tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post8559834799181956262..comments2023-07-21T03:05:37.043-07:00Comments on Godless Gross: Malaysia’s Muslim Monopoly on the Monotheistic MasterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-84485956016464987212013-11-10T22:04:29.797-08:002013-11-10T22:04:29.797-08:00Terry: "Special and general relativity, quant...Terry: "Special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and natural selection are incomprehensible to you and therefore bound to be boring"<br /><br />Quite the contrary. I'm fine with relativity and natural selection. Quantum mechanics, 'big bang' theory, string theory and cataclysmic anthropogenic global roasting is junk. The reasons are "incomprehensible to you."MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-52222685089443881352013-11-10T17:34:40.772-08:002013-11-10T17:34:40.772-08:00"Mal[sic]: ...Not to mention your immaturity&..."Mal[sic]: ...Not to mention your immaturity"<br /><br />ROFLMAOMalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-28658365717275929822013-11-10T13:33:17.291-08:002013-11-10T13:33:17.291-08:00Mal[sic]: I gave an entire screed on why I disagre...Mal[sic]: I gave an entire screed on why I disagreed which you promptly ignored ...<br /><br />Sorry about that. But if you insist on being such a bore you must expect us to miss things every now and then. Never mind. I’ll look up Peikoff to get your opinion. <br /><br />Mal[sic]: It gets rather boring after that since all the good stuff was prior.<br /><br />That’s a reflection on your ability rather than the quality of the science. Special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and natural selection are incomprehensible to you and therefore bound to be boring. <br /><br />Mal[sic]: But then you're a cataclysmic man made global warming wanker aren't you?<br /><br />Not to mention your immaturity.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-66332142619880898272013-11-10T04:09:45.972-08:002013-11-10T04:09:45.972-08:00Stranger: "Read some science that was done af...Stranger: "Read some science that was done after 1756"<br /><br />It gets rather boring after that since all the good stuff was prior.<br /><br />Einstein credited Isaac Newton, the father of physics and arguably the founder of scientific certainty, with “the greatest advance in thought that a single individual was ever privileged to make.” [Albert Einstein, quoted in Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point (London: Fontana/Collins, 1983), p. 49.]<br /><br />But then you're a cataclysmic man made global warming wanker aren't you? Must be due to the flat Earth the Sun shines on I guess :)MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-31273640705130270132013-11-10T04:06:41.707-08:002013-11-10T04:06:41.707-08:00MS: "A day is still an Earth rotation on its ...MS: "A day is still an Earth rotation on its axis - as it was when Aristotle was alive."<br /><br />Stranger: "A day has always been that but a day has not always been 24 hours"<br /><br />You do realise those two sentences, given a correct theory of time, don't contradict each other I hope dopey.MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-49922670083083103182013-11-10T04:03:01.972-08:002013-11-10T04:03:01.972-08:00Terrence[sic]: "UTC is a correction that has ...Terrence[sic]: "UTC is a correction that has to be made precisely because of what I told you about the Earth slowing down"<br /><br />Really? The Earth is slowing down is it? No kiddin'? As related to what dopey? The referent in reality called 'time' which you refuse to talk about perhaps?<br /><br />Terrence[sic]: "On the matter of time as a dimension, you’ve already told us you disagree, but what exactly is your reason?"<br /><br />I gave an entire screed on why I disagreed which you promptly ignored with your usual modern bog ignorance. I suggest you reread the entire thread this time with your mind engaged. You are the one who claims 'time' as the fourth dimension along with length, width and depth as the first three. Perhaps you can tell me why you don't measure time in feet, metres or ångströms like the other three :)MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-65011168403584465722013-11-09T21:26:20.456-08:002013-11-09T21:26:20.456-08:00" Even history's most accurate clock must..." Even history's most accurate clock must be standardised to "actual rotations of the earth with respect to solar time"<br /><br />Actually it doesn't say that at all. It said UTC, a standard is derived that way, not TAI. Reading comprehension isn't your best attribute.<br /><br />"Time is a relationship"<br /><br />No it isn't.