Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

679 and 704 are more of your time bull sh*t crapoola. Told you I will not discuss time running in reverse in you intellect.

Hey Mr Expert on Everything why have your few sometimes supporters, deserted you?

679 and 704 are not about time running backwards, forwards or sideways in intellect or in any of your orifices for that matter. So answer the questions.

My "supporters" seem to number more than you have. Have your checked our respective reps points lately?

And why aren't you dazzling us with your "brilliance" by giving us a concrete demonstration of when a proposition violates the Law of Nonctradiction by applying the law to it?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

679 and 704 are not about time running backwards, forwards or sideways in intellect or in any of your orifices for that matter. So answer the questions.

My "supporters" seem to number more than you have. Have your checked our respective reps points lately?

And why aren't you dazzling us with your "brilliance" by giving us a concrete demonstration of when a proposition violates the Law of Nonctradiction by applying the law to it?

Of course they are.

679 continues your confusion.
704 claims my discussion of your aforementioned abject confusion is because you think I am "forked tongued"

Drop the bone rover. It's over. Even Dr Feser does not say time runs in reverse in your intellect.

Although my guess is everything else inside your head is backwards.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The bible isn't sensible at all to unbelievers. But to God's family, it is; since He gives understanding to his people.

Still waiting for Cain's wife.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Still waiting for Cain's wife.

Be patient. I asked Boxcar the same question 4-5 years ago...and the answer is still pending.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm sure you can draw up a big list for us and tell us why you believe the narrative is "drivel", "malarkey" and "gibberish", right? Why don't you specifcally list all the elements in the narrative that makes the account so unbelievable to you? I can hardly wait to see it.

I don't have Hcap's and Actor's patience. When I see a fool, I may nod my head as a greeting...but I get out of his way as soon as he opens his mouth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Of course they are.

679 continues your confusion.
704 claims my discussion of your aforementioned abject confusion is because you think I am "forked tongued"

Drop the bone rover. It's over. Even Dr Feser does not say time runs in reverse in your intellect.

Although my guess is everything else inside your head is backwards.

You're lying again. Here is how 679 reads with respect to Edison's invention of the light bulb:

Originally Posted by hcap

Once again you are confusing cause and effect in the context of causality. You are fudging word definitions or back fitting your untestable notions by playing word games. No matter all the dictionary definitions you jump up and down about, the only definitions that are correct are in the context of causality

In the context of causality, do you understand that a purpose is not the sams as a cause?. And a general outcome is not the same as an effect?

Me in 679:
Did I ever say that purpose = cause? So, why then do ask me this stupid question?

Now...since you want to play games with words, I have three easy questions for you. Answer them all, if you dare!

When you walk into a room and you flip the light switch on and the bulb illuminates the room, is illumination the effect you expected when you flipped the switch?

Or when you flip the switch and the bulb illuminates the room, is illumination the outcome you expected when flipping the switch? Or did you expect a different result --perhaps loud disco music playing?

Or when you turn the light switch on and the bulb illuminates the room, do you think the bulb is serving or fulfilling its purpose for existing?

Additionally, my 704 had nothing to do with time:

Originally Posted by hcap

I'm glad othedrs have decided to comment on this topic. However the background of the debate up until now primarily between boxcar and myself, was his contention that time runs in reverse to what we all agree on.

After pages and pages of debate, I reiterated one om my initial points of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_..._arrow_of_time
Causal arrow of time

A cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Birth, for example, follows a successful conception and not vice versa. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow.

So I used this "arrow", one of eight, to support the forward direction of time. Box, after tons of contentionl finally posed a bet coming down to "since mentally we can "envision effect before cause", the Causal arrow of time must run in reverse within our intellect.

I have posted pages illustrating how this contrarian use of the terms cause and effect.... is non specific to the proper use of cause and effect as normally used. And consequently a poor indicator of the direction of time.

Solving for a goal or aim, is used throughout the world and particularity the commercial world, which never ever would consider envisioning, imagining, or mentally holding the thought of cause and effect as anything more than a goal, realizing that is a far cry from,..... and not enough to practically create or produce, a physical reality....

The underlying assumption here is a confusion of the thought of something for the something itself. Not that the intellect does not have it's place in understanding possible future events. As I tried to convey, the blueprint of a house or skyscraper is not a the effect of the actual built and completed structure.

The blueprint is necessary to envision and create first but it is not the effect. If it were, trillions and trillions of dollars would be saved living in boxcar's blueprints

Me in 704:
Maybe someone will ask our Forked-Tongued Engineer Extraordinaire this question regarding the last paragraph of his post: If this NECESSARY blueprint does not contain the technical expressions of the architect's desired outcome, result, end, end product, goal or effect for which the architect is aiming, then WHAT specific, practical purpose does this "necessary" blueprint serve in absence of these reasons?

In my post 684, I laid out the four logically implied WHAT questions behind the Four Causes. For the Final Cause, we asked this question: For what specific purpose or intention was a thing caused or made in the first place? This question applies with equal force (if indeed not more so!) to final causes coherently conceived in intellect.

