eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by knightmeister
So are you saying I should base my logic on experiences outside of time and the universe...that's very interesting. Where else should I get my logic from? I can equally argue that the only reason you find Jesus coming back from the dead 'self evidently illogical' is because you are basing your reasoning on your experiences of events within time and the ...[text shortened]... m nothing (which doesn't prove God) and you won't be sawing...watch out ....timber!!!!!

The problem is actually quite the reverse. You are the one claiming now that Jesus rising from the dead for example is simply someone acting according to rules not of this universe. In that case, you have to prove that some other universe exists, or indeed soemthing outside this universe exists, and that, indeed, Jesus was one such individual.

You're starting to tie yourself in knots man, it's not healthy.

Originally posted by frogstomp
It's only your opinion that everything needs a cause that is your problem with this, you must remember that while the conservation of mass and energy law exists in our universe, at the quantum level and the higher Lie Groups, mass and energy aren't necessarily bound by the laws that govern that which we can measure.
You need to study group theory and the ...[text shortened]... ing the role of your creator.
You don't need a creator to create naturally occuring events!

If you had looked at the heading to the thread you would see that I was talking about eternity and an Uncaused Cause. I'm not as far as a creator. Eternity doesn't have to imply a God or god , there is nothing essentially 'unatheist' about eternity (except in your own mind). As I have said to others who have got twitchy about this idea , I will not jump on you and shout "Aha...I've proved God at last!!" ......... I promise...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The problem is actually quite the reverse. You are the one claiming now that Jesus rising from the dead for example is simply someone acting according to rules not of this universe. In that case, you have to prove that some other universe exists, or indeed soemthing outside this universe exists, and that, indeed, Jesus was one such individual.

You're starting to tie yourself in knots man, it's not healthy.

That wasn't the point I was making and you know it. twhitehead still has to explain what point he is making by saying "the only reason..etc" He talks as if there might be some other reasoning I might use to make rational predictions about the origins of the universe. Unless he can come up with an alternative then all we have left is mysticism (which you guys presumably would discredit). If I sound like I am tied up in knots it's because twhithead got there first. I am simply reflecting his own logic back to him. True , Jesus was a provocative example and I can understand you getting all emotional about it and wanting to 'stop me' from ...(doing what I don't know??!) but I'm not the one implying that it is invalid to draw my reasoning from the known universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
That wasn't the point I was making and you know it. twhitehead still has to explain what point he is making by saying "the only reason..etc" He talks as if there might be some other reasoning I might use to make rational predictions about the origins of the universe. Unless he can come up with an alternative then all we have left is mysticism (which yo 'm not the one implying that it is invalid to draw my reasoning from the known universe.

Actually, by the sound of your posts so far it seems you are saying that you should be able to apply logic to events outside of this universe (and thus outside of causality).

[edit; for example your fascination with a "before" the universe. Science can't investigate that possibility because scientifically it doesn't make sense - before is a time dependant term. That's what I've been trying to get across to you.]

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do we know radioactive decay is unpredictable? Maybe the pattern is so complicated we don't understand it yet. It could easily be caused by something we haven't found yet , it's happened before, lots of times.There's every reason to think that it might happen again.

And yes the laws of logic may only exist in this universe and it may be complet ...[text shortened]... isagree with this assumption , I may be wrong but I am being LOGICALLY wrong if I am

I guess atheists are mystic in that respect. If we reject God, then we assume that there are "uncaused causes" and that the laws of logic and the property of time, need not exist. I agree with you on that. But atheists are not rejecting the existence of God because of some abstraction of the concept of eternity but because they find God completely implausible. They thus theorise on alternatives. If an atheist says that they believe that time may only be a property of this universe its becauase the only other alternative is God. You may take this as faith if you want.

Secondly. at the moment there is no evidence that radioactive decay is not unpredictable. To speculate otherwise is just guesswork.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I guess atheists are mystic in that respect. If we reject God, then we assume that there are "uncaused causes" and that the laws of logic and the property of time, need not exist. I agree with you on that. But atheists are not rejecting the existence of God because of some abstraction of the concept of eternity but because they find God completely implausib ...[text shortened]... vidence that radioactive decay is not unpredictable. To speculate otherwise is just guesswork.

