I
IWantGod
Guest
I want you to refute the argument in the OP. Expose the flaw in it.Hi Iwant God, what are you looking for? Do you need an existence proof?
Welcome to the forum.
I want you to refute the argument in the OP. Expose the flaw in it.Hi Iwant God, what are you looking for? Do you need an existence proof?
If by eternal you mean infinite in extent, then no it doesnāt disprove the theory. However, the fact that things are changing does disprove the theory. If all possibilities necessarily become actual, there is no reason for any potential possibility to not be actual, and so they would all be actual all at once without change.Well the universe could be eternal,
ā a particle of light.To a photon things never change.
You really donāt understand the science. Address what was quoted from the very same article you provided or admit that you are wrong.You really donāt understand the concept of relativity do you.
ā a particle of light.
When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particleās polarization ā the axis on which it spins ā is either vertical or horizontal.
Photons move from potentiality to actuality. Itās irrelevant if they have particular states when measured or not measured. The idea that it can have the state of being both horizontal and vertical is irrelevant to the fact that it is changing.
Light changes.
There is no case for a contradiction and certainly no case for pseudo-sciences based on a faulty understanding you have of some article you found.You donāt seem to realize that this is only bolstering my case.
So you have chosen to be dishonest. What a shame.Maybe you should try to understand relativity before you take a crack at quantum mechanics.
That doesnāt mean that change is not occurringWhatās actually true for one observer, can be only potentially true for another observer.
That doesnāt mean that change didnāt actually occur for us. Relativity doesnāt changed that.Thus itās not contradictory that for ā God ā everything is actually true, while for us the very same things are only potentially true.
Vatican I condemned modernism. Modernism is inclined to pantheism: God has no reality outside the world.I am pretending to be a Naturalist. This is the best metaphysical theory i can come up with. Please donāt be worried because i am very much a theist. But while i like to think of my self as a religious philosopher or student of theistic philosophy, i see it as part of my responsibility to think of counter arguments to my own beliefs. Thatās the only way you can become stronger.
The theory goes like this.
Hence physical reality as we know it is just the natural out come of possibilities that have become actualised by the nature of existence and does not require an intelligent cause.
- There is an ultimate reality that has no dimensions. A real singularity that has existed for all eternity. In this respect it does not change.
- This being or entity has no intelligence but contains within it all possibilities
- This entities nature is existence. It is pure actuality.
- Because this entity is pure-actuality there is nothing in it that is not actual.
- Because this entity contains all possibilities, and because there is nothing in itās nature that is not actual, it must follow that all possibilities must simultaneously become actual in itās existence.
I donāt know what you disagree with from your post.I disagree. God will not condemn anyone instead they love them. God love ppl whether they are naturalist, or relativism, or anything. Because it is all from Him. And existence is from Him. He even love those truth seeker to find Him in the truth.
I did not mean to argue that ultimate reality is the sum of all actual things. I meant to argue that ultimate reality is the ground of all possibility and that therefore all possibility necessarily becomes actual because nothing that is true of ultimate reality can be said to be not actual.Just because the āultimate realityā that you referred to in the OP contains within itself everything that could ever possibly exist, it doesnāt mean that I canāt experience change. Itās as if Iām experiencing that ā ultimate reality ā one frame at a time.
I think he means your reply is inappropriate for this kind of thread. This thread is exploring a possible natural explanation for existence, but i donāt actually think itās true. Itās just a subject for debate.I donāt know what you disagree with from your post.
This is what it means. The council is stating that they are dogmas of faith.I disagree with anathema. Why should it be anathema?
Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.
āIf anyone,ā Paul wrote to the Galatians, āpreach to you a gospel besides what you have received, let him be anathemaā (Galatians 1:9). Reflecting the Churchās concern to preserve the integrity of faith, the Fathers anathematized heretics in a variety of terms. Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of the devil. Ignatius saw in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin (c. 100-65)and Tertullian (160-220) called their teachings an inspiration of the Evil One. Theophilus compared them to barren and rocky islands on which ships were wrecked, and Origen said they were pirates placing lights on cliffs to lure and destroy vessels in search of refuge. These primitive views were later tempered in language, but the implicit attitudes remained and were crystallized in solemn conciliar decrees. The familiar anathema sit (let him be anathema, or excommunicated) appears to have been first applied to heretics at the Council of Elvira (Spain) in 300-6, and became the standard formula in all the general councils of the Church, as against Arius (256-336) at I Nicaea(325), Nestorius at Ephesus (431), Eutyches at Chalcedon (451) and the Iconoclasts at II Nicaea in 787. (Etym. Greek anathema, thing devoted to evil, curse; and accursed thing or person; from anatithenai, to set up, dedicate.)