Love changes people all the time, without actually changing itself.
“Clever wordplay”? It’s basic mathematics, you can’t go rejecting basic mathematics just because you don’t think it sounds logical.
Argh! If anyone needs me I’ll be in the angry dome.
Is your immortal entity an emotion?
Oh, so emotions don’t count?
Only examples of timeless, unchanging creator deities that are directly observable inside the universe would be acceptable to you then, I guess :rolleyes:
Certainly more acceptable than words redefined to suit your metaphysical needs and an ignorance of basic mathematics.
? Love comes from one person to another, and both are certainly changed by the experience.
Sorry, I just assumed that by asking a question, you wanted an answer. If “How can anything change something else, and not be changed itself?” was not your intended question, then please refine it, and ask it again.
So we’re in agreement that love can change things.
?
The question doesn’t need to be refined. your “clever” word-play answer does, however.
As a comic book fan, you should know better than this. A “timeless entity” (which is in fact what “eternal” means, not a synonym for “perpetual” but “not participating in the flow of time, so that all times are at once present for it”) would have no “before” – indeed, if time and space are the metric produced by the existence of matter and energy, then there would be no “before creation” time period, any more than there is a real physical temperature below absolute zero. It can be conceptualized by extending a scale, but has no physical referent. It would be like asking, “What is the precise physical location of ‘Up’?”
As a stable comic book fan, I know the difference between fantasy and reality. The question still has to be answered as to the state of this “timeless entity” before he finally decided to push CREATE button. Stipulating that this entity exists, either she/he/it was created along with the universe, or she/he/it existed before the universe was created.
Define “things”
Cite?
I am thinking particularly in light of your assertion of something like this -
How can something that doesn’t exist act?
Regards,
Shodan
You mean something immaterial?
Good question-but only if you are willing to apply the same question to all premises, both scientific and metaphysical.
Plenty of people think God does all sorts of stuff. [/zing]
Not directly, though. It’s more of a case of things happen due to the influence of other things, and God gets the credit because he somehow caused it to happen in some undetectable way.
No, I mean the material universe.
Sure thing.
So let’s apply it first to your assertion. Is it possible for something that does not exist to act? If your answer is Yes, then please cite the evidence of all the things that don’t exist that cause things to happen.
Regards,
Shodan
Since I never asserted that in the first place, I don’t have to defend it. By the phrase “universe creating and destroying itself” I of course am referring to the theory that the universe will eventually collapse into an unstable ball of energy, then explode outward to start all over again. Better minds than mine can explain it in better detail.
Which is why no such entity is possible.
It has nothing to do with “this universe”; sentience is a structure, about a particular kind of complex information processing. Without some sort of underlying rules to stabilize and order the process, and a substrate for the process to be embedded in, no such phenomena is possible.
Even if there was such a thing as a god, the universe or at least A universe would have to come first, in order for the god to have a place and substrate to exist in.
Love is a brain state, and material as a rock. And yes it is changed, it can only influence behavior at all because it is a collection of brain cells firing in a particular pattern. It IS change.
What he said. Love isn’t something that makes changes-it is a name given to the change itself.