What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[Moonstruck888]

I must say; you are hardly being charitable.

It’s education you need, not charity.

Demonstrating varience in time is not the same as demonstrating malliability. Presupposing causality for varience also requires evidence.

You are distracting from the claim I made earlier; you demonstrated no time-manipulation; even if I were to accept time varience. You commit an Equivocal fallacy; go back to Aristole; don’t pass Go; don’t collect your high school diploma. (Now that was an attempt at humour)

You’ve lost. Your attempt at a rebuttal was an absolute joke and this calumny of nonsense is only deepening the hole you find yourself in. I have proven that time can be manipulated, as per your imperative. By altering the direction of a plane, you can create a predictable variance in time. That is controlled manipulation of time.

Your anti-relativity site claims that there were deviations in the clocks before they were used in the experiments?

I’m shocked! Were the clocks moved at all before they were put on the aeroplanes? What controls were the clocks being compared to before the experiments started?

 

[JohnDamian]

You’ve lost. Your attempt at a rebuttal was an absolute joke and this calumny of nonsense is only deepening the hole you find yourself in. I have proven that time can be manipulated, as per your imperative. By altering the direction of a plane, you can** create a predictable variance in time. **That is controlled manipulation of time.

I am sorry;

You do not manipulate the time; you merely experience the varience in the time. Following a varience in time does not equate to a manipulation in time. That would be equivocation.

There is no causal connection demonstrated by yourself; merely a varience you equivocate to be a manipulation; clearly you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference; your chicanery is not subtle at all and it is clear to myself; and I am sure other readers - that you cannot dig your way out of this hole with sophistry and ad-hominem fallacies.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

There is no point in time when the “stuff” that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

Although it appears the conversation has long since moved on (darn for being a latecomer ), here’s my two-cents worth, in a rather long and speculative format:
niceneguys.com/speculation/black-holes-and-big-bangs

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am sorry;

You do not manipulate the time; you merely experience the varience in the time. Following a varience in time does not equate to a manipulation in time. That would be equivocation.

By changing your direction, speed and altitude, you can make controlled alterations in time. That is manipulating time.

There is no causal connection demonstrated by yourself; merely a varience you equivocate to be a manipulation; clearly you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference; your chicanery is not subtle at all and it is clear to myself; and I am sure other readers - that you cannot dig your way out of this hole with sophistry and ad-hominem fallacies.

If you can control a varience at will, that is manipulation. You want to split hairs on the meaning of a word because your Kent Hovind attempt to rubbish the experiment itself was a laughable failure. Now you want to redefine the word manipulate. Why don’t you just admit that you’re wrong and prove that you have some kind of strength of character?

You’ve read a few books, picked up a few buzzwords and now you think you’re on the same level as people with degrees.

You’re just like Kent Hovind, a slick used car salesman with a vulgar fast food approach that has no regard for truth and serves no purpose at all except to massage your own ego. You have no knowledge of basic science and limited understanding of the concepts you pretend to have mastery of. You’re a silly young boy who seriously needs to grow up. Your silly little serves as a constant reminder of this.

As for what the other readers think, if they want to be as foolish and ignorant as you, far be it from me to stand in their road.

 

[JDaniel]

By changing your direction, speed and altitude, you can make controlled alterations in time. That is manipulating time.

If you can control a varience at will, that is manipulation. You want to split hairs on the meaning of a word because your Kent Hovind attempt to rubbish the experiment itself was a laughable failure. Now you want to redefine the word manipulate. Why don’t you just admit that you’re wrong and prove that you have some kind of strength of character?

Respectfully, Moonstruck, how can this be possible? If you are in a plane and you change your, speed, altitude or direction in order to “manipulate” Time, then I should be able to grasp, or measure, such subtleties from my vantage point here on Earth. Time is not a thing that can be manipulated in one part, but, not another. Time is universal. Or, am I missing something? (And, don’t say my brain!)

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

Respectfully, Moonstruck, how can this be possible? If you are in a plane and you change your, speed, altitude or direction in order to “manipulate” Time, then I should be able to grasp, or measure, such subtleties from my vantage point here on Earth. Time is not a thing that can be manipulated in one part, but, not another. Time is universal. Or, am I missing something? (And, don’t say my brain!)

God bless,
jd

Your brain is functioning normally. What you’re missing is Einstein’s great discovery, that time is malleable, it is not universal. Every observer experiences time differently, and I don’t mean subjectively. Every particle in our body experiences it differently.

If you were to pull a fast sling shot orbit around the event horizon of a black hole, or plot a course in a spacecraft that accelerated then decelarated constantly at one gravity until it returned you to Earth in a year, your identical twin who remained on Earth would die of old age in a matter of seconds when you were at the turning point of your trip, even though subjectively you would both observe time moving at the normal rate. To him, ships time where you were would appear to move glacially slow.

Time depends on the local gravity field around the observer and the motion of the observer.

 

[cathdoki]

It’s education you need, not charity.

