That which changes is not æternal; that which is æternal does not change

[Donnadogsoth]

In order to be æternal, a thing must retain an unchanging substance.  Yet the Universe we see around us is, as Heraclitus said, defined by change.  "Change is the only constant (in the Universe)."  Is there anything that doesn't change?  Your desk will be dust in a thousand years.  The landscapes where you live will change.  Given enough time, the very constellations will rearrange themselves.  What is constant?

"Change is the only constant."  Then, there is a constant, and that constant does not change, even as it defines change for the changing Universe.  Here we can describe a difference between what Plato called the Becoming, the world of change, and the Good, the unchanging perfection at the heart of reality.  Thus,

Becoming | Good

The implication of this is that the Universe--the Becoming--which embodies change, cannot be æternal, cannot have "created itself," or "have always been here".  A changing universe requires a Creator, one that does not change and so is æternal.

[Eudaimonic]

12 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

In order to be æternal, a thing must retain an unchanging substance.  Yet the Universe we see around us is, as Heraclitus said, defined by change.  "Change is the only constant (in the Universe)."  Is there anything that doesn't change?  Your desk will be dust in a thousand years.  The landscapes where you live will change.  Given enough time, the very constellations will rearrange themselves.  What is constant?

"Change is the only constant."  Then, there is a constant, and that constant does not change, even as it defines change for the changing Universe.  Here we can describe a difference between what Plato called the Becoming, the world of change, and the Good, the unchanging perfection at the heart of reality.  Thus,

Becoming | Good

The implication of this is that the Universe--the Becoming--which embodies change, cannot be æternal, cannot have "created itself," or "have always been here".  A changing universe requires a Creator, one that does not change and so is æternal.

Doesn't that just shift the argument from "how did the universe create itself"  to "how did the creator create himself?" And then any justification for the latter means you could've used the same justification for the former, Occam's razor, and wallah, we've cut a creator out of the question?

As well, I don't think matter or energy change, doesn't this elucidate a constant?

[Kohlrak]

19 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Doesn't that just shift the argument from "how did the universe create itself"  to "how did the creator create himself?" And then any justification for the latter means you could've used the same justification for the former, Occam's razor, and wallah, we've cut a creator out of the question?

As well, I don't think matter or energy change, doesn't this elucidate a constant?

 

I really need to make a post on Occam's razor once i don't need to be approved by a moderator constantly.

 

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

In order to be æternal, a thing must retain an unchanging substance.  Yet the Universe we see around us is, as Heraclitus said, defined by change.  "Change is the only constant (in the Universe)."  Is there anything that doesn't change?  Your desk will be dust in a thousand years.  The landscapes where you live will change.  Given enough time, the very constellations will rearrange themselves.  What is constant?

"Change is the only constant."  Then, there is a constant, and that constant does not change, even as it defines change for the changing Universe.  Here we can describe a difference between what Plato called the Becoming, the world of change, and the Good, the unchanging perfection at the heart of reality.  Thus,

Becoming | Good

The implication of this is that the Universe--the Becoming--which embodies change, cannot be æternal, cannot have "created itself," or "have always been here".  A changing universe requires a Creator, one that does not change and so is æternal.

 

First off, why does unchanging present a conflict with aeternality? Don't get me wrong, i'm a theist, but i fail to see how that's logical. It'd be cool if it were, though, as that'd be a great argument for my side. However, i don't see the logic. Please enlighten us.

 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

Doesn't that just shift the argument from "how did the universe create itself"  to "how did the creator create himself?" And then any justification for the latter means you could've used the same justification for the former, Occam's razor, and wallah, we've cut a creator out of the question?

As well, I don't think matter or energy change, doesn't this elucidate a constant?

Matter can change into energy and vice versa, and both matter and energy can change location.

The Creator does not need to create himself, because he is outside of time, or, as it were, behind all times at once.  My point is any constant we find for the Universe outside of its changeable nature is essentially the Creator.