To clearly see the inherent contradiction in Hcap's last paragraph, all one needs to do is ask: "The blueprint is necessary to envision and create WHAT, specifically?" If the blueprint's purpose isn't in any of the reasons above, then what makes the blueprint necessary?

Out of one side of his mouth, Hcap tells us that the blueprint is "necessary", while out of the other side of his mouth he clearly implies that it's not
necessary since the architect's desired outcome, result, goal, end, end product or EFFECT is not found in the blueprint.

See what an incorrigible liar you are!? You can't help yourself, can you? This persistent compulsion to lie would be a sad enough testimony to your intellectually bankrupt worldview, but you really manifest your pathetic state of mind by heaping insult onto injury when you show us just how poor you are at it.

So...answer the questions, coward. If you cannot in a coherent fashion, then you have failed miserably at proving your case, which is: Effects (ends, outcomes, results, goals, purposes and end products) grasped in intellect never precede effects in the physical world. In other words, Edision, as an example, never intended in his mind to produce an electrical device that would have the effect of illuminating spaces. Empty-headed Edison just got lucky.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't have Hcap's and Actor's patience. When I see a fool, I may nod my head as a greeting...but I get out of his way as soon as he opens his mouth.

Translate: My earlier insults re the biblical narrative have no basis in reason; they were were all merely gratuitous in nature.

You're another empty drum. You are becoming a prime candidate to team up with Actor and Hcap so that y'all could perform for us as low level Three Stooges.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Still waiting for Cain's wife.

What part of my 762 didn't you get? Answer that first and then I'll answer your question.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Explain to me why you think it's coherent and rational to argue from silence.

Did I say or do that? Or are you interpreting something I said? Is it a miscommunication? That just doesn't resonate.

Funny, I was sitting in the beautiful St. Francis Cathedral in Santa Fe on Saturday. And I was thinking of all the times I came so close to dying it defies probability. I'm pretty sure there's something I'll need to do before I actually do die. I'm just waiting for it to come along.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed=up-car

Here is how 679 reads with respect to Edison's invention of the light bulb:

OMG! Frankenstein's time monster has awoken again after only a few days of snooze. Calm down boy, drop your bone already. I give up. Time is really running backwards in your brain. You are on an endless monotonous loop. Repeating over and over again. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Ps: I am still not answering those idiotic questions. Try jumping up and down, holding your breath and turning red.

Maybe your god will take pity, and instruct you eventually after you stop boring him. Who knows maybe another 11 part pseudo-scientific thesis?

Or try this. Could bed an updated chapter of your 11 part thesis

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Did I say or do that? Or are you interpreting something I said? Is it a miscommunication? That just doesn't resonate.

Of course, I'm interpreting that. Are you asking because Scripture tells us or are you asking because scripture doesn't? If the latter, then your question is based on the silence of scripture.

Funny, I was sitting in the beautiful St. Francis Cathedral in Santa Fe on Saturday. And I was thinking of all the times I came so close to dying it defies probability. I'm pretty sure there's something I'll need to do before I actually do die. I'm just waiting for it to come along.

Whatever is it that you think you need to do, do it already without further delay; for you never know what the next minute holds in store for you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

OMG! Frankenstein's time monster has awoken again after only a few days of snooze. Calm down boy, drop your bone already. I give up. Time is really running backwards in your brain. You are on an endless monotonous loop. Repeating over and over again. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Ps: I am still not answering those idiotic questions. Try jumping up and down, holding your breath and turning red.

Maybe your god will take pity, and instruct you eventually after you stop boring him. Who knows maybe another 11 part pseudo-scientific thesis?

Or try this. Could bed an updated chapter of your 11 part thesis

Of course, you're not going to answer the questions because to answer them would be to refute your own position! Why do you think I said in 679 regarding an answer from you, "If you dare..."?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, you're not going to answer the questions because to answer them would be to refute your own position! Why do you think I said in 679 regarding an answer from you, "If you dare..."?

Drop your bone rover.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Drop your bone rover.

You're so pathetic and your backwards worldview is so mentally impoverished, I have forced you to drop the ball! You can't even tell us what the purpose behind a blueprint is, which is what I asked in 704! To do so, you'd wind up checkmating yourself.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

679 and 704 are more of your time bull sh*t crapoola. Told you I will not discuss time running in reverse in you intellect.

Hey Mr Expert on Everything why have your few sometimes supporters, deserted you?

If that includes me, I quickly wearied of arguably legitimate metaphysical claims...

If A regularly causes B, but not C or D in nature, it is because there is something immanent within A that is directed to B. It could be stated that since the final cause of A is to produce B, there is a sense in which, in terms of goal-directed final causes (and not efficient causes), cause follows effect; and in nature, there are non-rational things that must receive their immanent causal power from an external agent (Mind, etc.). The alternative is to insist upon only efficient causation.

...being tagged with or understood as linear time for which, if I remember correctly, the original purpose was to justify some Lone Ranger Christian's fascination with Past-Present-Future as "God made time in his image". Classical theists regard God as First Cause, not as first in a linear chain, but first in principal, since only Pure Act has the immanent causal power to create from nothing, and thus is "causing" existence at any given moment.