Is the "I don't know" argument valid?

[Bruno_Schulz]

**The “I don’t know” argument is not only valid at it’s highest degree, but it’s also the truest answer of human kind, who will NEVER get to the end or the edge of that universe, where “behind” as we learn from Stephen Hawkins and others, open further universes. (they say).

All thoughts, researches and philosophies concerning the origin of the observable universe are useless and don’t make much sense. I adore Hawkins for his witness and strength, and it was most exiting to read his books – until I red:
“….then we would understand the plans of God…” when I put the book away. We will never never know the slightest about Gods intentions, plans and being.

A friend of mine mentioned the following, very thoughtful idea – others might call ridiculous:
What, if our little observable universe is amidst heavens; just like an aquarium in a huge palace. The little fish in there of course think – there’s nothing behind this observable room where we (this earth) this aquarium stands and they’ll think this aquarium is all there is.
At first I laughed about this barmy idea, but – he’s right. We watch those fish and care for them at the outmost, and they don’t even believe we are there, even though they are amidst us.

And besides: We, after we leave earth and enter Gods hemisphere for eternal life with God and in closest vicinity to God, actually seeing God, we will know all this what we’ll never be able to understand by reason here on earth, anyhow.
So, why not frankly say; I DON’T KNOW and stand to it – and wait until we see
Then we’ll have anough time to slap our forehead and say:
OF COURSE!
If we had red the Bible the right and faithful way - we most likely had known.

**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**The “I don’t know” argument is not only valid at it’s highest degree, but it’s also the truest answer of human kind, who will NEVER get to the end or the edge of that universe, where “behind” as we learn from Stephen Hawkins and others, open further universes. (they say).

All thoughts, researches and philosophies concerning the origin of the observable universe are useless and don’t make much sense. I adore Hawkins for his witness and strength, and it was most exiting to read his books – until I red:
“….then we would understand the plans of God…” when I put the book away. We will never never know the slightest about Gods intentions, plans and being.

A friend of mine mentioned the following, very thoughtful idea – others might call ridiculous:
What, if our little observable universe is amidst heavens; just like an aquarium in a huge palace. The little fish in there of course think – there’s nothing behind this observable room where we (this earth) this aquarium stands and they’ll think this aquarium is all there is.
At first I laughed about this barmy idea, but – he’s right. We watch those fish and care for them at the outmost, and they don’t even believe we are there, even though they are amidst us.

And besides: We, after we leave earth and enter Gods hemisphere for eternal life with God and in closest vicinity to God, actually seeing God, we will know all this what we’ll never be able to understand by reason here on earth, anyhow.
So, why not frankly say; I DON’T KNOW and stand to it – and wait until we see
Then we’ll have anough time to slap our forehead and say:
OF COURSE!
If we had red the Bible the right and faithful way - we most likely had known.

**

you are correct sir about the ability to understand the mind of G-d.

however this thread is about the OP, where the assertion is that we have the tools to make a logical, reasonable argument

the fact that a theory has been reasoned by respectable scientists from the evidence of the observable universe leads me to believe that there is no logical reason as to why one should start this chain of events with the ‘big bang’

so in fact “i don’t know” is an answer that is only acceptable in this particular arena. in all other endeavors of cosmology, the available evidence is sufficient to form acceptable theory.

this is logically inconsistent.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Well the “logical reason” why the earth wants to find logical reasons why “everything” started with the ‘big bang’ are obvious.
The world wants “to humanize” God. Only then they can make things logical.
But our LOGIC doesn’t work with God.

All “evidence” that tries to form acceptable theories for the eventual emerge of both earth and mankind, are void from the start.

God’s creation we will NEVER understand. So, forever it’ll remain in the “I don’t know”-status – if we are honest and if we accept the eternally unreachable will, thoughts, plans and intentions of God.
As indeed all eartly pretensions of knowledge concerning our universe are based on speculations without God, they are false!

The “tools” to understand, like faculty of Reason and scientific data about the observable universe, do not and never lead a singe step towards understanding either; the universe nor it’s origin.

