Time - for an IQ Test

[cassini]

I understand what you are trying to say here but really your comparision is apples to oranges.

What you list here is the Church making a statement on science. The Church is only infallible on statements on Faith and Morals. Creation Ex Nihilo is such a statement and not science. There is no way science can prove or disprove such a thing.

I stand by the Church’s Teaching in this matter and it is infalliblly stated in Vatican I. James is playing the personal interpretation game and decided that “The World” in the decree does not mean the universe but only the Earth. He interprets to meet what he already thinks rather than taking what the Church says, as the Church says it, and then evaluate what he thinks. He is working backwards. Taking what he thinks then looking at what the Church says and looking for a way out to match his thinking. This is intellectually dishonest as it comes out to be that he is not evaluating what the Church is saying but what he is interpreting the Church as saying.

He is having the same issue with Prometheus1974 on factual issues of science too.

He is taking what he wants to be true and working backwards from that.

My “conversion” was mostly on the intellectual level, the spiritual came much later, but I was open to what the Church was saying as it said it rather than trying to interpret it in light of what I believed.

Here we go again. One sentence in and I begin to wonder if it is worth even trying to argue with 250 years of this denial. One sentence is enough to show the farce that is the Galileo U-turn.

**‘What you list here is the Church making a statement on science. The Church is only infallible on statements on Faith and Morals.’ **

Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini 1615:
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world. Here then is one of those made out by the new Copernican Catholics to an ignorance that is hard to believe. .

Pope Urban VIII’s Special Commission:
‘Our commission, too, was motivated by very serious concerns of a theological nature, for the pope reveals its existence to the Florentine Ambassador Niccolini on Sept 4, 1632, he will justify his decision by saying that **“it was a matter of the most perverse material that one could ever have in one’s hands… doctrine perverse to an extreme degree.” **— Pietro Redondi: Galileo Heretic, Penguin Books, 1983, p.245.

The special commission set up to investigate and examine Galileo was made up of three of the most eminent theologians of the time. The first was Pope Urban VIII’s personal theologian, Monsignor Agostino Oreggi, an ex-pupil of Cardinal Bellarmine’s and a consultant to the Inquisition or Holy Office. The second investigator was also chosen because he too was ‘a pope’s man’, Fr Zaccaria Pasqualigo, a brilliant professor of theology. The third commissioner chosen was a Jesuit, Fr Melchoir Inchofer S.J., Professor of Theology at the Spanish University at Messina who was not only a theologian but had a fair knowledge of astronomy and mathematics as a reading of the Dialogue demanded.

What we see in the post above is but another who tries to suggest that Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VII and the greatest theologians in the Church at the time, theologians like those of the special commission, didn’t know the difference between what was of faith and morals and what was science. In other words Byzcath, you suggest in their ignorance they defined and declared a matter of science FORMAL HERESY. Wow, that really shows those Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 were the idiots you and Vatican II and John Paul II make them out to be. Using a papal decree to make a statement on science by calling it formal heresy that could lead to one’s eternal damnation. Boy, who would want to be part of an organisation that would try to send one to HELL for making a scientific mistake…

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t recall you asking me to define anything, but if I overlooked it, I apologize.

Relative change == change relative to another change or with respect to another change; change measured by comparing its degree to the degree of change in something else. ex; “The flower opening took only 3 revolutions of the minute hand on my watch.”

That is exactly the same as saying, "Relative length == length relative to another length or with respect to another length; length measured by comparing its degree to the degree of length of something else.

Of course, to the extent that we measure by comparison, still, your definition of “relative change” as “relative change” is circular, despite your example. If, instead of numbering time according to the revolutions of our Earth, we measured time by the revolutions of the planet Mercury - and that is how we structured our clocks - we would have a very different concept of what time it is if asked.

You are saying, then, that “change” is “relative” to “change.” Therefore, time jumps from change to change. That would mean that time does not flow forward contiguously, and continuously, by the flow of the now, without stoppage or interruption, but rather, must interrupt itself and stop and then re-start, at each beginning of the smallest parts of time, somehow re-evaluating the next “smallest period of time” for speed and duration, according, I guess, to what thing is next to be changed or in motion?

According to your logic, God did not INTEND creation. It just blurted itself out the moment God came to be - however God coming to be might have occurred. Perhaps some even higher power than God caused it to blurt out.

But we could extend that same thought even further; “The more omnipotent (and especially omnipresent) a being is, the less motion it has to take in order to accomplish anything. A perfectly omnipotent being would not need to move at all to create an entire universe.”