[neeeel]

14 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

In order to be æternal, a thing must retain an unchanging substance.  Yet the Universe we see around us is, as Heraclitus said, defined by change.  "Change is the only constant (in the Universe)."  Is there anything that doesn't change?  Your desk will be dust in a thousand years.  The landscapes where you live will change.  Given enough time, the very constellations will rearrange themselves.  What is constant?

"Change is the only constant."  Then, there is a constant, and that constant does not change, even as it defines change for the changing Universe.  Here we can describe a difference between what Plato called the Becoming, the world of change, and the Good, the unchanging perfection at the heart of reality.  Thus,

Becoming | Good

The implication of this is that the Universe--the Becoming--which embodies change, cannot be æternal, cannot have "created itself," or "have always been here".  A changing universe requires a Creator, one that does not change and so is æternal.

If you are going to do a sleight of hand in order to define change as constant, then yes, you can come up with justification for anything

 

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

 

I really need to make a post on Occam's razor once i don't need to be approved by a moderator constantly.

 

 

First off, why does unchanging present a conflict with aeternality? Don't get me wrong, i'm a theist, but i fail to see how that's logical. It'd be cool if it were, though, as that'd be a great argument for my side. However, i don't see the logic. Please enlighten us.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you rephrase that?

[Eudaimonic]

3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Matter can change into energy and vice versa, and both matter and energy can change location.

The Creator does not need to create himself, because he is outside of time, or, as it were, behind all times at once.  My point is any constant we find for the Universe outside of its changeable nature is essentially the Creator.

Matter is stored energy. Even if you don't want to concede matter as a constant, energy can be considered the constant. I'd don't see how changing location makes it a non-constant if all existence is location.

Energy = existence. Existence is the only thing we can point to emperically, not something outside of time.

Why does being outside of time mean God doesn't have to create itself?

As well, it would seem to me either time is objective, which would mean it would apply to God or time is relative or subjective in which case you can't posit knowledge because you're viewing reality through a false lense.

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

Matter is stored energy. Even if you don't want to concede matter as a constant, energy can be considered the constant. I'd don't see how changing location makes it a non-constant if all existence is location.

Energy = existence. Existence is the only thing we can point to emperically, not something outside of time.

Why does being outside of time mean God doesn't have to create itself?

As well, it would seem to me either time is objective, which would mean it would apply to God or time is relative or subjective in which case you can't posit knowledge because you're viewing reality through a false lense.

Changing location is still a change.

An æternal substance by definition needs no creating.  It exists because nothingness is impossible.

[Eudaimonic]

3 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Changing location is still a change.

An æternal substance by definition needs no creating.  It exists because nothingness is impossible.

That fact that it has location is what is constant (everything is location; it will never come out if location; imagine a circle, it may move in the circle but never out, it's constant to the location.)

There's no such thing as nothing, only existence which runs through Time ad infinitum. Time is the "æternal." Time does not imply a beginning and end, only progression; infinite line.

The gap here doesn't justify God either, only points to human ignorance. You need emperical data to show the existence of a Creator. 

I'm curious to know your relationship to religion and God, if you don't mind telling.

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

Matter is stored energy. Even if you don't want to concede matter as a constant, energy can be considered the constant. I'd don't see how changing location makes it a non-constant if all existence is location.

Energy = existence. Existence is the only thing we can point to emperically, not something outside of time.

Why does being outside of time mean God doesn't have to create itself?

As well, it would seem to me either time is objective, which would mean it would apply to God or time is relative or subjective in which case you can't posit knowledge because you're viewing reality through a false lense.

 

Being outside of time while implying time exists means something doesn't need an origin, since origins would only exist as a result of time.

 

6 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you rephrase that?

 

I'm simply asking why something must be unchanging to be aeternal. You claim that unchanging is a necessary quality of being aeternal, so i want to know how you came to that conclusion.

 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

5 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

 

Being outside of time while implying time exists means something doesn't need an origin, since origins would only exist as a result of time.

 

 

I'm simply asking why something must be unchanging to be aeternal. You claim that unchanging is a necessary quality of being aeternal, so i want to know how you came to that conclusion.

