Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yup I have. It violates the Law of Identity.

Argument from repetition. Saying it over and over again does not prove anything.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Argument from repetition. Saying it over and over again does not prove anything.

I demonstrated how it violated the Law.

You denying that I haven't over and over and over and over again doesn't prove that I didn't.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finite Definition:

Main Entry:fi£nite
Pronunciation:*f*-*n*t
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire
Date:15th century

1 a : having definite or definable limits *finite number of possibilities* b : having a limited nature or existence *finite beings*
2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought *the finite velocity of light*
3 a : less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer b : having a finite number of elements *a finite set*
4 : of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number)
–finite noun
–fi£nite£ly adverb
–fi£nite£ness noun

What is the mathematical definition of "finite?" You listed 6 definitions. They cannot all be the mathematical definition. So which is it? (Hint: it's not #4.)

Originally Posted by boxcar

[Unbounded Definition:

Main Entry:un£bound£ed
Pronunciation:-*ba*n-d*d
Function:adjective
Date:1593

1 : having no limit
2 : UNRESTRAINED, UNCONTROLLED
–un£bound£ed£ness noun

I'll give you this one: #1 is the mathematical definition of "unbounded." (Not really, but it will suffice.) But this brings up the question "What is the mathematical definition of limit?"

I predict that you will wimp out on both of these questions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Only in your limited view of reality.

Enjoy the read and the vids.

https://www.collective-evolution.com...-only-reality/

"collective-evolution.com?"

Tell you what Mr. I-don't-read-things-I-don't-want-to-believe. I'll read a site titled "collective-evolution.com" after you read any one of the following:

• Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
• God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens
• The End of Faith by Sam Harris
• Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett
• Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne
• Deconverted by Seth Andrews

and you've passed a little quiz to make sure you did read it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I demonstrated how it violated the Law.

You denying that I haven't over and over and over and over again doesn't prove that I didn't.

Occam's Razor says it's highly improbable that you did.

Just give me a link to the post where you did this.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Occam's Razor says it's highly improbable that you did.

Just give me a link to the post where you did this.

Nope. I'm done playing your juvenile games. I have explained why and how the theory of an ETERNAL violates the Law of Identity.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with this -- the most fundamental of all the laws of logic -- and then you'll be able to figure out how this inane theory violates it. Of course, asking you to think once in your life beyond the tip of your nose is sending you on a Mission Impossible -- but hey...good luck if you embark on the mission.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I demonstrated how it violated the Law.

You denying that I haven't over and over and over and over again doesn't prove that I didn't.

I do not belle you have.
In which posts bunky?

Btw,

In logical discourse, violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as [1] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify different senses or meanings and introducing ambiguity into the discourse – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. The law of identity also allows for substitution, and is a tautology.

If there is anyone here who is guilty of "equivocation.", it is you.
You define god as you wish, and ascribe infinity to him/she/it.
You then define the "universe as you wish ascribing non-infinity to it.

What enables you to have those absolute powers of defining and naming things? And postulate the division between creator and the created? You convenieniently leave out the concept of pantheism, and the possibility that everything has some level of consciousness.

In Hinduism...The classical Advaita Vedanta explains all reality and everything in the experienced world to be same as the Brahman. To Advaitins, there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a creator and the created universe. Remanent of some American Indian culture discussing the "spirit" of the land, forest or animals.

It would behoove you to become aware of other schools of thought. Including the scientific.
IMHO, all of us touch an aspect of the truth, as do most religions and the sciences.

Remember the 4 blind men trying to describe the "elephant" in the room,, they are all simultaneously touching.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I do not belle you have.
In which posts bunky?

Btw,
If there is anyone here who is guilty of "equivocation.", it is you.
You define god as you wish, and ascribe infinity to him/she/it.
You then define the "universe as you wish ascribing non-infinity to it.

What enables you to have those absolute powers of defining and naming things? And postulate the division between creator and the created? You convenieniently leave out the concept of pantheism, and the possibility that everything has some level of consciousness.

In Hinduism...The classical Advaita Vedanta explains all reality and everything in the experienced world to be same as the Brahman. To Advaitins, there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a creator and the created universe. Remanent of some American Indian culture discussing the "spirit" of the land, forest or animals.

It would behoove you to become aware of other schools of thought. Including the scientific.
IMHO, all of us touch an aspect of the truth, as do most religions and the sciences.

Remember the 4 blind men trying to describe the "elephant" in the room,, they are all simultaneously touching.

I love it when people deny the laws of logic; for in so doing they actually affirm the law.

Also, your denial blurb is incoherent.

Finally, fools multiply their words!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I love it when people deny the laws of logic; for in so doing they actually affirm the law.

Also, your denial blurb is incoherent.