But there’s another tool: It’s called The Genesis
This way and by the sacrifice of anthropomorphizing God, which means finally the acceptance of GOD IS, we might easily turn the I DON’T KNOW into a clear WE DO KNOW!
**

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
The only tool necessary is the basic ability to listen to natural law.

Having the Church to listen to, if accessible, is a much better tool, of course.

The only “question” that needs to be considered in this matter is the question of whether one believes that “infinities” are real, or if they’re not real.

To conclude that infinities are real is to believe in anything but God and His creation as being real.

To conclude that infinities are unreal is to believe in God and His creation as being real.

Find me an instance of a real infinity?

brother im just a poor redneck sitting around arguing with folks in my bib overalls. i aint got the first clue what an infinity is, i know what the word means but im not sure what you mean.

you might have to put that in english for me

What I wrote was obviously incomplete in itself, and meant to be provocative, so that people would go “Huh!?”, as you most wisely did, so that I could then have a conversation to explain my blitherings.

You are a scholar and a gentleman, who just happens to be a self-described redneck in bib overalls, which I rather wish that I were, to be more than a little honest.

Anytime anyone gives me the “answer”, which is really only an excuse, that “there is no beginning” to something, or “we can’t really know but it seems to just go on forever”, or “this function just ‘jumps’ over it’s asymptote without ever meeting it while remaining continuous” (you can ignore this example if you like, I do), it is a sign that they are pointing to something related to God but not acknowledging that God has anything to do with the situation.

OK, that was at least as cryptic as the original post, so I’ll try again.

People without God think (very largely) that the universe in one form or another has existed forever and will exist forever. (“Pulsating” or whathaveyou. )

This “infinity” is simply assumed without any supporting evidence from reality. They say they need supporting evidence to believe anything, yet don’t apply that rule to this situation.

There are no infinities in nature. All things in the universe “resolve” to a finite condition. Some people, I’m sure, will argue this, but they’ll have to convince me otherwise.

The point is that when someone invokes an “infinity” they are simply avoiding the question on the table, and playing the “I don’t know” card.

But in any case, they are willing to make their “first axiom” (“that there is no beginning or end”) on pure faith, while claiming that no one else can do that.

There are really only two choices in answering the “How did the universe come to be?” question:

• I don’t know, but it didn’t “come into being” at all.
• I don’t know, but it did come into being.

The one you pick says only that you’re either not willing to take a stand on your principles, or you are, respectively.

(( My head hurts now, so I’m not so sure I want to force this to be more difficult than it actually is, so I think it’s “Guinness time” for this sorry excuse for a filo-soffer. ))

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**Well the “logical reason” why the earth wants to find logical reasons why “everything” started with the ‘big bang’ are obvious.
The world wants “to humanize” God. Only then they can make things logical.
But our LOGIC doesn’t work with God.

All “evidence” that tries to form acceptable theories for the eventual emerge of both earth and mankind, are void from the start.

God’s creation we will NEVER understand. So, forever it’ll remain in the “I don’t know”-status – if we are honest and if we accept the eternally unreachable will, thoughts, plans and intentions of God.
As indeed all eartly pretensions of knowledge concerning our universe are based on speculations without God, they are false!

The “tools” to understand, like faculty of Reason and scientific data about the observable universe, do not and never lead a singe step towards understanding either; the universe nor it’s origin.

But there’s another tool: It’s called The Genesis
This way and by the sacrifice of anthropomorphizing God, which means finally the acceptance of GOD IS**, we might easily turn the I DON’T KNOW into a clear WE DO KNOW!

what?

none of this is germane to the topic of the OP. i think you may be missing the point.
and why are you yelling?

please stay on the topic of the OP

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What I wrote was obviously incomplete in itself, and meant to be provocative, so that people would go “Huh!?”, as you most wisely did, so that I could then have a conversation to explain my blitherings.

You are a scholar and a gentleman, who just happens to be a self-described redneck in bib overalls, which I rather wish that I were, to be more than a little honest.

