(November 14, 2014 at 9:55 am)His_Majesty Wrote:You laugh too much...(November 13, 2014 at 8:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Wow... learn to read, you must...
You posited the theory to work for both interpretations...the finite interpretation, and the eternal interpretation.
So A is A and A is B at the same time.
The theory... actually theorem... was you who brought up.
And that theorem allows for both interpretations. Meaning that it is incomplete. It is lacking in further detail in order to conclusively say something about the past of time.
(November 14, 2014 at 9:55 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 13, 2014 at 8:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote: To you, adequate means "something that agrees with your interpretation". Sorry, your analogies are flawed, and you know it, but you like to see people stumped by them. All theists like that about their analogies.
It's curious how most things in theology are conveyed by analogy... it's like the "real" thing is not available for comment.
Red Herring in full effect.
Actually... not quite... it's one more point against your position.
You may address it as well, or, just cover your ears and listen to what people are telling you. Reality, in many instances, doesn't seem logical: evidence: Quantum Mechanics - Your computer!