The issue is time demands change to actually be definable. So god can't be an external constant independent of the universe AND interact with it in any way from within it. Those aren't compatible ideas.
Time is temporary and isn't even real. God exist in Eternity.
God can dream anything He wants to.
So you're saying, let's say, if I were God and I created a simulator, your saying that I couldn't project my conscience in to my simulator via an avatar of some sort, AND interact with my creation, inside my simulator, via this avatar, in any way?
I'm saying that to be more than a story like so often used in the past by folks who use religion for their own purposes as we agreed happens, the theory has to be falsifiable and you should be able to articulate just such an experiment to have done the necessary due diligence to present the theory as you have been so far.
I'm basically asking what you think would prove your theory false that in fact held up under experiment.
I mean, at some point I'm going to have to start wondering how you're using this for gain, either your own or that of someone whose influence you are under. We don't want that, do we?
If it has merit, what's an experiment you would recommend that could prove it false but instead it holds up? Or, is it just a story you find entertaining?
Time is temporary and isn't even real. God exist in Eternity.
God can dream anything He wants to.
So you're saying, let's say, if I were God and I created a simulator, your saying that I couldn't project my conscience in to my simulator via an avatar of some sort, AND interact with my creation, inside my simulator, via this avatar, in any way?
I'm saying that to be more than a story like so often used in the past by folks who use religion for their own purposes as we agreed happens, the theory has to be falsifiable and you should be able to articulate just such an experiment to have done the necessary due diligence to present the theory as you have been so far.
I'm basically asking what you think would prove your theory false that in fact held up under experiment.
No, your honor. In this line of questioning it was asserted:
"The issue is time demands change to actually be definable. So god can't be an external constant independent of the universe AND interact with it in any way from within it. Those aren't compatible ideas."
Do you, honorable sir, acknowledge that you have been shown to be in error in this your assertion?
I'm saying that to be more than a story like so often used in the past by folks who use religion for their own purposes as we agreed happens, the theory has to be falsifiable and you should be able to articulate just such an experiment to have done the necessary due diligence to present the theory as you have been so far.
I'm basically asking what you think would prove your theory false that in fact held up under experiment.
No, your honor. In this line of questioning it was asserted:
"The issue is time demands change to actually be definable. So god can't be an external constant independent of the universe AND interact with it in any way from within it. Those aren't compatible ideas."
Do you, honorable sir, acknowledge that you have been shown to be in error in this your assertion?
Measuring time requires change, and in inverse change defines time. God interacting with someone is change therefore within time. That's not debatable, that's definitional.
So this is just a story you find entertaining then? Or is it, you know, religion?
It is the cause for all life as we know it, all energy, all light, all things.
It is the invisible power of God.
Each of those statements is false.
Well, I'd put that a little differently.
The second statement is (more or less) an attempt to make an assertion about causal relations in the physical world. It bears no relation to the way the scientific community looks at such matters today, based on a long experience of finding testable theories that enable verifiable quantitative predictions to be made and verified by experiment.
For me, the first and third statements make assertions about the entity that Valo designates as 'God'. This entity is not defined in any meaningful way that enables it to play a useful part in talking scientifically about the physical world. So far as I am concerned, therefore, those statements are meaningless, neither true nor false.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
What does that mean, though? What do you believe actually happens when these phases are occurring? If God is acting and not being acted upon, is God not generating gravity if he is in a stat without mass?
When Jesus the Christ was on the Earth was God acting or being acted upon or both? I think both.
I think I can visualise "god" being like quantum matters throughout existence and the idea of changing states. But that would be a different idea of what the word god means.
But also, my concern would be that if God changed state to be within Christ, then what was holding the universe together? Or did this exist in two states at the same time?
No, your honor. In this line of questioning it was asserted:
"The issue is time demands change to actually be definable. So god can't be an external constant independent of the universe AND interact with it in any way from within it. Those aren't compatible ideas."
Do you, honorable sir, acknowledge that you have been shown to be in error in this your assertion?
Measuring time requires change, and in inverse change defines time. God interacting with someone is change therefore within time. That's not debatable, that's definitional.
So this is just a story you find entertaining then? Or is it, you know, religion?
It's your faith that time exist. Prove existence of time first...well?
Second I supplied a hypothetical scenario that overcometh your objections and yet you hang on to them indicating you aren't being sincere and authentic in your inquiries.
Measuring time requires change, and in inverse change defines time. God interacting with someone is change therefore within time. That's not debatable, that's definitional.
So this is just a story you find entertaining then? Or is it, you know, religion?
It's your faith that time exist. Prove existence of time first...well?
You are asking me to prove time exists in contrast to God?
Sure sounds like you have your processes out of order.
Something cannot effect change and be described as outside of time. The difference between states S1 and S2 is effectively how time is described. You can't describe two different states without imposing time.
Second I supplied a hypothetical scenario that overcometh your objections and yet you hang on to them indicating you aren't being sincere and authentic in your inquiries.
Come again? What hypothetical scenario are we talking about? The simulator / avatar example? That doesn't solve the problem. As an outsider to the simulation the observer is still engaging in time as their observation makes them part of the change occuring.
Valo wrote:God exist outside of the Universe. The Ether is "pressurizing" our Universe and is the fundamental cause for all things we observe as our Universe and all it's laws. God is the source of the Ether.
In the spirit of H's observation about folk tales: A witchdoctor and a priest in ancient times meet to discuss what keeps the earth from falling. The witchdoctor insists the earth rides on the back of a turtle. The priest quickly agrees, seeing the witchdoctor is backed by a hundred men with spears and also with shields made of turtle shells. But then he asks, what then keeps the turtle from falling? The witchdoctor is stunned. His first thought is another turtle, but that couldn't be right, he needs something stronger, maybe an ape? The priest considers the ape for a moment. He tells the witchdoctor this is not so, because nothing on earth is stronger than the shell of a turtle. The witchdoctor is quick to nod, but as he does, the priest continues to speak, explaining that the turtle is held up by the power of his god, Uchfaw. The witchdoctor gasps. But seeing the priest is backed by twenty-five men with swords, he admits the proposition at least makes sense. The priest then says to the witchdoctor, come, my new friend, now that we've arrived at the truth, let us trek together with our men to the village yonder and destroy every living thing, for they believe in a great heresy: they believe the earth rides upon the back of a filthy otter.
