Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.
Posit
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 79 (299207)
03-29-2006 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by sinamatic
03-27-2006 3:36 AM


I would rather bank on a god than ignore the severe contridiction to my logic.
If properties such as timelessness or an infinite past are inconceivable when applied to the universe, how does ascribing them to a creator make them any more conceivable? Any objections you have to a universe with an infinite past, or a universe appearing from nothing, can be applied just as well to a creator simply by substituting the word "creator" for the word "universe".
Nature isn't required to follow our intuition about how it works. Even Einstein's intuition failed when it came to accepting quantum mechanics. In fact, given the past fifty years, it's a safe bet that within most of our lifetimes something very counerintuitive will be discovered about how the universe works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by sinamatic, posted 03-27-2006 3:36 AM sinamatic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2006 10:51 AM Posit has replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 79 (299344)
03-29-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
03-29-2006 10:51 AM


Re: I would rather bank on a god than ignore the severe contridiction to my logic.
Because the creator has magic powers and the universe does not.
Calling something "magic" is hardly an explanation. Unless you then go on to explain magic, you're simply calling the concept unexplainable and giving it another name.
Unless you consider the creator a god with supernatural powers, then its different from the universe and could have properties that the universe could not.
Again, ascribing something to the supernatural is not an explanation. It's simply a way of calling something unexplainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2006 10:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 79 (299410)
03-29-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
03-29-2006 4:41 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
Can not Supernatural be a superset that includes natural as a subset?
That would mean it would be accurate to describe everything as supernatural. We would be supernatural beings.
Supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
You can't seem to make the natural a subset of the supernatural without altering the very meaning of supernatural.
This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:51 PM
This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 4:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 5:14 PM Posit has replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 79 (299430)
03-29-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
03-29-2006 5:14 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
No, not at all. I said supernatural is a superset.
Which means the same thing as natural being a subset.
Cars are a subset of vehicles. Vehicles are a superset of cars. The two statements are equivalent. They both imply that all cars are vehicles.
If the supernatural is a superset of the natural, then anything natural is also supernatural. It's fundamental set theory.
This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 05:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 5:14 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 03-29-2006 6:04 PM Posit has replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 79 (299433)
03-29-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
03-29-2006 6:04 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
Perhaps if you consider what you are calling Natural as a subgroup of SuperNatural, with "interaction" as the group operation, you have what Jar is getting at...
Well, a subgroup is just a restricted type of subset.
Now if he means that the supernatural and natural are two non-intersecting sets, with some operation defined between them, that I understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 03-29-2006 6:04 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 6:54 PM Posit has replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 79 (299455)
03-29-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
03-29-2006 6:54 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
Okay, I think I see. Just like arms and legs are components of people but are not themselves people, the natural can be a component of the supernatural without itself being supernatural. Is that the idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 6:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:28 PM Posit has replied

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 79 (299463)
03-29-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
03-29-2006 7:28 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
Oh good. Of course, I have no idea where you're going with the idea, if anywhere, but at least we're on the same page now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:47 PM Posit has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024