 

 

If a thing changes it becomes something else, except insofar as we can imagine there is a deeper layer of that thing that does not change.  Is an old man the same person as the infant he once was?  There we would postulate there is an unchanging "soul" that unites the two beings.  So with the Universe, if it changes it effectively ceases to exist from moment to moment and is replaced by its successor; if there is any identity to the Universe in all its possible states that identity is that part which doesn't change.  Such changeless things we call æternal.

[Kohlrak]

1 minute ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If a thing changes it becomes something else, except insofar as we can imagine there is a deeper layer of that thing that does not change.  Is an old man the same person as the infant he once was?  There we would postulate there is an unchanging "soul" that unites the two beings.  So with the Universe, if it changes it effectively ceases to exist from moment to moment and is replaced by its successor; if there is any identity to the Universe in all its possible states that identity is that part which doesn't change.  Such changeless things we call æternal.

 

By that logic any time an action is taken something meets it's own end and a new beginning exists for something else.

[Donnadogsoth]

44 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

That fact that it has location is what is constant (everything is location; it will never come out if location; imagine a circle, it may move in the circle but never out, it's constant to the location.)

There's no such thing as nothing, only existence which runs through Time ad infinitum. Time is the "æternal." Time does not imply a beginning and end, only progression; infinite line.

The gap here doesn't justify God either, only points to human ignorance. You need emperical data to show the existence of a Creator. 

I'm curious to know your relationship to religion and God, if you don't mind telling.

We agree, there is no such thing as nothing in any ultimate sense.  Which means there must be Something.  I differentiate between that Something that is æternal (which might include as part of itself, time), and that Something which is not, but rather which changes.  In other words, I am arguing that the constant of the Becoming is the Good.

I am a Christian, a Catholic.  My relationship to God is through Jesus, whom I know as the most powerful human to have ever lived, whose life is attested to in the Gospels, and whose resurrection is vouched for by the blood of the original martyrs such as Peter and Paul.  It took me a long while to come around to faith, I still have my disagreements with God, but I got there.

[Donnadogsoth]

25 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

 

By that logic any time an action is taken something meets it's own end and a new beginning exists for something else.

Correct.

[Eudaimonic]

15 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

We agree, there is no such thing as nothing in any ultimate sense.  Which means there must be Something.  I differentiate between that Something that is æternal (which might include as part of itself, time), and that Something which is not, but rather which changes.  In other words, I am arguing that the constant of the Becoming is the Good.

I am a Christian, a Catholic.  My relationship to God is through Jesus, whom I know as the most powerful human to have ever lived, whose life is attested to in the Gospels, and whose resurrection is vouched for by the blood of the original martyrs such as Peter and Paul.  It took me a long while to come around to faith, I still have my disagreements with God, but I got there.

Sorry to ask personal questions and of course you don't have to answer them, but it'll help me to gage how much I want to participate in this conversation, if that matters to you at all.

How long have you been Christian, Do you go to church, to what degree to you participate in that church if you do and do you have children?

[Donnadogsoth]

38 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Sorry to ask personal questions and of course you don't have to answer them, but it'll help me to gage how much I want to participate in this conversation, if that matters to you at all.

How long have you been Christian, Do you go to church, to what degree to you participate in that church if you do and do you have children?

I was raised Catholic but only started to get serious about it in my twenties.  I attend Mass at Christmas and Easter, typically.  I lost interest in weekly Mass after I realised they were reading the same 156 Bible passages year in, year out.  As Terence McKenna put it, "When you get the message, hang up the phone".

My family and other personalia are off limits.

[_LiveFree_]

Eudaimonic,

why would you ever reply to an OP that is that non-sensica?  Anyone who'd post something like that isn't going to be capable of reason. 

[Eudaimonic]

18 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Eudaimonic,

why would you ever reply to an OP that is that non-sensica?  Anyone who'd post something like that isn't going to be capable of reason.

I can definitely see how it may of come across to you that way and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.

