Existence

Hi Rahvin, What you wrote is circular reasoning.My claim is for us to exist existence has to have existed eternally.If there had been non-existence there would still be non-existence.Something can not come from nothing.If you believe it can present your argument. But there can be no beginning without somewhere for that beginning to exist.ORYou have a beginning of something from nothing. Yes. I disagree but that does not matter.Please explain to me what time is and how time is determined. Yes you keep telling me that at a point in existence time as we know it began to exist and there is no before that time.You don't mind if I don't take your word for it do you?Since there is such little consensus on what time is could you explain how time as we know it is determined.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

I really don't think there are any possibilities that I have not thought about.

---

Then you admit to intentionally misrepresenting my words. It really is that simple. Either you didn't know of the other possibilities I listed, or you dishonestly decided to pretend that they did not exist.The rest of your post is utterly irrelevant to anything I have said, since nothing I have said relies on a distinction between things which exist as a part of our universe and things which exist "outside" of it.I have established that it is impossible for anything which exists to have brought everything that exists into existence. And for all your thinking you weren't able to work that out by yourself.In fact you haven't even given any reason whatsoever to think that an "existence" as defined in the OP could bring anything into existence.

Bullshit. Now you resort to lying?Lets follow the conversation, shall we? So you see you are talking about existence. So I asked for the theory, for which you responded with the Hawking quote.Here is your response So yes you did equate the two.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi cavediver, But I do understand that you say time did not exist until the universe began to expand and since time did not exist there was no before.I do know that Stephen Hawking said the universe had a beginning. I also know that he created immaginary time which is vertical time in which the universe began to exist.I also know he came up with the instanton which creates an unbounded universe which you go directly to when talking about the BBT even though you do not tell your readers that fact. You made that statement to Son Goku in an earlier thread.So would you like to inform me of how something can begin to exist in or from non-existence?Would you also like to inform me of what time is and how and what determines time as we know it?This is an opportunity to educate the lurkers even if you can't convince me but you will never know unless you try will you?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Time has never not existed. Again, you do not understand. How can the Universe begin to exist in something that is part of that Universe? No, I do not. I very rarely consider an unbounded Universe. You are listening in to conversations so far above your comprehension. It is impossible for you to learn while you still insist on claiming you "understand". Given, by definition, there is no such thing as non-existence, I do not understand your question. Similarly, "begin to exist" is an ill-defined statement as far as the Universe (in its widest sense) or "existence" is concerned. "Time" is used to refer to multiple concepts. For example, time is one of the dimensions of the Universe, differing from the spatial dimensions by its opposite signature in the space-time metric. Time is also a measure of the length of a time-like path through space-time, what we would call from our 3-dimensional perspective as elapsed time. you have no desire to learn, only to gain sound-bites and quote-mines that you can use to prop up your own delusions in a hope to make them sound authoritative. I gave up on you long ago...

You missed the part of the thread where you affirmed that lightning came from the reaction between positron and electron. Something so absurd that anyone knowing how electricity works should have laughed it off. After having been proven wrong, you never recanted your position and prefered to flee the thread. The point of me bringing up is to show that you don't know much about physics and you would do well to learn a bit about it before believing you can contradict the greatest physicians.Moreover, you asking how "all that exists today could be produced from such non-existence" proves that you understood the others' position as well as you understood electricity. They're not saying that everything came from nothing, it's just that there is no "before" the big bang where there could have been either existance or non-existance. Your question doesn't make any sense in the context of their position.Don't be mistaken, I don't take issue with you being ignorant (we all are to some extant). What I dislike is you not having the honesty to aknowledge when you are wrong (making debate with you almost pointless). That's where my agressivity is coming from I guess, but I don't intend to tiptoe around you as long as you don't try to debate honestly.

At least he has an appropriate nick name

I started typing a reply and then encountered a very weird contradiction in your post. On the one hand you say: and then you say It just doesn't add up.It seems like you are trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.The result of this is that I have NO CLUE what your position is.

ICANT's position is that the Bible is inerrant. The rest is apologetic window dressing.He just throws around synonymous translations of Biblical passages that were very clearly never intended to convey any cosmological meaning, mixes it with some actual physics terminology that he doesn't quite understand, and some misquoted and out-of-context quote mines from famous physicists like Hawking.The result is a lot of almost-philosophical mumbo-jumbo apologetic word-salad. He's not trying to find out how the Universe actually works, he's trying to find justification for his existing beliefs - some interpretation of physics and the Bible that allows him to justify what he already believes to be true.

i don't think that's accurate.for instance, he seems to hold that the masoretic text (the basis for damned near every translation ever) is the work of some kind of evil jewish conspiracy to change what the text says with vowels. and that professional translators and hebrew scholars are making up grammatical usage to make hebrew more like english -- also, effectively making every translation inaccurate. that, however, is accurate. he doesn't know the first thing about translation. or hebrew. or probably greek, either. he doesn't understand why his "translations" show about as much comprehension as those of ronald pegg, who found CD-ROMs and time machines in the bible by replacing words with synonyms and ignoring grammar and usage.

---

אָרַח

It's a natural consequence of looking for evidence to support your own pet hypothesis rather than letting the evidence dictate your model of reality. If some combination of synonyms lets him pick a specific English word that carries additional meaning that the original Greek/Hebrew/whatever could never have intended, he can allow himself to continue believing whatever it is that he already believes.He's stuck. He can't change his mind. He can't learn. He can't improve. Every experience that he thinks involves him learning is really just another false epiphany that allows him to go on believing what he already believed in the first place.On the positive side, he functions as an excellent warning on how that mode of thought, seeking confirmation of beliefs rather than forming, modifying and even discarding beliefs based on new evidence, is an intellectual dead end.

You must remember that ICANT's method of understanding the Bible is to insist that it says what he thinks it says and ignore every objection - by his own admission. (Or at least he was doing that and insisting that he was "only trying to understand the Bible").It's not the bible that is inerrant, it's his interpretation, even if it isn't even a vlid interpretation. But that's what so-called "Biblical inerrantists" are like. Pretty much all of them.

you don't have to tell me. have you read my "basic reading of genesis 1:1" thread?there's a reason he began this thread with the statement that:

quote:

---

For this thread Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". is to be accepted as a declarative statement of completed action.

---

...and that's because he knows full well that this is actually a topic of debate, and that the scholarly consensus is that it says no such thing. rather, professional translators, and hebrew professors, and pretty much anyone who speaks hebrew, all seem to agree that it should be a dependent clause that describes the rest of the chapter. he knows that he can't demonstrate this, but he wants to talk about his particular ideology, not the bible. so he just assumes his conclusions.of course, he's accused me of the same thing. but an astute reader of that thread will note that my position actually changed during its course.

---

אָרַח

this was most obvious when he insisted that the authors of the bible wrote at about the level of elementary schoolers -- in reality, he was mixing up his own reading comprehension level with that of how the text was actually written. he thought that because he didn't understand certain facets of grammar, the people who wrote the text must not have used those features.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Hi cavediver, In Message 151 you said. I guess I didn't understand that you silently involked No-Boundary.Would you care to clarify and set me straight.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."