| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 09:43:31 PM |
| Object: |
Creator necessary |
so anyway;
in essence, if you have a blob of matter,
and that blob of matter absorbs energy
from some outside source, that absorption
of energy is coincident with an increase
in the vibration of the harmonic oscillation
in the atoms of the blob.
just like two tuning forks, where
one vibrating fork induces a tune
or vibration in the second fork,
when held in close proximity.
matter can absorb light energies
in the form of an increased
harmonic vibration.
the light is vibrating, passes thru
the matter and induces a vibration
in the atomic structure of the matter.
well, look, in a collapsed non-atomic state
there is no harmonic oscillation to induce
in anything and no interstitial spaces
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.
-that- is what i'm saying when i say
that the 'wah-wah-ing spring' is vanished.
and so, in a completely collapsed
material universe, no such induction
of vibrations is possible.
and this idea of "collapse" is just a model
looking backwards from an inflated material
universe we live in, and noting these
observationally derived datums;
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
the material universe is said to be expanding
unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.
now look at these definitions;
----
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mass
Mass
Abbr. m Physics. A property of matter equal
to the measure of an object's resistance
to changes in either the speed or direction
of its motion. The mass of an object is
not dependent on gravity and therefore is
different from but proportional to its weight.
Mass is the quantity of matter in a body;
Matter
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=matter
Something that occupies space and can be perceived
by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical
substance, or the universe as a whole. Physics.
Something that has mass and exists as a
solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
----
so, "in the beginning"
the material universe had no existance at all.
can be no mass with no possible speed
nor possible direction of motion.
can be no material without
space in which to reside.
id est, matter occupies space.
all mass and matter is a void of some
non-definable 'stuff' that is -not-
detectable by any physical method.
and this 'stuff' has no triggering
mechanism by which to suddenly burst
forth in some sort of explosive violence.
think about this for a second;
hold your hands about two feet apart
and try and convince yourself that
the material universe was encapsulated
in that space and just sat there
waiting to burst forth in an
expansionary ignition.
now tell yourself why this two foot
area isn't fully collapsed to a zero volume.
say three solar systems in volume,
same thing, why isn't it completely collapsed?
so, you realize that a pre-ignition
material universe occupies no volume.
no volume
no gravity
no electromagnetism
no atomic forces
no heat.
now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to induce
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.
now, what made the material universe ignite?
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
there simply is no trigger.
and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.
genesis can -not- be an accident.
and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.
otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.
The Creator Made the material universe happen.
it's that simple.
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary -- ETERNAL COSMIC PROCESS |
21 Oct 2003 03:40:28 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
the material universe is not infinitely old
===>Of course not. It is NEW EVERY MOMENT:
A PRODUCT of the INFINITE COSMOS
which produces it
through its eternal process of formation and
transformation of all things,
for ever.
the material universe has a beginning
===>Everything has a beginning in everything else
that existed before.
the material universe is said to be expanding
===>"Said to" is a meaningless, at best a provisional
statement.
The idea of a "creator" is just an abstraction and
personification of the infinite creative process that is the
COSMOS.
"The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was,
and all there ever will be." (Carl Sagan-Cosmos,1980)
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary -- |
21 Oct 2003 04:26:08 PM |
|
|
"The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was,
and all there ever will be." (Carl Sagan-Cosmos,1980)
this statement must be qualified by the
definite factual assertion that Carl Sagan
was not aware of -all- of the All that ever
was and will be.
and the major component of the All is not
of a material nature but of the Spirit God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary -- |
22 Oct 2003 11:08:17 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
"The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was,
and all there ever will be." (Carl Sagan-Cosmos,1980)
this statement must be qualified by the
definite factual assertion that Carl Sagan
was not aware of -all- of the All that ever
was and will be.
and the major component of the All is not
of a material nature but of the Spirit God.
===>That makes YOUR "GOD" only a PART
of the "ALL".
It is called PANENTHEISM.
Check it out. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary -- |
22 Oct 2003 02:24:09 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
"The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was,
and all there ever will be." (Carl Sagan-Cosmos,1980)
this statement must be qualified by the
definite factual assertion that Carl Sagan
was not aware of -all- of the All that ever
was and will be.
and the major component of the All is not
of a material nature but of the Spirit God.
That makes YOUR "GOD" only a PART
of the "ALL".
no, it makes the material universe
a Creation of God, and therefore
-not- exactly identifiable -as- God.
God -is- All and exists prior
to any material inception.
It is called PANENTHEISM.
no, because this does not suggest
that the material universe -is- God.
the material universe is a Creation.
the material universe has not always existed.
the material universe did not cause itself to arise,
the material universe is not God.
Check it out.
doesn't pan out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
21 Oct 2003 10:12:06 PM |
|
|
here's the set up for this,
according to this view;
the universe is not expanding nor contracting and
is statically in place with some fixed motions,
somewhat like the gears of an old styled clock.
given the physical law that says that in
spontaneous natural processes, a system
goes from a more orderly state to one
of greater disorder...
basically, we can assume that all star
systems will run down, burn out and
become diffuse and cold particles.
so basically, if the material universe
has been in operation for an infinite time,
all star systems would have long since
burned out and the universe would
already be a cold and diffuse ice box.
heat is simply lost to the interstellar
'atmosphere' by processes of diffusion.
so, in order for the material universe
to maintain some "eternal creative process"
'new matter' must be continually
processed from who knows where.
which takes us back to the very same problem,
-what- is triggering this 'new matter'
to ignite from an apparent nothingness?
it's not the violation of the 'conservation
of matter and energy' that is problematic here,
but the same lack of any triggering
mechanism which would generate
'new matter' from a void
of nothingness.
