It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
God is Time
page: 2share:
reply to post by JonathanNicholas
Thank you, John.
I am a chronic over thinker. One of my many flaws.
To address your point more specifically, I have to say, that as I free myself from the notion of an afterlife and eternity, the more in "harmony" with my loved ones and the world around me I become. As I learn to value each day for their limited quantity the more they mean to me individually. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone who finds comfort in believing there is something in the...here-after. For me though, I find great and overwhelming peace knowing that I will someday rest in the ground and return to my mother, Earth.
Thank you, John.
I am a chronic over thinker. One of my many flaws.
To address your point more specifically, I have to say, that as I free myself from the notion of an afterlife and eternity, the more in "harmony" with my loved ones and the world around me I become. As I learn to value each day for their limited quantity the more they mean to me individually. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone who finds comfort in believing there is something in the...here-after. For me though, I find great and overwhelming peace knowing that I will someday rest in the ground and return to my mother, Earth.
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, however far off from my original intent they truly are. Thank you for using my intentionally nonreligious post to witness and quote scripture. Again, there is a time and place for faith based discussion and this ain't it. I put up THREE paragraphs of preface to try to avoid this debacle, to no avail.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, however far off from my original intent they truly are. Thank you for using my intentionally nonreligious post to witness and quote scripture. Again, there is a time and place for faith based discussion and this ain't it. I put up THREE paragraphs of preface to try to avoid this debacle, to no avail.
reply to post by Philodemus
Phil...I will try to take it easy on you! LOL! First of all...we are not living in a 4 dimentional Universe....current calculations put it either 10 or 11....probably more in my opinion...and I will prove this to you. Hopefully you will understand a bit of Physics.
We have no idea how the Macro-Universe works in conjuction with the Micro or Quantum Universe. In fact...it is highly likely based on observation of the natural workings of both the Macro and Quantum that we are but one VERSION of infinite versions of Universal Divergent states. What this means is there are infinite numbers of you and me and each choice or decision or Natural action or reaction must exist. There is more I could tell you about other infinite Universal conditions where we do not exist and have different physical laws altogether...but I think that will be a bit too much for now.
So in our Universe...a Atom that makes up part of my finger that typed a capital A for ATOM has smaller particles of both Mass and Energy called Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. The Electrons are always the same number as there are Protons but Electron act as both a Particle and a Wave. Inside these Protons and Neutrons are even smaller Quantum Particles such as Leptons, Glueons. Quarks...etc. HERES THE THING...lets use Quarks...inside a Proton or Neutron they are never less or more than a certain number...but they can exist in between this minimum and Maximum at will...they litteraly BLINK IN AND OUT OF EXISTANCE
This fact alone shows that we are dealing with a Much Higher Universal Dimentional state than just 4. It also suggests that those that are blinking in and out of existance are exchanging existance in other Atoms in another finger of another me that typed a small a instead of a large A. This is called a Divergent Universal State based upon probability.
Time unto itself is percieved by Humans as Linear thus running from present to future when in actuality...Time is NOT LINEAR and Past, Present and Future are all accessable....if you know how to do it. I will tell you more if you desire. Split Infinity
Phil...I will try to take it easy on you! LOL! First of all...we are not living in a 4 dimentional Universe....current calculations put it either 10 or 11....probably more in my opinion...and I will prove this to you. Hopefully you will understand a bit of Physics.
We have no idea how the Macro-Universe works in conjuction with the Micro or Quantum Universe. In fact...it is highly likely based on observation of the natural workings of both the Macro and Quantum that we are but one VERSION of infinite versions of Universal Divergent states. What this means is there are infinite numbers of you and me and each choice or decision or Natural action or reaction must exist. There is more I could tell you about other infinite Universal conditions where we do not exist and have different physical laws altogether...but I think that will be a bit too much for now.
So in our Universe...a Atom that makes up part of my finger that typed a capital A for ATOM has smaller particles of both Mass and Energy called Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. The Electrons are always the same number as there are Protons but Electron act as both a Particle and a Wave. Inside these Protons and Neutrons are even smaller Quantum Particles such as Leptons, Glueons. Quarks...etc. HERES THE THING...lets use Quarks...inside a Proton or Neutron they are never less or more than a certain number...but they can exist in between this minimum and Maximum at will...they litteraly BLINK IN AND OUT OF EXISTANCE
This fact alone shows that we are dealing with a Much Higher Universal Dimentional state than just 4. It also suggests that those that are blinking in and out of existance are exchanging existance in other Atoms in another finger of another me that typed a small a instead of a large A. This is called a Divergent Universal State based upon probability.
