Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Anything that is inherently eternal must also be inherently at its very core by pure existence.

Why?

Originally Posted by boxcar

What else could an eternal entity possiblhy be?

Define entity.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Anything that is inherently eternal must also be inherently at its very core by pure existence. What else could an eternal entity possiblhy be? Again, bone up on the Law of Identity.

You really should proofread before you hit "submit".

"by pure existence"? Do you mean "be pure existence"?

"possiblhy"? Do you mean "possibly"?

The site does have a spellchecker.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You really should proofread before you hit "submit".

"by pure existence"? Do you mean "be pure existence"?

"possiblhy"? Do you mean "possibly"?

The site does have a spellchecker.

I was was in a hurry.

So...tell us what else could an inherently self-existing entity POSSIBLY be -- an entity that has no beginning, no end -- if not pure existence?

And how could it be possible that our infinite minds produced by this inherently timeless. infinite entity have any conception whatsoever of Time, since Time is antithetical to eternity? How is it possible that we could conceive of attempting to measure what is immeasurable? This would analogous to saying that the Zen priest's cat in Humpty's little story/parable attempted to solve algebra problems.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Religion is easy if you have a pair of balls swinging between your legs and willpower.

Be moral without a god.

Be optimistic without a heaven.

Don't be a whiny pussy. Accept what is!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why?

Define entity.

Beg, borrow, buy or steal a dictionary.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I think you are saying since causality is n effect for everything in the universe, the universe as a whole must also follow the same law of causality.

We have had this conversation before.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...of-Composition


Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Example #1:

Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.

Example #2:

Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.

Example #3:

Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have consciousness. Therefore, your brain cannot be the source of consciousness.
.................................................. .........................


Therefore you may not infer the whole is a continuation of the inner workings of the whole logically. It may be in certain things and processes within the universe do scale up, but scaling up to infirmity is one of the things we have no evidence of to make that leap of faith.

Why in the world are you talking about causality with an eternal entity. Eternal entities are not subject to the law of causality since such an entity has never come into existence.

Also, I'm not inferring anything from any part. The universe is the TOTALITY -- the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. If the ENTIRE universe is eternal -- then everything that comprises the universe is eternal.

You are the one who has made the claim that the universe is eternal. And this means the whole body of things is self-existing. The very essence of the universe is existence.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

He is convinced only a creator can be eternal for some
incomprehensible reason and therefore only the eternal can be the "first cause"

I'm convinced the Creator as he has revealed himself in the bible can only be the Final Cause, First Cause or Uncased Caused. And there is nothing incomprehensible about my reasons. Since God is immutable and transcendent, then biblical theism does not violate any laws of logic.

Conversely, your god-universe is neither immutable or transcendent, therefore, your entity runs into two brick walls concerning the laws of logic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

1. The Big Bang occurred. We know this because, for one thing, we can observe the cosmic microwave background radiation.
2. The universe has no center. We know this because we observe the CMB in every direction.
3. If the universe has no center then space cannot be flat, i.e., space is elliptical. This means that if you follow a straight line far enough (billions of light years) you will come back to where you started. All straight lines are finite (having a definite length) and unbounded (having no ends).

We specify a point in space with three numbers x,y,z. Four numbers are required to specify a point in spacetime: x,y,z,t.

x,y,z are limited to values less than 2 x pi. x 13.8 billion light years.

There are four possibilities for values of t:

• the values of t could be infinite, extending infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future.
• they could have a definite boundary in the past and extend infinitely into the future.
• they could extend infinitely into the past and have a definite boundary in the future.
• values of t could be like values of x,y,z, i.e., finite and unbounded.

If x,y,z and finite and unbounded then it seems unlikely that the fourth number in the ordered quadruple x,y,z,t would not also be finite and unbounded. This is admittedly a philosophical view since I cannot, at this time, offer any way to verify or falsify it. That is not to say that I, or someone else, will not think of a way to test it in the future.

If the universe is finite and unbounded then that means that the past and the future are the same.

More tomorrow.

Really? You truly believe your own psycho-babble, heh?

Btw, Ellipses do have centers.

https://colalg.math.csusb.edu/~devel...c/ellipse.html

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why in the world are you talking about causality with an eternal entity. Eternal entities are not subject to the law of causality since such an entity has never come into existence.

Seriously get checked out for Alzheimers. Particularly when calling anyone of a stupid argument which demolishes your forgetful and inane claims

In post #6032 you babbled.....

"Also, an eternal entity cannot, again, by definition have been caused, since only entities that have origins (i.e. have come into existence in space and time) require a cause. Therefore, the question you raise is utterly stupid, revealing that you don't have the first clue of what "eternal" means!"

You are claiming things that have origins must have a cause. And therefore the universe can not be "eternal". Therefore I posted the fallacy of composition. "Or the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole".

Remember? Or must I repeat the obvious again and again and again?

[Actor]

If the universe is finite and unbounded then that means that the past and the future are the same.

One thing that I must emphasize about this model is that if you go far enough in the future you will arrive at the present. This is analogous to circumnavigating the earth by traveling along the equator, you eventually return to your starting point.

This also means that the future is predetermined since the future is also the past. Future events have already happened.

More in part 3.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Really? You truly believe your own psycho-babble, heh?

Ad hominem!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Btw, Ellipses do have centers.

Beside the point. Elliptical geometry is a geometry in which Euclid's parallel axiom does not hold, i.e., parallel lines do not exist. I do not know why the mathematicians chose to call this kind of geometry elliptical since, as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with ellipses.

A two dimensional analogy of this is the surface of a sphere. The surface does not have a center. The center of the sphere does not count because it is not part of the surface.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... biblical theism does not violate any laws of logic.

Neither does atheism.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Really? You truly believe your own psycho-babble, heh?

Btw, Ellipses do have centers.

https://colalg.math.csusb.edu/~devel...c/ellipse.html

Do ellipses have 1 or 2 "centers"?

And what the hell does it have to do with the universe having no center

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem!

Beside the point. Elliptical geometry is a geometry in which Euclid's parallel axiom does not hold, i.e., parallel lines do not exist. I do not know why the mathematicians chose to call this kind of geometry elliptical since, as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with ellipses.

A two dimensional analogy of this is the surface of a sphere. The surface does not have a center. The center of the sphere does not count because it is not part of the surface.

Of course, you don't know why, which automatically makes you right.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Do ellipses have 1 or 2 "centers"?

And what the hell does it have to do with the universe having no center

I was responding to Actor who said ellipses have 0 centers?

So, now we have ellipses having 0 centers, 1 center or 2 centers. Do I hear a bid for 3 centers?