Wednesday, November 26, 2008

AbbyLeever budges in on physics

Read Abby's short comment before my answer, pls:
AbbyLeever wrote:

... and calling something you don't understand god proves that god exists?

The universe is not limited by our inability to imagine it.
  • A) What do you mean something I don't understand? That God is ineffable? True. Or that I do not understand the proof in question? Bullshit. I do and so does anyone. Even if Kant pretended not to.
  • B) The universe is limited by the fact that it consists of limited things. It is obvious that I am not the first mover of Heaven, nor are you the first cause, Abby, nor is vq the necessary and eternal existence. And the same can be said of any part of the universe. And of their parts - Hiroshima disproves the indestructibility and indivisibility of "atoms" all right. To anyone who didn't realise it before.

But some idiots who call themselves physicists really want very badly to place the principle of movement and change, of cause, permanence and existence, within the limits of the physical, the manyfold, the continuous (though they tend to deny the reality of continuum by atomism), the moved, the changing, the caused, the things that would obviously for any sane man be seen as also kept in existence and whatever permanence it has by something else. Something outside it. Therefore they pretend that something they call energy is this first mover, cause, necessary existence. But that contention is disproven by the potentiality of energy, especially apparent in potential energy - while the first mover, cause and necessary existance must be actual to move, cause, (put and) keep in existence anything else.

Hans Georg Lundahl

AbbyLeever wrote:

"our" is inclusive of the entire human race.
"our inability to imagine" how the universe operates is no limitation on it to keep on doing what it is doing, has done, and will do.

Mr Abby:
your stance is that of Kant. If Kant denies the knowability of these things, how can he/you agree with physics claiming energy to be that indestructible and uncreated which he has/you have admitted to believing unproven (admitted to be unproven as far as you are concerned) except deceptively by our lack of imagination?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS - thanks for not adding from eternity and to eternity, but even claiming that the universe is active is bad enough, considering how potential and therefore passive all its observeed parts are.

AbbyLeever wrote:

Not my stance - read it again ...

Not below this one, since it has been erased: so your stance is NOT that "the universe isn't limited by our lack of imagination", i e denying knowability of God's existence, or it is NOT accepting modern physics, i e accepting the indestructibility of energy, or it is NEITHER? I don't think I misread those.