Broken Circle

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

As some would say, God is everywhere always. How can he show up somewhere he already is?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

He is everywhere but in a form not comprehensible by humans. By showing up we mean Him attaining a familiar to us form we can understand. That much about metaphysics and religion.

Try to understand you contradiction. If all there is is "eternal" energy then the universe cannot be finite in time. It is eternal. Is that hard to understand? The specific forms don't matter.

Therefore, finite universe and eternal energy being all there is, is a grand contradiction in terms.

This contradiction can only be resolved in one and only one way. Your eternal energy is nothing.

If you just keep refusing to see the contradiction, there is nothing(I mean "nothing" all the way) else Mac, 123...0 of myself can do.

In order for you to get out of the "eternal" mess, I suggest replacing "eternal" with something like "indelible". You must find a way to avoid the contradiction "eternal" and "finite" together pose.

Maybe "Patrickious" Energy is another good term. You can name it anything. Mac, 123....0 and I name it "nothing".

Nothing is a handy little concept. Every set has nothing as a member so paradoxes are resolved nicely.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Well said JoeW, but now you need to define "nothing"? See, I think it is this definition which is causing all of the confusion between you, 123...0, Mac, and others.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There_is_nothing_to_define_about_nothing. How can nothing be defined? The best definition os nothing is simply nothing.

There is no confusion at all. The concept of nothing is the clearest one around.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Magic? Gods? How is that different from infinity. Do they answer any questions?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's all metaphysics Patrick, infinity or not. No assertion was made that "nothing" is not a subject of metaphysics. It does not however lead to a contradiction as "eternal energy" does. It is important that a theory does not lead to contradictions. Many do not understand this is a also a requirement of theories dealing with metaphysics.

Patrick,

JoeW has once again made most of my response already. I think JoeW and I see things much alike but I'm sure even he an I don't agree on everything.

1 - You simply cannot claim "Eternal" and reject "Infinity" in the same breath. They are indeed one and the same.

Webster: a - Eternal: Without beginning or end, existing through all time, everlasting.
b - Infinite: lacking limits or bounds,extending beyond measure or comprehension, without beginning or end, endless.

The same adjectives are used to define each "Without beginning or end"

2 - You know as well as anyone that one cannot "Prove" a negative, no more than you could "Prove" Eternity. So absence of proof is not something different than in your own view.

3 - Now we seem to have another disagreement. You want to invoke God.
A concept I reject outright without hesitation. It is another issue which is unproveable as is proving there is no God. My efforts are to remove God as a requirement since even to accept a god doesn't resolve any questions since God would have to have created himself at some point and done so before he then could create time-space, energy , etc. The concept of God infact complicates creation by tremendous amounts.

4 - As to your question "Does Nothing exist"? That is like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife." It by your choice of words becomes an unanswerable paradox. The correct statement is:

"Nothingness" is "Non-existance".

Of course if one wants to play word games you can argue that means "Nothingness" doesn't exist but that is a distortion of the true meaning of the statement and is only a play on words.

5 -

This contradiction can only be resolved in one and only one way. Your eternal energy is nothing. [unquote]

That is exactly what (+n)+(-n)

---

><img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> means. Two opposite somethings (+/-energy)combine to result in "Nothingness", "Non-existance".

If you demand proof you will probably not be advise to hold your breath. That may take a few centuries yet, if ever.

Perhaps an eternity.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

In all this I find we do have two things in common.

1 - Infinity is not part of physical reality.

2 - Time does not exist. However your view is, I believe, only in relation to your "Eternal energy". I don't believe it exists period.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You are using the word universe in an ambiguous fashion and giving the same meaning to both states of energy. I am using the term universe in a specific descriptive fashion associated with the physical(mass) form of "energy".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

From Oxford Dictionary:

"Universe": Everything that exists Everywhere, The Creation and its Creator.

Patrick, you have no choice for the meaning for the word "universe" other than that which is accepted by the scientific and even religious community without any objections.

You are trying to restrict your universe to that encompasing all "mass" made of some "pure and eternal energy". But the universe is all that can exist everywhere and there is no logical way of excluding "eternal energy" from not being a part of the Universe.

The contradictions that arise when one attempts to consider sub-universes are even more severe than those infinities pose.

Actually, your theory is no different from TVF's. This is probably a reason he is not participating in this discussion any longer, he has you supporting his points. You both support the idea of an infinite existence in time. How that happened and why is really a minor detail in this larger scheme of things.

Sorry to say that your "theory" does not add anything to already known and debated for long time models of universal creation. Your are just qualifying the term "energy" using the words "eternal" and "pure", and those are as metaphysical as "nothing" or "infinity". Save the fact that your definition is contradictory in a sense elaborated in many different ways by Mac, 123...0 and myself.

As a final note, a religious person can turn to you and say: Thank you Patrick but listen: This "pure and eternal energy", a cause of all material existence, is God.

Now, you can turn back and say that we're wrong and you will define the universe as finite and caused by "eternal" energy but before you do that try to understand that such a statement cannot be accepeted by mathematicians or physicists, only by religious persons.

Again, anyone talking about these issues is doing metaphysics but logical contradictions must be avoided and your are causing a major one with your theory.

Patrick,

For whatever reason you seem to choose to mix apples and oranges and distort or disregard what others have said and attempt to use your altered version for your own end.

O

---

>(+n)+(-n) has clearly stated many times that the +/- "Somethings" come from "Nothingness" <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>. Yet you make the unjustified statement that the view has altered and go into a series of creation, anihilations, etc.

Nothingness IS the origin of two opposite "Somethings". It is that simple. It really is.

Trying to give <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> properties or call it "Eternal Pure Energy" or anyother name causes "Nothing" to become "something" and you have returned yourself back to having not resolved the original origin.

Eternal does indeed apply toward time but it is still an infinity term and has no business in any definition of reality.

It seems you are the one that keeps changing your view to try and find one that is yours alone by being against "Infinity" but then coming back to declare "Infinity" by invoking "Eternal".

If you could simply satisfy yourself with contributing to an idea instead of wanting to claim sole proprietarship, you would find no need to keep altering your view.

Here is an example of where you go wrong.

Finite: "Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero. First, refer to the definition of "Universe". Second, "If it's creator is "non-existent"(nothing, "0") then the creator is not finite. In order for the universe to be finite the creator would need to exist and would also be finite. So, according to dictionary definitions and if "nothing"() = "non-existence" then you CANNOT have a finite universe.[unquote]

Ans:
******************************************************************
1 - I know that I have stated directly in some post, and I believe on this site as well, that <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> is not the mathematical integer "0", although lthey may share common descriptions. "0" is a mathematical term used as integers are to describe reality. <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> is that reality.

2 -

Finite: "Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero. [unquote]

Zero or <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> is not an integer. An integer is "Something" only "Something" can be defined as being finite. But not being "Finite" doesnot exclusively dictate therefore "Infinite" or "Eternal". IT ALSO INCLUDES "NOTHINGNESS" which is neither finite or infinite.

YOU LOSE. If all this double talk was to try and prove the existance of a "Creator" God, you have failed.
***********************************************************************

Good luck.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[Patrick]:What are your thoughts if I remove "eternal" from the equation?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No thoughts. Just satisfaction we got an "eternalist" to convert to a "finitist". The details are insignificant. Your move is brave and away from the absurdity of metaphysical claims. Good luck to you.