basically, 'conservation of mass and energy'
would suggest that 'matter is neither created
nor destroyed but only transformed between
the two states of matter and energy'
this was derived thru the study of
chemical processes on matter that
was already in existance.
basically it says that in the course
of a chemical reaction, no new matter
or energy is generated.
something like this;
A + B ---> C + D + heat [exothermic]
this just says that the heat generated
during the course of this reaction was
derived from A and B as A and B grouped
together to form a new product of C and D.
sort of like if you mix two grams of baking soda
and three grams [liq] vinegar together you get
carbon dioxide and water and some other stuff
and a bit of heat which you weigh on the
balance and is only about one half of one gram.
where did the mass go?
it didn't disappear, it flew off as the
gaseous carbon dioxide and some heat.
but this does not address a genesis of
'new matter' from wherever anyone may
like to demonstrate that 'new matter'
comes from.
and this idea of a fixed material universe
which is -continuously- producing new matter
from nothing is even more problematic with
regards to where this new matter is coming
from and what could possibly be triggering
its ignition.
the idea that all the matter and energy was
generated simultaneously in a single time frame
discounts the very highly improbable likelihood
that star systems burn out their nuclear fuel
and this spent fuel simply changes into new
matter and energy in an ongoing
and endless basis.
this is simply a preposturous belief to set forth.
and one that is not at all observed to be the case.
at best, star systems are composed of very small
elements like hydrogen and helium which undergo
fusion processes in an immense nuclear furnaces
and slowly cool and burn out as the composition
reaches an upward limit of fusability somewhere
around iron, with some rather exotic and rare
fusion products as heavy as -maybe- uranium
and its friends.
then if you're lucky, the star may explode
and shoot debris out into the interstellar
space and etc etc etc, or some star like the
sun will slowly cool and if it happens to be
near another sun/star, it may become
a planet like the earth,
you get something like a planetary solar system
but all fusion processes halt
on these islands of debris.
and rather slowly, the entire
system cools and dies.
but, the absurd likelihood that our own
solar system will amass together again
indefinitely and continuously reignite
as a star is outlandishly improbable.
the static everpresent material universe
seems to fall short on too many details
to be a valid descriptor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:15:19 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
here's the set up for this,
according to this view;
the universe is not expanding nor contracting and
is statically in place with some fixed motions,
somewhat like the gears of an old styled clock.
given the physical law that says that in
spontaneous natural processes, a system
goes from a more orderly state to one
of greater disorder...
===>FALSE.
Typical silly attempt to apply the laws of
Thermodynamics to "prove" the existence of
a hypothetical "creator".
TOTAL NONSENSE. -- L.
---------------------------------
basically, we can assume that all star
systems will run down, burn out and
become diffuse and cold particles.
so basically, if the material universe
has been in operation for an infinite time,
all star systems would have long since
burned out and the universe would
already be a cold and diffuse ice box.
heat is simply lost to the interstellar
'atmosphere' by processes of diffusion.
so, in order for the material universe
to maintain some "eternal creative process"
'new matter' must be continually
processed from who knows where.
which takes us back to the very same problem,
-what- is triggering this 'new matter'
to ignite from an apparent nothingness?
it's not the violation of the 'conservation
of matter and energy' that is problematic here,
but the same lack of any triggering
mechanism which would generate
'new matter' from a void
of nothingness.
basically, 'conservation of mass and energy'
would suggest that 'matter is neither created
nor destroyed but only transformed between
the two states of matter and energy'
this was derived thru the study of
chemical processes on matter that
was already in existance.
basically it says that in the course
of a chemical reaction, no new matter
or energy is generated.
something like this;
A + B ---> C + D + heat [exothermic]
this just says that the heat generated
during the course of this reaction was
derived from A and B as A and B grouped
together to form a new product of C and D.
sort of like if you mix two grams of baking soda
and three grams [liq] vinegar together you get
carbon dioxide and water and some other stuff
and a bit of heat which you weigh on the
balance and is only about one half of one gram.
where did the mass go?
it didn't disappear, it flew off as the
gaseous carbon dioxide and some heat.
but this does not address a genesis of
'new matter' from wherever anyone may
like to demonstrate that 'new matter'
comes from.
and this idea of a fixed material universe
which is -continuously- producing new matter
from nothing is even more problematic with
regards to where this new matter is coming
from and what could possibly be triggering
its ignition.
the idea that all the matter and energy was
generated simultaneously in a single time frame
discounts the very highly improbable likelihood
that star systems burn out their nuclear fuel
and this spent fuel simply changes into new
matter and energy in an ongoing
and endless basis.
this is simply a preposturous belief to set forth.
and one that is not at all observed to be the case.
at best, star systems are composed of very small
elements like hydrogen and helium which undergo
fusion processes in an immense nuclear furnaces
and slowly cool and burn out as the composition
reaches an upward limit of fusability somewhere
around iron, with some rather exotic and rare
fusion products as heavy as -maybe- uranium
and its friends.
then if you're lucky, the star may explode
and shoot debris out into the interstellar
space and etc etc etc, or some star like the
sun will slowly cool and if it happens to be
near another sun/star, it may become
a planet like the earth,
you get something like a planetary solar system
but all fusion processes halt
on these islands of debris.
and rather slowly, the entire
system cools and dies.
but, the absurd likelihood that our own
solar system will amass together again
indefinitely and continuously reignite
as a star is outlandishly improbable.
the static everpresent material universe
seems to fall short on too many details
to be a valid descriptor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:45:52 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
here's the set up for this,
according to this view;
the universe is not expanding nor contracting and
is statically in place with some fixed motions,
somewhat like the gears of an old styled clock.
given the physical law that says that in
spontaneous natural processes, a system
goes from a more orderly state to one
of greater disorder...