Anytime anyone gives me the “answer”, which is really only an excuse, that “there is no beginning” to something, or “we can’t really know but it seems to just go on forever”, or “this function just ‘jumps’ over it’s asymptote without ever meeting it while remaining continuous” (you can ignore this example if you like, I do), it is a sign that they are pointing to something related to God but not acknowledging that God has anything to do with the situation.

OK, that was at least as cryptic as the original post, so I’ll try again.

People without God think (very largely) that the universe in one form or another has existed forever and will exist forever. (“Pulsating” or whathaveyou. )

This “infinity” is simply assumed without any supporting evidence from reality. They say they need supporting evidence to believe anything, yet don’t apply that rule to this situation.

There are no infinities in nature. All things in the universe “resolve” to a finite condition. Some people, I’m sure, will argue this, but they’ll have to convince me otherwise.

The point is that when someone invokes an “infinity” they are simply avoiding the question on the table, and playing the “I don’t know” card.

But in any case, they are willing to make their “first axiom” (“that there is no beginning or end”) on pure faith, while claiming that no one else can do that.

There are really only two choices in answering the “How did the universe come to be?” question:

• I don’t know, but it didn’t “come into being” at all.
• I don’t know, but it did come into being.

The one you pick says only that you’re either not willing to take a stand on your principles, or you are, respectively.

(( My head hurts now, so I’m not so sure I want to force this to be more difficult than it actually is, so I think it’s “Guinness time” for this sorry excuse for a filo-soffer. ))

:shamrock2:

oh…

 

[JDaniel]

however this thread is about the OP, where the assertion is that we have the tools to make a logical, reasonable argument

the fact that a theory has been reasoned by respectable scientists from the evidence of the observable universe leads me to believe that there is no logical reason as to why one should start this chain of events with the ‘big bang’

so in fact “i don’t know” is an answer that is only acceptable in this particular arena. in all other endeavors of cosmology, the available evidence is sufficient to form acceptable theory.

this is logically inconsistent.

warp:

If we don’t start with the “big bang” then we must start further back. When we discover that we have no choice but to start further back, we can only come up with various “postulates”. Very interesting.

One “postulate” has already been presented, in an earlier post, on this thread: someone “postulated” that, “energy existed in back of the big bang.” Again, very interesting.

Since it is and can only be a “postulate”, it falls into the deep hole of “I don’t know” as well; actually, more so than does the categorical assertion that “God exists on the back side of the big bang”.

The problem therefore resides behind the big bang, timewise. Now, we have brought in another difficulty: “time”. “Postulate” now that there was no “time” behind the big bang. But, that’s not possible if one understands what “time” is.

Enough for now . . . gotta get my mind around this. Cats, we need your help.

JD

 

[Padilla7921]

The problem therefore resides behind the big bang, timewise. Now, we have brought in another difficulty: “time”. “Postulate” now that there was no “time” behind the big bang. But, that’s not possible if one understands what “time” is.

Time doesn’t exist. It’s a measurement that sorts events using a logical (chronological) system of organization. We see the effects of changes over a series of occurrences (ie, we see people get older every year, where a year is one earth revolution around the sun). However, this is only a measurement, as a true astronomical year is no longer 365 days long; it’s gotten longer over time.

But, I understand what you’re saying. The thing is, there wasn’t any time before the big bang, because if nothing existed, nothing could be measured, organized, sorted, etc.

 

[JDaniel]

Time doesn’t exist. It’s a measurement that sorts events using a logical (chronological) system of organization. We see the effects of changes over a series of occurrences (ie, we see people get older every year, where a year is one earth revolution around the sun). However, this is only a measurement, as a true astronomical year is no longer 365 days long; it’s gotten longer over time.

But, I understand what you’re saying. The thing is, there wasn’t any time before the big bang, because if nothing existed, nothing could be measured, organized, sorted, etc.

Exactly!

Time is the measure of motion. If energy existed it would have had to be at rest for there to be no motion, and no time.

If it was at rest, was it “energy”?

Is “pure energy” energy-at-rest?

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warp:

If we don’t start with the “big bang” then we must start further back. When we discover that we have no choice but to start further back, we can only come up with various “postulates”. Very interesting.

