Hippiekinkster
Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007 From: Liechtenstein Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: PatrickG38quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata Actually, there is no debate. The question embeds a category error. The divine is predicated as being eternal, i.e., existing independently of time. Only things IN time have a "beginning" (and an end). Another horrible example of defining the question to obtain the answer you want. Since matter/energy cannot be destroyed why can't nature/existence be eternal? Another mind-reader. It has nothing to do with getting the answer I want, and I never said that existence can't be eternal. It is simply a fact that expressions like "the beginning" and "the end" are temporally conditioned. To speak of a "beginning" or an "end" predicates a time frame. You cannot logically formulate a question (or a debate) about the "beginning" of something that is by definition unconstrained by time, i.e., eternal, because that which is eternal is by definition without beginning or end; not temporal. K. Man, this logic stuff is some hard shit. Are you, like, from Vulcan? I can't wait until shop class. I'm makin' this, like, huge ass bong.
_____________________________
"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin “Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne
|