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17489942433860007521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-267420763559390882013-11-09T21:18:21.077-08:002013-11-09T21:18:21.077-08:00"All had aged at exactly the same rate! The n..."All had aged at exactly the same rate! The number of Earth rotations."<br /><br />You really are stupider than dirt. They had not all aged at the same rate, even if agreeing on the amount of rotations of the planet. Time slows for objects in motion, the faster you travel the slower time is for you. proved by experimentation.<br /><br />"A day is still an Earth rotation on its axis - as it was when Aristotle was alive."<br /><br />A day has always been that but a day has not always been 24 hours you imbecile.<br /><br />" time is a *relationship* between entities in motion"<br /><br />No it isn't. Read some science that was done after 1756Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17489942433860007521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-52305687216122209342013-11-09T18:34:55.549-08:002013-11-09T18:34:55.549-08:00Billy: If you're 5' 1" tall does that...Billy: If you're 5' 1" tall does that mean you're really made of five feet and an inch?<br /><br />Ha, ha, ha. And 25 solar orbits old, give or take a few leap seconds to keep us from getting stuck in mental concrete.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-38816497485400620112013-11-09T16:35:02.426-08:002013-11-09T16:35:02.426-08:00Mal[sic]:
Stick to philosophy. This stuff is beyo...Mal[sic]:<br /><br />Stick to philosophy. This stuff is beyond you. UTC is a correction that has to be made precisely because of what I told you about the Earth slowing down. When the length of a day exceeds 86,401 seconds UTC will break down and have to be replaced by something else.<br /><br />On the matter of time as a dimension, you’ve already told us you disagree, but what exactly is your reason? Or does Wikipedia not have an entry on the subject?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-33617645633354689912013-11-09T06:59:06.875-08:002013-11-09T06:59:06.875-08:00Terrence[sic]: "You have redefined the units ...Terrence[sic]: "You have redefined the units of ‘year’ and ‘day’. To you a year means one solar orbit. And a day means one Earth rotation. To the rest of us a year means 31.5576 million seconds and a day means 86.4 thousand seconds (a second being the raditaion[sic] emitted by a Caesium-133 atom in the ground state)."<br /><br />'Year' and 'day' are the units used by the entire population and, therefore, serve as a unit. A unit need *not* be numerical or mathematical in general usage but usually is in physics. The only people who use 'second' as defined by the emissions of atomic clocks are a tiny fraction of the population: some physicists. It is *not* a superior unit although it may be more exact for scientific purposes.<br /><br />Furthermore, from Wiki: "[Atomic] clocks collectively define a continuous and stable time scale, International Atomic Time (TAI). For civil time, another time scale is disseminated, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). UTC is derived from TAI, but approximately synchronized, by using leap seconds, to UT1, which is based on actual rotations of the earth with respect to the solar time."<br /><br />Did you get that dopey? Even history's most accurate clock must be standardised to "actual rotations of the earth with respect to solar time." Why? Because that is the referent IN REALITY to which 'time' refers and about which you did not have a clue! In that respect it is no different in principle than to a sundial or an egg timer!<br /><br />Terrence[sic]: "How do you relate days to years if they are based on different standards? What happens to time when the Sun blows up, as it will eventually do? Or when Earth stops rotating, as it will eventually do?"<br /><br />You'll have bigger worries then stupid! <br /><br />Terrence[sic]: "How do scientists perform their work if there is not internationally agreed standard? How do you compare the ages of people who lived years apart when the length of a day and the length of a year are different"<br /><br />Yeah, Galileo and Newton cried themselves to sleep every night over that one! Not!<br /><br />Terrence[sic]: "And on the question of time now being a dimension, consider that from Newton on every scientist who has ever drawn a graph with time on one axis has implicilty[sic] accepted that it is a dimension. It is impossible to do science without thinking of time as a dimension. Why do you think we say length of a year?"<br /><br />Rubbish. Time is a relationship as distinct from a "dimension." The only way "length of a year" can be used in that form is metaphorical and then it's a false metaphor. Far more than "dimension" can be plotted on a graph!MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-47529079828619838122013-11-09T00:02:21.433-08:002013-11-09T00:02:21.433-08:00That'll be a "no" then.