One “postulate” has already been presented, in an earlier post, on this thread: someone “postulated” that, “energy existed in back of the big bang.” Again, very interesting.

Since it is and can only be a “postulate”, it falls into the deep hole of “I don’t know” as well; actually, more so than does the categorical assertion that “God exists on the back side of the big bang”.

The problem therefore resides behind the big bang, timewise. Now, we have brought in another difficulty: “time”. “Postulate” now that there was no “time” behind the big bang. But, that’s not possible if one understands what “time” is.

Enough for now . . . gotta get my mind around this. Cats, we need your help.

JD

let me use you for a punching bag for a minute to see how this tact works

time cannot be told apart from causality in the human mind, that doesn’t mean that causality doesn’t exist apart from time. indeed if there was truly a moment in which no physical laws existed as claimed in the big bang theory, including time, then causes prior to the establishment of the physical laws happened without the “aid” of time. therefore time and causality are separate.

as causality and time are therefore separate there is indeed a “infinite” first cause from which all other causality may flow, that means time is not a problem,

hows that?

now i cant think of an argument that one could make to suggest the universe occurred another way in light of scientific orthodoxy of the big bang

big bang theorists have used observations of the universe in order to reason that a big bang happened, they were not there and had no direct observations, but their conclusions are pretty much accepted as fact.

that would seem to prove my point, there is no reason to make the big bang the first event.

im just meandering and im tired but what about something along those lines.

for me, we exist, thats proof enough, but thats not the point is it? let me know what you think of that

 

[JDaniel]

let me use you for a punching bag for a minute to see how this tact works

Hope I can stand up

time cannot be told apart from causality in the human mind, that doesn’t mean that causality doesn’t exist apart from time. indeed if there was truly a moment in which no physical laws existed as claimed in the big bang theory, including time, then causes prior to the establishment of the physical laws happened without the “aid” of time. therefore time and causality are separate.

However, “time” cannot exist without “causality”. But, you are correct; they are “separate” with an exception. See below:

as causality and time are therefore separate there is indeed a “infinite” first cause from which all other causality may flow, that means time is not a problem,

Can we clean it up a bit and simply say, “Since ‘causality’ exists without ‘time’, there is, indeed, an ‘eternal’ first cause from which successive causality flows”?

now i cant think of an argument that one could make to suggest the universe occurred another way in light of scientific orthodoxy of the big bang

Agreed.

big bang theorists have used observations of the universe in order to reason that a big bang happened, they were not there and had no direct observations, but their conclusions are pretty much accepted as fact.

Agreed.

that would seem to prove my point, there is no reason to make the big bang the first event.

So, in fact, you do have a valid major premise.

for me, we exist, thats proof enough, but thats not the point is it? let me know what you think of that

True, but, it is important to validate each part of your syllogism, in my opinion. This was part one.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

i assert that one has all the tools necessary to come to a reasonable, pragmatic solution concerning the nature of the origins of the observable universe.

to wit

1. their faculty of Reason
2. an observable universe
3. reams of scientific data about the observable universe

Above is your secondary (minor) premise.

one may use these 3 tools to compose and test hypothesis concerning the origin of the observable universe.

Why?

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Above is your secondary (minor) premise.

Why?

JD

so whats everybody do for fun around here when you run out of atheists?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

warp:

If we don’t start with the “big bang” then we must start further back. When we discover that we have no choice but to start further back, we can only come up with various “postulates”. Very interesting.

One “postulate” has already been presented, in an earlier post, on this thread: someone “postulated” that, “energy existed in back of the big bang.” Again, very interesting.

Since it is and can only be a “postulate”, it falls into the deep hole of “I don’t know” as well; actually, more so than does the categorical assertion that “God exists on the back side of the big bang”.

The problem therefore resides behind the big bang, timewise. Now, we have brought in another difficulty: “time”. “Postulate” now that there was no “time” behind the big bang. But, that’s not possible if one understands what “time” is.

Enough for now . . . gotta get my mind around this. Cats, we need your help.