Time unto itself is percieved by Humans as Linear thus running from present to future when in actuality...Time is NOT LINEAR and Past, Present and Future are all accessable....if you know how to do it. I will tell you more if you desire. Split Infinity
reply to post by Philodemus
Actually, Time is the Thought Process of the Collective Consciousness of the Universe/Source/God.
God/Source thinks and Time happens!
Ribbit
Ps: WE the Souls share the Collective Cosciousness with God/Source.
Actually, Time is the Thought Process of the Collective Consciousness of the Universe/Source/God.
God/Source thinks and Time happens!
Ribbit
Ps: WE the Souls share the Collective Cosciousness with God/Source.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Philodemus
Phil...I will try to take it easy on you! LOL! First of all...we are not living in a 4 dimentional Universe....current calculations put it either 10 or 11....probably more in my opinion...and I will prove this to you. Hopefully you will understand a bit of Physics.
We have no idea how the Macro-Universe works in conjuction with the Micro or Quantum Universe. In fact...it is highly likely based on observation of the natural workings of both the Macro and Quantum that we are but one VERSION of infinite versions of Universal Divergent states. What this means is there are infinite numbers of you and me and each choice or decision or Natural action or reaction must exist. There is more I could tell you about other infinite Universal conditions where we do not exist and have different physical laws altogether...but I think that will be a bit too much for now.
So in our Universe...a Atom that makes up part of my finger that typed a capital A for ATOM has smaller particles of both Mass and Energy called Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. The Electrons are always the same number as there are Protons but Electron act as both a Particle and a Wave. Inside these Protons and Neutrons are even smaller Quantum Particles such as Leptons, Glueons. Quarks...etc. HERES THE THING...lets use Quarks...inside a Proton or Neutron they are never less or more than a certain number...but they can exist in between this minimum and Maximum at will...they litteraly BLINK IN AND OUT OF EXISTANCE
This fact alone shows that we are dealing with a Much Higher Universal Dimentional state than just 4. It also suggests that those that are blinking in and out of existance are exchanging existance in other Atoms in another finger of another me that typed a small a instead of a large A. This is called a Divergent Universal State based upon probability.
Time unto itself is percieved by Humans as Linear thus running from present to future when in actuality...Time is NOT LINEAR and Past, Present and Future are all accessable....if you know how to do it. I will tell you more if you desire. Split Infinity
Actually, there are 3 sub-verses of the One Uni-verse.
2 Spatial sub-verses (inverted opposites)
1 of Time and it has 3 sub-verses (past-present-future)
Ribbit
reply to post by Philodemus
For an introduction, that was pretty good. Astyanax was right to instruct you to develop your idea further. The only thing I'd like to add is that you should consider any discussion of a God, gods, or deity always lies in initial assumptions. To better explain what I'm driving at, consider that the most general quality which can be ascribed to the concept of a god (lower-case 'g') is incredible, if not complete, power over a specific domain of reality.
This is why pantheists says the universe itself is God. Where if we were ancient Greeks we'd point to the pantheon and shiver in fear at the awesomeness of Zeus and his all too human sense of right and wrong. If we're Christian mystics our monotheistic tendencies would lead us to envision an all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and wholly beneficent creator. The monotheistic definition having the makings of a general conception of an all powerful deity. The concept of a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Something that can overcome all cardinal, ordinal, and dualistic limitations of reality. Though a person who's a deist is more than likely to believe this god isn't necessarily omni-benevolent, but would likely concede the first three qualities are a requirement for the individualized "god" to become a "God."
The idea of a god is almost always tied to a particular ethos. That ethos is then complimented with a domain of power that humans project as being absolute to match that ideal. My point in writing all this is that time is most certainly ever present (as literally being tied into the fabric of space). It's also the beginning and the end (literally) because as you note "it is what only it can be." The concept of omniscience would then be best expressed through time's direct relation to physical space.
Where the analogy starts to break apart is in omnipotence. The march of time most certainly is related to entropy. However physics is time-symmetric. There's no reason for thermodynamic systems to necessarily entropy (even though all observations since the beginning show that's exactly what has happened). The problem occurs of course in wondering, "How did the universe get to a state where it *could* start to entropy? Was there at some point a negentropic force at play?" This is one of the big question in physics that a lot of top physicists publicly wonder aloud about.