Radioactive decay os not unpredictable. If it were, we'd have atomic weapons self detonating all the time. It follows well-defined rules.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Radioactive decay os not unpredictable. If it were, we'd have atomic weapons self detonating all the time. It follows well-defined rules.

Thats not what I meant. It is impossible to predict when a radioisotope will emit radiation.

And even so, nuclear weapons wouldn't detonate unless there was a nuerton influx. Is that right?

I should really re-read my posts.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you had looked at the heading to the thread you would see that I was talking about eternity and an Uncaused Cause. I'm not as far as a creator. Eternity doesn't have to imply a God or god , there is nothing essentially 'unatheist' about eternity (except in your own mind). As I have said to others who have got twitchy about this idea , I will not jump on you and shout "Aha...I've proved God at last!!" ......... I promise...

Since eternity is :
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.

And since time is:
NOUN: 1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future

combining the two:
eternity is:
A nonspatial continuum in which events occur ,without beginning or end.

events:
the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity.

The last definition ought to show you that you're talking about metaphysical "events" , at least unless you want to begin talking about gauge fields and the possible makeup of a pre-Big Bang universe.AND/OR what's beyond the far reaches of our universe, since it must be inflating into something.
.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Thats not what I meant. It is impossible to predict when a radioisotope will emit radiation.

And even so, nuclear weapons wouldn't detonate unless there was a nuerton influx. Is that right?

I should really re-read my posts.

sorry, i was just responding to that post - i didn't read the previous ones.

I do understand your point though - it's impossible to tell when an individual isotopic atom will decay. It is, however, possible to tell the decay characteristics of a population of decaying atoms.

As for the weapons, they'll detonate if there they reach critical mass. The density isn't high enough in the constructed warhead, but when the pre-ignition detonators go off they compact the nuclear material increasing the density of the fissable material.

Originally posted by frogstomp
... it must be inflating into something.

why?

Good post otherwise though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
why?

Good post otherwise though.

because it has substance and the ability to hold substance is the definition of space

Originally posted by frogstomp
because it has substance and the ability to hold substance is the definition of space

but now you are inferring that something outside the universe exists, which cannot be true if the definition of universe as "everything" holds true.

[edit; it's quite different for matter to expand in to pre-existing space, but not for space to expand into ... well, i don't know what...]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
but now you are inferring that something outside the universe exists, which cannot be true if the definition of universe as "everything" holds true.

[edit; it's quite different for matter to expand in to pre-existing space, but not for space to expand into ... well, i don't know what...]

the universe ( i.e. einstein's relativistic one) has been expanding for about 16 billion years.
I'm using Galileo's revativistic universe as my model into which Einstein's universe is expanding.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, by the sound of your posts so far it seems you are saying that you should be able to apply logic to events outside of this universe (and thus outside of causality).

[edit; for example your fascination with a "before" the universe. Science can't investigate that possibility because scientifically it doesn't make sense - before is a time dependant term. That's what I've been trying to get across to you.]

That's exactly what I'm saying . We either use some of the logic that we have available to us or we don't. If we don't then we have no frame of reference at all to make any assertions and might as well say that the universe balances on the back of a giant hot dog. This is fine if you want to depart from all logic , I would rather not. If you or others want to throw the chess board into the air , go ahead , but don't forget that a lot of your pieces are on there too. t

You make an assumption that events that lie outside of this universe are not subject to causality and yet you have no reason to make this arbitary claim. You also claim that science cannot investigate in this area because it doesn't make sense (to you or science?). This is errant nonsense since science has always been in the business of finding new ways of describing the world in order to penetrate difficult problems. Which word shall I use instead of 'before'.?? Science has never been shy of adapting and using inadequate language to describe problems. It seems my friend I have more faith in science than you do.

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's exactly what I'm saying . We either use some of the logic that we have available to us or we don't. If we don't then we have no frame of reference at all to make any assertions and might as well say that the universe balances on the back of a giant hot dog. This is fine if you want to depart from all logic , I would rather not. If you or others ...[text shortened]... guage to describe problems. It seems my friend I have more faith in science than you do.

bull. You cannot use science to examine something outside of the universe, in the same way we can't use science to investigate whether god exists or not. Logic is based upon things which happen within the universe, if there is anything outside the universe to which logic could possibly apply (i.e. something which exists in time and space), then it'd automatically exist within the universe and be subject to logic.

Stop trying to open this packing case with the crowbar inside it!