They are not eternally enacting the scene. At least in the sense that I understand the word eternal. The word eternal means that the predicate extends infinitely across the dimension of time, or that time itself is unending. It is a reference to time, not a specific reference to a point within time. Their scene exists on the timeline, in the past. That doesn't mean it is eternally existing. It exists, very much real, on the past landscape of time.Flann wrote:It strikes me as a pleasant if absurd fantasy, that the Marx brothers are eternally enacting such as the following scene
You're trying to wrap your head around this concept by misapplying terms, but it just won't work like that. What other way is there to understand it, I know. You need to envision it without words, the abstract concepts themselves. The analogy to a landscape helps. But even then, the only real way to understand it is by running math that neither of us are equipped to run.
Why? Why would it be a problem for a multiverse, but not what you conceive as a god?How an evolving multiverse could not have a beginning is surely a problem.
Faith, but not faith alone. Faith, with a bit of method in the mix. Faith alone leads us to all sorts of fantastical conclusions. Faith with a bit of reasoning narrows that down. First, the conclusion we have faith in should not be anything more than the minimum to explain what we see(You should have faith in an infinite number of gods, or a family of them, or a lineage). Second and related, the conclusion we have faith in should lead to the least number of ad hoc assumptions.In the final analysis Carrier is simply putting his faith in theories such as multiverse theory and eternalism.
Flann, what makes you think it's impossible for our universe to come from nothing? Avoid this: Fallacious incredulity, and give me a logical or otherwise well supported reason. If something truly did come from nothing, there is no more way for us to conceptualize that than to conceptualize infinity. There are things in our universe that defy conceptualization, because we are puny humans. Wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics, for example. Superposition and spooky action at a distance. What's inside black holes. Eternalist time, the equivalence of matter and energy. We've come to realize, despite our incredulity, that these things are true.explain how anything could have come from nothing.
If we believe that something did come from nothing, then it's simply a brute fact that must be taken on faith. If you argue that it needs explanation, then your brute fact does as well. Why is there god and not no god? Beware the endless list of fallacious appeals. Why did god exist for an eternity before creating the universe? Beware the endless list of fallacious appeals. Our brute facts must simply be believed, if we have any ground to stand on to move forward. Every time your mind balks at something coming from nothing(or the alterntive brute fact of eternalism), instead try to explain your own brute facts. What was going through god's omniscient mind for an eternity before he created the universe? Or was he as thoughtless as a buddhist monk?
Calling something absurd is textbook argument from incredulity. Calling his explanation faith based is hypocritical. Isn't yours faith based?Hi Dexter, Carrier thinks his explanation is better. I'm saying it's not.It's absurd and entirely faith based.