JD

Yeah, OK, I’ll bite… <yoinks!>

Some say our universe is just one “lobe” of many lobes of “proto-matter” (a “stem” aka space-time-energy-matter-continuum) which “bulged” out at the big-bang and will expand for some “proto-time” (the meta “time” that a “stem” “exists” as a “lobe”) [are you tired of the quotation marks yet!?]…

…and which will eventually halt and “unbulge” back into it’s “singularity” where it’s “proto-matter” will be redistributed into other “proto-lobes” [my quotation mark key is wearing out!] and that “proto-lobe” will “bulge” into other “lobes”, each with it’s own big-bang, lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum…

But, all this does is leave us to wonder where all these “proto”-thingies came from!?

Guess what!? They came from God’s creating them! Imagine that!

In whatever angelically (angelico-preternaturally) possibly within-reachable “lobe”, the incarnation will only happen once.

(( I do believe I’m channelling Buckminter Fuller! <gasp!> ))

Here’s a postulate (or “trial scenario” to test):

Let’s say: To the extent that an angel can “get to” any particular piece-of-space in this “big thing” (monstro-verse?) there may be only one incarnation in that “space”.

In other words, if two angels are created such that they can never meet each other, there may be (actually pretty much MUST be although I can’t prove it) two incarnations of God the Son, and no more in those two “spaces” (one in each maximum).

So, however many of these “spaces” are created, or allowed, by God there may (or will) be that many incarnations.

But, how can God the Son be only one person, which necessitates having one body and one soul (as the resurrection stipulates [if “stipulates” is the right word]), and yet have more than one body since He’s been resurrected more than once in at least two of these “angelically delimited spaces”?

He can’t.

So, this whole “oscillating lobes” theory of the “monstro-verse” is abject nonsense, and needs to be purged from the mind with a good dose of high-octane (and preferably Irish) well aged uisce beatha during a good céilí feis!

Sláinte! ← looks like “coffee” but it’s NOT!

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah, OK, I’ll bite… <yoinks!>

Some say our universe is just one “lobe” of many lobes of “proto-matter” (a “stem” aka space-time-energy-matter-continuum) which “bulged” out at the big-bang and will expand for some “proto-time” (the meta “time” that a “stem” “exists” as a “lobe”) [are you tired of the quotation marks yet!?]…

…and which will eventually halt and “unbulge” back into it’s “singularity” where it’s “proto-matter” will be redistributed into other “proto-lobes” [my quotation mark key is wearing out!] and that “proto-lobe” will “bulge” into other “lobes”, each with it’s own big-bang, lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum…

But, all this does is leave us to wonder where all these “proto”-thingies came from!?

Guess what!? They came from God’s creating them! Imagine that!

In whatever angelically (angelico-preternaturally) possibly within-reachable “lobe”, the incarnation will only happen once.

(( I do believe I’m channelling Buckminter Fuller! <gasp!> ))

Here’s a postulate (or “trial scenario” to test):

Let’s say: To the extent that an angel can “get to” any particular piece-of-space in this “big thing” (monstro-verse?) there may be only one incarnation in that “space”.

In other words, if two angels are created such that they can never meet each other, there may be (actually pretty much MUST be although I can’t prove it) two incarnations of God the Son, and no more in those two “spaces” (one in each maximum).

So, however many of these “spaces” are created, or allowed, by God there may (or will) be that many incarnations.

But, how can God the Son be only one person, which necessitates having one body and one soul (as the resurrection stipulates [if “stipulates” is the right word]), and yet have more than one body since He’s been resurrected more than once in at least two of these “angelically delimited spaces”?

He can’t.

So, this whole “oscillating lobes” theory of the “monstro-verse” is abject nonsense, and needs to be purged from the mind with a good dose of high-octane (and preferably Irish) well aged uisce beatha during a good céilí feis!

Sláinte! ← looks like “coffee” but it’s NOT!