Wristplanet...That'll be a "no" then.<br /><br />Wristplanet? lolThe Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cathttp://www.entities-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-09-04-Paranormal_Cat_Ghost.pngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-84588699740902460462013-11-08T17:18:09.434-08:002013-11-08T17:18:09.434-08:00Hark!! Did I hear the sound of distant magicsausag...Hark!! Did I hear the sound of distant magicsausagetossing??<br /><br />"Seconds. Have you never owned a wristwatch?"<br /><br />I did, I did, the prodical magicsausagetosser is back!<br /><br />Turns out he thinks the Mickey Mouse on his favourite tossing hand is the standard of time!<br /><br />Wow, will the boys at NASA be happy to get that tipoff.. er.. blastoff.<br /><br />ROFLMAOMalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-35153738286060706472013-11-08T15:33:46.270-08:002013-11-08T15:33:46.270-08:00I'd like to see twiddle[sic] and a mercurian c...I'd like to see twiddle[sic] and a mercurian cowboy arguing about the way to accurately measure years and days.<br /><br />Then we'd finally be getting our moneys worthThe Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cathttp://www.entities-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-09-04-Paranormal_Cat_Ghost.pngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-46496829491095705252013-11-08T15:25:48.414-08:002013-11-08T15:25:48.414-08:00Peikoff:
You don’t know what you’re talking about...Peikoff:<br /><br />You don’t know what you’re talking about. You have redefined the units of ‘year’ and ‘day’. To you a year means one solar orbit. And a day means one Earth rotation. To the rest of us a year means 31.5576 million seconds and a day means 86.4 thousand seconds (a second being the raditaion emitted by a Caesium-133 atom in the ground state).<br /><br />This poses all sorts of problems for you. How do you relate days to years if they are based on different standards? What happens to time when the Sun blows up, as it will eventually do? Or when Earth stops rotating, as it will eventually do? How do scientists perform their work if there is not internationally agreed standard? How do you compare the ages of people who lived years apart when the length of a day and the length of a year are different.<br /><br />And on the question of time now being a dimension, consider that from Newton on every scientist who has ever drawn a graph with time on one axis has implicilty accepted that it is a dimension. It is impossible to do science without thinking of time as a dimension. Why do you think we say length of a year? Presumably you would like us to say orbits of a year and rotations of a day?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-29223376708521259782013-11-08T12:47:06.042-08:002013-11-08T12:47:06.042-08:00Dimension is an *attribute* of an entity whereas t...<i>Dimension is an *attribute* of an entity whereas time is a *relationship* between entities in motion </i><br /><br />Time doesn't "exist" until there is an act of measurement. You're confusing abstractions with reality again.<br /><br />If you're 5' 1" tall does that mean you're really made of five feet and an inch?<br /><br />Amusing thought lol<br /><br /><br />The Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cathttp://www.entities-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-09-04-Paranormal_Cat_Ghost.pngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-61928932488505772552013-11-08T12:34:56.068-08:002013-11-08T12:34:56.068-08:00Dimension is an *attribute* of an entity
Like ex...<i>Dimension is an *attribute* of an entity </i><br /><br />Like existence?The Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cathttp://www.entities-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-09-04-Paranormal_Cat_Ghost.pngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-36486654692875014622013-11-08T12:33:09.901-08:002013-11-08T12:33:09.901-08:00So the time the Earth takes to revolve on its axis...<i>So the time the Earth takes to revolve on its axis is not a constant?" That’s right. The Earth is slowing down. Our current day is two thousandths of a second slower than it was a hundred years ago"<br /><br />According to what standard? </i><br /><br />Seconds. <br />Have you never owned a wristwatch?The Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cathttp://www.entities-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-09-04-Paranormal_Cat_Ghost.pngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-60764411712569186232013-11-08T06:44:57.537-08:002013-11-08T06:44:57.537-08:00Terry: ""Now you are saying SR refutes t...Terry: ""Now you are saying SR refutes the relational theory of time! Does it? How?" Time dilation... The astronauts that went to the moon aged less than the families they left behind on Earth"<br /><br />According to what standard? It is an inexorable fact that from the moment the family watched the astronaut blast off until the astronaut was back sitting in his lougeroom the Earth had revolved on its axis a specific number of times. Whether you were the astronaut, his family or the family dog! All had aged at exactly the same rate! The number of Earth rotations.<br /><br />Terry: ""So the time the Earth takes to revolve on its axis is not a constant?" That’s right. The Earth is slowing down. Our current day is two thousandths of a second slower than it was a hundred years ago"<br /><br />According to what standard? A day is still an Earth rotation on its axis - as it was when Aristotle was alive.