Typical silly attempt to apply the laws of
Thermodynamics to "prove" the existence of
a hypothetical "creator".
no, this is using the laws of heat and entropy
to demonstrate exactly what the laws of heat and
entropy say and that is that spontaneous
natural processes run down.
that there is no perpetual motion engine.
what -you- do not offer here is any
sort of support for the contention that
the material universe in, in fact,
a perpetual motion engine.
this post was only concerned with -that-.
basically, we can assume that all star
systems will run down, burn out and
become diffuse and cold particles.
so basically, if the material universe
has been in operation for an infinite time,
all star systems would have long since
burned out and the universe would
already be a cold and diffuse ice box.
this is easy to understand
and yet you cannot address it.
the idea that all the matter and energy was
generated simultaneously in a single time frame
discounts the very highly improbable likelihood
that star systems burn out their nuclear fuel
and this spent fuel simply changes into new
matter and energy in an ongoing
and endless basis.
this is simply a preposturous belief to set forth.
and one that is not at all observed to be the case.
and rather slowly, the entire
system cools and dies.
but, the absurd likelihood that our own
solar system will amass together again
indefinitely and continuously reignite
as a star is outlandishly improbable.
the static everpresent material universe
seems to fall short on too many details
to be a valid descriptor.
no argument which would support
the contention that the material
universe is a vast perpetual
motion engine.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
21 Oct 2003 10:44:19 PM |
|
|
just look at this bit again.
....
genesis from singularity
^
----------|A|----------
|---------------------|
B B
"present" time distance
look, at the 'moment' of genesis
from singularity, all the 'stuff'
is moving very fast and Time is
moving very slow, for that 'stuff'
according to your perspective
'here and now' or [B]
--remember when we mentally send an astronaut
off on a mission at near light speed, his internal
clocks slow down as perceived by his compatriots
who remain at home and don't go off in to space.--
now look, your 'now' is [B]
and all the 'stuff' is now moving
very much slower than it was at [A]
and likewise, B's Time is moving
very much faster than Time at [A]
and so, you have a situation that
says that according to 'now'
1 second 'then' equals some
larger number 'now'
that is, 1 second at [A] may be
what amounts to 6 x 10^7 seconds 'now'
that is, one second 'then'
is about 2 years 'now'
sure, 'then' a second is a 'second'
and speed of light is 'c'
but 'now' observer's velocity is
much slower and relative speed of
light remains 'c' and so,
Time seems faster.
if you go and do the calculation,
you may get a somewhat different number,
but at 'lightspeed' velocity,
the initial 'stuff' is experiencing
Time at a 'slower' rate.
and making any claims that
'the stuff' was experiencing
1 second 'then' in the same pattern
as 1 second 'now' is unwarranted.
what you end up with is a universe
which is very 'young' in comparison
to Time as 'understood' in the
moments of genesis.
that is, at 2 years per second,
your '14 billion' year time span
reduces to about 1 day.
so, at 1 year per second,
it's about 2 days.
etc.
at any rate, some situation like this is factual.
our entire 'experience' amounts
to a matter of days when viewed
from the perspective of singularity.
strange.
and one other little thing;
we cannot assume 'centric' inflation.
in part because at simngularity,
there is no possible 'center'
to anything.
and so, what you may
be stuck with is
a time T = 0 where no space-time
is in operation followed by an immediate
vastness with no apparent interstitial
time domain.
that is, the clocks
'begin' 'In Medias Reas'
conceptually, because of the
immediate 'appearance' of
a vastness.
that is, conceptually, no single central,
pin sized volume but an apparent multiplex
of discontinuous pin sites of ignition.
and a time domain built into
the discontinuos, acentric ignition.
that, and interstellar space still seems
to be filled with a haze if you must know.
that is, claiming vacuum seems presumptuous.
what it comes down to is this;
that those 'initial'
clocks are still ticking
v e r y s l o w l y
when viewed thru the 'now
and you have a situation
of competing time domains
to grapple with, for a clearer
understanding of exactly where
you are 'now' according to whom.
aside from the fact that the lack
of a central region in singularity
leads to that wierd bit about an
apparent 'immediate vastness'
strange thing is, no matter
how 'you' look at it,
dear olde God can see several clocks,
ticking, at variant rates, simultaneously,
and not lose track of event sequences
in multiple persepectives.
God doesn't 'age' with the passing of Time.
the instant of your passing can
be stretched out to cover
your entire span
and the entire universal time sequence
is nothing more than a tendency towards
a blink of an eye.
and just consider this
apparent immediate vastness.
it's as if the universe simply
inflated so fast that its time
sequence was imperceptibly slow
this means, that according to -then-
the entire universe can have just
immediately appeared when viewed
thru the -now-
etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 06:39:52 AM |
|
|
and just remember one other thing;
when you look deeper and deeper
into 'outer space' of course, you
are looking further and further
'back' in time, according to your -now-.
and so, if it 'appears' as if the
universe is running away from itself
faster and faster from your earth
bound vantage point, what you are
seeing is the gradual -slowdown- of
a very rapidly moving initial
ignition which appears
nearly immediate.
you end up having to cordon off
these apparent spheres again.
like, the earth is found in some
'outer sphere' which is, for the
sake of argument, say 20 light
years wide,
and so, objects like alpha centauri,
which is roughly 4-5 light years 'away',
when viewed from earth, appear to be
'out there'
and then, in viewing the placement of
subsequent 'spheres' you are looking
'inward' towards a more centralized
region of space, and objects like
the crab nebula are 'in there'.
but, you may have to deal with some
phenomenon -like- a sonic boom, in light.
