Vlad,
Yes I agree your conception of the word is not up to the job of describing the ''notion of sustaining''. Because it completely explains AWAY without tackling the nature of a hierarchical chain of derivation.
Er, no – if you think something is being “sustained” then it needs to be there in the first place to
be sustained. You can’t though just elide “create/sustain” as if that removes the problem.
You have therefore played the intellectual fascist/pirate role again and deliberately fixed creation as a point in time.
That’s a called a
non sequitur (there is no “therefore”) – and there’s nothing fascistic about using words properly. Either you think your god created energy
ex nihilo, or you think it was there all along for him to sustain.
Which is it?
I'm afraid if being can be eternal, something you and others have argued for then dependent being can be particularly when ability is observed to be derived.
And for those of us working in English?
In short nothing you have said addresses the derived power/actual power dilemma.
That’d be because – so far at least - you’ve not shown that there
is a dilemma. Using terms you clearly don’t understand and that seem to be fluid in their meaning anyway according to whatever it is you’re trying to say each time doesn’t even come close to doing that - you're still marooned in "not even wrong" territory.
In maintaining eternal being without actual power your argument is going to remain illogical.
As I said, start polishing.
What “eternal being” do you think anyone is “maintaining” here?
There is no ducking on my part. Just your avoidance of the logical.
Of course there is. You’ve been asked a binary question: did “God” create energy, or was it already there? So far, all you’ve done is to throw gibberish at it in the hope that no-one notices.
Why is that?
Once again without the actual the derived cannot be. Energy is change and therefore derived.
A mantra that clearly means something in your head – perhaps if you tried using basic words and did so consistently and accurately we’d have some clue at least about what that might be?
If energy is eternally sustained then without God it ceases to be.
Why? If thunder keeps happening without Thor, does it cease to be too?
If not, why not?
If it is eternal then a God who finds it clearly isn't and is derived.
Or doesn’t exist at all.
Hmmm…
That leaves all energy derived and that is illogical since where is your actual.
Again, perhaps English language would help you here?
Actual power is unavoidable if derived power is observed and it is.
See above.
I'm afraid that rather leaves you as the naughty schoolboy of whom the teacher reports
''if only he spent time and his intellectual capabilities learning rather than on avoiding learning.''
Actually it just leaves you dribbling gibberish again, but ‘twas ever thus.
As I said if the universe has a moment where it popped out of nothing that is a change and therefore that has to logically be derived power and therefore there has to be actual power.
Cosmic borrowing does not mean “popped out of nothing”. Perhaps if you tried reading a little you’d avoid this mistake in future?
If it doesn't then I'm afraid there is, has been and will be forever more only anything here because of actual power and the complete eternal dependence of it.
Oh dear. More alphabet soup as argument I see then.
As far as the unseen hordes apparently watching me committing intellectual suicide are concerned I think they are being treated to more than enough instances of bruised egos lashing out.
Then I suggest you stop doing it.
Listen toots.
I'm having a blast at the moment…
Yes, as I understand it that’s what trolls do…
… but maybe you just need time to adjusting to the new realities of New Vladdism and I think your gradual acceptance of your logical dilemma your intellectual efforts are landing yourself in.
As “new Vladdism” seems to be an unholy alliance of the same old dull incomprehension with a shifting to some new assertions about your god that fundamentally contradict your earlier assertions I think perhaps it’ll be kinder to leave you to your personal grief on this one.