You’ve lost. Your attempt at a rebuttal was an absolute joke and this calumny of nonsense is only deepening the hole you find yourself in. I have proven that time can be manipulated, as per your imperative. By altering the direction of a plane, you can create a predictable variance in time. That is controlled manipulation of time.

Your anti-relativity site claims that there were deviations in the clocks before they were used in the experiments?

I’m shocked! Were the clocks moved at all before they were put on the aeroplanes? What controls were the clocks being compared to before the experiments started?

If I remember correctly from years ago, hasn’t science already proved that time can be changed?

 

[JDaniel]

Your brain is functioning normally. What you’re missing is Einstein’s great discovery, that time is malleable, it is not universal. Every observer experiences time differently, and I don’t mean subjectively. Every particle in our body experiences it differently.

SNIP

But, if you and I were measuring two different leaves being blown across a series of different yards on two distinct days, in the US, and we were using watches made identically, by the same manufacturer, and the times of departure and arrival of both incidents were the same (except for the days), would you not conclude that time was, in fact, universal? Further, if you could determine that the weights of both leaves was identical and that the mean speed of the winds, in either local, was identical, would you not surmise that Time is universal?

God bless,
jd

 

[JohnDamian]

By changing your direction, speed and altitude, you can make controlled alterations in time. That is manipulating time.

You are equivocating again; you are mistaking a percieved alteration in time with a caused alteration in time - you offer no reasons for the causality of this at all.

If you can control a varience at will, that is manipulation. You want to split hairs on the meaning of a word because your Kent Hovind attempt to rubbish the experiment itself was a laughable failure. Now you want to redefine the word manipulate. Why don’t you just admit that you’re wrong and prove that you have some kind of strength of character?

You are making a classic mistake; you are equivocating and you don’t even realise it; this logical fallacy is over two thousand years old and it is not me dodging the question. Trying to insinuate that I have some “Kent Hovind” approach is funny from a gentleman who is a fan of ad-homiems and straw men.

You’ve read a few books, picked up a few buzzwords and now you think you’re on the same level as people with degrees.

I hardly think wasting five or six years of my life and a substantial amount of money to get an education anyone with an amazon account can get at one tenth the price and one half the time is a mark of foolishness - perhaps it is not a mark of humility but it certainly has proven more effective than whatever “education” you have… Not knowing the difference between basic fallacies or how to construct an argument without resorting to ad-hominems reveals your underlying hypocrisy - my education, age, race or any other characteristic is absolutely irrelevant to the points I am making; likewise the fact you have committed straw men, ad hominems and equivocal fallacies is true regardless how many post nominal squiggles you purport to have.

You’re a silly young boy who seriously needs to grow up. Your silly little serves as a constant reminder of this.

I fail to see what is wrong with keeping a friendly chat on the internet civil and charitable - I am not publishing an academic paper here; and from the sloppy standard of your posts; neither are you. As I have said before; my age is irrelevant; as is yours. It doesn’t matter if you are ten or seventy years old; telling other people to “grow up” when you are committing an ad-homiem fallacy is ironic at best.

Don’t chastise other people for a lack of an education when you are stumbling over two thousand year old philosophical fallacies in a philosophy forum - it’s quite frightening; I knew educational standards were slipping but wow…

Nb; I find it ironic that a person would find it childish to use a happy sybol at the end of their writings when the complainer has a ludicrous theorem that is contrary to what they are claiming in thier post. Applying Young’s “theorem” please; as I have never observed time manipulation; why should I give credit to it’s existence - and no; four clocks on jetplanes with a few nanoseconds difference is not evidence and never will be.



Johndamians Theorem; As I have never observed time manipulation it’s hokey - I don’t care what four alarmclocks think…

 

[cathdoki]

You are equivocating again; you are mistaking a percieved alteration in time with a caused alteration in time - you offer no reasons for the causality of this at all.

You are making a classic mistake; you are equivocating and you don’t even realise it; this logical fallacy is over two thousand years old and it is not me dodging the question. Trying to insinuate that I have some “Kent Hovind” approach is funny from a gentleman who is a fan of ad-homiems and straw men.

I hardly think wasting five or six years of my life and a substantial amount of money to get an education anyone with an amazon account can get at one tenth the price and one half the time is a mark of foolishness - perhaps it is not a mark of humility but it certainly has proven more effective than whatever “education” you have… Not knowing the difference between basic fallacies or how to construct an argument without resorting to ad-hominems reveals your underlying hypocrisy - my education, age, race or any other characteristic is absolutely irrelevant to the points I am making; likewise the fact you have committed straw men, ad hominems and equivocal fallacies is true regardless how many post nominal squiggles you purport to have.

I fail to see what is wrong with keeping a friendly chat on the internet civil and charitable - I am not publishing an academic paper here; and from the sloppy standard of your posts; neither are you. As I have said before; my age is irrelevant; as is yours. It doesn’t matter if you are ten or seventy years old; telling other people to “grow up” when you are committing an ad-homiem fallacy is ironic at best.

Don’t chastise other people for a lack of an education when you are stumbling over two thousand year old philosophical fallacies in a philosophy forum - it’s quite frightening; I knew educational standards were slipping but wow…

Do you really think the special theory of relativity is just bunk?