and essentially, you are 'seeing' objects
in space that are no longer 'actually there'
sort of like you hear the sound
of a jet that has already passed
over your head
you are 'seeing' a star system that
is no longer in its 'sphere'
that is, you are only seeing a light
from an inflationary stage that outpaced
the speed of light in some fashion.
even if this 'outpacing' is a function
of the 'speed of light'--'time coordinate'
of -now-
that is, the 'stuff' moving very
rapidly upon an initial ignition,
has left -us- only a
'sonic boom'-like image
of itself.
where you draw -this- line is
left to you as an exercise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 02:38:45 AM |
|
|
that is, the 'stuff' moving very
rapidly upon an initial ignition,
has left -us- only a
'sonic boom'-like image
of itself.
now you understand how God can be
in several places at the same time.
by travelling faster than the speed of light.
not being composed of matter enables this.
even in Jesus, God vibrates
between the two worlds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
21 Oct 2003 04:20:40 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
you didn't address things
that you don't understand.
the material universe is not infinitely old
Of course not. It is NEW EVERY MOMENT:
the oxygen you are breathing now has
been the same oxygen that has been
surrounding this planet for however
many odd millenia the earth has been around.
the oxygen did not become new and
different when you breathed it
in and breathed it out.
it is the same.
and there is no evidence that this
oxygen will ever again enter into
a fusion generator like our own sun.
it is oxygen now and will be oxygen
in 20 billion years from now barring
any intervention by a Creator with
manipulative capabilities over
very large portions of matter.
A PRODUCT of the INFINITE COSMOS
astrophysical data does not support
the notion that the material universe
is infinitely massive, or infinitely spacious
such data, as of right now sets a severe limit
upon the mass of the universe, and there appears
to be some credibvle evidence of a wall of light
at the outskirts of the visible universe that
would set a definite limit on the space.
albeit, we are looking inward toward
a central region of space and not outward.
-your- statements are not supported
by anything but your own wishful thinking.
which produces it through its eternal
process of formation and transformation
of all things, for ever.
see above concerning the oxygen you are breathing.
the material universe has a beginning
Everything has a beginning in everything else
that existed before.
this doesn't speak to the statement as presented.
the sum total of material things had a beginning.
and the material things had an
ultimate beginning in the Creator
material things have not always existed.
the material universe is said to be expanding
"Said to" is a meaningless, at best a provisional
statement.
it is 'said to be' expanding by
the fact that light from distant
galaxies is shifted to redder wavelengths.
when -you- can contradict this finding
with a real evidence or some reasonable
argument why the red shift does not
denote an expanding universe,
you may do so.
The idea of a "creator" is just an abstraction and
personification of the infinite creative process
that is the COSMOS.
the Creator is not an "idea" but a living being
who caused the material things to come in
to existance from a state of not being.
natural processes are shown to run down.
as of right now, it is not possitted that
the universe contains enough mass to implode
upon itself and return to a singular state
as is necessitated by the expanding universe.
the 'idea' of an oscillating, expanding
and contracting material universe is not
supported by any observable quantity of data.
as it looks now, this universe
will simply keep expanding.
aside from some physical
manipulation by the
Creator God,
spent fuel from star systems will
burn out and litter intergalactic
space with very cold debris.
there's not even evidence that this
galaxy called "the milky way" has
enough mass to implode upon iteself
and become a rather massive black hole.
and even if this was to happen,
there is no evidence that there
would be sufficient energy to release
itself from being simply trapped
in a gravitational void.
-you- speak in unsupportable conjectures.
"The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was,
and all there ever will be." (Carl Sagan-Cosmos,1980)
Carl Sagan is dead
Jesus Christ is alive.
Sagan was of the opinion that we
-may- live in an oscillating universe.
one that expands and contracts.
subsequent real data as of late tends
to dismiss this possibility and unfounded.
-but-
even if this universe were to implode
upon itself into a state of so-called
"quantum singularity" the self same
problem of no triggering mechanism
to ignite a new expansion would
be in effect.
-you- "eternal cosmos" of a material nature
is pure speculation and wishful thinking
on your part and thinking that is
-not- supported by any real data.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creator necessary |
21 Oct 2003 09:20:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:20:40 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~Libertarius wrote:
~
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~
~> [SNIPALOT]
~
~you didn't address things
~that you don't understand.
~
<pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>
I must have missed a point you undoubtedly made Timmy.
Who was it that you said created the creator?
_______________________________
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you
to share yours with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
21 Oct 2003 09:52:52 PM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
<pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>
you just want me to talk to you.
don't think i am unable to recognize that.
i certainly don't need a shill to peddle my wares.
I must have missed a point you undoubtedly made Timmy.
most assuredly, you failed to understand any of it.
Who was it that you said created the creator?
if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
how do you suppose you will understand the rather
obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
in the absence of matter, there is no time.
in the absence of time, there is no longer
a time dependant event sequence which makes
your infinite event sequence regression
triviality a relevant matter.
when Time falls out of the picture,
there is no longer any concern about
such a measure as "how old is the Creator"
or "when -is- the Creator"
and, if -you- don't understand the
question which you have seen fit
to put forth,
then i shall explain that this question
assumes the relevance of a time sequence
that is not in operation.
meaning, 'who is the -first- Creator?"
where "first" is not a relevant matter
in the absence of any time sequence.
The Creator is not measured by Time sequence
and therefore,
outside of the
material universe,
there is just -Is-
no longer is there a -when-
and a -where- to be considered.
next;
"how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
all of them, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:15:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:52:52 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~Opie Taylor wrote:
~
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~
~> <pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>
~
~
~you just want me to talk to you.
~don't think i am unable to recognize that.
~i certainly don't need a shill to peddle my wares.
~
~
~> I must have missed a point you undoubtedly made Timmy.
~
~
~most assuredly, you failed to understand any of it.
