SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (14421)1/13/2003 6:25:11 PM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (2) of 28931
 
I Prefer to engage One person at a time. The question was not; Are there more than one way to use the word eternal? Clearly there is. You said I used it in an absurd way and then provided a futuristic (only) interpretation. You were wrong on both counts.

1. I used the word "eternal" correctly and in context.

2. You said that was absurd and then implied that the true meaning pertained only to the future.

I'm not talking past (excuse the pun) you at all, merely holding you to what you said. Unlike you I did not exclude other possible uses of eternal and I don't nor did I deny other uses of the word.

I originally said that all things (including the universe)that have a beginning must also have a cause, unless you want to believe in uncaused effects, aka (spontaneous generation) or eternal (defined as unending) regression of causes. Further, I said if something exists but does not have a cause, then that thing must have the power of self-existence. I equated self-existence with eternality, and even defined my usage in the context of the first statement as "without beginning". Do you see the context? I said there were not many alternatives. Either the universe began to exist and has a cause, or the universe is uncaused and eternal, without beginning and presumably without end.

You said certain "molecules" caused the universe. If that's the case then those molecules must either had a cause themselves or they must be self-existent. Big Bang cosmology tells us very clearly that the universe had a beginning. What is less clear is the origin and catalyst for that beginning. Even if you posit a dimensional jumping of molecules you have the same problem unless you also want to assign that other dimension with other Laws of physics, but then you're into science fiction.


So either put up or shut up. What are the many alternatives to what I have said? Where is the fault in my logic?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News