03 Aug 13
Originally posted by lemon limeMeh. My response was in regards to your argument that purported to show that time is not a "true" dimension. Your argument sucked, as everyone here can see. Just own up to it like a man and get over it. I'm not sure why you are trying to keep the point alive, since you've already backpedaled, saying that instead you meant that time is not a spatial dimension. But that's just kind of a "No duh!" point, is it not?
[b]You've started with a time during which the board is in existence to "freeze" everything. But, for a typical board which is an impermanent thing, there are times before which and times after which that board exists.
Irrelevant. I was talking about freezing time when the board does exist. Was that not obvious?
If you pick some other ...[text shortened]... balls are only jerking me around or if you really are as dense as you appear to be.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have heard a scientist claim there are more dimensions than that found in space and time. Does anyone know what they might be? Could time be made of more than one dimension like space? Do you think there are spiritual dimensions?
Meh. My response was in regards to your argument that purported to show that time is not a "true" dimension. Your argument sucked, as everyone here can see. Just own up to it like a man and get over it. I'm not sure why you are trying to keep the point alive, since you've already backpedaled, saying that instead you meant that time is not a spatial dimension. But that's just kind of a "No duh!" point, is it not?
The Instructor
15 Aug 13
"an ancient dilemma..."
Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (OP)
Why wouldn't such an individual be content, even happy, with the prospect of eternal separation and being utterly alone?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThanks for dragging us back to the original question by copying and pasting it (again).
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."
Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the o l be content, even happy, with the prospect of eternal separation and being utterly alone?[/b]
I will respond by pasting the most recent post of mine that explains the other options (and that you have not responded to):
Quite simply, No.
And I will explain again why not...
If there were no time dimension in this hypothetical state then I suppose you could only have 2 options. However, terms 'eternal' and 'permanent' are meaningless outside of a time dimension. Also a 'relationship' is something that is dependent on a time dimension.
So without a time dimension, the offer is nonsensical.
With a time dimension, there are two other logical options:
- a temporary relationship
- multiple temporary relationships
Furthermore, we have no evidence that such an entity exists (or could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made).
--- Penguin.
16 Aug 13
Originally posted by Penguin"Furthermore, we have no evidence that such an entity exists (or could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made)." --- Penguin.
Thanks for dragging us back to the original question by copying and pasting it (again).
I will respond by pasting the most recent post of mine that explains the other options (and that you have not responded to):
Quite simply, No.
And I will explain again why not...
If there were no time dimension in this hypothetical state then I suppose you ...[text shortened]... could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made).
--- Penguin.
Faulty premise; flawed logic; wrong conclusion. One temporal comfort: the continual warmth of being in the majority.
16 Aug 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySorry, the point you are responding to there was a side point not relating to the original issue. Your initial (hypothetical) point was 'assuming such an offer has been made by such a being...'. The fact that I don't accept the validity of the hypothetical is irrelevant since it is hypothetical. So I apologise for making that comment and potentially side-tracking the discussion again.
"Furthermore, we have no evidence that such an entity exists (or could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made)." --- Penguin.
Faulty premise; flawed logic; wrong conclusion. One temporal comfort: the continual warmth of being in the majority.
Back to my actual response to the hypothetical:
Quite simply, No.
And I will explain again why not...
If there were no time dimension in this hypothetical state then I suppose you could only have 2 options. However, terms 'eternal' and 'permanent' are meaningless outside of a time dimension. Also a 'relationship' is something that is dependent on a time dimension.
So without a time dimension, the offer is nonsensical.
With a time dimension, there are two other logical options:
- a temporary relationship
- multiple temporary relationships
Do you have a response to this?
--- Penguin.
16 Aug 13
Originally posted by PenguinPenguin, there is a non-hypothetical time dimension; we're living within it. Therefore, permanent relationship continuing into and for eternity may be realized by reason of a singular decision within an individual's temporal life on planet earth. Such an incredible prospect becomes utter and despicable nonsense only to those who reject the possibility, by choice. -Bob
Sorry, the point you are responding to there was a side point not relating to the original issue. Your initial (hypothetical) point was 'assuming such an offer has been made by such a being...'. The fact that I don't accept the validity of the hypothetical is irrelevant since it is hypothetical. So I apologise for making that comment and potentially side-tra ...[text shortened]... ultiple temporary relationships [/i]
Do you have a response to this?
