Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (9509)	11/7/2010 3:35:25 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I am politely asking you to stop being an ass and to clarify your premises. For 2500 years the definition of "universe" has remained as "the totality of everything that exists". This traditionally included time and space as they were thought to "exist". Although the science on time and space is mostly speculation, modern views, nevertheless, support the idea that they are contained within the universe and are being created by the expansion of the universe. Obviously, having a good faith discussion on issues such as this requires that people act in good faith to define their terms and avoid intentional obfuscation and obstructionism. I have asked you repeatedly whether you mean that "everything" includes the universe--because you pointedly copied the word "everything" from Lane's major premise instead of using the more natural word "universe"--which in any definition I have ever seen means "the totality of all that exists". So answer the question, please. Obviously, I need to know whether you consider "everything" and the "universe" to be synonymous as a set--as scientists and philosophers have defined them for 2500 years--or if you have developed a new definition for universe?? Because stating that "everything that has a beginning has an antecedent cause" is either entirely gratuitous or it is qualifying the term "everything" as being either more or less than the universe rather than exactly the totality of the universe. If you believe in your "argument", you will be happy to clarify with a simple yes or no whether or not "everything" includes the universe. I have not refused any questions from you for clarification--nor would I. What possible reason could you have for niggling?? I did not expect you to debate in good faith even with free premises and Lane to cuddle you through what you are entirely clueless about. The purpose of the clarification, once again, is to understand exactly how you are using the words "everything" and "universe". Is the "universe" still the totality of ALL that EXISTS as it always was (and still is) considered to be?? Or do you wish to apply a new definition in order to contrive an argument?? Just let us know, kiddo. Craig's Major Premise: Everything that has a beginning has an antecedent cause. Lane's Minor premise: The universe had a beginning. Conclusion: The Universe has an antecedent cause.