22 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe Theory of Relativity, if it is false, can be proved to be false. All you need is one reproducible measurement that disagrees with the theory.
LOL, yea right, next time someone asks me to prove God I'll think of you.
Kelly
Christians are never willing to describe God in enough detail that his existence could be disproven even in principle.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dottewellTake two points exactly one mile apart.
You're missing the point again.
Take two points exactly one mile apart.
Is there - "objectively" - a distance between them?
Is there - "objectively" - a distance between them?
Of course , the distance between them is not a matter of opinion at all . It is not a subjective thing (such as whether a woman is beautiful or not) , but as you say an objective fact. It is an objective fact that the concept of santa claus exists. However , being an objective fact is no guarantee of existing. There is a difference between a concept that is objectively true and an object that objectively exists.
I have said and am continuing to say that a mile (like time) is not an object that exists in the external world . It has no substance . How objective the concept of the mile is makes no difference at all , it is still no less or more substantial than beauty or father Christmas.
22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Christians are never willing to describe God in enough detail that his existence could be disproven even in principle." Thousand young
The Theory of Relativity, if it is false, can be proved to be false. All you need is one reproducible measurement that disagrees with the theory.
Christians are never willing to describe God in enough detail that his existence could be disproven even in principle.
That's funny that's the way I feel about Atheists and time......
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterRight. So there is a distance between them. And you say this is an "objective fact".
...the distance between them is not a matter of opinion at all. It is not a subjective thing (such as whether a woman is beautiful or not), but as you say an objective fact.
I have said and am continuing to say that a mile (like time) is not an object that exists in the external world.
Lets call the points A and B.
Now it seems reasonable to say that A has the property of being a certain distance from B. And if the distance between them is an "objective fact", then surely this property is a property of A - i.e. of a thing in the universe - rather than what you've been calling a "conceptual property", or "something that exists only in the mind".
Now of course we can measure things in different ways, and in a sense "mile", "kilometre" and so on are arbitrary human divisions and not something we stumbled open pre-existing in nature. That's not in dispute.
But once a mile is defined, if A and B are a mile apart then "being a mile from B" is a property of A, not simply something "in the mind".
No one is saying that a mile is a thing that exists in the universe in the same way as a cow, a pen or a truck. But that doesn't mean you can conclude that it a thing that exists simply in the mind. That's a basic category mistake.
As I said at the beginning, the best way of putting is would be that "being a mile long" (etc.) is a property - one that you might call "objective" - of something that exists "objectively" in the world (a piece of land, a stream, or whatever).
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime is DEFINED as a dimension. That doesn't MAKE it a dimension. There is a big differance. For instance, what if the universe was being drawn through some higher dimensional sieve and it dissolves before and behind the sieve, we think time must exist because we REMEMBER stuff in the past, we see signs of past activity but that doesn't actually PROVE there was a past, it just shows there is process that leaves marks but does not have to come from actual past time. It could like the sieve was a machine like an extrusion machine that continuously blows out goo into some shape. Most of those kind of machines cut off measured pieces of whatever, wire, tubes for antennae, etc. That could be the equivalent of destroying the past in the real world. So we could exist on the constantly changing cusp of what we view as 'now' and if we look 'up' in time, the universe there has been cut up, destroyed or whatever, not there any more and looking 'down', back in time, the material that makes up our universe may not have been anything like what we call baryonic matter or even dark energy or all the rest, could have been peanut butter being drawn into the sieve and forming into our universe in real time, like RIGHT now, oops, now that's in the past. Get the main concept here?
Time is a dimension. If you cant seem to understand that concept.
Time is as essential to the concept of existence as any other dimension. Matter or other forms of energy do not somehow have 'more existence' nor are they 'more essential' to the concept of existence than dimensions. It is not a matter of 'faith' as you claim nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you get ridiculed for you faith in God.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by dottewellNo one is saying that a mile is a thing that exists in the universe in the same way as a cow, a pen or a truck. But that doesn't mean you can conclude that it a thing that exists simply in the mind. That's a basic category mistake. DOTTY
Right. So there is a distance between them. And you say this is an "objective fact".