~
~
~> Who was it that you said created the creator?
~
~
~if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
~how do you suppose you will understand the rather
~obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
~
~in the absence of matter, there is no time.
~
~in the absence of time, there is no longer
~a time dependant event sequence which makes
~your infinite event sequence regression
~triviality a relevant matter.
~
~when Time falls out of the picture,
~
~there is no longer any concern about
~such a measure as "how old is the Creator"
~or "when -is- the Creator"
~
~and, if -you- don't understand the
~question which you have seen fit
~to put forth,
~
~then i shall explain that this question
~assumes the relevance of a time sequence
~that is not in operation.
~
~meaning, 'who is the -first- Creator?"
~where "first" is not a relevant matter
~in the absence of any time sequence.
~
~The Creator is not measured by Time sequence
~
~and therefore,
~outside of the
~material universe,
~
~there is just -Is-
~
~no longer is there a -when-
~and a -where- to be considered.
~
~next;
~
~"how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
~
~all of them, of course.
Do you ever get burns on your belly from so much wiggling?
_______________________________
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you
to share yours with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 02:29:12 AM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
~Opie Taylor wrote:
~> Who was it that you said created the creator?
~in the absence of matter, there is no time.
~in the absence of time, there is no longer
~a time dependant event sequence which makes
~your infinite event sequence regression
~triviality a relevant matter.
~when Time falls out of the picture,
~there is no longer any concern about
~such a measure as "how old is the Creator"
~or "when -is- the Creator"
~meaning, 'who is the -first- Creator?"
~where "first" is not a relevant matter
~in the absence of any time sequence.
~The Creator is not measured by Time sequence
this constitutes a valid argument by me.
Do you ever get burns on your belly from so much wiggling?
this does not constitute valid argument.
this sort of statement is tacit or 'unspoken'
acknowledgement that you are unable to address
what i wrote, in any manner resembling actual
an argument of your own.
you may get some private personal
amusement out of your behavior,
but you do not properly address
my statements so as to make
untruths out of them.
of the two, i'll hold to the truthfullness
of my own personal statements over your
gaining personal amusements any day.
that is, you can have your laughs
and i will take the undisturbed
truthfullness of my statements.
i have plenty to amuse myself without
ever resorting to falsehood.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:13:03 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
<pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>
you just want me to talk to you.
don't think i am unable to recognize that.
i certainly don't need a shill to peddle my wares.
I must have missed a point you undoubtedly made Timmy.
most assuredly, you failed to understand any of it.
Who was it that you said created the creator?
if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
===>That is where you failed to make any sense!
how do you suppose you will understand the rather
obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
===>The "entailments" you claim are based on your
false premises. Pure nonsense. -- L.
in the absence of matter, there is no time.
in the absence of time, there is no longer
a time dependant event sequence which makes
your infinite event sequence regression
triviality a relevant matter.
when Time falls out of the picture,
there is no longer any concern about
such a measure as "how old is the Creator"
or "when -is- the Creator"
and, if -you- don't understand the
question which you have seen fit
to put forth,
then i shall explain that this question
assumes the relevance of a time sequence
that is not in operation.
meaning, 'who is the -first- Creator?"
where "first" is not a relevant matter
in the absence of any time sequence.
The Creator is not measured by Time sequence
and therefore,
outside of the
material universe,
there is just -Is-
no longer is there a -when-
and a -where- to be considered.
next;
"how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
all of them, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:41:52 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
Who was it that you said created the creator?
if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
That is where you failed to make any sense!
you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
which supports your contention that the 'cosmos'
has some ability to generate matter and energy endlessly.
you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
which would even remotely contradict the pointed
elucidation of the actual facts that i have presented.
what you engage in is hystrionic
foot stomping in lieu these things.
how do you suppose you will understand the rather
obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
The "entailments" you claim are based on your
false premises. Pure nonsense.
-you- do not make arguments,
-you- simply toss unsupported statements around.
you do not offer argument because you have no argument.
you basically just have me carrying you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creator necessary |
22 Oct 2003 10:15:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:41:52 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~Libertarius wrote:
~
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~
~> > Opie Taylor wrote:
~
~> > > Who was it that you said created the creator?
~
~> > if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
~
~> That is where you failed to make any sense!
~
~
~you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
~which supports your contention that the 'cosmos'
~has some ability to generate matter and energy endlessly.
~
~you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
~which would even remotely contradict the pointed
~elucidation of the actual facts that i have presented.
~
~what you engage in is hystrionic
~foot stomping in lieu these things.
~
~
~> > how do you suppose you will understand the rather
~> > obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
~
~> The "entailments" you claim are based on your
~> false premises. Pure nonsense.
~
~
~-you- do not make arguments,
~-you- simply toss unsupported statements around.
~you do not offer argument because you have no argument.
~you basically just have me carrying you.
Funny. You're condemning someone else for doing exactly what you do all
the time, Timmy. Tell us, where do you get such fine stones to toss?
_______________________________
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you
to share yours with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 02:29:03 AM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
~Libertarius wrote:
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~> > Opie Taylor wrote:
~> > > Who was it that you said created the creator?
~> > if you failed to understand what i already offered up,
~> That is where you failed to make any sense!
~you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
~which supports your contention that the 'cosmos'
~has some ability to generate matter and energy endlessly.
~you do not offer any argument nor any evidence
~which would even remotely contradict the pointed
~elucidation of the actual facts that i have presented.
~what you engage in is hystrionic
~foot stomping in lieu these things.
~> > how do you suppose you will understand the rather
~> > obvious entailments which make your question irrelevant?
~> The "entailments" you claim are based on your
~> false premises. Pure nonsense.
~-you- do not make arguments,
~-you- simply toss unsupported statements around.