<br /><br />Terry: ""To what does this fourth dimensional time correspond in reality?" That’s a typically useless question"<br /><br />LOL No, it was extremely useful. It flushed you out dopey! When asked to say what this alleged "fourth dimensional time" refers to in reality [its referent] you cack your rompers. Why? Because a "dimension" is extension in a particular direction and time is not. Dimension is an *attribute* of an entity whereas time is a *relationship* between entities in motion. Learn the difference between attribute and relationship sometime.MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-1002101226396606072013-11-07T12:27:10.501-08:002013-11-07T12:27:10.501-08:00Mal[sic]: Now you are saying SR refutes the relati...Mal[sic]: Now you are saying SR refutes the relational theory of time! Does it? How?<br /><br />Time dilation. Verified over and over by measurements on cosmic rays, muons in storage rings, clocks on aircraft, and so on. The astronauts that went to the moon aged less than the families they left behind on Earth. So much for Peikoff’s time is a measure of motion against a standard.<br /><br />Mal[sic]: So the time the Earth takes to revolve on its axis is not a constant?<br /><br />That’s right. The Earth is slowing down. Our current day is two thousandths of a second slower than it was a hundred years ago. And don’t try and say that’s practically insignificant. It causes all manner of headaches for GPS, smartphones and power grids.<br /><br />Mal[sic]: To what does this fourth dimensional time correspond in reality?<br /><br />That’s a typically useless question. What you need to ask is how does thinking of time as a fourth dimension help. And the answer to everyone but you and Peikoff is that without it the world you live in would be entirely different. You and I wouldn’t, for example, be able to insult each other at a distance like this. Wouldn’t that be a shame?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-27094413459489199362013-11-07T06:48:16.615-08:002013-11-07T06:48:16.615-08:00ROFLMAO
Thanks Andrew, you made my night!ROFLMAO<br /><br />Thanks Andrew, you made my night!MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-73550782870680148542013-11-07T06:38:35.419-08:002013-11-07T06:38:35.419-08:00"No trouble. Channel 7's coverage was unc..."No trouble. Channel 7's coverage was unclear. Didn't know whether they shot the horse or the midget :)"<br /><br />Right, you're just insane then as no one but you mentioned horses or midgets.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17489942433860007521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-77792488221626798892013-11-07T06:33:07.299-08:002013-11-07T06:33:07.299-08:00RalphH: "“No, I know it! If you have *evidenc...RalphH: "“No, I know it! If you have *evidence*[not belief] for other than the man(-)made being based on ideas then state it. Until then I am entitled to my position.” OK, let’s split the difference. You assume that you know that there is no mind other than humankind. You’re entitled to whatever position/assumption you want to take/align with"<br /><br />There is no "difference splitting"! I gave evidence for my position. You did not. Furthermore, I did not restrict consciousness to "humankind." There are numerous living creatures with consciousness apart from man and all function according to natural law.<br /><br />“..the creation of the physical universe itself and all it’s component parts also requires “physical action” which follow natural laws that have a rational basis"<br /><br />False. Existence/universe is uncreated.<br /><br />"How can anything come to exist without the impetus and guidance of a spiritual/non-physical principle (an idea and a desire)?"<br /><br />Because an entity changes into another entity in accordance with natural law, e.g., an acorn becomes an oak.<br /><br />"Secularists would have us believe that it just happens but others are far from satisfied with such a simplistic assumption"<br /><br />Not this secularist! Nothing "just happens"! The action of any entity is determined by its identity[nature]. Which is why an acorn becomes an oak and not a giraffe or a hot cross bun!<br /><br />“"Natural law” does not appear out of nothing. The isness/nature of natural things that establish ‘natural law’ does not just happen"<br /><br />Correct. The universe is eternal. <br /><br />“Consciousness occurs when what’s outside meets what’s inside (not the brain - that’s just part of the physical mechanism that enables sense impressions to be presented to the soul). The soul is supernatural (not your spooky commercial supernatural) because it is not of/from nature"<br /><br />You just made that up :)<br /><br />"“Space and time are totally different relationships. If you can't understand that, then, you have no business discussing metaphysics.” They’re different relationships but they exist side by side and together (i.e. on the same level)"<br /><br />You have no business discussing metaphysics. There is only one "level." It's called reality.<br /><br />"..they[infinite/eternal] are different but both have in common that they are ‘beyond’ nature and have the same characteristic of being unlimited"<br /><br />Nothing is "beyond nature." The "unlimited" does not exist.<br /><br />"OK Malcolm, maybe I used the wrong word but the idea is that physical things exist in a world of space and time"<br /><br />So do conscious things.<br /><br />“The only difference with this analogy is that we can physically sensate the ‘whole body’ as being a temporal physical entity whereas we can’t physically step outside the universe"<br /><br />Fallacy of false analogy.<br /><br />“I don’t think there is any justification for assuming that there is nothing to reference the universe by simply because there is no time and space, no physical “out there”"<br /><br />Nor do I. The justification is that the universe is all there is. <br /><br />"Even though you claim the universe (as a whole) is eternal you also say that only things within the universe have existence i.e. that eternity/infinity equates with non-existence"<br /><br />No, I say the universe is eternal, uncreated, finite and exists but no infinite entity exists. <br /><br />"Eternal means having no beginning and no end, hence unlimited. Therefore my comparison/alignment was quite valid. You’ve still failed to explain the contradiction"<br /><br />No, the notion of "beginnings" and "ends" do not arise *out of time.