The reason you ask questions like that (after you've gone back and forth on a subject for awhile with no budging on a concept that is contradictory on it's face or which requires the person to move the goal posts) is too see if a rational conversation with that person is likely possible. I asked those questions to gage how emotionally embedded Donna may be in religion and God so that I could gage the likely hood that s/he would be susceptible to a reasoned argument. It's essentially a time saver, Stefan talks about the concept a lot.

I'd be curious to see the reasons as to why it's nonsensical or irrational to do this.

[Donnadogsoth]

Amazing to think that people can call themselves philosophers while dismissing the very Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greek thought that allowed them to be alive in the first place and capable of thinking such thoughts...and in a philosophy forum, no less!

[_LiveFree_]

4 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I can definitely see how it may of come across to you that way and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.

The reason you ask questions like that (after you've gone back and forth on a subject for awhile with no budging on a concept that is contradictory on it's face or which requires the person to move the goal posts) is too see if a rational conversation with that person is likely possible. I asked those questions to gage how emotionally embedded Donna may be in religion and God so that I could gage the likely hood that s/he would be susceptible to a reasoned argument. It's essentially a time saver, Stefan talks about the concept a lot.

I'd be curious to see the reasons as to why it's nonsensical or irrational to do this.

You misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm talking about the original post in the thread. Post #1. This junk.

 

On 5/5/2017 at 9:25 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

In order to be æternal, a thing must retain an unchanging substance.  Yet the Universe we see around us is, as Heraclitus said, defined by change.  "Change is the only constant (in the Universe)."  Is there anything that doesn't change?  Your desk will be dust in a thousand years.  The landscapes where you live will change.  Given enough time, the very constellations will rearrange themselves.  What is constant?

"Change is the only constant."  Then, there is a constant, and that constant does not change, even as it defines change for the changing Universe.  Here we can describe a difference between what Plato called the Becoming, the world of change, and the Good, the unchanging perfection at the heart of reality.  Thus,

Becoming | Good

The implication of this is that the Universe--the Becoming--which embodies change, cannot be æternal, cannot have "created itself," or "have always been here".  A changing universe requires a Creator, one that does not change and so is æternal.

What on earth?

Why would you attempt at a reply to this?

[_LiveFree_]

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Amazing to think that people can call themselves philosophers while dismissing the very Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greek thought that allowed them to be alive in the first place and capable of thinking such thoughts...and in a philosophy forum, no less!

"omg! They're all gonna laugh at you!" 

 

I guess I should be clear to you, too. I'm not dismissing Christianity and friends, I'm dismissing you. Two very different things.

[os.motic]

Back that up with anything. 

[Eudaimonic]

9 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

You misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm talking about the original post in the thread. Post #1. This junk.

 

What on earth?

Why would you attempt at a reply to this?

That's a good point.

Intellectual masturbation?

A desire to corner a theist?

Curiosity as to an argument for God I haven't thought too much about?

Your point is entirely correct though, now that you've pointed it out, it was a silly question to respond to...

I have been in a few threads with Donna though, perhaps I just wanted to see the extent to which I could have a rational conversation because I try not to dismiss theists out of hand and will have a few conversations before I start to ask about the extent of their involvement. Or it could be less virtuous motives, thats something I'll have to explore in myself, but thank you for pointing it out, I appreciate the clarification.

[_LiveFree_]

53 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

That's a good point.

Intellectual masturbation?

A desire to corner a theist?

Curiosity as to an argument for God I haven't thought too much about?

Your point is entirely correct though, now that you've pointed it out, it was a silly question to respond to...

I have been in a few threads with Donna though, perhaps I just wanted to see the extent to which I could have a rational conversation because I try not to dismiss theists out of hand and will have a few conversations before I start to ask about the extent of their involvement. Or it could be less virtuous motives, thats something I'll have to explore in myself, but thank you for pointing it out, I appreciate the clarification.