:shamrock2:

i swear you crack me up, i want to work on this theory in private, because i think there might be something to it, i just dont have the horse power to flesh it out all by myself.
drop me a line on email so i can run my ideas by you

yeah they argue in circles you know who doesnt answer me much because she cant get me to argue on her terms, she is one-dimensionsl in her thinking, unable to argue outside her bailiwick

it makes me wonder if she is arguing entirely from one class she took or from one book she read. or some small group of those

of course she may be working on some project. but she does stick to that one line as far as i have noticed like she is trying to prove some theory. problem is she keeps running into walls. looks like the theory is simply to shaky to stand.

she is so determined to prove it tho she is providing information that is false prima facie or whatever. it was an insulting moment, but it meant she is getting desperate. pulling bill clintons ‘it depends what the meaning of is, is’

what could be her motivation to argue with people she obvously considers unreasonable or maybe even ignorant.

oh well c ya

 

[JDaniel]

Yeah, OK, I’ll bite… <yoinks!>

Some say our universe is just one “lobe” of many lobes of “proto-matter” (a “stem” aka space-time-energy-matter-continuum) which “bulged” out at the big-bang and will expand for some “proto-time” (the meta “time” that a “stem” “exists” as a “lobe”) [are you tired of the quotation marks yet!?]…

…and which will eventually halt and “unbulge” back into it’s “singularity” where it’s “proto-matter” will be redistributed into other “proto-lobes” [my quotation mark key is wearing out!] and that “proto-lobe” will “bulge” into other “lobes”, each with it’s own big-bang, lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum…

But, all this does is leave us to wonder where all these “proto”-thingies came from!?

Guess what!? They came from God’s creating them! Imagine that!

In whatever angelically (angelico-preternaturally) possibly within-reachable “lobe”, the incarnation will only happen once.

(( I do believe I’m channelling Buckminter Fuller! <gasp!> ))

Here’s a postulate (or “trial scenario” to test):

Let’s say: To the extent that an angel can “get to” any particular piece-of-space in this “big thing” (monstro-verse?) there may be only one incarnation in that “space”.

In other words, if two angels are created such that they can never meet each other, there may be (actually pretty much MUST be although I can’t prove it) two incarnations of God the Son, and no more in those two “spaces” (one in each maximum).

So, however many of these “spaces” are created, or allowed, by God there may (or will) be that many incarnations.

But, how can God the Son be only one person, which necessitates having one body and one soul (as the resurrection stipulates [if “stipulates” is the right word]), and yet have more than one body since He’s been resurrected more than once in at least two of these “angelically delimited spaces”?

He can’t.

So, this whole “oscillating lobes” theory of the “monstro-verse” is abject nonsense, and needs to be purged from the mind with a good dose of high-octane (and preferably Irish) well aged uisce beatha during a good céilí feis!

Sláinte! ← looks like “coffee” but it’s NOT!

:shamrock2:

While I agree that Irish Whiskey should be “Irish” (oh goodness, more quotation marks) Irish Whiskey, I’m not absolutely sure I fully agree with your other conclusion. The thing is: you’re serious!

JD

 

[CatsAndDogs]

it makes me wonder if she is arguing entirely from one class she took or from one book she read. or some small group of those

of course she may be working on some project. but she does stick to that one line as far as i have noticed like she is trying to prove some theory. problem is she keeps running into walls. looks like the theory is simply to shaky to stand.

Well, I must admit that I’m rather a one note piano, one trick pony, one size fits all, don’t vote for “the one”, kinda guy myself, actually.

My answer to everything is “…because God SAID SO!”, which tends to annoy so-called non-believers no end, due to the utter imperviousness of that particular argument.

What these “Don’t give me arguments from Authority!” types don’t seem to “get” is not the supposed rational weakness of arguments from authority, but that the results of what is being argued FROM that authority turns out to be objectively unassailable.

In other words, I may be arguing from what you consider a “weak” rationale, but the suggested course of action dictated BY that “rationale” is simply RIGHT.

Since I know what is right, and they admit that they don’t know what is right but only “what probably/possibly works to achieve the desired result”, they end up needing to prove to me why they’re correct, while I don’t.

When you make someone ELSE have to do work that you don’t have to do, they tend to lose “motivation” to do that work and wander away shaking their head wondering why they stopped to listen to those “know-it-alls” in the first place.

