Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fuzzybottom
since when did nature tend to not exist? =.=
also, people try to disprove things using space and time because those are the most prevalent frames of reference in basic sciences. and people with any interest in objectionally debating god are probably interested in some way of a scientific view.
but i dont we're thinking of the same thing when i say "eternal", maybe we are for "infinite" though. im talking eternal not in the sense of a limitless amount of time, more like timelessness; a lack of relation to time. and im thinking infinite in the sense of lack of physical boundry, not lots and lots of something. it doesn't make sense to me to consider either "infinite" or "eternal" in the context of the things that they are opposites of (space and time). theyre not quantitative in my mind.
|
Nature continually tends to not exist as demonstrated through the concept of change. For example, if it is necessary to preserve existence through change, it is possible that the object does not exist. It is not reasonable or rational to accept that it has always existed if it tends towards nonexistence. The flu is an example of this as is geological change of landforms.
My problem with your concept of space is fairly basic. Are we not really saying the same thing but just phrasing it differently then? For example, if I believe in a prime mover of all that exists is outside of the realm of constriction and you are referring to time and space being outside the realm of quantitative constriction, then how is our belief really any different?
Alot of people argue space and time on the practical level of science that most people understand. Besides certain very specific arguments, I feel many basic concepts such as the Heisenberg Principle can be shown to counter almost all arguments I've seen.