So, you are saying that some quantity or kind of motion will be part of an omnipotent being’s ability to accomplish anything? And that, omnipotence and omnipresence, as properties of God, only inure to Him by degrees?

Such is the case with God. God did not “roll over after a long nap and decide to create the universe”.

Absurd and childish.

God takes ZERO time (zero change) to make a decision to cause something.

Once again, if you could just understand that time =/= change - they are not tautologous - but is simply correlative with it, you could better understand how change makes itself apparent to us, but, is not needed to be apparent to Him.

What would God have to ponder? The decisions and thus actions are necessarily instantaneous.

Unfortunately, again you are using the words and concepts of “time” to describe and define what God’s understanding, capabilities and properties are. I am attempting to define “time,” but not how God has to operate with time as part of His creation.

What makes you think God stood around for most of eternity twiddling his thumbs before changing/doing anything?

Where did I say, or infer, that? Where does it say that God is correlative with His beginning?

God bless,

jd

 

[NowAgnostic]

This thread has been majorly hijacked.

Maybe because the main topic is obvious. The statement “time always existed” is a tautology; it is analytic. For the meaning of “always” is “for all time”.

Nevertheless, here is a more elaborate description which (I hope) all theists should agree with (except for the existentialists).

1. Except for God, who is pure act, and for whom essence is equivalent to existence, every finite thing must exist in potency prior to existing in act, for which essence logically precedes existence. The proof is that every finite thing gets its existence from an act of creation by God, but it is logically impossible for God to create a “dog” unless the essence of “dog” is already defined logically prior to this creation.
2. This priority can be either temporal or merely logical. An acorn is temporally prior to an oak tree. However, in the case of an eternal universe (which Aquinas thought was possible), its potentiality is logically, though not temporally prior, to its existence, since there’s obviously nothing “before” an infinite series in the past.
3. Time is a measure of motion, things changing from potentiality to actuality. When something moves from potentiality from actuality there is the passage of time.
4. We assume (arguendo) the universe is finite in time, but the priority of potentiality to actuality for the universe is temporal, not merely logical.
5. This implies, from 3) there must have been a real state of affairs in which the universe existed only in potentiality but not in actuality.
6. But, also from 3), and from the obvious fact the universe actually exists, there was motion, something changing from potentiality from actuality, and thus the passage of time. The first moment of time is when the universe was existing only in potentiality, not when it existed in actuality.
7. Alternatively, if the priority of potentiality to actuality for the universe is merely logical, then there is no state of affairs where the universe exists only in potentiality; the situation is similar to an eternal universe, except that the universe is finite in time.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The statement “time always existed” is a tautology; it is analytic. For the meaning of “always” is “for all time”.

And similarly there cannot be a “before the universe”.

1. Except for God, who is pure act,

What is the distinction between an “act” and change/motion?

1. Time is a measure of motion, things changing from potentiality to actuality. When something moves from potentiality from actuality there is the passage of time.

Isn’t there necessarily a cause for a potential becoming an actual? In the presence of that cause, is it not impossible for the actual to not occur (by definition of “cause”)?

1. We assume (arguendo) the universe is finite in time,

1. This implies, from 3) there must have been a real state of affairs in which the universe existed only in potentiality but not in actuality.

This applies only to any particular state of the universe. The universe as a whole still has no requirement to have ever been merely potential…?

1. But, also from 3), and from the obvious fact the universe actually exists, there was motion, something changing from potentiality from actuality, and thus the passage of time. The first moment of time is when the universe was existing only in potentiality, not when it existed in actuality.

Agreed, if there actually was a first.

1. Alternatively, … except that the universe is finite in time.

An assumption as noted above?

The bottom line is that when a cause for an effect is present, that effect is necessarily present and if that cause is eternal, then its effect is eternal. But since we are talking about change itself (time), how could the cause of it come about (become actual)?

 

[vz71]

The bottom line is that when a cause for an effect is present, that effect is necessarily present

This is not always the case, and can readily be proven so.

and if that cause is eternal, then its effect is eternal.

And again, an eternal cause does not necessarily lead to an eternal effect.
This can be readily shown as well.

 

[geekborj]

So Time is simply a property of creation and not a creation itself.

I agree with the last post.
Time is simply one of the properties of our Universe as it is (or as created or designed by its Creator). Accordingly, one cannot define time outside itself. Time is not a movement but defines change. At this point, the only way to define the “direction” of time is via bulk entropy (increase in randomness of the WHOLE Universe). Surprisingly, the only way to define time is via the speed of light, the first “thing” created.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is not always the case, and can readily be proven so.

