ooman:


Infinity qualifies something, not itself.

A thing may be said to exist for infinity, but infinity cannot be said to exist for infinity.

Infinity is abstract, nonexistent when nothing exists.

So infinity by itself is nothing.

Else you'd be holding the block view of time, which is pathetic.

Kay17:


Infinity can be in relation of numbers or any quantity. By in this circumstance, it is being used in relation to time. Hope you get me?

Joshthefirst:
Sorry, but no one ever claims the source is abstract. Let me put forward at least one parameter to qualify the uncaused cause: Energy. The Personality of origin possesses infinite energy. Omnipotence.(wrt our universe of course).

Joshthefirst:
Sorry, but no one ever claims the source is abstract. Let me put forward at least one parameter to qualify the uncaused cause: Energy. The Personality of origin possesses infinite energy. Omnipotence.(wrt our universe of course).

undercat:


Yes, something currently exists. However, everything could also not have existed. That's what I mean when I say nothingness is a possibility.

undercat: The "ancient energy" you call God. I'm merely trying to show you that it could just as well not be "God".

undercat: I thing you are just repeating yourself here, that eternity=personality.

undercat: I'm trying to say that spacetime can be eternal. That would invalidate the argument.

undercat: I couldn't understand you here. Could you explain a bit?

undercat: Perhaps the singularity is inherently unstable. Perhaps this universe is one of the possible states of the singularity. These are options.

ooman:


what is energy?

davien:
You do realise that infinite energy equals infinite entropy/disorder right?

Joshthefirst:
Not in this instance. Here I purport a personality behind energy.

davien:
why? and how does this logically follow?

Joshthefirst:
Volition is the only reason that can account for something like our universe existing.

Joshthefirst:
Energy is the ability to do work. Potential.

Joshthefirst:
And I say that the fact that something currently exists throws away the possibility of nothingness. The fact that something currently exists shows that something always existed, because nothing cannot create something.

OK. Let's take things one by one. I say the source is personal, because only volition can cause our universe to be birthed from eternity.

But Space-time has been shown to have a physical origin. So it cannot be eternal.

I mean you have to show the creator of this universe is not timeless and spaceless before you can say the creator might have been created, as a timeless and spaceless creator is uncreated.

Joshthefirst:
And in this instance The Source is said to be timeless in relation to time. Unchanging.

EvilBrain1:
^^^In case anybody is wondering, the answer is Voltron, obviously.

oyb:


oya, who would win between voltron and gypsy danger?

EvilBrain1:


Voltron again.

First of all, Voltron can fight as 5 separate autonomous units giving him a huge tactical advantage over most other giant robots (except for combiners like Superion and Omega Prime). Plus each of Voltron's lions specialize in a different environment (underwater, boiling lava, etc) giving him a versatility that Gipsy Danger can only dream of.

Even if you force Voltron to fight only as his combined form, he'll still be far stronger. For one he's bigger (each individual lion is almost as tall as the castle), he has better ranged weapons (shoulder missiles, lasers and flaming breath versus Gipsy Danger's admittedly powerful pulse launcher and plasmacaster). Also, while both of them can sword fight, Voltron's flaming sword can cut through metal, meaning that GD can't parry with his dual chain swords. Not being able to parry means GD would have to rely on dodging Voltron's sword attacks and no Jaeger is that fast or nimble.

The fact is that Voltron is simply on another level compared to all other known giant robots. There is simply no contest. If say it was Optimus Prime vs Gipsy Danger, it'll be a much closer fight. Optimus would win though.

voltron:


For l his might voltron has one sick weakness. Disrupt the integration process and you have him in a corner. One robeast with a metal cutting sword nearly had him if not for

oyb:

DProDG:
I can't believe this thread just turned into a giant robot death-match.









Megas XLR dey look una oh.

wiegraf:


At least when one discuses giant robohs, one is usually discussing the good guys. When speculating on yahweh (in particular) one is speculating (and usually praising, if you're judeoxtian) a monster. Indeed, when discussing yahweh's powah levels, one ought to compare him with villains, eg Skeletor, Bluto, Megatron, Mojojojo (granted that's not fair on Mojo, as he's nowhere near yahweh on the evil scale) etc

EvilBrain1:
@OP

Look, [url=wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam]the Kalam argument has been thoroughly debunked on multiple levels[/url]. First, it starts with a faulty premise ("all things that begin to exist have a cause." Says who?). It conflates concepts that are totally different: The universe didn't begin to exist in the same way planets, trees and pencils do. Planets, trees and pencils are rearrangements of previously existing stuff, which is not neccesarily true of the universe. It makes conclusions that dont follow from the logic: why does the cause have to be personal? And even if it is, why just one? Why not 2, or 10? Why not a race of powerful suprradimensional space aliens? And why do they have to be timeless and unchanging? Why can't they have their own time? Is it even possible for a timeless being to create anything? How does it see and learn and react to things without changing, without time?

Of course even of Kalam was airtight (its not) it still wouldnt matter because all it is is proof by logic. Religious apologists like to think that they can prove god exists simply by constructing a fancy argument, which is simply not true. Theory is not enough, you need to be able to demonstrate your god via observation or experiment. Otherwise its just like arguing about who would win in a fight, Voltron or Optimus Prime. No matter who wins, the conclusion is ultimately meaningless until you can show that both of them exist in the real world.

Any argument that cannot be settled by experiment is not worth discussing - Newton's flaming laser sword.

Joshthefirst:
Thanks for derailing my thread.

Joshthefirst:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


Before I was aware of this argument I had a bit of thought on causes and origins and arrived at the same conclusion of the character and basic nature of the Source of all things.