|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Please keep this thread free of you particular god.
This is a science thread and as such does not 'align' with you idea of a god.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Only read the thread about logical fallacies, suggested by Designtheorist if you want to learn how someone's tries to wriggle out of the fact they are guilty of committing said logical fallacies.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You also needed to point out how PaulK stupidly ruled out the IPU as an a priori assumption.
What an idiot, that PaulK. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Try reworking your argument while explicitly acknowledging the possibility of a Designer/Creator acting from a "temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension)" to the big bang. How can you have a 'prior' that is in a different time dimension? Can you be 'longer' than something in the 'width' dimension? You are mixing up your dimensions, here. What you seem to be saying is that there is a point in time dimension 'a' (our time dimension) that is the lowestes value of time but that in some other time dimesion (time dimension 'b' or god time) there is a point that comes before the lowest value of time (in time dimension 'a'). But this is not the lowest value of time in time dimesion 'b' (because there was a cause in time dimension 'b' [by god] (who already exists in that time dimension). It is the cause in time dimension 'b' that cause the effect in time dimension 'a' (some how) . So for you god to work, i.e. be the cause of our time dimension in this (our) time dimesion ('a') you add another time dimesion 'b' that is separate yet interacting with time dimension 'a' (our time dimesion). So you start off with an a priori assumption (god caused our time dimension) and add another dimension (time dimension 'b') as a bizarre ad hoc statement to allow you god to exist, to cause ours. You sir, are a genius.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Show me my error. I did in Message 112. I'm surprised you missed it.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
YOUR argument requires the existence of an immaterial realm, and it would be strengthened if you could give a good reason to think that one exists. Apparently you can't. I'll go one better. I posit a third time dimension with an even bigger god than Designtheorist's. This god (who may or may not be His Noodlyness [but I refuse to be drawn on that point]) exists in an immaterial realm (from the perspective of Designtheorist's god) and as a separate time dimension it can be seen as 'prior' to Designtheorist's immaterial realm. I'm sorry, PaulK but as you have ruled out both immaterial realms existances I take this to mean that you do hold to the unexamined, implicit and false premise which Designtheorist identified earlier. So you see you are wrong x2. Hang on, maybe there is another timeless immaterial dimension! Wrong x3 Etc......The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
That's so stupid.
Refusing to admit the possibility of an unevidenced imaginary realm is in no way circular reasoning. Yahweh being real because it says so in the bible and that must be correct because Yahweh 'inspired' it and Yahweh is always true because it says so in the bible which is 'inpsired' by Yahweh, ad nauseam: is circular reasoning.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024