I go into this because I want to suggest that you consider that the limitations imposed by time aren't physical limitations. Rather the limitations of space are tied to more essential characteristics. How could time tick forward if without math? How could things exist if without quantity? How could things have position if without ordinalness? This is why earlier I wrote, "The concept of a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Something that can overcome all cardinal, ordinal, and dualistic limitations of reality." One of the hardest questions I think any person can ask themselves is, "Is there some codependence between math and physicality? If so, why? If not, does that tell us anything more about the nature of what might ultimately be a bigger reality?"
Food for thought! Thanks for the great read,
-Xt
P.S. Not to be cryptic, but might I suggest a rereading of the famous riddle of the sphinx and thinking about what the riddle says about the sphinx's anatomy? I think you'll find it fits quite well with the idea of time as beginning, peak, and end.
For an introduction, that was pretty good. Astyanax was right to instruct you to develop your idea further. The only thing I'd like to add is that you should consider any discussion of a God, gods, or deity always lies in initial assumptions. To better explain what I'm driving at, consider that the most general quality which can be ascribed to the concept of a god (lower-case 'g') is incredible, if not complete, power over a specific domain of reality.
This is why pantheists says the universe itself is God. Where if we were ancient Greeks we'd point to the pantheon and shiver in fear at the awesomeness of Zeus and his all too human sense of right and wrong. If we're Christian mystics our monotheistic tendencies would lead us to envision an all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and wholly beneficent creator. The monotheistic definition having the makings of a general conception of an all powerful deity. The concept of a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Something that can overcome all cardinal, ordinal, and dualistic limitations of reality. Though a person who's a deist is more than likely to believe this god isn't necessarily omni-benevolent, but would likely concede the first three qualities are a requirement for the individualized "god" to become a "God."
The idea of a god is almost always tied to a particular ethos. That ethos is then complimented with a domain of power that humans project as being absolute to match that ideal. My point in writing all this is that time is most certainly ever present (as literally being tied into the fabric of space). It's also the beginning and the end (literally) because as you note "it is what only it can be." The concept of omniscience would then be best expressed through time's direct relation to physical space.
Where the analogy starts to break apart is in omnipotence. The march of time most certainly is related to entropy. However physics is time-symmetric. There's no reason for thermodynamic systems to necessarily entropy (even though all observations since the beginning show that's exactly what has happened). The problem occurs of course in wondering, "How did the universe get to a state where it *could* start to entropy? Was there at some point a negentropic force at play?" This is one of the big question in physics that a lot of top physicists publicly wonder aloud about.
I go into this because I want to suggest that you consider that the limitations imposed by time aren't physical limitations. Rather the limitations of space are tied to more essential characteristics. How could time tick forward if without math? How could things exist if without quantity? How could things have position if without ordinalness? This is why earlier I wrote, "The concept of a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Something that can overcome all cardinal, ordinal, and dualistic limitations of reality." One of the hardest questions I think any person can ask themselves is, "Is there some codependence between math and physicality? If so, why? If not, does that tell us anything more about the nature of what might ultimately be a bigger reality?"
Food for thought! Thanks for the great read,
-Xt
P.S. Not to be cryptic, but might I suggest a rereading of the famous riddle of the sphinx and thinking about what the riddle says about the sphinx's anatomy? I think you'll find it fits quite well with the idea of time as beginning, peak, and end.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no
reason given)
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by absolutely
Please do not get me wrong, but I was wondering if there was any way that you could possibly get someone you know to retype your message for me?
I know you are trying now to make a deliberate point, but I think there might be a language barrier here. Your grammar and punctuation are so sparse that I think we need some outside help with translation.
That said, I want to make it perfectly clear I have no intention of profiting from any of my thoughts. They are only thoughts, mere pondering from someone who was raised a strict Baptist and who swirled down the tunnel of religion and into the darkest days of life until I realized that anything outside of nature is merely speculation; my post and it's contents included.
But if I am to gather your intent correctly you are preaching a faith in a higher being; a creator. And I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't here to debate that. I have no problem debating those issues in the proper forum. I will, in the future, start my own (trolling) thread (that goes nowhere) and where we can get further intrenched in our original thoughts on the existence of a “space-buddy”. Until then, would it be too much to ask if we put preference of BELIEF aside?
Outside of that, my original post was not written with malice towards those with faith. I have no real problem with those who choose to believe. I have not intention of starting a debate on such a topic here. Bottom line. But if those with "faith" pick a fight where there is not a fight to begin with, it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire.
