The Final Stage of Creation

[JimL]

how can something be fixed at the "instant" of creation, since that instant is just one instant in the timeline of the universe? Your question makes no sense. If you mean from an external view, then it still makes no sense because how can you have an "instant" external to time itself?

Well then make up your mind Sparko. Being external to time doesn't mean that you can see a time that doesn't yet exist. If only half of time has been recorded, then being outside of it doesn't magically allow you to see the unrecorded second half. If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist whether you are outside of it or not.

No analogy is perfect, JimL, so you trying to pick apart the DVD analogy based on the fact that it was recorded in time itself, is just baseless and irrelevant to the point I was making. Try harder.

I don't need to pick it apart as if it had any sense to it in the first place, it doesn't. The point you are trying to make is pointless. Surely you must have a logical analogy or explanation for that which you believe.

Like I said, it is useless to discuss this with you because you just can't grasp the concepts nor the terminology. I am done here for now.

Thats what we call ironic Sparko. You are trying to make sense of the nonsensical, but you can't do it so you blame it on the fact that there is just no perfect way to explain it, no perfect analogy. If you can't explain something simply and clearly, then you probably have no idea what you are talking about.

[37818]

But both omniscience and limited omniscience are true simultaneously. But do not occur simultaneously.

Analogous to QM where a photon is both a wave and a particle. But not observed as such at the same time.

Omniscience is impossible from a finite perspective. A cause is always finite. God is the uncaused cause. God being uncaused is so being omniscient. But as a cause is not omniscient in any finite way. Now an uncaused cause is both infinite being eternal uncaused and finite being temporal cause.

I guess this is beyond your personal comprehension.

Infinite eternal omniscient. Finite temporal not omniscient. An uncaused cause.

Scriptural quotes are only useful for those who believe them to be more than folk tales about myth and magic.

[Tassman]

But both omniscience and limited omniscience are true simultaneously. But do not occur simultaneously.

Analogous to QM where a photon is both a wave and a particle. But not observed as such at the same time.

Omniscience is impossible from a finite perspective. A cause is always finite. God is the uncaused cause. God being uncaused is so being omniscient. But as a cause is not omniscient in any finite way. Now an uncaused cause is both infinite being eternal uncaused and finite being temporal cause.

I guess this is beyond your personal comprehension.

So patronising!

Infinite eternal omniscient. Finite temporal not omniscient. An uncaused cause.

is

[JimL]

If the son is how god appeared to men then why did the son say "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." Apparently Jesus didn't believe in that trinity nonsense either.

Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.

[37818]

Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.

Only because you really do not believe in order to be able to correctly understand those texts.
". . .No man hath seen God at any time; . . ."
Jesus claimed, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . ." -- John 14: 6, 9.
". . . And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . ." -- Genesis 12:7 (John 8:56, 58).
Add to this that when Jesus became a man, He as a man was also not God (Mark 15:34).

[37818]

If the son is how god appeared to men then why did the son say "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." Apparently Jesus didn't believe in that trinity nonsense either.

BTW, You quoted yourself and gave me credit for what you yourself had argued.

. . .

The reaason Jesus said what He did was two fold. First off, all men are sinners (Romans 3:10). And Jesus was really a man. And the only way He as man could be good was to be God (Mark 10:18). Jesus in the incarnation was both God and man.

[Kbertsche]

Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.

And the two-slit experiment contradicts the idea that light is composed of particles. Someone came up with the silly idea of quantum mechanics to turn light into particles.

(If you approached God's world as naively and simplistically as you approach God's word, you would conclude that modern science is full of contradictions, too. It is easy to argue for contradictions if you don't think deeply enough.)

[37818]

I said:

But do not occur simultaneously.

Like in QM it remains true that photons act both as a particle and a wave. So it is the Son of God who is both infinite God and even now in the incarnation is finite man. Infinite God is always omniscient. All finite entitys are not omniscient. A cause as a cause is always finite.


The observed occurance does not exist at the same time. Yet until observed both are true.



There is the physical and non physical knowledge. The latter being called metaphysics. There is reason to believe in "uncaused cause." An infinite regress of causes with no first cause. The regress if it has no cause it would be an uncaused regress[cause]. A regress is still contingent on having uncaused exstence. It is inescapable, there is an uncaused existence.

is

You are not getting it. There has to be an uncaused existence. And the true God's identity is that uncaused existence. Else there is no God. Yet that uncaused existence is the identity of the "Self Existent."