So, why DID, er, DO they “stop by” here in these fori (forums)?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

While I agree that Irish Whiskey should be “Irish” (oh goodness, more quotation marks) Irish Whiskey, I’m not absolutely sure I fully agree with your other conclusion. The thing is: you’re serious!

JD

Yeah. The weak point in the argument is that angels can be limited, by God, to only one “lobe”.

The basic idea is that since any actual “material universe” (aka “lobe”) gets created not for the angels sake, but for “man’s” sake, which fact is what cheesed-off satan in our particular “lobe” (aka “the only lobe” according to me) in the first place by the way, and that in reality even the angels were created for man’s sake, angels are limited to having to “deal with” only a single “instance” of “man”,…

…therefore, if angels can “traverse” ALL the “monstro-verse” * there is only one instance of “man” (namely, US) in the whole shebang (the whole “monstro-verse”),…

…but if the angels can only traverse a single “lobe” then we run into that “God the Son as a person with one soul, a divine nature, and as many other ‘man natures’ (implying eventually glorified bodies) that there are incarnations” problem. How can God the Son have multiple glorified bodies?

So, unless we redefine “man”, as God the Son is “fully man”, as a person with ONE soul and ONE OR MORE bodies, we can’t have God the Son being incarnated more than once!

So, the “monstro-verse” idea seems to fail unless God the Son is allowed multiple glorified bodies in some mysterious way.

The monstro-verse idea doesn’t pass MY smell-test, but then no one cares about my olfactory discriminatory abilities.

Where’s me Jameson, mo chroi?

:shamrock2:*

 

[JDaniel]

Yeah. The weak point in the argument is that angels can be limited, by God, to only one “lobe”.

The basic idea is that since any actual “material universe” (aka “lobe”) gets created not for the angels sake, but for “man’s” sake, which fact is what cheesed-off satan in our particular “lobe” (aka “the only lobe” according to me) in the first place by the way, and that in reality even the angels were created for man’s sake, angels are limited to having to “deal with” only a single “instance” of “man”,…

…therefore, if angels can “traverse” ALL the “monstro-verse” * there is only one instance of “man” (namely, US) in the whole shebang (the whole “monstro-verse”),…

…but if the angels can only traverse a single “lobe” then we run into that “God the Son as a person with one soul, a divine nature, and as many other ‘man natures’ (implying eventually glorified bodies) that there are incarnations” problem. How can God the Son have multiple glorified bodies?

So, unless we redefine “man”, as God the Son is* “fully man”, as a person with ONE soul and ONE OR MORE bodies, we can’t have God the Son being incarnated more than once!

So, the “monstro-verse” idea seems to fail unless God the Son is allowed multiple glorified bodies in some mysterious way.

The monstro-verse idea doesn’t pass MY smell-test, but then no one cares about my olfactory discriminatory abilities.

Where’s me Jameson, mo chroi?

:shamrock2:

I believe you have precisely defined the difficulty. Except, you - purposely, I think - left out one very important aspect of the subject on the table.

And, you’ve done this at the peril of your STEM in the afterlife.

You have not addressed other dementia (hopefully that is the plural for more than one dimension). Perhaps there are more “lobes” in other dementia?

We can work this out a little later, after some appropriate libation. (Are we allowed to say that? Ish!)

Here is a work we must do post haste, as we have left a trail of many minds infected (infused) with the knowledge that God IS, but, without the fortitude to throw off condescension and embrace it.

I have, of late, found myself in a deep, depressive guilt funk over this. Are we guilty of jeopardizing their immortal souls on these fori (I don’t care if that’s correct or not; you said it, so, how bad could it be?)?

JD

 

[Sideline]

You have not addressed other dementia (hopefully that is the plural for more than one dimension). Perhaps there are more “lobes” in other dementia?

Dimensions. It’s remarkable how many words can be made plural by simply adding an “s”.

Sorry, this is a lot off topic, but why are so many people convinced that English is constructed the same way as Latin?

Even if it really made plural in the Latin way, it would be “dimensia”… which it isn’t. “Dementia” means the loss of brain function due to neural damage. Not what I imagine you were going for there.