards.
templelane
Yes numbers can be written differently but the math remains true and the same.
2+2=4 has and will always be the same eternally even if it is written t + t = f.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
So mathematics is subjective, then? Why use it in doing physics? If it were purely a matter of convention, as you seem here to suggest, we couldn't rely upon it to deliver OSE. The mathematization of the sciences came about in the first place as a way to make them more rigorous. But no one thinks empirical science--which is *empirical*-- can ever be as rigorous as math and logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I'll also second templelane's seconding of Dan Dennett (who is no lover of platonism, by the way--he's a sententialist). You don't want to confuse the sign ("1", "2", "+") with the thing it signifies (the number one, the number two, the addition function).
Well, you're the one who keeps saying that it is "illogical" that anything be eternal. I've just pointed out that the claim violates no rule of logic. Whether it's true or false is another matter (which I've also addressed).Quote:
Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.
I agree with you that neither matter nor energy is eternal. It doesn't follow from that that *nothing* is eternal. You see the difference, right?Quote:
Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.
Mathematics doesn't give us OSE; it gives us something even better, more rigorous. This is why I don't accept your assumption that OSE is the measure of all things epistemic. There is knowledge outside of science. We have access to mathematical knowledge, moral knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, perhaps (gasp!) even religious knowledge. If you want to be a skeptic about all of these, then you'd better have arguments to show that all knowledge is confined to science. And it won't do to beg the question of any or all of them by dogmatically asserting that they lack OSE since that's the standard for *scientific* knowledge, not for all knowledge. Many mathematicians find the sorts of things that count as evidence in science to be paltry compared with the rigor we find in logic and mathematics. The claims of science are only probabilistic, not apodictically certain.
So you aren't justified in your assertion that nothing is eternal. You can't even justify that claim by your own standard (OSE) because you cannot survey an infinite number of existents in a finite time. The most you are entitled to is the claim that you *believe* that nothing is eternal. Which, as I said in my first post, is on an epistemic par with Fred's claim that he *believes* that God is eternal.
Why all the bile? (Is it because you know you're on the losing end of the argument?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Akoue.
He isn't losing the argument.
He lost it.
OSE is one thing but math and logic is another,
One is temporal the other is eternal.
If that is wrong then prove that math and logical are not eternal.
It can't be done with math or logic or OSE so some other way must be used or invented.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Wow, I never expected this! Great stuff guys, try to keep it civil.
At any rate, you all seem to be saying that numbers can be expressed in different ways, what about equations?
Forexample: 2+4+8=14 or 2+4+8= 10+4
or 5*4+3-9= 100,014-100,000
So there for the logical and provable OSE here is? (I may mis some so please do fill in the blanks.)
1) the equation is equal on both sides.
2)there are different ways to EXPRESS the same answers/meanings.
3)Also, there is more than one way to get the answers.
4)The possibilities "maybe" infinate, since we could, "if we so choose" to, imagine and define the numbers forever. And even if we died, and could not finnish. That doesn't mean we still couldn't have kept going with it.
So, maybe we are all wrong, all right, and neither, and both. All and nothing. Feel free to tell me why that is not logical.
;):)
P.S. In this kind of discution, there are no winners or lossers. There can be, but I prefer to think that there are only possibilities. ;)
Kindof covers my don't you thing. ;)
All right, well I won't go so far as to say nothing is eternal. For the simple reason is we have no idea what started the fabric of our universe. For all I know our universe could have formed in a universe or multi-verse where the rules of that universe don't cause entropy. There really isn't any reason why the physical laws that are in our universe have to be in all universes. I only reject that god did only because god is a concept of faith not one of evidence. If there was evidence for it, I'd consider it but right now there is no more proof that god did than there is to say I did it.
That we do not know what started the universe is actually irrelevant towards eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
This universe has certain "rules" that show that "eternal" is an empty and invalid proposition.
If there are other universes or multiverses is also irrelevant, as for all in this universe the rule is : this universe is it. Even if (repeat : IF) there would be an "outside" of our universe, we will never know, as we are bound to our space-time.
:)
.
.
michealb and Nestorian ,
There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists,
BUT... one can or will not accept it.
Many people have and many people have not.
AND in math there is an great indication of infinity.
There is a symbol for it and other indications such as pi what goes on infinitely. Even super computers have not been able to produce a repeat.
It is what caused Sagan to change his atheist attitude and he wrote a book about it.
The number of scientists who believe in God continues to grow according to a study made a few years ago.
I tied to goggle it but could not find the one I was looking for but came up with this to consider...
Sciencedude survey: Do O.C. scientists believe in God? - Sciencedude - OCRegister.com
By the way, Cred,eternal is not irrelevant to those who think and believe it is.
I may be so to those who BELIEVE it is.
Example: It is not to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Dear FredQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
With that statement you just proved that it is you who lost whatever you call "the argument".