And lastly, stop using "txting" shorthand. It is part of the reason our modern society is slowly becoming illiterate and is an affront to legitimate language and communication, as well as the most efficient way to decimate one's credibility.
u killed there any illusion of credibility acceptance to your words existence in the means to support your post, how u choose to use me as an image of faith say it all in one sentence, that you can never say which definitely state all ur perspective of any a lie, what cant say never sees
meanwhile it confirms what i said being your wordings, you desperately seek to force god upon atheists for any subjective superior sense of being above science that u could possibly pretend realize,
mister no atheist will ever discuss with u it is such useless efforts, while your attempt to get any shape of fisherman will constantly ridiculizes you more in revealing the perversion of your means as the exclusive intelligence that justify your sentences existence
those hard times for everyone existence in the world are clearly forcing responsable individualities by its fact to deal with while real individuals such as atheists are the strongest existing stands resistence till the end of objective supports destructions
i suggest you to stay in religion forums where you could limit yourself wills to the pretenses with ur friends fellows, repeating how u r above humans objective achievements in meaning to profit from its lost that you fancy upon
now of course no intelligent person would loose any of its expression value to say this to u, that is why i must do it for the least representation of what everyone think in looking at your posts
Very nice post, and as a previous poster said very well written. I think that people talk about time the same way they talk about god, for example,
"Time heals all" "Time waits for no man" .
reply to post by Xtraeme
Great Reply! Thanks so much for helpful input. My idea is indeed in it's embryonic state. But after all it is only a website forum and there isn't the room for the “book length essay” even if/when complete. Perhaps I'll start a blog.........
And it's nice to get ideas on which avenues I should pursue that would help develop the premise. If only all my respondents could figure out the purpose of the post like the two of you have. I agree that I need to probe the “ground rules” a bit more. All in time.
And thanks for stringing your big words together with the other extremely useful little ones that make communication in the English language a fruitful endeavour. (see absolute’s posts)
Great Reply! Thanks so much for helpful input. My idea is indeed in it's embryonic state. But after all it is only a website forum and there isn't the room for the “book length essay” even if/when complete. Perhaps I'll start a blog.........
And it's nice to get ideas on which avenues I should pursue that would help develop the premise. If only all my respondents could figure out the purpose of the post like the two of you have. I agree that I need to probe the “ground rules” a bit more. All in time.
And thanks for stringing your big words together with the other extremely useful little ones that make communication in the English language a fruitful endeavour. (see absolute’s posts)
reply to post by eyesdown
Maybe everyone who has missed my point so far will read your reply and it'll click for them. Thank you for summing it all up.
If there's anything I've learned from my first post here, it is that's frustrating when so few people get what I'm trying to say. Thanks for not being one of them.
Maybe everyone who has missed my point so far will read your reply and it'll click for them. Thank you for summing it all up.
If there's anything I've learned from my first post here, it is that's frustrating when so few people get what I'm trying to say. Thanks for not being one of them.
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Oh wow! Thank you SO, SO much for all of that information. My head is totally spinning right now! I don't even know where to start trying to take all this in!
A few questions for you:
1. Do you approach all philosophical discussion with this same sense of pompous intellectual superiority or is it more an entire way of life for you?
2. Will you be able to follow what I'm saying if...I...don't....use....a lot....of....these....?
3. Do you realize we are in a METAphysics and philosophy forum? Not to say that I don't really appreciate the little Physics 101 class that you so diligently presented for me and all others who read, but I've come down hard on those going down the religious road thus far and to be fair I have to do the same to those who go down the road of speculative science. I'm not saying there isn't plenty of speculation in my op, but I was attempting to keep it more philosophical (where speculation is most comfortable). I am also not attempting to project any of this as fact, so it's all-together a different beast.
4. Could you give me a run down on how electrons work again? Are quarks bigger or smaller?
5. Did you really read my statements on the multiverse? I am pretty sure I covered the fact that other universes exist. But honestly, that's as important to my premise as getting into a debate on the nature of god. It's a great discussion, but not one for this thread or forum.
6. Did you really read what I wrote about dimensions (A word, by the way, you misspelled both times you used it.)? I challenge you to go back and find one instance where I said there are only four. As a matter of fact I described what things look like from the tenth dimension. That is of course if you believe in the pop science of the string theory. But judging by the conviction you used to “set me straight” on my all to obvious lack of knowledge [sarcasm] you believe it top to bottom. All I said is that we are stuck here in #4. Are we not? Could you move to five or six and prove me wrong?
