... Gods existed (if they existed at all) at some time X, and they didn't exist before that. So therefore these gods began. By definition.
I’m thinking how could you say that? Because….I’m thinking….. Of course God existed without time. (note…I did not say God existed before time,
You did say that. Of course your gods existed before time. That has always been your claim.
because the word “before” could not apply if there was no time….
Right.
hence the perfect word sans…without) This is plain reasoning to the argument for over a thousand years. So……How can you say that?....but…then I saw where we were missing each other……
With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning?
If something is eternal, it has existed for all of time, which is an infinite amount of time because time is an infinite regress. If time is not infinite and unbegun, then nothing is eternal.
That what I was wondering about and why I asked you repeatedly. This time you finally addressed it. You reason that eternity is limited to time.
It's a meaning, a definition, not a reasoning. I'm not coming to the
conclusion that eternity is limited to time. I'm using the word
eternity in the familiar way, so that it means the thing that I'm used to it meaning.
If you want to introduce a new meaning, I'd like you to explain it.
Here's a Thomas McCormack quote, from
The Fiction Editor, which I hope you will enjoy:
Neologisms
I'm aware that they're here. I don't like them
much myself, and I apologize for them. If I
had the artistry of Freud,
as writer, I'd be able
to coin new currency that had the enduring
glitter of gold. The motivation behind the effort
derives from the memory of my blurred double
vision as a student when I'd read a minor
philosopher or critic who, instead of minting
a new phrase phrase for a unique new concept,
would ask me to take a familiar word, rinse it
of all its now-instinctive connotations, and re-stain
it with an alien meaning. And sometimes he
wouldn't even warn you. He'd simply escort the
thing into the party unintroduced, and only after
half an hour did it dawn on you,
Crikey, that's not
his wife after all! and you'd scramble back to see
what blunders you'd made. Familiar-looking words
inevitably are smoking thuribles trailing the incense
of former meanings, associations, and confusions.
In poetry this can be great; in argument it simply
makes the eyes water. Thus, neologisms.
Sometimes a rare new strain of flower, most of the
time a clanking prosthesis, obviously inanimate.
I just love that, "
Crikey, that's not his wife after all!" But if it's not his wife, who is it? If your "eternity" isn't an endless expanse of time, what is it?
I don't have a clue.
Eternity and time are the same set for you. I, as well as the ancient argument, reason that time is a small subset of eternity.
What is the rest of eternity? Does it include bacon? Rat poison? Gods?
What is the nature of this "eternity"?
As Fezzic said in
The Princess Bride, I need a hint.
Let that sink in. I mean that politely. I’m not making up anything new here. Theists and philosophers and even scientists have reasoned this through the millennia.
This is a familiar theme for you. You use it a lot: You are scholarly and I am ignorant; you have the weight of historical opinion on your side and I'm a confused neophyte; this is a meeting of whales vs minnows.
First, this usually feels like an ineffectual attempt at insult. Just so you know.
Second, that dog won't hunt.
That is what was meant by God is timeless sans the universe.
What? What is what you meant?
We agree on the meaning of begin.
Seriously??? According to our agreed definition of "begin," your gods began.
We just don’t agree with the understanding that time is a subset of eternity.
I can't agree with something I don't understand at all. As yet, your claim is unmeaningful. It is too soon for me to even try to judge it to be true or false.
So I can easily reason that everything that begins to exist has a cause…..and not be in contradiction with time beginning. Time did begin, eternity did not.
What is eternity?
Now you can of course reject the common reasoning there.
[Insert reactive insult here.]
But that would be less reasonable.
Thanks.
I’m willing to hear your case that eternity and time are one in the same.
Cases don't come into it. I'm using a word in a familiar way. I don't have a
case; I have a
word.
You use the same word, but your meaning is utterly mysterious.
Because if you can’t reasonably make that case,
Hey!
then your objection to p1 has been exposed as flawed and the KCA remains unaffected by your objection.
You don't have a case, or you won't explain it if you do. You keep using words with secret meanings, and implying (not "inferring") that that makes me stupid. That's no way to argue productively.
As always that is how I interpreted your reasoning from what you wrote, I’m not attempting to put words in your mouth.
We're good. Let's keep going.