1 - OSE is one - important - thing. It means Objective Supporting Evidence. Proof in simple English. Without OSE you have to base everything on BELIEF. For instance religion is based on BELIEF, because it lacks any format of OSE.
2 - Logic (the other "thing") is clear about proof : you can prove a positive suggestion , but proving a negative suggestion is impossible. So your "... prove that math and logical are not eternal ..." is a nonsensical demand (and you know that very well, as I have explained that to you umpteen times by now).
It is people like you who have to show that ''eternal'' is a valid concept. I do not have to show that what you CLAIM (but can't prove) to be valid is in fact invalid. I gave you the reasons nothing is eternal. You refuse to accept that , so it is up to you to prove your point.
3 - Eternal suggests an unlimited time. Both science and logic are clear : nothing is in reality eternal.
Eternal is a concept required within religion to explain that the deity was always there, and will always be there. Mainly because theists need - but can't - explain the origins of their deity.
:)
.
.
Fair enough. That seems perfectly reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Cred even within our universe I don't think the big crunch theory has been ruled out yet as far as I know. If that proves to be correct our universe may have been in a state of expantion and contraction eternally. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't rule it out just yet I think there are more information.
I haven't seen anything that uses standard logic. All I have seen is people finding things they don't know the answer to saying god did it then say that is evidence. If you have something different I'd like to hear it.Quote:
There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists
How strange than that I NEVER have seen any OSE for "God's" existence...Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
:)
.
.
We were discussing eternal / eternity , not Big Crunch or any other expansion suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
A Big Crunch was one of the possibilities, but since 1999 we know that the "expansion" of the universe seems to increase. But even with a Big Crunch there is no reason to assume a repeating process.
:)
.
.
There are some are some crazy ideas about logic being bandied about here.
The concept of eternity is a perfectly fine concept. We know what its satisfaction conditions are, we can give it a definition. The question is whether any object falls under it. Mathematical objects do, so we know it has some application. We can also use the concept in a perfectly meaningful way in false assertions (e.g. "I waited at the bank for an eternity").
Standard logic doesn't deal with temporal indices--the languages of first order logic aren't tensed--so the truths of logic are timelessly, i.e. eternally true if they are true at all. So there is no rule of logic that entails the impossibility of eternity.
If one chooses to be an atheist on the grounds that there is no OSE for God's existence, that seems perfectly rational to me. Personally, I have never found arguments for God's existence terribly compelling, even the really smart ones like Anselm's ontological argument. But since the concept of God is the concept of something that isn't part of the physical make-up of the universe, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that there is no OSE for his existence or non-existence. Science doesn't address the question of God's existence. (This is one of the reasons including intelligent design in science curricula is an appallingly bad idea, not to mention intellectually dishonest.)
I'm not saying to assume it I'm saying not to discount it.
If our universe does go back and forth from a big bang to big crunch it could in theory be eternal. Without more information I'm just not willing to discount it.
Indeed : of course not. Science is about explanation, and what is there to explain about religion, about belief? Science can explain mental illnesses and why people believe. Not belief itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Only pseudo-science will make claims towards religious belief.
:)
.
.
So you agree that the absence of OSE for God's existence doesn't settle things either way? It doesn't prove theism or atheism to be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
No, that would be something different than eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
The Big Cruch means the collapse of the entire universe into one "singularity".
So that confirms that nothing is "eternal".
If the process would be repeating, it would each time be an entire new universe, possibly even with new "rules".
Like I stated already : nothing is eternal !
:)
.
.
The default of any "set up" is as simple as possible. Anything more than the default has to be proven to be assumed valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Atheism is in line with the default. Theism is not. So for theism to be valid, you have to prove it's basis. With OSE.
I do not demand that any theist proves me the validity of his/her religion. But till they do, all they can do is CLAIM that their view is valid and/or "true". And till they do that, the default - i.e. Atheism - is a valid proposition.
:)
.
.
Just remember that truth and validity are two different things. But I'm curious: Why OSE? If the claim isn't being made within the physical sciences, why is the standard of the physical sciences determinative? There is knowledge that isn't scientific knowledge, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I'm not sure what you mean by "default". Do you mean something like "premise" or "assumption". It's not obvious to me that the default view should ever get special treatment. But you may have something particular in mind that I'm not seeing. Could you say a little more about that?Quote:
I do not demand that any theist proves me the validity of his/her religion. But till they do, all they can do is CLAIM that their view is valid and/or "true". And till they do that, the default - i.e. Atheism - is a valid proposition.
Question?
If OSE is subject to this idea that nothing is eturnal, wouldn't that mean that it too may not be the same for all time. There for making what ever we think about based upon OSE irrelevant? Because it's just as likely to be fauls.
Cred, Science explaining Mental illness or the processes of matter is one thing, but that doesn't mean it's right, solid or even helpful.