Go for it, but take care of pride.

 

[vz71]

Go for it, but take care of pride.

The bottom line is that when a cause for an effect is present, that effect is necessarily present

OK, when sitting in the nosebleed seats at a baseball game, I can readily witness the batter hitting the baseball. However, I do not hear that for some time later.
The cause of hearing the crack of that bat is the bat hitting the ball.
But hearing it does not take place at the same time.
So effect and cause do not have to be present at the same time.

Now I suppose one can argue that the cause of the hearing of the crack is not the bat, but rather the vibration, etc. But the argument still always breaks down to a cause before the effect. And for a time, the cause exists without an effect.

 

[vz71]

Go for it, but take care of pride.

Pride indeed…

Intelligence design was my field. As such, you would have a hard time finding a psychologist in the entire world who could compete with me in that arena.

your layman’s opinion concerning them isn’t exactly meaningful to me.

I can spot types of intelligence very quickly and far more precisely than any IQ test you are likely to take (like when someone skips the OP to nitpick at other details out of their situational context).

I designed a notation system compatible with standard mathematics to handle infinities and cardinalities (better than Cantor’s did anyway).

But my point again, is that your layman’s memorized norms for dealing with infinities isn’t really very meaningful either.

I have explained to them why such a statistic is absolutely meaningless, but of course they are not likely to turn down a complimentary statistic any more than you are.

One might ask you to take your own advice.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

OK, when sitting in the nosebleed seats at a baseball game, I can readily witness the batter hitting the baseball. However, I do not hear that for some time later.
The cause of hearing the crack of that bat is the bat hitting the ball.
But hearing it does not take place at the same time.
So effect and cause do not have to be present at the same time.

Now I suppose one can argue that the cause of the hearing of the crack is not the bat, but rather the vibration, etc. But the argument still always breaks down to a cause before the effect. And for a time, the cause exists without an effect.

Another problem with this idea that "when a cause for an effect is present, that effect is necessarily present" is blurring the line between cause and effect. If for the cause to exist then the effect must also exist then there is no linkage between cause and effect. This makes it appear that the effect could be the cause of the cause in the first place as they, according to this idea, must exist together.

It also ignores the concept of potential energy. For example, my swinging fist does not cause your bloody nose until it connects with your nose, there is a potential energy existing within my punch that does not come to be until the fist connects with your nose. The cause of the bloody nose is my punch, but the start of my punch does not cause the bloody nose, only when (and if) it connects with the nose is the bloody nose caused. If the punch does not connect then there is no bloody nose but the potential energy to cause a bloody nose is still present in the punch.

 

[James_S_Saint]

**

OK, when sitting in the nosebleed seats at a baseball game, I can readily witness the batter hitting the baseball. However, I do not hear that for some time later.
The cause of hearing the crack of that bat is the bat hitting the ball.
But hearing it does not take place at the same time.
So effect and cause do not have to be present at the same time.

Now I suppose one can argue that the cause of the hearing of the crack is not the bat, but rather the vibration, etc. But the argument still always breaks down to a cause before the effect. And for a time, the cause exists without an effect.

Exactly wrong, but you did hint on the truth.

The cause of you hearing is your mind interpreting signals that it thought were from your ears.
Your mind probably thought that because the sound struck your ears.
A sound struck your ears probably because the sound emanated from a bat and ball.
A sound probably emanated from a bat and ball because a pitcher threw a ball and a batter swung a bat at that ball.
The batter probably swung at the ball because he thought he saw a ball coming his way and believed that he wanted to hit it.
The pitcher probably threw the ball because he probably thought that he wanted to play such a game.
The batter probably believed he wanted to hit the ball because he believed that such was his duty in the game he thought he was playing.
They both probably thought they were playing a game because all indications to them were such as to lead them to believe it.
All indications were such as to lead them to believe it probably because a lot of other people set it all up.
A lot of other people probably setup such indicators because they wanted the pitcher the throw a ball and batter to swing at the ball to make the sound that struck your ears that made you think you heard it.

So the REAL cause was just all of those other people. Why blame blame the bat? Are you a bat hater?

Any one of those events could have taken place and yet you not hear the sound… except for one. That one is the only one that is the actual cause. The other events were causes to that one cause of which it was an effect.

Cause->effect/cause->cause->effect/cause->effect/cause-effect/cause->Your perception.

