Ya know what I don’t buy? I don’t buy the possibility of you and I reconciling all of our differences. Seems impossible and unimaginable to me. So, what’s next?
Er, … to what end?
Okay.
A (remotely) possible agreement that an eternal universe imagined by a pagan is contrary to our faith.
So when’s the last time anybody that you’ve ever known or heard seen a dimensionless physical uncuttable (a.k.a. atom) that has mass?
Doesn’t matter, does it:
Unless you are pretending your object wasn’t made.
No need to, unless you are pretending that an object can be made out of nothing.
You are pretending that your “atoms” are eternal, I guess.
I like the idea that QM might be hinting that the fundamental reality of the universe is information.
And you’re just guessing …
I’ll rephrase.
I am? New news to me.
Then you think you know they are? Otherwise, when were they created?
So you think you know they were all created at the same time … out of information?
Don’t look now, but I think you’re getting your shoes dirty.
1 Like
You seem not to be answering my question nor responding to what I actually said. (It’s your swamp.)
Does that look like I said “I know”?
…that you failed to respond to.
You seem to think that I’m obliged to answer every question you have, … but that you are not obliged to tell me which of the double set of triplets has the shortest worldlines.
As for the decision to answer or to ignore a question asked, like you, I answer what I want to answer and ignore what I want to ignore, … even if it means that I might not have the last word.
I haven’t exercised myself to try and understand your triplet question, and I do not see how it is currently relevant. It seems you are avoiding something quite fundamental in not responding to my two references, or at least and especially the first:
Yeah, … I suppose a question that wasn’t answered fairly close to the time that it was asked would indeed seem irrelevant much later.
It seems that you’re not ready to walk away yet from a thread that you haven’t thought much of to begin with, until you’re satisfied, even though the probability of us arriving at a mutually satisfying reconciliation of our difference(s) is very low, if > 0.
As for your fixation on John 1:3 and Hebrew 11:3,
- The fact that an agnostic atheist originally wrote the words and described the things that I have frequently quoted in this thread and/or leaned on, does not evoke any cognitive dissonance in me that I am aware of. As it so happens, a number of things he wrote have greatly increased the number of things that I think are possible in the cosmos, increasing my comfort-level with things written in Scripture.
- An “eternal cosmos” does not, IMO, preclude my gratitude to God nor what I believe He did in and through Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and my Lord, more than I have ever believed before, and–with Peter–I say, with more confidence than ever, “there is no other name under heaven that has been given by which we must be saved”.
- Consequently, I accept and believe that “all things” that have been made have been through Jesus Christ, and that the living God created, creates, and will continue to create what is seen out of things that are not seen."
- If that satisfies your curiosity, well and good. If it does not, too bad. In either case, it’s time for one or both of us “to move on” to more interesting things than “Is Terry a heretic?”
2 Likes
The question is not “Is Terry a heretic” but “Is Terry thinking consistently.”
is antithetical to
unless you are suggesting the cosmos was not made, which appears to be the case.
That “the universe was created by the word of God” is, however, in opposition to that idea.