To beat a dead horse

[Logician]

Time seems to be mathematically and scientifically supported in the same way as is space.  In fact, they seem to be "made" of the same thing.

However, the existence of time can be inferred necessarily by the existence/observation of change.

Why does the existance of change necessitate the existance of "time"?

Amount of change is measured as something like {measurement of a certain property}/{time}

For instance, speed (which is a change in position) is measured as {position}/{time}.

Without time, change would be meaningless.

What exactly is time?

<wink>

  1.

        1. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

        2. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.

        3. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

        4. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.

        5. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

  2.

        1. An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles.

        2. times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times.

  3. A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life.

  4.

        1. Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed.

        2. Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf.

        3. A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat?

  5. An appointed or fated moment, especially of death or giving birth: He died before his time. Her time is near.

  6.

        1. One of several instances: knocked three times; addressed Congress for the last time before retirement.

        2. times Used to indicate the number of instances by which something is multiplied or divided: This tree is three times taller than that one. My library is many times smaller than hers.

  7.

        1. One's lifetime.

        2. One's period of greatest activity or engagement.

        3. A person's experience during a specific period or on a certain occasion: had a good time at the party.

  8.

        1. A period of military service.

        2. A period of apprenticeship.

        3. Informal. A prison sentence.

  9.

        1. The customary period of work: hired for full time.

        2. The period spent working.

        3. The hourly pay rate: earned double time on Sundays.

  10. The period during which a radio or television program or commercial is broadcast:

[nebula]

The point I've been hinting at for the last several posts is that classifying it as one or the other does not in any way change what mathematics or calculus is.  You can see how the definition of "invention" applies to mathematics, and you can see how the definition of "discovery" applies to mathematics.  So, some definitions of one fit, and some definitions of the other fit.  Classifying it as one or the other would serve no logical purpose.

But when it comes to God, you do classify Him with your understanding of terms.

See the irrationality of this?

[Logician]

Actually, I said that to be complete means to have no needs or wants, and the assumption that God created the universe would require that God has wants. Therefore a perfect God does not exist.

I may have gotten sloppy and dropped the "want" part a few times though. If I did, I didn't mean to.

39.gif Interesting.

If I understand this correctly, to be "complete" then is at best an impossibility, perhaps even an illusion.

Humans can never be complete because we will always need food and water in order to survive.

Even Bhudda couldn't deny that. laugh.gif

No machine can be "complete" either, because machines need a power source or an operator in order to function, and most machines need to be fixed from time to time.

Dang. I've started an argument of definitions by not precisely defining my terms.

When a person is not lacking anything essential to him/herself (food, water, essential psychological needs, etc...), he/she is complete in that he/she's not lacking something essential to his/her being.

If a machine is lacking electricity, it's lacking something essential to it's being a functioning machine.

The fact that God created the universe showed that he was lacking something essential to his being "God" "before" he did so.

Hmm. Perhaps this argument is better directly from the definition of "perfect."

And some things I learned from child psychology -

It has been found that babies who are given food and water and had their diaper changed as needed but were never held and cuddled and smiled at and sung to, etc., etc., etc. - in other words, were never loved - were unable to live. That is, these babies all died.

Can you cite your source here? I've seen such studies showing that the children were never to love as a child who was loved could, but never any info on children dying from a lack of affection.

If you can't find the source, perhaps you could find the court case where the founders of the study were thrown in the clink for killing babies?

Likewise, it has been found that many people who suffer mental and emotional disorders and/or problems have a root, or the root, in being mistreated or given insufficient love as a baby.

So again, we humans can never be complete because we are born with a need to be loved.

No, if this need is satiated, then we can be complete in the sense that we lack nothing essential to being a human.

If you were to move away from where you are such that you were isolated from your family and any relatives and all your friends, and in this new place lived for a year without having made any new friends there, do you believe you would be as happy as you are now?

Heck yes.

Oh. You mean without an internet connection.

Then, no.

