Search:

Having never observed total rest, that's not a statement that you can make.

Not glossing over, just acknowledging that it's only a possibility as no one was there to observe it. And, as I've said before, the forces you've pointed out have never been observed in the absence...

They could've been in motion already sounds to me about as valid as they could've been at rest.

How do you figure that? I'm in the middle of mid-terms, so I don't have time to study his reasons enough to give a good answer. However, I'm not satisfied with your dismissal of the prime-mover. ...

I'm fairly certain that I've never claimed that it's "easier". It's far easier to live life with no ultimate accountability or responsibility beyond cultural and social convention.

What do you mean credible? The two ideas aren't competing. God is what exists...

Because an eternal God explains where existence came from.

Having never existed in absolute isolation, your speculation on consciousness in that state is arbitrary.

Seems like Rand and Decartes would bump heads on this one. I don't see how she comes to her conclusion about consciousness apart from anything else (why the prime mover couldn't be conscious of...

This is the point that I cannot conceded as of right now.

As far as nothingness being a flawed concept...

Does this mean that your definitions of existence apply only to material?

God, being eternal, is not subject to time. Davis can explain it better than I can.

#2 is something that we cannot observe as we cannot place ourselves or anything around us in a state of absolute rest (unless you believe in the ability to stop time).

#4 is speculative that...

To #1:

Assuming motion seems as arbitrary as assuming rest.

To #2:

No motion that we can observe is independent of other motion (we observe gravity, but these observations are made from a...

Aristotle believed that time was a result of change. So, if the Big Bang were the first motion in the universe, there would be no time before it because there was no change before it. His prime...

I apologize for losing my temper with this debate. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 says, "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness...

Your arrogance has turned me off from posting for a while. Your assertion that material didn't have to be put into motion is a faith issue as well. I disagree. God, being pure act, is the prime...

I've been over this a million times, but I guess you didn't pay much attention to it because you didn't write it. Neither one of you has provided a significant dispute to a prime mover.

Perhaps I...

Obviously you don't.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want about MY perception, but that seems to be contrary to your philosophy. And, that statement is not consistent with MY faith.

Not surprising that you would say that...most anything that you disagree with is labled valueless.

And you've set yourself up to "know" very little in the grand scheme of things. There have been philosophers (before and after) Rand who have disagreed with her greatly. You choose to agree with...

Not claiming they're not valid, just claiming they're not sufficient. The senses are paired with other material. You pair your senses with the writings of philosophers of your choosing. You accept...

Y'all are doing a great job proving MY theory that objectivism is an illusion. You evaluate this data and that data according to your understanding of sensory data you have experienced. You take...

I believe Randy would call that belief "silly". Okay, I'm really done for a while.

Don't have time to explain right now, but your flaw is your understanding of God.

Yes, carried to it's logcial end, it is very handicapping and so impracticle that it doesn't matter. If you don't understand why history matters, I doubt it's worth my time to go any further with...