7. Do you realize I specifically addressed the fact that time is only linear to the human (Hence my statement about being stuck in the 4th dimension)? Do you realize that I expressly noted the different constructs of time? Did you read the part where I specifically state that there are theories which espouse all points in time existing simultaneously or did you skim over that part?
8. Do you realize that you also misspelled conjunction, literally, existence, perceived and accessible? Here's a little Pompous 101 for you:
1. Don't start off being a smug a#!@hole.
2. When addressing someone who is clearly more thought out, deliberate, and academically learned then you, do them the favour of running a spell check on your comment before you post it.
3. Don't use ...'s where a simple comma would work.
4. Don't be condescending about grade school ideas that, had you read the original post, where clearly being taken for granted as being the ground work for the proposed idea.
5. Don't rabbit trail.
6. Don't assume the writer, who clearly put some time into his post and respected the reader by compiling a well written post, can't wrap his head around Discovery Channel-esque, YouTube videoish, information.
7. Don't try to start a debate over speculative science when that was not the original intent of the author.
8. Don't end by being a smug a@!#hole. because: fixing punctuation
Oh wow! Thank you SO, SO much for all of that information. My head is totally spinning right now! I don't even know where to start trying to take all this in!
A few questions for you:
1. Do you approach all philosophical discussion with this same sense of pompous intellectual superiority or is it more an entire way of life for you?
2. Will you be able to follow what I'm saying if...I...don't....use....a lot....of....these....?
3. Do you realize we are in a METAphysics and philosophy forum? Not to say that I don't really appreciate the little Physics 101 class that you so diligently presented for me and all others who read, but I've come down hard on those going down the religious road thus far and to be fair I have to do the same to those who go down the road of speculative science. I'm not saying there isn't plenty of speculation in my op, but I was attempting to keep it more philosophical (where speculation is most comfortable). I am also not attempting to project any of this as fact, so it's all-together a different beast.
4. Could you give me a run down on how electrons work again? Are quarks bigger or smaller?
5. Did you really read my statements on the multiverse? I am pretty sure I covered the fact that other universes exist. But honestly, that's as important to my premise as getting into a debate on the nature of god. It's a great discussion, but not one for this thread or forum.
6. Did you really read what I wrote about dimensions (A word, by the way, you misspelled both times you used it.)? I challenge you to go back and find one instance where I said there are only four. As a matter of fact I described what things look like from the tenth dimension. That is of course if you believe in the pop science of the string theory. But judging by the conviction you used to “set me straight” on my all to obvious lack of knowledge [sarcasm] you believe it top to bottom. All I said is that we are stuck here in #4. Are we not? Could you move to five or six and prove me wrong?
7. Do you realize I specifically addressed the fact that time is only linear to the human (Hence my statement about being stuck in the 4th dimension)? Do you realize that I expressly noted the different constructs of time? Did you read the part where I specifically state that there are theories which espouse all points in time existing simultaneously or did you skim over that part?
8. Do you realize that you also misspelled conjunction, literally, existence, perceived and accessible? Here's a little Pompous 101 for you:
1. Don't start off being a smug a#!@hole.
2. When addressing someone who is clearly more thought out, deliberate, and academically learned then you, do them the favour of running a spell check on your comment before you post it.
3. Don't use ...'s where a simple comma would work.
4. Don't be condescending about grade school ideas that, had you read the original post, where clearly being taken for granted as being the ground work for the proposed idea.
5. Don't rabbit trail.
6. Don't assume the writer, who clearly put some time into his post and respected the reader by compiling a well written post, can't wrap his head around Discovery Channel-esque, YouTube videoish, information.
7. Don't try to start a debate over speculative science when that was not the original intent of the author.
8. Don't end by being a smug a@!#hole. because: fixing punctuation
edit on 25-1-2012 by Philodemus because: making it more smug and
defensive sounding
edit on 25-1-2012 by Philodemus because: making it more smug and defensive sounding
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by absolutely
translate this
it will help
I am an atheist
also
what?
o and what is your whole thread about? when u cant make a post about what you are it certify only that you are not, and if you are not while pretending being a writer then you are a liar, and when you are a liar then any sentence you will make truth will point it against u, CQFD
like i said enjoy ur watwat play with ur sharing costumes show on the cartoon stage next door
reply to post by absolutely
Well, this has been fun. But you need to find a better way to communicate in the English language because you make "absolutely" no sense.
You don't know what my thread is about and you never will because you are not putting the effort into translating it properly.