******************************************************************

I know what it is like to be without friends. 12.gif

What's the longest you have ever been lonely?

I would seriously be interesting in hearing how an athiest finds comfort in feeling endlessly alone.

I've always thought of "alone" as a matter of degree.

Though, I've never felt too significantly alone.

Unless you're going on a different definition of "alone."

******************************************************************

OK, so you are saying "complete" means no needs and no wants.

Do you disagree? Then what definition of "complete" allows for this? Or are you stating that the logic itself is invalid?

Edited May 16, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

Hmmm. . . .

Perfect

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.

5b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.

7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

From what I've seen, a literal interpretation of the Bible demands that God is wantless.

Take Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The Greek word for "perfect" here is "telios," whose definition is "Brought to an end, finished, wanting nothing necessary to completeness, perfect" according to Thayer's Greek Lixicon.

I was thinking this might also be an argument of definition, but the Bible is quite clear on the definition of "perfect" and the fact that perfection implies completeness.

You are building your own conclusions here - or the conclusions of what someone else told you that you decided to agree with.

The definition states:

"wanting nothing necessary to completeness"

There is a difference between "wanting nothing" and wanting nothing that is necessary for something else.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

Logician,

Alright then. In that case, I have no reason to continue answering your posts. If you can't offer the simple couresy of providing supporting evidence for your claims, this conversation can go nowhere. In this case, it's no longer an argument, it's a war of empty assertions.

Yeah I kind of thought you would take this route. That moral absolute question pretty well tells the story of where you come from and where you are going. You a-theist guys always have problems with that one.

The supporting evidence for your ignorance is found throughout your long posts and they are represented by unorganized, irrational thought. Probably the most irrational being statements such as,

I believe God doesn't exist because logic seems to dictate that he doesn't

[nebula]

(BTW, I had a bit of trouble getting these two posts to work correctly.  I think I recovered the whole response, but I may have missed something.)

Yeah - and I had a hard time reading this.

Look, I'm in a crunch with stuff that needs to get done, so I really can't be spending time here going in circles arguing over terminology-usage.

Plain and simple: when the Bible refers to the Lord as "perfect," it is referring to His integrity of character. Although "complete" is a description used in one application of the word "perfect," the context in which it is used clearly demonstates that this is not what is being presented. If you don't want to accept this because it kills your argument - tough.

I'm going to be blunt with my feelings, but your arguments agains the existance of God which you have presented are all fallacious.

"An omniscient God couldn't exist because He couldn't know if He didn't know anything."

Give me a break! How would you know if He couldn't know - just because you do not have the capacity to do so?

"If God is perfect, He has no needs or wants and so would have no reason to create the universe and us, and so a perfect God cannot exist."

Well, by your argument there is no such thing as "perfect love" either, because love will always have a need - that is something or someone to love.

Nor could there be a "perfect world" because a perfect world would have the need to stay perfect.

Nor could there be "perfect logic," because if there were no ignorance there would be nothing to logic against, and therefore no need for logic. And if there was nothing to counterbalance logic, how would you know if your logic was indeed logical?

Anyway, that's my closing argument on this case.

Really, sometimes I think philosophers could logic away the existance of their own brains!

[Ovedya]

Really, sometimes I think philosophers could logic away the existance of their own brains!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who says they haven't?

[Logician]

Yup. Actually, I need to spend less time here too. I've got several projects I should be working on, so this'll probably be about the last you guys'll hear of me.

Anyway, the only thing I feel this conversation has left is this:

You say that the definition of "perfect" used in the Bible actually means morally upstanding rather than "complete," and that's why my argument is invalid.

However, my argument is still valid if God is both perfect (as in morally upstanding) and complete.

So, the only question I really have left is: Do you think God is not complete? This would invalidate my argument, but I'm wondering if you're prepared to agree that God is not complete to invalidate my argument.

And, you don't have to back up your answer with anything (in fact, you don't have to answer). A simple yes or no will do.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Logician

[Ovedya]

Yes or no.

[Logician]