People who have Bipolar get "help" from science, but only if they are willing to play the game of touch and go, as well as trial and error. There are few, if any, Certainties. And even as I say that I can't be sure. Nothing is absolute. -- Notice that statement is acctaully a contradiction, that's because that's just how it seems, undecided.
You keep talking about OSE like it's your bible. To me it's all subjective, in the sense that in one instance things can be like they have bin for how ever long, but the next instant every thing could change. We may never know, or maybe we will. There are too many variables.
If we knew all the variables, which is possible, but it seems very unprobable since there are so many things we can't explain. OSE maybe subjet to change.
But at any rate I find this very enlightening.
It's not that it would become irrelevant, but rather that we would come to understand it differently. Ptolemaic astronomy had lots of OSE to support the geocentric model of the solar system. That OSE came to be reinterpreted with the advent of the heliocentric model of the solar system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
This is a crucial component in the advance of science: Our best scientific theories are defeasible--they may turn our to be wrong. It is the supplanting of one theory by a newer, better theory, that marks the progress of science.
A lot turns on how one understands evidence. A fact is only evidence when viewed from within a theory. And this can be dangerous, since the theory shapes the way the facts are taken into view. This doesn't mean that it's all subjective, to be sure, but it does mean that observational facts are theory-laden. But it would be a mistake, a gross oversimplification, to infer from this that there are no facts, that there can be no objectivity. It's just that objectivity doesn't involve having a "God's Eye" view of the universe.
I hope this helps a bit. If not, say so and I'll be happy to try again.
How do you "see" Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) as subject to change??Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
:)
.
.
Michaelb,
As said there are several logical proof of God or a supreme itelligence.
As I mentioned earlier that the chance of the universe starting by accident or on it's own is virtually impossible, about 1 in 10 quadrillion.
Then there are several more logical proofs.
Here is Thomas Aquias's for you to consider.
The 4 Philosophically Logical proofs of God by Saint Aquinas
In the thirteenth century A.D. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the greatest Christian theologians to ever live, built upon the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and many others to prove that God exists. In his famous Summa Theologica (Pt. 1, Q. 2, Art. 3) Aquinas declares, "The existence of God can be proved in five ways:" If St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs at first seem difficult to understand, don't give up.. . Read them over and over. Think of all the time you spend studying superfluous things; you can fully understand these proofs by diverting just some of that time to studying something really important-God!
1. Aquinas' Argument of motion:
"The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.. . Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another [this coincides with Newton's law that 'a body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion!']. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also needs to be put in motion by another, and that by another again [e.g. you were put into motion by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on]. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
2. Aquinas' Argument of efficient causation:
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself [e.g. you did not create yourself, nothing in the
Universe created itself]; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first cause is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
3. Aquinas' Argument of possibility and necessity:
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some point is not.
Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, at some time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist.; and thus even now nothing would be in existence-which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every
Necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
4. Aquinas' Argument of gradation:
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is uttermost being.. .
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and this we call God.
5. Aquinas' Argument of directedness:
"The fifth way is from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
If you want more I can dig them up for you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Here's one way: Put a stick in the ground and watch the shadow. This is what the Pythagoreans did. One can infer from the movement of the shadow that the earth tracing a curvilinear path around the sun or, as pre-modern astronomers did, that the sun is tracing a curvilinear path around the earth. The OSE, the nature of the evidence, changed with Copernicus. It came to be reinterpreted.
Akoue,
That's a good one.
When I went to school it was taught that matter could neither be created or destroyed.
Later that changed to matter could not be created or destroyed by any natural means.
Later still that change again to matter is always changing in the universe by natural means.
Now it is taught that matter and energy are different states of the same thing.
I wonder what the next change in that science teaching will be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The OSE for the Ptolemaic model was valid based on the available information at that time. It was upgraded with new available data into the Copernican model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
However with increasing knowledge the possible upgrades become smaller and smaller.
A wellknown effect of this is the Newtonian model of gravity : it is still valid, with the new Einstein model including the portion in which very high speed are involved.
Whatever we will find in the future on gravity, it will not replace what we know of gravity today to be correct, other than for special situations.
We know when the universe started. We also know when and how it will fizz out. Some changes to that may be possible, but not the entire concept.
:)
.
.
It was more than an upgrade: To use the now ubiquitous Kuhnian expression, it was a "paradigm shift". Actually, Kuhn's book on this is very good. One of the things he has shown us is that we can never predict the next paradigm shift, the next revolution in science. And, at the time of the shift, the preponderence of the evidence favors the supplanted paradigm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
See above: We can't ever be in a position to know that. It may be true; I'm even inclined to believe it is true. But that's not something we can ever say--it's pure speculation.Quote:
However with increasing knowledge the possible upgrades become smaller and smaller.