Finally, fools multiply their words!

Just as we thought.

You never posted the "law of identity" as supporting your infinite regress.
Particularly when you can define "identities" willy-nilly, in any way you want.
You can not support your supposition, getting to decide the definitions of the terms of your crude pre-17th century medieval supposition.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Just as we thought.

You never posted the "law of identity" as supporting your infinite regress.
Particularly when you can define "identities" willy-nilly, in any way you want.
You can not support your supposition, getting to decide the definitions of the terms of your crude pre-17th century medieval supposition.

Give it up, Hcap, you're shot! The Law of Identity has nothing to do with infinite regression. I never said it did!

And you should consult with your pal Dumpty who insists that words can mean anything we want them to be.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Give it up, Hcap, you're shot! The Law of Identity has nothing to do with infinite regression. I never said it did!

And you should consult with your pal Dumpty who insists that words can mean anything we want them to be.

You told us..in post#3405

There is no universe without Time. Also, if the universe were eternal, there couldn't be any Change in it it; for whatever is eternal must by nature be pure existence. And this in turn implies , it must be immutable. Yet, we see all kinds of things in this universe go in and out of existence. This violates the Law of Identity!.

Trying to prove since your god, who you define as a given, eternal and unchanging, could not be one term in an infinite regression between god and the universe?
So you define your god as eternal and the universe as not, as a priori, a given, in order to wiggle out of the regression. I keep pointing out your misapplication of the law of identity, and you keep jumping up and down denying it.

How do yo know your god does not change? If all things are all doable and all knowable by your god, why is change not one of them?

Seems to change he/her/it's mind more often then a pair of dirty shorts in your fallible erroneous bible. How can you know god must be pure existence, unless you define god as such,. bunky.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You told us..in post#3405
Trying to prove since your god, who you define as a given, eternal and unchanging, could not be one term in an infinite regression between god and the universe?
So you define your god as eternal and the universe as not, as a priori, a given, in order to wiggle out of the regression. I keep pointing out your misapplication of the law of identity, and you keep jumping up and down denying it.

How do yo know your god does not change? If all things are all doable and all knowable by your god, why is change not one of them?

Seems to change he/her/it's mind more often then a pair of dirty shorts in your fallible erroneous bible. How can you know god must be pure existence, unless you define god as such,. bunky.

If God were not immutable, then this could lead to the possibility that he could change into a finite being and cease to exist. But since God is eternal, which implies his essence is pure existence, it's impossible for him to change into a non-existent being.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If God were not immutable, then this could lead to the possibility that he could change into a finite being and cease to exist. But since God is eternal, which implies his essence is pure existence, it's impossible for him to change into a non-existent being.

Maybe cease to exist and then pop back into existence? How would you know how many times he/she/it can do this "trick".

You can and do tell us all sorts of things about god as though you think you know god.

How can an a finite being know an infinite one?

You give yourself way too much credit and why you expect any of us on this thread, to believe a word of your hogwash?

The prophet boxcar on a horse racing board, is it?
The one who thinks Rush Limpbag and Alex Jones, are also prophets!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Maybe cease to exist and then pop back into existence? How would you know how many times he/she/it can do this "trick".

You can and do tell us all sorts of things about god as though you think you know god.

How can an a finite being know an infinite one?

You give yourself way too much credit and why you expect any of us on this thread, to believe a word of your hogwash?

The prophet boxcar on a horse racing board, is it?
The one who thinks Rush Limpbag and Alex Jones, are also prophets!

This is no trick to "eternal". Eternal means no beginning, no end, forever. Popping into and out of existing by definition requires beginnings and ends. So, whatever "pops" into and out of existence cannot be forever. (Hint: The Law of Excluded Middle applies here, since there is no third option between infinite and finite. Just FYI. )

I know God because he has gifted me with eternal life, and the Holy One of Israel once said:

John 17:3
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
NASB

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is no trick to "eternal". Eternal means no beginning, no end, forever. Popping into and out of existing by definition requires beginnings and ends. So, whatever "pops" into and out of existence cannot be forever. (Hint: The Law of Excluded Middle applies here, since there is no third option between infinite and finite. Just FYI. )

I know God because he has gifted me with eternal life, and the Holy One of Israel once said:

John 17:3
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
NASB

So because it is in the bible, we are supposed to believe you?

What happened to your PHD in metaphysics, (piled high and deep), pages and pages of your previous convoluted Aristotle-Aquinas philosophy?

Face it, you do not know god. If he indeed gifted you, how come he un-gifted you in the laws of logic, science, math, engineering, history, and all other religions, and further added insult to injury, shorting you DRASTICALLY on number of functioning neurons?

As far as I am concerned, you lost badly on the logic of infinite regression.

Next?