Fair enough 

I actually have a friend (read: friend-lite) who's a theist and we've had some great conversations about all kinds of things. He's too deep in the cultiness of it to ever come out, but I got him and his wife to stop spanking. War of attrition. There are plenty of theists out there with which to have a decent discussion. Donnadogosth isn't one of them. And this was one of his more goopy posts, so I was wondering why he's getting the patronage. Anyway, just curious.

[HasMat]

On 5/6/2017 at 10:04 AM, neeeel said:

If you are going to do a sleight of hand in order to define change as constant, then yes, you can come up with justification for anything

 

 

When you get some robust rationality and really grab reality by the nuts and deconstruct it, you will understand.

 

The substrate of reality exists in contrast to nothing. The difference between something and nothing is a matter of infinity, not static numeracy. Infinity extends by multiplication above as well as from division below (divide by zero errors). If you "overdivide" a quantity to infinity you actually increase (or decrease) its quantity. (Achille's can run forever, in a straight line without ever stopping, over a finite distance)

 

Divide by zero errors are notorious for creating logical paradoxes/math inequalities.

 

The latent divisible infinite context (micro) is invisible without a robust rationality (I'm calling out your rationality as amateur and underdeveloped) to divide it past quanta. Spatial quanta, as experienced, defies spatial quanta as rationally conceptualized. At some point, deconstruction requires a quanta. When this quanta is achieved, its reconciliation to logic/rationality/skepticism implodes at the quantum scale (but not macro). See "race as social construct" (race can be considered a quanta). All quanta defy linear rationality because they beg the question of their own unfounded arbitrary set-point. All objects require a quanta as a base template. Also, objects cannot exist without a subject.... When viewers assume they can delete themselves from the context they produce irrational conclusions. You cannot separate objects and subjects. An object without a subject exists as superposition. Full rationality is the attempt to reduce the viewer to nothing (as an effect on object interpretation), and assert an object as universally true regardless of viewer. This knowledge is not a feature of reality.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

Achille's and the Tortoise

Without a quanta originating substrate Achille's is doing a weird microstep literally forever. Rationalism limits (limit as verb, meaning it has an 'end' of functionality it cannot cover). Full skepticism implodes into nonsense when it names a unit of smallest division (distance, mass, race, etc). Without this quanta Zeno's Paradoxes occur. Damned if you do (define quanta like race), damned if you don't (Achille's microstep). Rationality is an imperfect/incomplete measuring stick. But its imperfection is only visible as it approaches fullness (reduction of viewer). Infant versions of rationality seem integrous and non-contradictory because they do a shitty and incomplete job of extricating the viewer.

 

Numeracy itself only works when you assume the quanta. Quanta cannot be regulated by linear rules. Quanta is the circular logic than enables linear regulation from that point upward.

 

Quanta means smallest indivisible unit of any particular measurement. Distance, mass, time, etc. Race can be regranularized to very small divisions (based on haplogroups or genes), variable quanta sizes are just different frames. They all have similar validity issues from deconstruction whether the quanta has 3 elements (white black asian) or a million. And as you would expect, race is meaningless outside a subject context to say "this" mulatto is white, "that" one is black. You cannot separate objects and subjects completely. The failure to fully separate the race object from a subject interpretation is considered (by SJWs) an invalidation of the race construct (as objective/rational). This is false, and the problem is literally intractable. That's the nature of reality at its deepest core.

 

The only reason we don't notice the collapsing of all constructs is because we don't examine then to the same scrutiny (rationality) as these others. Nothing can withstand full subject extrication and remain rational/sensical. You can have quantum mechanics, or General Relativity, but never both at the same time. Quanta are irrational, because subjects are what have rationality. Full extrication of rational subject disconnects objects from rational essence.

[Donnadogsoth]

On 5/8/2017 at 0:31 AM, _LiveFree_ said:

I guess I should be clear to you, too. I'm not dismissing Christianity and friends, I'm dismissing you. Two very different things.

You don't dismiss Christianity?  You mean you take it seriously?

[_LiveFree_]

14 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

You don't dismiss Christianity?  You mean you take it seriously?

I dismiss you. I don't take you seriously. After 2.5 years of you posting I'm very comfortable with that position.