--- Penguin.
17 Aug 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBut that is not what we are discussing. Your op postulated an offer of a permanent relationship and asserted that the only reasonable alternative if such an offer was rejected was a permanent separation. I have given two other logical alternatives and you have failed to explain why they are not feasible.
Penguin, there is a non-hypothetical time dimension; we're living within it. Therefore, permanent relationship continuing into and for eternity may be realized by reason of a singular decision within an individual's temporal life on planet earth. Such an incredible prospect becomes utter and despicable nonsense only to those who reject the possibility, by choice. -Bob
--- Penguin
18 Aug 13
Originally posted by Penguin"With a time dimension, there are two other logical options:
But that is not what we are discussing. Your op postulated an offer of a permanent relationship and asserted that the only reasonable alternative if such an offer was rejected was a permanent separation. I have given two other logical alternatives and you have failed to explain why they are not feasible.
--- Penguin
- a temporary relationship
- multiple temporary relationships" (preceding comments)
On what basis or authority do you presume to rule out:
-a permanent relationship beginning in time
and continuing beyond lifetimes on earth?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI do not and never have ruled out such an option. This should be apparent in my use of the word 'other' when I said:
"With a time dimension, there are two other logical options:
- a temporary relationship
- multiple temporary relationships" (preceding comments)
On what basis or authority do you presume to rule out:
-a permanent relationship beginning in time
and continuing beyond lifetimes on earth?
I have given two other logical alternatives and you have failed to explain why they are not feasible.
It is you who appear to discount these other options when you say (in the OP) that the only alternative we should expect is a permanent separation.
Do you have any justification for discounting the two additional options I have suggested right from the first page? You have certainly not come up with anything in the 27 pages of this thread thus far.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinEternal separation is the only viable alternative because God's Character Attribute of Justice cannot deny itself. His Perfect Integrity gives every human being the opportunity to accept the grace gift of spiritual life and permanent Royal Family relationship by faith alone in Christ alone. Since He's a gentleman, coercion's impossible; human volition is respected.
I do not and never have ruled out such an option. This should be apparent in my use of the word '[b]other' when I said:
I have given two other logical alternatives and you have failed to explain why they are not feasible.
It is you who appear to discount these other options when you say (in the OP) that the only alternative we should ...[text shortened]... e certainly not come up with anything in the 27 pages of this thread thus far.
--- Penguin.[/b]
19 Aug 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIn your OP, you gave a simple hypothetical and asked us if a certain conclusion was 'reasonable'. Since you had to go outside the hypothetical of the OP to justify your conclusion, can we rightly state that no, the OPs conclusion is not reasonable?
Eternal separation is the only viable alternative because God's Character Attribute of Justice cannot deny itself. His Perfect Integrity gives every human being the opportunity to accept the grace gift of spiritual life and permanent Royal Family relationship by faith alone in Christ alone. Since He's a gentleman, coercion's impossible; human volition is respected.
19 Aug 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour OP was this:
Eternal separation is the only viable alternative because God's Character Attribute of Justice cannot deny itself. His Perfect Integrity gives every human being the opportunity to accept the grace gift of spiritual life and permanent Royal Family relationship by faith alone in Christ alone. Since He's a gentleman, coercion's impossible; human volition is respected.
Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments.
Nowhere in there is any of that meaningless waffle you have just come out with. after you accept that there are two other options in the original scenario, then we can go on and discuss these extra 'character attributes' (I think you have been playing too much DnD) and whether they have any bearing on the 4 options.
--- Penguin
19 Aug 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think you need to speak to you dealer: he's giving you the wrong drugs.
Statement/Premise... Thesis... Antithesis... Synthesis... Observations... Tentative Conclusions... New Statement/Premise... Reflection... Agreement/Acceptance or Disagreement/Rejection... Alternative Consequences (immediate and longer term...
Once you are able to write a coherent sentence again, try responding to my point.
Just to remind you, in case your memory has also been addled, I suggested two further options beyond the two options in the OP, both of which should be possible in the hypothetical situation described by the OP.
--- Penguin.
--- Penguin.