* Your failure to grasp this distinction is the source of *your* contradiction.MalcolmSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-15302719544390459422013-11-07T03:40:42.438-08:002013-11-07T03:40:42.438-08:00“RalphH: "Space and time are attributes of ph...“RalphH: "Space and time are attributes of physical things"<br /><br />They most certainly are not “attributes." (MalcolmS5:42 AM)<br /><br />OK Malcolm, maybe I used the wrong word but the idea is that physical things exist in a world of space and time.<br /><br />“The universe, therefore, cannot be anywhere. Can the universe be in Melbourne? Can it be in the Milky Way? Places are in the universe, not the other way around.” <br /><br />So what! The organs and every individual cell of the body can be defined and located spatially within the body but the body as a whole cannot be located spatially within itself. That does not make the body as a whole eternal. <br /><br />The only difference with this analogy is that we can physically sensate the ‘whole body’ as being a temporal physical entity whereas we can’t physically step outside the universe.<br /><br />“Is the universe, then, unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”; there is no “out there.””<br /><br />I don’t think there is any justification for assuming that there is nothing to reference the universe by simply because there is no time and space, no physical “out there”. Even though you claim the universe (as a whole) is eternal you also say that only things within the universe have existence i.e. that eternity/infinity equates with non-existence. <br /><br />I disagree, I believe that the eternal is the bigger picture but when viewed from the temporal (a time and space perspective) it appears to be nothing. One has to raise one’s mind to the higher perspective (beyond time and space concepts) to see/understand the bigger picture. <br /><br />“The contradiction is all yours. Finite and limited mean the same thing. Eternal and unlimited have nothing to do with each other.”<br /><br />Eternal means having no beginning and no end, hence unlimited. Therefore my comparison/alignment was quite valid. You’ve still failed to explain the contradiction.RalphH 7/11noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15975119.post-85527538990343123692013-11-07T03:36:09.005-08:002013-11-07T03:36:09.005-08:00“I am not aware of any major (philosophers) who do...“I am not aware of any major (philosophers) who don't. How do you discuss metaphysics without talking about existence?” (MalcolmS5:39 AM)<br /><br />The question was not about “talking about existence”. It was about the assumption that the physical universe/the cosmos is the totality of existence. <br /><br />“"We" includes any rational, adult, human being with an interest in philosophy. “ <br /><br />OK! I can see myself there - depends, of course on how one defines ‘rational’.<br /><br />“No, I know it! If you have *evidence*[not belief] for other than the man(-)made being based on ideas then state it. Until then I am entitled to my position.” <br /><br />OK, let’s split the difference. You assume that you know that there is no mind other than humankind. You’re entitled to whatever position/assumption you want to take/align with. <br /><br />“All man-made creations are) Followed by p(h)ysical action in a physical universe. <br /><br />True. But the creation of the physical universe itself and all it’s component parts also requires “physical action” which follow natural laws that have a rational basis.<br /><br />How can anything come to exist without the impetus and guidance of a spiritual/non-physical principle (an idea and a desire)? Secularists would have us believe that it just happens but others are far from satisfied with such a simplistic assumption.<br /><br />"Man literally reshapes matter in accordance with his idea.”<br /><br />Which strongly suggests that matter initially had been shaped “in accordance with (an) idea.” <br /><br />“"“There is no intent/purpose/teleology behind the universe. …… the universe is uncreated (and) is eternal. The only *creation* is within the universe and occurs in accordance with the natural law. It's what we call *change.* To refer to the universe as *physical* is a misrepresentation since many entities are conscious - they, too, act in accordance with the natural law.” <br /><br />“Natural law” does not appear out of nothing. The isness/nature of natural things that establish ‘natural law’ does not just happen. <br /><br />“*”How can the universe which can only be viewed in terms of time and space, be “uncreated”?”* (RH)<br /><br />By grasping that the universe is eternal and exists *out of time.*” <br /><br />This is not an explanation, it’s an invitation to blind faith. I don’t do that.<br /><br />“I think it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is some sort of function of brain. There is evidence for this. There is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation.” <br /><br />I don’t think it’s reasonable. Consciousness occurs when what’s outside meets what’s inside (not the brain - that’s just part of the physical mechanism that enables sense impressions to be presented to the soul). The soul is supernatural (not your spooky commercial supernatural) because it is not of/from nature. <br /><br />“Space and time are totally different relationships. If you can't understand that, then, you have no business discussing metaphysics.” <br /><br />They’re different relationships but they exist side by side and together (i.e. on the same level).<br /><br />"Infinite is beyond space/spaceless and eternal is beyond time/timeless” <br /><br />Once again, they are different but both have in common that they are ‘beyond’ nature and have the same characteristic of being unlimited.<br />RalphH 7/11noreply@blogger.com