26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBut your definition of the universe seemed to include all time. Did I misunderstand your definition? Clearly the definition of a human life does not include all time, so it doesn't really work as an analogy.
I don't see why!
Our lives can be an example, lives looking at just our bodies are
systems each unto themselves. There was a time before we were born,
there is a time while we are a live, and there is time afterwards, time
and its passage plays a part of all that goes on within our lives, but
it doesn't mean it never started until we were born, we may ...[text shortened]... y important while we are alive, and our beginnings is the starting
point but thats it.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, I still don't understand you. Are you saying that 'all time' is a subset of eternal, or 'all time' is equivalent to eternal, or eternal means something altogether different?
Eternal means forever, time is part of that, if something is there
doing anything before, during, after apply don't you think?
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBut how do you know whether the universe is an apple or an orange? When making your claim that everything must have a cause and other similar claims that you have applied to the universe, you did not state that it is a universe specific claim, nor did you explain why it applies to the universe but not other entities such as God. You instead argued them as if they were self evidently applicable to anything.
I'm saying it is comparing apples to oranges, I believe the universe
has a beginning, God does not.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I am not taking any specific standpoint. Your definition implies the impossibility or illogicality of claiming a 'before' the universe. That leads to the conclusion that either time has no beginning, or your rule about there always being a before is incorrect.
I have already said, even according to your definition of how the
universe came to be, from the stand point of what ever started the
universe there was a before, during, and afterwards from when the
universe started. You seem to be hung up on it only matters from
the perspective of within the universe itself, which isn't taking it all
into account.
Kelly
You must either change your definition, or admit that your argument violates your definition.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by daniel58I agree about the second part, it is getting a bit like skittles. On the third part, you have provided no evidence that you have the first clue about the notion of 'proof'. The first part, the declaration that you have backed anything up is as implausible as the rest of your world view.
I've already backed it up, this discussion is going nowhere, I've already proved you wrong.