Under the B Theory of time the flow of time is an illusion and the past, present and future are equally real, and time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality and that therefore free-will is an illusion too.

The fact is there is for us only the now and the immediate past and the distant pasts. The future is always yet to happen. And that is from our finite perspective.

[Tassman]

I said:
Like in QM it remains true that photons act both as a particle and a wave. So it is the Son of God who is both infinite God and even now in the incarnation is finite man. Infinite God is always omniscient. All finite entitys are not omniscient. A cause as a cause is always finite.


The observed occurance does not exist at the same time. Yet until observed both are true.

The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true. People, including Jesus, inhabit the latter world.

There is the physical and non physical knowledge. The latter being called metaphysics. There is reason to believe in "uncaused cause." An infinite regress of causes with no first cause. The regress if it has no cause it would be an uncaused regress[cause]. A regress is still contingent on having uncaused exstence. It is inescapable, there is an uncaused existence.

A sound metaphysical argument depends entirely on the factual accuracy of its premises and only science is capable of verifying empirical facts.

You are not getting it. There has to be an uncaused existence. And the true God's identity is that uncaused existence. Else there is no God. Yet that uncaused existence is the identity of the "Self Existent."

The fact is there is for us only the now and the immediate past and the distant pasts. The future is always yet to happen. And that is from our finite perspective.

No there does not, for the reasons already given. And even if this was

[37818]

The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true.

That an entity would have two counter intuitive natures. Christianity holds that this Jesus being the Christ who is both a man [which is finite and not God] and God [infinite, invisible, omniscient], being the Son of God in the flesh. One person having two counter intuitive natures.

People, including Jesus, inhabit the latter world.

An that now this physcal man inhabits the transcendent heaven of the heavens.

A sound metaphysical argument depends entirely on the factual accuracy of its premises and only science is capable of verifying empirical facts.

And if what is actually true is unacceptable to your preconceived notions. You can do nothing else but reject what is actually true.

No there does not, for the reasons already given. And even if this was

Ultimately you have to end up with what is uncaused. There is not nothingness - therefore there is existence. Now you do not want there to be a God, that is a choice. But what ever the Uncaused Existence consists - it defines all caused existence.

Note: space is invisible. There are things we see. It is by the things we see by which we perceive this invisible space. Space is a type of existence. And things in it are not the space. And of course, space is not God.

[Kbertsche]

The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true.

Generally true, but not absolutely. There are lots of situations where quantum physics gives rise to macroscopic effects. E.g. quantum-based electronic components which are used in electronic circuits.

[Tassman]

That an entity would have two counter intuitive natures. Christianity holds that this Jesus being the Christ who is both a man [which is finite and not God] and God [infinite, invisible, omniscient], being the Son of God in the flesh. One person having two counter intuitive natures.

An that now this physcal man inhabits the transcendent heaven of the heavens.

And if what is actually true is unacceptable to your preconceived notions. You can do nothing else but reject what is actually true.

That has nothing to do with the premises of metaphysical arguments being dependent on verifiable facts, which only science can provide.

Ultimately you have to end up with what is uncaused. There is not nothingness - therefore there is existence. Now you do not want there to be a God, that is a choice. But what ever the Uncaused Existence consists - it defines all caused existence.

Note: space is invisible. There are things we see. It is by the things we see by which we perceive this invisible space. Space is a type of existence. And things in it are not the space. And of course, space is not God.

No you do not have to end up with what is uncaused.

[37818]

Saying an explanation is "is contradictory nonsense" does not make that so.



For the record, what is it you want for "substantive evidence?"

That has nothing to do with the premises of metaphysical arguments being dependent on verifiable facts, which only science can provide.

Which metaphyical premises are you alluding to? Metaphysics as primarily to do with the non-empirical, where as verifiable facts from science primarily has to do with the empirical.

No you do not have to end up with what is uncaused.

Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.

[shunyadragon]

Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.

What is an 'infinite set cause'?

[Tassman]

Saying an explanation is "is contradictory nonsense" does not make that so.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union states that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is clearly contradictory. The same sort of contradiction applies to the Trinity.

For the record, what is it you want for "substantive evidence?"

You need to support your claim that Jesus the

Which metaphyical premises are you alluding to? Metaphysics as primarily to do with the non-empirical, where as verifiable facts from science primarily has to do with the empirical.

Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it...i.e. the nature of physical beings inhabiting the physical world. This puts it in the realm of science.

Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.