The very definition of a cause is that it is the instigation of an effect. If you declare a cause without an effect, then you are simply misusing the word. They come as a pair. But since we are talking about the instigation of time, we are specifically talking about the cause to effect that has no other cause between them. That means no time between the time that something caused time and the time that time was actually caused.

But since now you have made it abundantly clear that thinking is not your forte, let me see if I can make it even more clear;

Cause == that which bring effect
Effect == a change
First Cause == that which brings the first effect
First Effect == the first change

The First Effect has no effects before it.
The First Cause has no effects before it either.

So what transpired (a change) before the First Effect that was not the First Effect itself? - Nothing at all - by the very definitions of the words.

So did the First Cause exist and then much later (an eternity) the First Effect came? What would have been happening (more changes) between them? - Nothing at all.

Did time pass between the existence of the First Cause and the First Effect? How could it? Nothing else can change.

Thus if the First Cause came into existence 14 billion years ago, the First Effect proceeded immediately following it. If the First Cause existed a trillion years ago, the First Effect immediately followed it.

And if the First Cause existed an infinite number of years ago or an eternity, the First Effect followed immediately after it or is equally eternal.

I know that still requires thinking. Sorry about that. There isn’t much I can do about that. I didn’t invent reality.

 

[Prometheus1974]

Dear James,

Thank you for responding.

Prometheus,

I can’t help but note that in your sorting, you ignored the OP itself and the only real relevance of this thread.

Apologies, I will address that in my next post (time permitting).

Intelligence design was my field. As such, you would have a hard time finding a psychologist in the entire world who could compete with me in that arena. So I am extremely familiar with how IQ tests function. Having designed them, analyzed them, watched what social engineers and psychologists surmise and do with them, and designing machines that can take them as well, your layman’s opinion concerning them isn’t exactly meaningful to me. I can spot types of intelligence very quickly and far more precisely than any IQ test you are likely to take (like when someone skips the OP to nitpick at other details out of their situational context).

Interesting. From my description of the IQ testing process, you were able to determine that I have a “layman’s opinion” concerning it. Did it ever occur to you that you give the same impression regarding your understanding of physical and mathematical concepts?

I will add however, that layman or internationally acclaimed authority, your opinions and reasoning are of tremendous interest to me. I will attack both vigorously, because my attack and your defense constitute (I hope) intelligent discourse and will result in at least one of us learning something: thanks to your comments, I am now better informed regarding the IQ testing process.

Precise metaphysics is becoming my field (exactly what makes up those little particles). My experience with physicists over the years, as I have explained in another thread, is that they are technicians specializing in mathematics as math is their primary instrument and tool. They remind me of electronic technicians who try to tell the engineers how electrons really works. Often they are more familiar with the tools than the engineer as they use the tools far more often. Physicists use mathematics far more than their engineer counterpart, the metaphysicist, and thus are familiar with “proper use”, yet still lack understanding as to exactly what makes the tool/instrument work in the first place, much like the technician who knows which oscilloscope probe to use, but doesn’t really understand why and what that impedance issue is really all about.

Any electrical engineer worth his salt knows how those electrons work better than the technician. Implying that you are the “engineer” and I the technician would make sense if only you didn’t make incorrect statements regarding infinity, photons, etc. as I have pointed out. What you have written in your own posts is an indication that you are more of a… “layman” dabbling in unfamiliar territory.

I have no doubt that you are far more intelligent than I am, and freely acknowledge it. However, I must assert that you have presented faulty statements and arguments concerning things with which I may be more familiar than you. If I am wrong, then don’t you think it would be easier to just correct me in turn?

I really like being shown when I am wrong. It’s a great way to learn.

I have gotten into the theoretical concerns of infinities with serious mathematicians from many years ago and we agreed that in the area of infinities, the system of mathematics simply doesn’t have sufficient notation to deal well in that area. Due to a need many years ago, I designed a notation system compatible with standard mathematics to handle infinities and cardinalities (better than Cantor’s did anyway). The need seldom arises so I certainly didn’t expect anyone to incorporate my method. But my point again, is that your layman’s memorized norms for dealing with infinities isn’t really very meaningful either.

I’m surprised the Riemann Hypothesis remains unproved.

What bothers me about this little off the cuff test is that it seems that the entire Catholic Church from near the Pope (perhaps including) all the way down has failed the test.

