the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
F: "--always--" the moment you think that, say that you accept , that time always existed. But time is not god, or love or light, as the bible says, but certainly a supposed creator would have all the time in and outside the world.
X: "--crashing --suns going supernova, --" The events you described are the best things that ever happened for us. It had to be big, it is not called the big bang for nothing. caring? well it is here because the first cause might not have to be caused .
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
P: "--What Caused the Universe to exist?
GrrT "--Indeed, and what caused th Causer to exist?
M: "Not sure how that helps with Perry's problem here?
Mephis, --You introduced the very interesting term "linear time" not much different from one dimensional time, or the "arrow of time". What I like Perry to consider is that time is more pervasive than that, Any entity in stationary time would not be subject to the law of cause and effect, that our movement through time subjects us to. Time not as a flowing river, but an endless ocean, through which we move, surf (life riding a wave of energy), To quote he discredited bible," --Hovered over the [endless] water--"
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Me phis: "If you can demonstrate that intelligent life exists outside of that paradigm, please do. Otherwise I'm not seeing what point you're attempting to make with that post."
Nowhere did I mention intelligent or organic life did I?
my point is like yours, in a way, There had to be time to start anything, even the actions that current theories ascribe to a self-starting the universe. My point is there is a huge difference between time as such and our current, compulsory movement through that 4st dimension.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Mephis: "Here's a simple truth. To perform an action, any action, takes time - no matter how brief a moment or how long. Linear time began with the big bang so far as our physics allows us to tell currently. So how is an action performed in the absence of time? ---"
Why say that time is linear, one dimensional? In our graphs it is always at right angles to any of the three space dimensions. Time is more pervasive than space dimensions, and can therefore predate space. When we speak of time we really mean movement through time, and that does not have to be, and perhaps was not for an eternity.
another nauseating text which proves conclusively that jw's do not practise what they preach!.
monday, may 9. who are you to be judging your neighbor?—jas.
4:12.. humility restrains us from overstepping our authority.
i've decided to go full public with a new username on this forum.
it's been almost a decade since i've been out and i don't care at this point who knows.
that being said, here's a letter that i'm mailing to bethel.
it has been 21 years since the 1995 article that pretty much buried the idea of the '1914 generation'.. remember those guys?
the ones born in 1914 that would still be alive when the end of the system arrived.. i'm glad i'm old enough to remember going from door to door, preaching this belief.
the reason i say that is because i have a lot of 'still in' jw friends and family.
just read over the long thread about a letter to hq regarding noah's flood.
reminded of another literal litmus test.
within 7 years of beginning telescopic observations of the heavens, galileo was called to judgment by the inquisition in 1616. disputes in this case abound, but the biblical arguments for which galileo was tried and condemned "revolved" around i chronicles 16:30, psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104.5 and ecclesiastes 1:5, summarized by "the world is established; it shall never be moved.
kepler; I brought this up, because It is quite possible that many jws would not realize that to have the sun stand still, the rotation of the earth would have to stop, and start up again. and you are right, --like the moon, der/ elle/ it revolves around the barycenter, but rotates once a month around its own axis at the same time.
In astronomy there is a distinction between rotation (spin) and revolution (orbit) path. , in mechanics, the motor revs per minute, the orbit is the lap around the track. k"I am aware of that." of course you are, but for the readers to see how irrational the bible is to have such ideas as "TRUTH" , I nit-picked away.
just read over the long thread about a letter to hq regarding noah's flood.
reminded of another literal litmus test.
within 7 years of beginning telescopic observations of the heavens, galileo was called to judgment by the inquisition in 1616. disputes in this case abound, but the biblical arguments for which galileo was tried and condemned "revolved" around i chronicles 16:30, psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104.5 and ecclesiastes 1:5, summarized by "the world is established; it shall never be moved.
kepler; ' --For in the case of ordering the sun and moon to stand still, most of their observed motion is based on that of the earth. The earth revolves; not the sun.
do I read right? does not the rising , setting of the sun depend on the daily rotation of the earth and not it's yearly revolving? except for one sidereal day?
you are right;-- "god" did not proof-read the bible.
