C
catholicray
Guest
And every number on an infinite number line would have this exact same property.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
You accepted it in post 51 when I ask whether you are free to stop typing whenever you wish.
You are basically claiming what you believe instead of arguing against what I said.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yep. That was my take originally, too. @Bahman lives!
S
STT
Guest
The universe has a beginning but it will exist forever, infinite future.
J
John_Martin
Guest
Living through an “infinite amount of time”, into an “infinite future” is not infinity; time is never part of infinity, since time is measured, one “moment” at a time per a unit of measure in experience.
Since the beginning, there have been x seconds, y hours, z years. And when a person were to say, this has been an infinity of years, the philosopher would say, "No, only a short time compared to what might be called infinity : 1,298,374,359,298,274.5823 years, not even close to infinity, forward or backward.
In reality, immortality is not “surviv[ing an] infinite amount of time.” Immortality is not participating in time, but is in the experience of “delight” or “joy” as any of you knowing Thomas Aquinas would recognize. It is the place of “operation”, not the place of change, but the place of “rest in operation” of a “perfect” being.
God is “being” itself; if not immortal, then all being would cease, ALL BEING, since all being derives from Being Itself as a gift of participation in being.
John Martin
Since the beginning, there have been x seconds, y hours, z years. And when a person were to say, this has been an infinity of years, the philosopher would say, "No, only a short time compared to what might be called infinity : 1,298,374,359,298,274.5823 years, not even close to infinity, forward or backward.
In reality, immortality is not “surviv[ing an] infinite amount of time.” Immortality is not participating in time, but is in the experience of “delight” or “joy” as any of you knowing Thomas Aquinas would recognize. It is the place of “operation”, not the place of change, but the place of “rest in operation” of a “perfect” being.
God is “being” itself; if not immortal, then all being would cease, ALL BEING, since all being derives from Being Itself as a gift of participation in being.
John Martin
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, I didn’t. I said I’m free to stop typing. I didn’t say that it follows that a chain of causality has been broken. (I’ve just entered into that chain.)
Nope. Of the three points I cited, the first is an error of logic, the second is an affirmation of the claim being made here, and the third is a logical assertion (if God creates, then all of His creation is, by definition, not uncaused).
It also happens to be what I believe, but I’m not making claims based merely on my belief system.
C
catholicray
Guest
Infinity can not logically have a beginning. You’re confusing the number line with infinity. You suggest the following:
1,2,3… infinity
The following is closer
Infinity… -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3…infinity
Then there’s the actual representation
…
…
1,2,3… infinity
The following is closer
Infinity… -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3…infinity
Then there’s the actual representation
…
…
S
STT
Guest
Isn’t typing a chain of causality? Isn’t that you who stop it?
Let’s see if we can agree that we are uncaused cause first.
S
STT
Guest
We are dealing with reality rather that abstract concept. The truth is that the reality has a beginning.
C
catholicray
Guest
Well I have given you all you need good day.
S
STT
Guest
Direct the chain to where? You stop writing.
S
STT
Guest
I can even work with that. So there is a chain of causality which is moving toward an end, in your case completing a sentence, and you redirect that chain. You are clearly not part of the chain of causality otherwise you couldn’t redirect it. You cause something and you are not part of the chain of causality, therefore you are uncaused cause.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You cannot make that claim unless you purport to know what the ‘end’ is. Could it not be what I do, having redirected the chain?
How am I “not part of the chain”, given that I’m – according to your very premise – part of the chain?!?
More to the point: having acted in the chain, how can you claim that my action is ‘uncaused’ by any other cause?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
If it’s him, I just wish he’d admit it. It’s not like we’d think any less of him for it.Yep. That was my take originally, too. @Bahman lives!
If he’s not, then the resemblance is uncanny. Kinda creepy really.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’ve been thinking that, maybe, it’s just that we’re talking to two folks from the same faith tradition. After all… talk to two Catholics, and we’d hope that they take the same theological positions… right?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It’s more than just the ideas, it’s the way they both “defend” them, and completely ignore it when their arguments are shown to be irrational. The structure of their “arguments” is definitely similar though.ProdglArchitect:
I’ve been thinking that, maybe, it’s just that we’re talking to two folks from the same faith tradition. After all… talk to two Catholics, and we’d hope that they take the same theological positions… right?
It’s like they both read “Introduction to Bad Philosophy, with Advanced Avoidance Theory.”
Just uncanny…
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
I don’t know why but I just got to. The man is questioning how free will works within a model that has a predestined end.
I’ve explained the evidence for this before. A working model can be studied if you like by looking at a game called 37.
In this game there are preset rules. Ultimately two players continually add the numbers 1-5 trying to reach 37 or avoid going beyond 37. Given the rules each player is free to pick any number between 1 and 5 throughout gameplay.
Here’s the kicker there is a method by which player one can guarantee the outcome no matter which numbers player 2 selects.
Hence predetermined outcomes do not hinder choice.
I’ve explained the evidence for this before. A working model can be studied if you like by looking at a game called 37.
In this game there are preset rules. Ultimately two players continually add the numbers 1-5 trying to reach 37 or avoid going beyond 37. Given the rules each player is free to pick any number between 1 and 5 throughout gameplay.
Here’s the kicker there is a method by which player one can guarantee the outcome no matter which numbers player 2 selects.
Hence predetermined outcomes do not hinder choice.
S
STT
Guest
The end is where we are aiming to go, walking from home to school for example. End is reaching school for example.
Couldn’t you change your mind and go to cinema instead of school? Of course you can. A decision however requires to do so. I think we can agree on this.Could it not be what I do, having redirected the chain?
You are the one who is following a chain of causality.
That is what a decision about. That is you who decide whenever you want. Otherwise you could claim that you were following a chain of causality and have no responsibility for your action.
The very fact that we can change our minds at any moment we want and do otherwise indicate that we are uncaused cause. Otherwise you were under influence of another thing and change your mind. This means that you were caused to change your mind. This is however is not the case that we are interested on. We are interested in the case that you freely decide to do otherwise, of course this does not happen because of you were caused (this case is excluded when you freely decide), therefore you are uncaused cause when you freely decide.
- Status