One of the long standing criticisms of Christianity from the atheists has been that the athiest’s IQ scores are higher on average. I have explained to them why such a statistic is absolutely meaningless, but of course they are not likely to turn down a complimentary statistic any more than you are.

Christianity doesn’t inspire a pursuit toward understanding and thus produces a field of memorizers comparatively void of analytical skills, thus in effect, shooting itself in the foot. It seems that Christianity is becoming the religion with no feet and its head in a cloud.

Please forgive me as I am bit saddened from this whole affair actually and that is partially why I’m not really interested in pursuing those off topic irrelevancies.

James, I’ve obviously touched a nerve, and so I apologize. It has not been my intention to antagonize you, but at least one of my posts was on the snarky side so I’ll accept your condescension and insults and we’ll call it even.

This post has confirmed something that I suspected from your first post: You have come here with the conviction that you are a vastly superior intellect, and have the arrogance to believe that you have everything to teach us and nothing to learn. This leaves me with a bit of a puzzle. Why are you saddened by this whole affair? You of all people, as an expert in testing, should know that if you begin your test with an established bias, you should not be surprised to see it confirmed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

IQ and Intelligence means nothing without actual knowledge and learning.

Crying out how intelligent oneself is, is nothing more than arrogance.

To claim that oneself is more intelligent than everyone else here is just plain wrong, especially when one has such a misunderstanding of the Church.

To argue that time is Eternal and has existed all along with God is to remove all cause and effect issues. If an effect coexists with the cause then there is no way to separate them. How can you tell a cause from an effect?

To claim that the Church is teaching 2+2=3 with no way to prove such a thing is not the proof of intelligence, it is more a proof of wishful thinking.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If I am wrong, then don’t you think it would be easier to just correct me in turn?

In the right place at the right time. For the issues you tried to raise, this is neither. Pointing out the details of your error in thought concerning off topic issues, including my intentions or education, is not worth my effort on this thread and distracts the whole point (or is that your intent?)…

James, I’ve obviously touched a nerve, and so I apologize.

Still more projected misperception. What has come to “touch a nerve” on this thread is exactly what I have described earlier. Mostly due to ByzCath’s presentation of what the catechism is teaching and the future effects that such brings.

This post has confirmed something that I suspected from your first post: You have come here with the conviction that you are a vastly superior intellect, and have the arrogance to believe that you have everything to teach us and nothing to learn.

Quite the contrary, but if that is what you believe, then I advise just ignoring what I say as it will always appear arrogant to you because I make no effort to prevent your presumptions (with reason).

Please stay on topic or leave it alone.

 

[vz71]

The bottom line is that when a cause for an effect is present, that effect is necessarily present and if that cause is eternal, then its effect is eternal.

Cause->effect/cause->cause->effect/cause->effect/cause-effect/cause->Your perception.

Your own words betray your point.
Cause → effect.
Cause always is preceding effect. So your earlier statement of the two existing at the same time is shown false by your own words.

But since now you have made it abundantly clear that thinking is not your forte, let me see if I can make it even more clear

Argumentum ad hominem is the bastion of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own.

 

[Prometheus1974]

The beginning of time and the universe is a myth and superstition.

1. Time is relative change

This first statement is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless. Relative change of what? Passage of time is measured by relative change, but I am not sure if that is what you mean.

Since the definition of time is still an unresolved issue metaphysically and philosophically, I don’t think one can accept this premise. But lets see where it goes anyway.

1. Whatever is proposed to have caused time could have no change concerning it because change IS time, thus it must be changeless and timeless and thus “eternal”.

Woah. I thought you said time is relative change. Dropping the “relative” is an interesting little slight of hand.

Also among the ambiguities of your first statement was that it did not specify equivalency. A dog is mammalian, a mammal is not necessarily a dog. If time is relative change (or more correctly measured by relative change) that does not make change time. Length is measured by a yardstick, but a yardstick is not length.

1. If the cause of time exists and cannot change, then it cannot *become *the cause, but rather has always been the cause.

“Becomming” is a term than only makes sense if you are operating within time, as is the term “has always been”. If you are suggesting that, from a perspective within time God has always been and is and in future will be the cause of time, then I think I agree.

1. The cause of time cannot exist without causing time, else it would not be the cause of time.

Shaky, because as with the rest of your argument, you are applying the concepts of finite existence within time to existence outside of time. Even within time a cause can exist without its effect. I have an unstable cesium atom. It may, or may not decay. It is the sufficient cause (nothing else is needed but the atom) of a radioactive decay, but it may exist for billions of years without spontaneously decaying.