Out of scientific curiosity, what country are you from?
Well, this has been fun. But you need to find a better way to communicate in the English language because you make "absolutely" no sense.
You don't know what my thread is about and you never will because you are not putting the effort into translating it properly.
Out of scientific curiosity, what country are you from?
edit on 25-1-2012 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)
ps (for your culture) atheism is the subjective conscious that willingly preconise existence intelligence againt the concept of god in meaning to
force its free existing conscious stand as being itself condition before realizing anything objectively
reply to post by absolutely
O.K. listen. You aren't contributing in anyway to the topic because you clearly don't understand what's even happening here. You are confused as to my meaning and I am at a loss trying to decipher what the heck it is you're trying to say.
This is my thread. Don't tell me what cartoon stage to go to. If you don't like my thread, show yourself the door, man.
ESL classes will help
O.K. listen. You aren't contributing in anyway to the topic because you clearly don't understand what's even happening here. You are confused as to my meaning and I am at a loss trying to decipher what the heck it is you're trying to say.
This is my thread. Don't tell me what cartoon stage to go to. If you don't like my thread, show yourself the door, man.
ESL classes will help
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by absolutely
Well, this has been fun. But you need to find a better way to communicate in the English language because you make "absolutely" no sense.
You don't know what my thread is about and you never will because you are not putting the effort into translating it properly.
Out of scientific curiosity, what country are you from?edit on 25-1-2012 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)
hey mister, i translated your whole thread in one word that proved its nonexistence whole which u negatively confirmed by rambling long sentences replies of nonsense out of ur pervert ways to erase its existence for yourself
i repeat mis, reality concept and fact kill ur thread
when existence is out of reality then afortiori conscious free expressions cant but be through true existence facts
it is pathetic way to mean using what cant b conscious as the reason of free concepts source
existence is forced negatively through infinite inferiority freedom life intelligence ways, everyone know that god is the most powerful evil living intelligence among all gods, your hypocrit expressions is ridicule since it appears as if u speak to hide urself only
it is pathetic way to mean using what cant b conscious as the reason of free concepts source
existence is forced negatively through infinite inferiority freedom life intelligence ways, everyone know that god is the most powerful evil living intelligence among all gods, your hypocrit expressions is ridicule since it appears as if u speak to hide urself only
I did not read your whole post yet, but I will tell you the definition of time.
Time is a measurement of change.
Proof: Ever hear of people losing track of time and going nuts if they are put in a pitch black room?
I hope that is enough that you understand. If it isnt, please ask me re-iterate
We are only conscious of time through change.
God (causeless cause of everything) is eternal, and transcends time. Either the chain of cause and effect is infinite, or there is a causeless cause. This causless cause can not have come from nothing and therefore must have always been and always will be. With nothing to limit or bound it, it is infinte.
Book on REALITY www.yogebooks.com... (166 pages, will take some time to read, for anyone interested or finds some truth in above statement)
Time is a measurement of change.
Proof: Ever hear of people losing track of time and going nuts if they are put in a pitch black room?
I hope that is enough that you understand. If it isnt, please ask me re-iterate
We are only conscious of time through change.
God (causeless cause of everything) is eternal, and transcends time. Either the chain of cause and effect is infinite, or there is a causeless cause. This causless cause can not have come from nothing and therefore must have always been and always will be. With nothing to limit or bound it, it is infinte.
Book on REALITY www.yogebooks.com... (166 pages, will take some time to read, for anyone interested or finds some truth in above statement)
edit on 25-1-2012 by MoeSantana because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Philodemus
You're welcome?
I can only speak from experience, and from the POV of my own research which includes many perspectives, including modern scientific discovery, metaphysics, philosophy etc, and the scriptural references were not intended to offend or convert anyone, just to illustrate that others have looked around and drawn similar conclusions about the nature of time, causation, and God, even without having access to all the modern data that we do, which I personally think is rather astounding.
I try not to quash anyone else's viewpoints, but don't I deserve the same opportunity to freely express myself on an array of topics?
You're welcome?
I can only speak from experience, and from the POV of my own research which includes many perspectives, including modern scientific discovery, metaphysics, philosophy etc, and the scriptural references were not intended to offend or convert anyone, just to illustrate that others have looked around and drawn similar conclusions about the nature of time, causation, and God, even without having access to all the modern data that we do, which I personally think is rather astounding.
I try not to quash anyone else's viewpoints, but don't I deserve the same opportunity to freely express myself on an array of topics?