Lets call the points A and B.
Now it seems reasonable to say that A has the property of being a certain distance from B. And if the distance between them is an "objective fact", then surely this property is a property of A - i.e. of a thing in the universe - r ...[text shortened]... s "objectively" in the world (a piece of land, a stream, or whatever).
Ok, So at last you have admitted that a mile is not a thing that exists in the universe. Good . So if it is not a thing that exists in the universe then where else is there to look for it? You have only one conclusion left to follow. If you then say it is not a concept of the mind , then you have to place it back in the universe again , which you have ruled out.
You have failed to grasp that something being an objective factual concept does not make it a "thing" by neccesity.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterTime is not described specifically by atheists or a concept used specifically by atheists. Time is described in many scientific theory's. Are you trying to imply that science is atheistic in nature?
"Christians are never willing to describe God in enough detail that his existence could be disproven even in principle." Thousand young
That's funny that's the way I feel about Atheists and time......
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo you maintain that the mind and the universe are somehow separate?
Ok, So at last you have admitted that a mile is not a thing that exists in the universe. Good . So if it is not a thing that exists in the universe then where else is there to look for it? You have only one conclusion left to follow. If you then say it is not a concept of the mind , then you have to place it back in the universe again , which you have ruled out..
23 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister"A mile is not a thing that exists in the universe. So if it is not a thing that exists in the universe then where else is there to look for it?"
No one is saying that a mile is a thing that exists in the universe in the same way as a cow, a pen or a truck. But that doesn't mean you can conclude that it a thing that exists simply in the mind. That's a basic category mistake. DOTTY
Ok, So at last you have admitted that a mile is not a thing that exists in the universe. Good . So if it is not ...[text shortened]... that something being an objective factual concept does not make it a "thing" by neccesity.
Jesus wept.
Look, for the last time. A mile - in the completely abstract sense - should not be thought of as a "thing" that exists anywhere, in the universe or in the mind. But the property of being (for example) a mile long is a PROPERTY OF OBJECTS IN THE WORLD. It is what YOU would call an OBJECTIVE property.
In other words - if a piece of land is a mile long then that is a property of that land; it is a property that is not dependent on the contents of your mind, or my mind, or anyone else's mind.
You are being confused by the fact "mile" is a noun. But that doesn't mean it is a "thing" like a truck, or a tree. That's simply a trick of grammar.
Now please, instead of trying to implicate me in your confusion, address the point:
You've said that you think properties like "being a mile long" exist only in the mind. But you accept the distance between two points is an "objective" fact. That seems utterly inconsistent.
Really, this shouldn't be difficult to grasp.
23 Feb 07
3 edits
Originally posted by dottewellBecause there was no distance at all
"A mile is not a thing that exists in the universe. So if it is not a thing that exists in the universe then where else is there to look for it?"
Jesus wept.
Look, for the last time. A mile - in the completely abstract sense - should not be thought of as a "thing" that exists anywhere, in the universe or in the mind. But the property of bein eems utterly inconsistent.
Really, this shouldn't be difficult to grasp.[/b]
between this doorframe and that doorframe,
but only in my empty mind,
I walked headfirst into the wall—
between the between I cannot find,
and I give grammar all the blame...
______________________________
So where does ‘where’ come from anyway?
And what was then, before the ‘when’?
And which comes first, the night or day?
Or do they each precede the other,
and on and on, again, again... ?
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by vistesdI walked a mile in my head
Because there was no distance at all
between this doorframe and that doorframe,
but only in my empty mind,
I walked headfirst into the wall—
between the between I cannot find,
and I give grammar all the blame...
______________________________
So where does ‘where’ come from anyway?
And what was then, before the ‘when’?
And which comes first, the night or day?
Or do they each precede the other,
and on and on, again and again... ?
My brain was squashed
And now I'm dead.