~you do not offer argument because you have no argument.
~you basically just have me carrying you.
Funny. You're condemning someone else for doing exactly what you do all
the time, Timmy. Tell us, where do you get such fine stones to toss?
--
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument
argument 2 a.
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood:
--
here is the general demeanor
of your friend's statements;
--
"That is where you failed to make any sense!"
"The "entailments" you claim are based on your
false premises. Pure nonsense."
"Typical silly attempt to apply the laws of
Thermodynamics to "prove" the existence of
a hypothetical "creator"."
"But the "universe" becomes "new" every moment!"
"It is the COSMIC TOTALITY that is ETERNAL!"
"The COSMOS is ALL THAT EXISTS.
A "creator" outside the COSMOS is
a non-existent phantom of your imagination."
--
none of this constitutes argument,
and yet all of this is essentially
the sum total of your friend's
statements offered up -as- argument.
here's some of -your- statements;
--
"<pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>"
"Do you ever get burns on your belly from so much wiggling?"
"take medicine"
--
evidently, -you- feel that statements such
as these constitutes argument as well,
so you devalue your credibility as one
to recognize what does and what does
not constitute valid argumentation.
but here are some statements from
me which constitutes and actual argument;
---
in essence, if you have a blob of matter,
and that blob of matter absorbs energy
from some outside source, that absorption
of energy is coincident with an increase
in the vibration of the harmonic oscillation
in the atoms of the blob.
just like two tuning forks, where
one vibrating fork induces a tune
or vibration in the second fork,
when held in close proximity.
matter can absorb light energies
in the form of an increased
harmonic vibration.
the light is vibrating, passes thru
the matter and induces a vibration
in the atomic structure of the matter.
well, look, in a collapsed non-atomic state
there is no harmonic oscillation to induce
in anything and no interstitial spaces
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.
---
if i were to show you every instance of me
making an actual "course of reasoning aimed
at demonstrating truth or falsehood"
it would take up quite a lot of memory bytes.
-you- disqualify yourself as one who
is able to recognize actual argumentation
and engage in the selfsame sort of
non-argument as your friend.
and this post itself, is me offering
up what is a valid form of argument.
it is not necessary that -you-, the party who
is unable to recognize valid argumentation,
make any sort of admissions concerning
the truth of my statements here, as they
stand as a self evident witness against you.
and your own statements provide
ample witness against you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 08:06:44 AM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
~you do not offer argument because you have no argument.
Funny. You're condemning someone else for doing
exactly what you do all the time, Timmy.
earlier you said this:
<pseudo scientific nutsoid reasoning clipped>
reminding you of this:
--
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument
argument 2 a.
A course of reasoning aimed at
demonstrating truth or falsehood:
--
what's more funny, is that you call
my stuff "reasoning" and then claim
i don't make argument.
Tell us, where do you get such fine stones to toss?
in cases like this, people like -you-
make contradictory statements and
it's all down hill from there.
what's even funnier is that i don't
get any benefit from pointing this
out to you.
you may be the only one who
could get some benefit
from this.
you and anyone else who may wish
to avoid offering up contradictory
remarks to themselves and others.
some day you may see fit to think me,
but, such is not at all necessary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 08:44:04 AM |
|
|
what's even funnier is that i don't
get any benefit from pointing this
out to you.
you may be the only one who
could get some benefit
from this.
you and anyone else who may wish
to avoid offering up contradictory
remarks to themselves and others.
some day you may see fit to think me,
but, such is not at all necessary.
you may even thank me, but such is
not necessary either. better you should
correct this inner turmoil of yours or
be relegated to living in a conflicted
place and carrying over this conflict
into your dealings with those around you.
and not anyone benefits from that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 10:28:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:44:04 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~> what's even funnier is that i don't
~> get any benefit from pointing this
~> out to you.
~> you may be the only one who
~> could get some benefit
~> from this.
~> you and anyone else who may wish
~> to avoid offering up contradictory
~> remarks to themselves and others.
~
~> some day you may see fit to think me,
~> but, such is not at all necessary.
~
~you may even thank me, but such is
~not necessary either. better you should
~correct this inner turmoil of yours or
~be relegated to living in a conflicted
~place and carrying over this conflict
~into your dealings with those around you.
~
~and not anyone benefits from that.
Sorry to disappoint. You own the inner turmoil around here. Coupled,
of course, with the ability to write incomprehensible paragraphs.
_______________________________
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you
to share yours with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
23 Oct 2003 11:11:47 PM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
~> what's even funnier is that i don't
~> get any benefit from pointing this
~> out to you.
~> you may be the only one who
~> could get some benefit
~> from this.
~> you and anyone else who may wish
~> to avoid offering up contradictory
~> remarks to themselves and others.
~> some day you may see fit to think me,
~> but, such is not at all necessary.
~you may even thank me, but such is
~not necessary either. better you should
~correct this inner turmoil of yours or
~be relegated to living in a conflicted
~place and carrying over this conflict
~into your dealings with those around you.
~and not anyone benefits from that.
Sorry to disappoint.
you are feeling the need to apologize.
in fact, you do apologize to me for some
disappointment that you feel you have
caused me to experience.
i feel no disappointment as i've come
to expect conflicted and contradictory
statements from you.
so, if you would like to continue apologizing,
first find the root cause of your regret.
You own the inner turmoil around here.
i don't lay claim to your inner turmoil,
that is your own, i do not 'own' your problems,
nor am i the source of your problems.
i live in peace.
you will never find the root of your
regret if you see fit to simply transfer
your inner turmoil on to me.
so, you may want to apologize for that,
but still, that apology will not
erase your inner turmoil.
