Totalitarianist

Gods are by definition non-physical! You cannot call a physical thing a god!

A non-physical being. Is that possible? Is the existence of an "idea" possible?

Totalitarianist

No one has won. You have yet to refute my 3 main points.

Automaton

I was referring to my previous post, that example is extraneous to it.

Theli

Trebaxian Vir...
I wasn't aware that the physical laws existing inside our universe created it. (And thereby created themselfs).

Totalitarianist

Read this entire post. I made a few changes.

Automaton

Are there physical gods? They can be omnipresent and non-sentient, but the word "god" in essence still contradicts "the laws of physics", unless you completely redefine God to mean "the laws of physics", and that's just arbitrary word shifting.
What is the relevence of this?

Automaton

Sez you, butt puppet.
What "3 main points" would these be?

Adrian Selby

My question from page 1 got ignored.

"What are the laws of the universe?"

If they're the laws of physics, what are they in your view Treb, and more importantly, how do know they are omnipresent, omnipotent whatever. Aren't they humanities best guesses so far? Can you extrapolate that what we've discovered about physics that we've given the name law to equates to inviolable infinitely true statements on the nature of the universe?

I just think you're jumping the gun a bit. But I would like my question answered, namely, give me an example of a law of the universe and explain how it cannot ever be falsified.

Adrian

HelenM

Perhaps you are thinking scientifically whereas he is thinking 'axiomatically'.

I.e. if he has defined 'law of the universe' to mean 'some principle about the way the universe works' then that will never be falsified. However, you seem to be thinking of 'laws of the universe' as 'what we observe/conclude to be laws of the universe' - which actually are not the laws of the universe, necessarily, but only our scientific theories about the 'laws of the universe'. Our observations and conclusions, which we nevertheless might refer to as 'laws of the universe' are subject to falsification to the extent that we continue to study and to the extent they aren't quite what the actual 'laws of the universe' are.

Analogy because I'm not sure that made sense -

The temperature of the sun at its core is a definable thing.

We can scientifically/mathematically etc guess/predict what it is.

We might be wrong. But someone who simply refers to 'the temperature of the sun at its core' is not 'wrong' - that's a definition of something; it's not falsifiable. But our guess of what that temperature is in degrees, is subject to being proved false as we continue to study and experiment and thus gain new information about the sun.

Maybe that didn't make anythng clearer

I know what I mean, anyway!

love
Helen

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Liquidrage

It looks like Treb has his own fan club.

He starts posting under his old name and a topic that would have recieved little attention gets many responses.

Interesting.