1. If the cause of time is present, time is immediately present.

Wrong. Flat wrong, because the term “immediately” applies only within time, and present applies only within space. What if the cause was “omnipresent”?

1. The cause of time had to be eternal and thus what it causes had to be eternal as well.

Nowhere have you established that the cause of time had to be eternal. If by eternal you mean “existing for an infinite amount of time” then your premise again assumes that what caused time is within time so your argument is circular. If by eternal you mean “outside of time” then the statement is self-contradictory. If you mean “had no beginning”, again, you are applying a word that belongs only within the context of time. That God has no beginning is possible because He is not within time.

1. Time is eternal - it never began.

–

To prove this you would have had to have shown that time never came into existence; that it must necessarily exist. You have not done this.

Now which of those steps was incorrect, illogical, or just something you don’t understand?

Virtually all of them. I think I could accept 3 on its own, but the rest suffer the same flaw. Just as you try to apply finite concepts when talking about infinity, you apply terminology from within time to try and apprehend what is outside of time. This approach is flawed.

Of course time has no beginning in the sense that there was no time before time. However time is not eternal, because as one of the dimensions of space-time it came into existence when the universe did, and is now billions of years old, but not infinite.

I am leaving aside here the whole concept of time as a perceived quality of our existence. I am assuming you would consider that irrelevant, and I don’t want to tax your patience further.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your own words betray your point.
Cause → effect.
Cause always is preceding effect. So your earlier statement of the two existing at the same time is shown false by your own words.

Argumentum ad hominem is the bastion of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own.

Earlier I meant to say, “take of pride and presumption”. Presumption is the seed of error/sin. You showed signs of presumption and I warned of not making it into a pride issue (which of course you did anyway - presumptuously).

What I said was that in the presence of the cause, the effect must exist also [in effect] at that very moment, else the entire cause has not yet become actual. That was the point of that long series of events leading to your perception of hearing the bat and ball.

But in the case of the very First Cause and First effect, it wouldn’t matter if an hour or a year was between the Cause and the effect other than it being illogical. The First Cause is understood to be eternal. Thus even if a millions years transpired before the First Effect took place, it would still be immeasurably small compared to eternity.

Thus either way, if the Cause is eternal, the Effect is eternal (perhaps minus a few moments of time if it makes you feel better).

But in addition, note that the Cause is eternal and unchanging and thus still exists and thus is still creating the effect. This is because the “First Cause” is referring to the First Logical Cause of any change, not the first event in history.

But it seems that the Catholic faith requires that you believe otherwise, so stop reading this thread lest you accidentally come to believe something that might get you excommunicated.

 

[Prometheus1974]

In the right place at the right time. For the issues you tried to raise, this is neither. Pointing out the details of your error in thought concerning off topic issues, including my intentions or education, is not worth my effort on this thread and distracts the whole point (or is that your intent?)…

I make no assumptions regarding your intentions or education. You and I both make these clear in our posts.

Still more projected misperception. What has come to “touch a nerve” on this thread is exactly what I have described earlier. Mostly due to ByzCath’s presentation of what the catechism is teaching and the future effects that such brings.

Funny, because your last post was basically an extended ad hominem attack. I assume you don’t do that sort of thing for fun.

Quite the contrary, but if that is what you believe, then I advise just ignoring what I say as it will always appear arrogant to you because I make no effort to prevent your presumptions (with reason).

Please stay on topic or leave it alone.

Physician, cure thyself!

 

[James_S_Saint]

This first statement is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless. Relative change of what? Passage of time is measured by relative change, but I am not sure if that is what you mean.

Anything else you consider is meaningless if you fail to grasp the very first definition.

Relative change == one change as it relates to another change;ex; “The minute hand turned 3 times while the flower opened.”

Being a physicist, I really didn’t expect that one to be such an issue. General relativity requires the exact same understanding.

Let me know when you have that one understood and we can then move on - one at a time, else it is pointless.

 

[Prometheus1974]

Anything else you consider is meaningless if you fail to grasp the very first definition.

Relative change == one change as it relates to another change;ex; “The minute hand turned 3 times while the flower opened.”

Being a physicist, I really didn’t expect that one to be such an issue. General relativity requires the exact same understanding.

Let me know when you have that one understood and we can then move on - one at a time, else it is pointless.

Are both changes required? Would the motion of the hand of the watch alone be sufficient? What is the significance of the flower?

And since you mention GR, is the time you are talking about proper time or any coordinate time?