Coupled, of course, with the ability
to write incomprehensible paragraphs.
you live in contradiction
as demonstrated by your
own statements.
you cannot understand my writings
as stated in the above sentence.
i can very easily understand your difficulties.
that means i understand you
but you do not understand me.
your continued and persistent presence
here, coupled with your regretful sentiments
above, indicates that you are trying your best
to understand -me- but are sorry that you
haven't been able to do so.
and therefore, you are blaming -me-
for portions of your turmoil.
get this clear;
Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
my writings do not contain
contradictory statements.
your personal understanding
is conflicted and contradictory.
you are unsettling yourself because
you expect that everyone is conflicted
and contradictory just as you are,
and you cannot find contradiction in my writings.
and yet still;
Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
your troubles are not at all unique,
and neither are you.
i do not want your soul.
your soul is an emptiness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 01:37:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:47 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~Opie Taylor wrote:
~
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~
~> ~> what's even funnier is that i don't
~> ~> get any benefit from pointing this
~> ~> out to you.
~> ~> you may be the only one who
~> ~> could get some benefit
~> ~> from this.
~> ~> you and anyone else who may wish
~> ~> to avoid offering up contradictory
~> ~> remarks to themselves and others.
~
~> ~> some day you may see fit to think me,
~> ~> but, such is not at all necessary.
~
~> ~you may even thank me, but such is
~> ~not necessary either. better you should
~> ~correct this inner turmoil of yours or
~> ~be relegated to living in a conflicted
~> ~place and carrying over this conflict
~> ~into your dealings with those around you.
~
~> ~and not anyone benefits from that.
~
~> Sorry to disappoint.
~
~
~you are feeling the need to apologize.
~in fact, you do apologize to me for some
~disappointment that you feel you have
~caused me to experience.
~
~i feel no disappointment as i've come
~to expect conflicted and contradictory
~statements from you.
~
~so, if you would like to continue apologizing,
~first find the root cause of your regret.
~
~
~> You own the inner turmoil around here.
~
~
~i don't lay claim to your inner turmoil,
~that is your own, i do not 'own' your problems,
~nor am i the source of your problems.
~
~i live in peace.
~
~you will never find the root of your
~regret if you see fit to simply transfer
~your inner turmoil on to me.
~
~so, you may want to apologize for that,
~but still, that apology will not
~erase your inner turmoil.
~
~
~> Coupled, of course, with the ability
~> to write incomprehensible paragraphs.
~
~
~you live in contradiction
~as demonstrated by your
~own statements.
~
~you cannot understand my writings
~as stated in the above sentence.
~
~i can very easily understand your difficulties.
~
~that means i understand you
~but you do not understand me.
~
~your continued and persistent presence
~here, coupled with your regretful sentiments
~above, indicates that you are trying your best
~to understand -me- but are sorry that you
~haven't been able to do so.
~
~and therefore, you are blaming -me-
~for portions of your turmoil.
~
~get this clear;
~
~Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
~
~my writings do not contain
~contradictory statements.
~
~your personal understanding
~is conflicted and contradictory.
~
~you are unsettling yourself because
~you expect that everyone is conflicted
~and contradictory just as you are,
~
~and you cannot find contradiction in my writings.
~
~and yet still;
~
~Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
~
~your troubles are not at all unique,
~
~and neither are you.
~
~i do not want your soul.
~
~your soul is an emptiness.
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
_______________________________
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you
to share yours with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 04:26:49 PM |
|
|
Opie Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:47 -0400, Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com>
wrote:
~Opie Taylor wrote:
~
~> Timothy Sutter wrote:
~
~> ~> what's even funnier is that i don't
~> ~> get any benefit from pointing this
~> ~> out to you.
~> ~> you may be the only one who
~> ~> could get some benefit
~> ~> from this.
~> ~> you and anyone else who may wish
~> ~> to avoid offering up contradictory
~> ~> remarks to themselves and others.
~
~> ~> some day you may see fit to think me,
~> ~> but, such is not at all necessary.
~
~> ~you may even thank me, but such is
~> ~not necessary either. better you should
~> ~correct this inner turmoil of yours or
~> ~be relegated to living in a conflicted
~> ~place and carrying over this conflict
~> ~into your dealings with those around you.
~
~> ~and not anyone benefits from that.
~
~> Sorry to disappoint.
~
~
~you are feeling the need to apologize.
~in fact, you do apologize to me for some
~disappointment that you feel you have
~caused me to experience.
~
~i feel no disappointment as i've come
~to expect conflicted and contradictory
~statements from you.
~
~so, if you would like to continue apologizing,
~first find the root cause of your regret.
~
~
~> You own the inner turmoil around here.
~
~
~i don't lay claim to your inner turmoil,
~that is your own, i do not 'own' your problems,
~nor am i the source of your problems.
~
~i live in peace.
~
~you will never find the root of your
~regret if you see fit to simply transfer
~your inner turmoil on to me.
~
~so, you may want to apologize for that,
~but still, that apology will not
~erase your inner turmoil.
~
~
~> Coupled, of course, with the ability
~> to write incomprehensible paragraphs.
~
~
~you live in contradiction
~as demonstrated by your
~own statements.
~
~you cannot understand my writings
~as stated in the above sentence.
~
~i can very easily understand your difficulties.
~
~that means i understand you
~but you do not understand me.
~
~your continued and persistent presence
~here, coupled with your regretful sentiments
~above, indicates that you are trying your best
~to understand -me- but are sorry that you
~haven't been able to do so.
~
~and therefore, you are blaming -me-
~for portions of your turmoil.
~
~get this clear;
~
~Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
~
~my writings do not contain
~contradictory statements.
~
~your personal understanding
~is conflicted and contradictory.
