Broken Circle

It would seem as though you were making fun of eachother for the mere fact that you disagree? Look, ALL of this stuff is theoretical, so there is no right and/or wrong answer, merely possibilities as to what COULD happen. I've said it before, and i'll say it again: We don't know half as much as we like to think we do, and know half as much as we should. It's because of arrogance and an inability to be open minded that keeps particular things to be discovered. My point is, just because two people disagree, doesn't mean that there is necesarily a wrong person (or a right person), and doesn't mean you should automatically disregard what the other person is saying, because for all you know, it could be right. Heck, look at all the people in the past that had actually found something out, or were on the verge of finding something out, yet didn't because everyone automatically shunned them due to their different thinking. Example: 1000 years ago, someone would have called you crazy and wouldn't believe you no matter WHAT you said if you told them that you could fly, or if you told them that you could automate things so people didn't have to do everything (referring to the industrial age). Now, take that perspective (that you were the one disagreeing 1000 years ago), and imagine you got zapped into our modern world. Just as PLATO's theories and such failed after a certain point, i'm sure our current theories as to the way things work will. It just takes people to actually ACCEPT different ways of thinking, and to be open minded. Don't just reject what one says automatically JUST because it contradicts your viewpoints.

Marks of wisdom can come from even the most unlikely sources.

Origin,

Many things that we imagine CAN happen. Many of them HAVE happened or WILL happen. But some things that we imagine can NEVER happen, and no amount of wishful thinking, murky reasoning or technological evolution will allow it. The point of my story was to illustrate the absurdity of denying this fact. I don't reject creation ex nihilo because of some subjective, personal preference. I reject it because it destroys reason and observation as means to understand reality. In this way all creation theories invalidate themselves, and in my book that constitutes a WRONG answer.


JR

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I don't reject creation ex nihilo because of some subjective, personal preference. I reject it because it destroys reason and observation as means to understand reality. In this way all creation theories invalidate themselves, and in my book that constitutes a WRONG answer.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have missed Origin's point. I happen to agree with Origin. I do not state that eternal existance with no initial enception is impossible but I do say IT defies logic.

Whereas the Creation ex nihilo while I can't claim it logical, is at least apparently possible mathematically and that is why I chose to believe that over eternal existance. It remains for us to determine exactly how it is ossible physically but if we ignore that possiblity and don't explore that view we certainly are not likely to learn anything about it.




"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />JRich,

You have missed Origin's point. I happen to agree with Origin. I do not state that eternal existance with no initial enception is impossible but I do say IT defies logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I understand Origin's point, and yours, but I reject it and provide reasons for doing so. However, I would be interested in your disproof of eternal existence.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Whereas the Creation ex nihilo while I can't claim it logical, is at least apparently possible mathematically and that is why I chose to believe that over eternal existance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you can't claim it logical, then you can't claim it mathematical. One depends on the other.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It remains for us to determine exactly how it is ossible physically but if we ignore that possiblity and don't explore that view we certainly are not likely to learn anything about it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You will never find a physical explaination for something that is physically impossible. Even if I am wrong and creation ex nihilo occurs, you will never know it and all attempts to explain and predict phenomena will be for naught. What you simply do not seem to grasp is that creation ex nihilo renders learning about the world impossible.


JR

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I understand Origin's point, and yours, but I reject it and provide reasons for doing so. However, I would be interested in your disproof of eternal existence.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Nothing personal here but you do seem to have a problem with understanding the meaning of words. You did not see me say I rejected eternal existance. I said I found it totally illogical, there is and most likely will never be proof against it since one would have to have existed forever and out live eternity (impossible) to prove otherwise. But there is a matter of continuity.

It does not follow that something may have existed forever without having come into existance. By definition something that exists has been created. If it was never created then it does not exist. You have to alter the meanings of our language to suggest differently.</font id="yellow">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Whereas the Creation ex nihilo while I can't claim it logical, is at least apparently possible mathematically and that is why I chose to believe that over eternal existance.

---

If you can't claim it logical, then you can't claim it mathematical. One depends on the other.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Fine in that case I will say it is very logical, My point is that we certainly have no detailed understanding of the process.</font id="yellow">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>It remains for us to determine exactly how it is possible physically but if we ignore that possiblity and don't explore that view we certainly are not likely to learn anything about it.

---

You will never find a physical explaination for something that is physically impossible.[/b[]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


<font color="yellow">Now you have shifted the burden of "Proof" upon yourself. Lets see your proof. Your are good at making absolute statements. Back them up.</font id="yellow">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Even if I am wrong and creation ex nihilo occurs, you will never know it and all attempts to explain and predict phenomena will be for naught. What you simply do not seem to grasp is that creation ex nihilo renders learning about the world impossible.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">I couldn't disagree more. But assuming that were the case how do you propose that eternal existance without being created is better?</font id="yellow">



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You did not see me say I rejected eternal existance. I said I found it totally illogical, there is and most likely will never be proof against it since one would have to have existed forever and out live eternity (impossible) to prove otherwise. But there is a matter of continuity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Several times now you have said that eternal existence is "logically flawed" but I have seen no logical argument detailing why it is. You are right that it cannot be proved since we can't make an eternal measurement, but most theories are FALSIFIED not proven. There is nothing that says that all true statements are scientifically provable. Creation ex nihilo requires a miracle, even relativists cannot give a clear explanation for the Big Bang other than it happened somehow. I know you like to use your 0 = -1 + 1 analogy but that analogy has some problems. In order to go from one state to another requires the passage of time and nonexistence has no time from which to go to another state. You must appeal to some external agent outside of time and space to get the job done and that is mysticism. The fact that individual events require a "cause" does not logically imply that the totality of events requires a "cause" any more than the fact that there is another number before every number implies that there is a first number.