|
Pro Tips On How To Make Your Logic/Cubase Tracks Sound Better And More Proffessional! (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| johncannons1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
This?
No, sirree. This t'ain't no flame war.
This is just crono making sure another thread has made its decent from useful conversation to pointless bickering. |
haha mannn...
i posted that on the bus to work this morning and there was 7 pages now its double lol |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Logic dictates that the one who created the first change couldn't have changed into the state of existence, because change didn't exist for that to happen. Because one has to exist to do. |
are we talking about barack obama now? seriously though, you think existence and change are the same? coming into existence means change, then you say a creator is not subject to change. so change can't occur to the creator in your mind.. but for your creator to ever have existed it would, by your rules, need to follow the path of change, but you say it does not.
thread offically hijacked. massive awsome pic inc: [IMG] [/IMG] |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
are we talking about barack obama now? seriously though, you think existence and change are the same? coming into existence means change, then you say a creator is not subject to change. so change can't occur to the creator in your mind.. but for your creator to ever have existed it would, by your rules, need to follow the path of change, but you say it does not.
|
Existence and change aren't the same. I never said or implied that...so it was a pretty random notion. Coming into existence means change took place, yes. The one that created the first change, by definition, is not attributed with change. Because change exists, it has to have been brought here, so by definition, the one that brought it here has to exist. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | | because change existed, it has to have been brought here |
How do you know this? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
How do you know this? |
Its logic. Change exists, and its the accident of an event. It does not have power in an of itself. |
|
|
| Raphie |
| WTF?!? been away for 1 night and 15 pages of crap?!? :whip: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
WTF?!? been away for 1 night and 15 pages of crpp?!? :whip: |
Its a forum thread, its meant for discussion, so discussion took place. Idiot. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Change exists, and its the accident of an event. It does not have power in an of itself. |
How do you know? existence does not mean change occured.. immaterial things exist and change never occurred there
2+2=4 we didnt bring that, it always has been 4. twice two is four, nothing created that or "changed" that.. it has always been with out us being here.. right? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
How do you know? existence does not mean change occured.. immaterial things exist and change never occurred there
2+2=4 we didnt bring that, it always has been 4. twice two is four, nothing created that or "changed" that.. it has always been with out us being here.. right? |
No, existence doesn't mean change occurred.
Being brought into existence, does mean change occurred. Existence isn't the same as the change of 'coming into existence', not all that exists had to be brought here. For instance, the one that brought everything into existence, was not brought here.
2+2=4 because that is what logic dictates. Logic was also created. Logic is a tool that was created, to explain things. Its part of the intellect. We use it as a tool for understanding everything. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | | not all that exists had to be brought here. For instance, the one that brought everything into existence, was not brought here. |
How do you know that?! I think you're being hypocritical, the exact same fallacies you're trying to point out of the big bang can be applied to your Eternal god. And if there was no change - the act of creation would never happen. it's not so much that one who supposedly created everything doesn't need change to start doing something - i think it's more along the lines of "being impossible" and "self contradictory". |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
How do you know that?! I think you're being hypocritical, the exact same fallacies you're trying to point out of the big bang can be applied to your Eternal god. And if there was no change - the act of creation would never happen. it's not so much that one who supposedly created everything doesn't need change to start doing something - i think it's more along the lines of "being impossible" and "self contradictory". |
Nothing is contradicting.
The creator existed, and he willed that at a certain point the first thing would be created, as an accident, change also came into existence at this point. The creator doesn't go through a "process" or "method" for creating things, no change takes place on the Creator. Processes and Methodology are both created things.
The one that created everything is not dependent or bound or effected by the things he created. He is not part of that system in any way.
The contention in the big bang theory is that something [the universe] brought itself into being, which is just wrong. Logic and Observation both show that things that do not exist cannot do. Because to do something is an attribute, and a thing that does not exist does not have attributes. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| Great picture mystical ninja. That was actually really interesting :). |
|
|
|
|