~
~you are unsettling yourself because
~you expect that everyone is conflicted
~and contradictory just as you are,
~
~and you cannot find contradiction in my writings.
~
~and yet still;
~
~Timothy Sutter is not the cause of your problems.
~
~your troubles are not at all unique,
~
~and neither are you.
~
~i do not want your soul.
~
~your soul is an emptiness.
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
===>Timmy is a pompous pretended, totally convinced
that his twist on the minuscule knowledge of scientific
information he possesses will "prove" his ASSertions. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 04:43:37 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
Timmy is a pompous pretended, totally convinced
that his twist on the minuscule knowledge of scientific
information he possesses will "prove" his ASSertions.
do you consider this statement of yours
to be credible argumentation on your part?
i only wonder why these people
are so beligerant towards me.
my statements and arguments
are rather benign.
all i've done is prove that God exists.
you'd think that would be a happy thing.
God exists, whoop de do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator UNnecessary |
26 Oct 2003 08:31:12 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
Timmy is a pompous pretended, totally convinced
that his twist on the minuscule knowledge of scientific
information he possesses will "prove" his ASSertions.
do you consider this statement of yours
to be credible argumentation on your part?
===>"Argumentation"??? No way!
It is just an objective statement of facts.
i only wonder why these people
are so beligerant towards me.
my statements and arguments
are rather benign.
all i've done is prove that God exists.
===>To YOUR -- redundant -- satisfaction.
You seem to be happy with it, so, just keep
on repeating it to yourself.
you'd think that would be a happy thing.
===>As I said, "happy" for YOU.
God exists, whoop de do.
===>Sure. In your head.
Along with all those other gods in all those
other heads.
Happy dreams! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 09:13:55 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
Timmy is a pompous pretended, totally convinced
that his twist on the minuscule knowledge of scientific
information he possesses will "prove" his ASSertions.
do you consider this statement of yours
to be credible argumentation on your part?
"Argumentation"??? No way!
It is just an objective statement of facts.
"argumentation" does not exclude of
the inclusion of facts in support
of a reasoned assessment of the
truth or falsehood of a matter.
in fact, "arumentation" makes use
of 'facts' in support of reasonable
conclusions.
you do not offer any reasoned assessment
of the truth or falsehood of any matter
here and this opinion of yours is not
to be considered factual.
i only wonder why these people
are so beligerant towards me.
my statements and arguments
are rather benign.
all i've done is prove that God exists.
To YOUR -- redundant -- satisfaction.
you have not outlined any set of conditions
whereby this quite satisfactory explanation
will prove insufficient.
You seem to be happy with it, so, just keep
on repeating it to yourself.
it is satisfactory to prove the necessary
existance of a Creator Personality to one
who does not know God.
i know God and this explanation of the
origin of the material universe does
not increase my knowledge that God
is alive and active.
you'd think that would be a happy thing.
As I said, "happy" for YOU.
God's activity in my life is a benefit.
God exists, whoop de do.
Sure. In your head.
well, if i place an apple in a box,
and tell you that there is an apple
in the box, and you simply say that
you know for sure that there is no
apple in the box, and therefore,
you refuse to look inside of the box,
the only relevant statement you can
make is that you never looked in the box.
you can make no relevant statement
as to the content of the box.
but you were never prevented
from opening the box yourself,
this you decided for yourself.
Along with all those other gods
in all those other heads.
everything you experience from
rain drops on your forehead to
heartburn is experienced 'in your head.'
but -you- can not ever experience
a thing that you can not experience.
and your "multiversal" framework is
outside the grasp of your sensory
impression apparatus.
the moment you claim to have experienced
one of these "multi-universes" you cease
to be operating in empirical sense perception,
and you speak against 'pancosmism'
and if you do not ever make such a claim to have
experienced one of these 'multi-universes' they
remain as completely unreal figments and cannot
be used in support of pancosmism.
so, you should realize that pancosmism
is a false and invalid sentiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 10:08:26 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Opie Taylor wrote:
You do live in a world of make-believe, Timmy.
Just make up your facts and assumptions as you go along.
Timmy is a pompous pretended, totally convinced
that his twist on the minuscule knowledge of scientific
information he possesses will "prove" his ASSertions.
do you consider this statement of yours
to be credible argumentation on your part?
"Argumentation"??? No way!
It is just an objective statement of facts.
"argumentation" does not exclude of
the inclusion of facts in support
of a reasoned assessment of the
truth or falsehood of a matter.
in fact, "arumentation" makes use
of 'facts' in support of reasonable
conclusions.
you do not offer any reasoned assessment
of the truth or falsehood of any matter
here and this opinion of yours is not
to be considered factual.
i only wonder why these people
are so beligerant towards me.
my statements and arguments
are rather benign.
all i've done is prove that God exists.
To YOUR -- redundant -- satisfaction.
you have not outlined any set of conditions
whereby this quite satisfactory explanation
will prove insufficient.
You seem to be happy with it, so, just keep
on repeating it to yourself.
it is satisfactory to prove the necessary
existance of a Creator Personality to one
who does not know God.
===>That is a LIE!
Name ONE PERSON who "does not know God"
and finds your ravings "satisfactory" to prove such a
thing exists outside your mind. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creator necessary |
26 Oct 2003 11:54:05 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
You seem to be happy with it, so, just keep
on repeating it to yourself.
it is satisfactory to prove the necessary
existance of a Creator Personality to one
who does not know God.
That is a LIE!
Name ONE PERSON who "does not know God"
and finds your ravings "satisfactory" to prove such a
thing exists outside your mind.
here, ask this person,
Lawrence Kelemen - Permission to Believe
he doesn't exactly say that he knows God
only that he figures that an open ended
cosmology like the one pointed to by the
facts should give people permission to believe.
i happen to know God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