Right, Newtonian mechanics was not falsified by relativity--well, not all of it anyway. Instead, Newtonian mechanics has been positioned within a theoretical framework which is alien to Newton (and which Newton would have found irremediably bizarre). Similarly, Galilean or classical relativity did not exactly falsify Ptolemaic astronomy. The scientific revolution of the 17th century went further: It provided a new paradigm. This is what non-Euclidean geometry and Einstein did in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.Quote:
A wellknown effect of this is the Newtonian model of gravity : it is still valid, with the new Einstein model including the portion in which very high speed are involved.
Whatever we will find in the future on gravity, it will not replace what we know of gravity today to be correct, other than for special situations.
I would put it a little differently: We have beliefs which we are prepared on the strength of our current understanding of the OSE to assign a high degree of probability. (A purely anecdotal aside: The people I know who work in theoretical physics and cosmology are very sheepish about saying anything more than what I just did. They are particularly mindful of the possibility of, among other things, another paradigm shift. Some of them are even working to bring it about.)Quote:
We know when the universe started. We also know when and how it will fizz out. Some changes to that may be possible, but not the entire concept.
Cred,
The point is that the OSE often changes over time.
I expect it to continue to do so.
I also expect to see that more and more scientists change to the belief in a supreme intelligence as has been happening in the last century.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And I don't expect that Fred. The overwhelming part of support for our knowledge will remain as it is, just because it is based on Objective Supported Evidence, instead of on BELIEF.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Of course changes will in some cases be necessary. But they will be minor.
Science has now reached a level where - by means of strongly improved equipment, computers, and techniques - it is testing and retesting it's findings and conclusions in an automatic fashion, whereby the slightest developing doubt on any OSE sets the wheels of review and change into overdrive.
It is like voyages of discovery on earth. Of course it will happen that we find a new species somewhere in the Amazone region, or as recently on the Galapagos Islands.
We may discover new undersea vulcano's. We even may discover new tribes somewehere in Papua New Guinea.
But in major lines - and helped by the improved observations from satellites and the processing of the results - we are finished discovering the surface features of planet earth.
I strongly suggest that something similar is happening in the scientific field.
There will still be many new discoveries, new findings that will produce new views, and require review of our present "facts and figures". But I doubt that they will result in an entire rejection of present OSE in any major scientific field, in a change that will totally throw our present day scientific views upside down.
There is no reason to expect that new findings will be more than upgrades of the type of Einsteins relativity theory upon Newtonian gravity.
What makes you think that, Fred ?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Atheism has been growing worldwide, and most of it's followers can be found in the group of highly intelligent and better educated people. There are many times more Atheist scientists than there are theist scientists, and the ratio is still widening.
Never has the percentage of Atheism been as high since religion developed into a monotheistic direction. And that process will continue, with religion decaying further and further into total collapse.
The only thing that can prevent that is a sudden disaster, by war or natural disaster.
Not so strange than that the fundamental religious extremists are increasing their activities. From 9-11 to suicide bombers to "end-of-times" proponents.
May be also the reason why hardly anyone seems to care about the future we are preparing for our children and their children, with raw materials, oil, and gas reserves running low, and pollution running high, while we are hardly doing anything effective to keep the effects of global warming at bay.
THAT dear Fred is the reality !
:)
.
.
Interesting. This sounds a lot like faith. (That isn't a criticism.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Actually Cred, you explained that yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
So, really all the OSE in the univers changes into nothing. Therefor we can not accept it as absolute, nor consistent. So really we can't possibly know what those changes will be. We can not watch the changes of these things, on account that we are not eturnal, nor can anything else. Therefor, OSE does not mean that things will keep going as they have for millions of years. For all we know the sun could end, then what, maybe a blck hole? Our planet being blasted from our galaxy to another, could we survive? Again, you said things will change to nothing sooner or later, so how can you tell us you know exactly how they will change to nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Really, your contradiction is no more/less valid than the bible. Because there are so many things in this world we don't understand, the variables are too many to assume anything is evidence enough to discredit the existence, or non-existance of GOD, or any other supernatural being. 1+1 may =2, but so do 1/1 +1/1=1 and so on.
Does that not make sense too. OSE maybe subject to change. ;)
ARCURA,
""The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.. . Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another [this coincides with Newton's law that 'a body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion!']. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also needs to be put in motion by another, and that by another again [e.g. you were put into motion by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on]. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
This jsut tells me that something started it all, that something may not have had any awarness, nor consiousness. And, it also contradicts it's self. "Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another... " Therefor even "GOD" would have to be put in motion by something.
If you go wit the later statment "But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover... " These two statements are oppositions. Quite the conundrum, really because the first means things were either always inmotion, or still are not. The second implies that GOD put us inmotion, but it is also posible for any number of things to have set motion into our univers. That includes ideas such as big bang.
Anything maybe possible. ;)
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45 AM. |