 

[JohnDamian]

Do you really think the special theory of relativity is just bunk?

I will not believe in something unless there is evidence for it. I have never seen any compelling evidence for the special theory of relativity. Moonstruck gave me some hokey about some temporal disparity in four clocks in planes which were in nanoseconds; not only was there no causal explanation for this disparity it does not seem to demonstrate anything beyond a general disparity. If there have been some proffessionally replicated tests which give exactly the same results with a proffessional error margin (<1%) then I might see it more clearly.

I am not a man of faith I am a person who believes in evidence. I don’t care for pseudoscience and conjecture.

 

[cathdoki]

I will not believe in something unless there is evidence for it. I have never seen any compelling evidence for the special theory of relativity. Moonstruck gave me some hokey about some temporal disparity in four clocks in planes which were in nanoseconds; not only was there no causal explanation for this disparity it does not seem to demonstrate anything beyond a general disparity. If there have been some proffessionally replicated tests which give exactly the same results with a proffessional error margin (<1%) then I might see it more clearly.

Okay, so you believe that God is restricted by time?

 

[JohnDamian]

Okay, so you believe that God is restricted by time?

What do you mean exactly by that?

I believe God cannot undo the done; in accordance with Church Teachings: De divina omnipotentia.

But it appears self evident that time in any sensible form existed posterior to the prior cause; citing: Tractatus de Primo Principio

 

[cathdoki]

OMGosh, I blew it!!! I missed this!!! You’re not a man of faith? How can you call yourself a Catholic?

 

[cathdoki]

What do you mean exactly by that?

I believe God cannot undo the done; in accordance with Church Teachings: De divina omnipotentia.

But it appears self evident that time in any sensible form existed posterior to the prior cause; citing: Tractatus de Primo Principio

I mean exactly what I said. You believe that God is restrained by time and that there are things impossible for God to do.

Please stop with the condescending

 

[JohnDamian]

OMGosh, I blew it!!! I missed this!!! You’re not a man of faith? How can you call yourself a Catholic?

What’s to have faith in?

God exists in a form that is identical to the Bible (Opus Oxoniense, Tractatus de Primo Principio, De univocatione entis)

The Bible verifies the Church

So I have belief and confidence in the Church.

There is no need for me to have faith - there is no doubt. One logical certainty flows into the next.

I mean exactly what I said. You believe that God is restrained by time and that there are things impossible for God to do.

Please stop with the condescending

I believe there are things that God cannot do. The genus of potency is not universal; although it is a universal - if you understand.

And sorry; I didn’t know being friendly was being condescending.

 

[cathdoki]

What’s to have faith in?

God exists in a form that is identical to the Bible (Opus Oxoniense, Tractatus de Primo Principio, De univocatione entis)

The Bible verifies the Church

So I have belief and confidence in the Church.

There is no need for me to have faith - there is no doubt. One logical certainty flows into the next.

I believe there are things that God cannot do. The genus of potency is not universal; although it is a universal - if you understand.

And sorry; I didn’t know being friendly was being condescending.

I apoligize for that remark.

But if you believe that there are things that God cannot do, then that is contrary to what the CC believes about God. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD. Plain and simple.

 

[JohnDamian]

I apoligize for that remark.

But if you believe that there are things that God cannot do, then that is contrary to what the CC believes about God. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD. Plain and simple.

St Peter Damian; one of the 33 Doctors of the Church was the author of the difinative document on divine omnipotence; in which he shows that God cannot change a past event that has already happened; and that God cannot do an evil act; and that this does not contradict omnipotence.

I follow the beliefs of the Church on the matter; reiterated through theologians and philosophers since the eleventh centuary; culminating in his declaration as an authoritative teacher of the Church in the nineteenth centuary - my position is with the Church; and not against it. Arguing against an authoritative teacher of the Church without good reason; which is what you seem to be advocating - only brings division within the Church itself.

 

[cathdoki]

St Peter Damian; one of the 33 Doctors of the Church was the author of the difinative document on divine omnipotence; in which he shows that God cannot change a past event that has already happened; and that God cannot do an evil act; and that this does not contradict omnipotence.

I follow the beliefs of the Church on the matter; reiterated through theologians and philosophers since the eleventh centuary; culminating in his declaration as an authoritative teacher of the Church in the nineteenth centuary - my position is with the Church; and not against it. Arguing against an authoritative teacher of the Church without good reason; which is what you seem to be advocating - only brings division within the Church itself.

God may not desire to change events of the past, but it is well within His power. Not all drs of the church teach infallibly. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of any infallible teachings that come from the drs. Some have contradicted each other throughout history.

 

[JDaniel]

I apoligize for that remark.

But if you believe that there are things that God cannot do, then that is contrary to what the CC believes about God. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD. Plain and simple.

Cathdoki:

Except that He can’t (or, won’t) do that which is antithetical to His Nature (And, this is doctrinal). Hence, it would seem that there are some things that are impossible for God.

God bless,
jd