God, Eternity, and Existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:34 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;146411 wrote:
I have no use for either one of those. I, in no way associate God(if there is one) with religion. To me, God is ambiguous. It could be some sort of eternal being, or some fundamental cosmological constants. It could be a Unifield Field that divided itself to cause the Big Bang and create the Universe. Or maybe God could be hiding in Gravity. Gravity is the force they say extends beyond this Universe into the "Bulk", making it infinite...an attribute of God. And one of my favorites, God could be the Quantum Electrodynamic Field. Last but not least, the Higgs Boson. Seem to have an obsession with trying desperately to find God through science and theoretical Physics. I dont have any great knowledge of any of these, maybe if I did I wouldnt even consider them.


I wish every theist held the position you hold. Just wondering, do you think it would ever be possible to literally "find" God? And do you think that God thinks?
 
north
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:41 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146327 wrote:
actually I am not much of a fan of religion but I think hardheaded atheism is a lot worse. At least religion leaves some room for the imagination and a sense of possibility. The Dawkinsian atheism leaves me completely cold. If I had to choose, I would choose the former.

Fortunately, we don't.


a hardheaded atheism is worse than religion ...?

have you been seeing whats going on in this world lately ? seriously ?

people are killing other people in the name of religion and your concern is " room for the imagination and a sense of possibility " only ?

are you for real...?

pathetic really
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:27 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146416 wrote:
do you think it would ever be possible to literally "find" God?


Many have undergone great trials to find an answer to that question. But I would not like to answer it on behalf of someone else. It is one of those 'first person' questions, don't you think? As in, someone else's answer might not ever really answer the question for you.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:45 pm
@jeeprs,
@Jeepers,

Okay, but I was wondering if that was incorporated in his personal belief system. So, basically I was wondering if, in accordance with his personal beliefs, god was reachable. And not in prayer but in an actual legitimate conversation (I don't want to say face to face here) type meeting. I know someone who holds that view, and I thought it would be interesting to see if he held it as well.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:49 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146327 wrote:
actually I am not much of a fan of religion but I think hardheaded atheism is a lot worse.


Yeah a militant atheist is a lot worse than a fundamentalist Muslim. You know because all those "hard headed atheists" like to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Not to mention how atheists always try to prevent wrong sexual orientation as damnable and should be outlawed. Those hard head atheists just make the world a bad and evil place don't they? All the wars they created through out time. All the people they burned at the stake for being followers of religion. All those conversions or die tactics. Don't forget how atheists rejected the earth orbiting the sun and how wrong that idea is. Yeah atheists have no imagination at all, they don't even use logic or reasoning, they are just hard headed fools.

jeeprs;146327 wrote:

At least religion leaves some room for the imagination and a sense of possibility. The Dawkinsian atheism leaves me completely cold. If I had to choose, I would choose the former.


I can say the same about religion. It is often cold and only cares about getting more money, laws passed that forbid naturalism and condemn people for using condemns to protect themselves from AIDS.

jeeprs;146327 wrote:

Fortunately, we don't.


Don't you mean, fortunately you have a strong bias of denial?
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 07:35 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146416 wrote:

I wish every theist held the position you hold. Just wondering, do you think it would ever be possible to literally "find" God? And do you think that God thinks?


Like you said, other Theists have a different idea of what god is. For example, if science proved that at the time before the Big Bang, all the four fundamental forces were combined into a single Superforce. And it was this Superforce that initiated the Big Bang. Then I would consider it a "God like" force.

It makes sense that if God were to do anything, it would be preceded by a "thought" of doing something.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:33 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
to add ;

god is more important than their own Humanity , troubling




Pepijn Sweep;145413 wrote:
Believe in God m/f is more important than your humilty


no it isn't actually

Quote:
Humanity is the aim of Being God and re-D-sign.


in time

meaning that in time we will be a god ourselves
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 02:37 am
@Neil D,
Neil;147283 wrote:
Like you said, other Theists have a different idea of what god is. For example, if science proved that at the time before the Big Bang, all the four fundamental forces were combined into a single Superforce. And it was this Superforce that initiated the Big Bang. Then I would consider it a "God like" force.

It makes sense that if God were to do anything, it would be preceded by a "thought" of doing something.

I know you thanked me for the post, but how do we solve this problem of time, and how do we find this eternal being....do you have any suggestions?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 02:50 am
@Neil D,
Are you familiar with Plotinus? I mean, what sources have you consulted thus far?

How would you go about asking such a question anyway? 'Finding the eternal being' was the aim of all philosophy before the modern period, when we abandoned the search and switched to physics.

One thing that ought to be said, perhaps, is that in classical philosophy, or theosophy, the asking of such a question could not really be asked at an arms-length as a theoretical concern, because such issues are not truly objective.


(Incidentally, the association of 'God' with the Higgs Boson comes from a book called 'The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question" by Leon Ledderman. I haven't read it.)
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:28 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;147768 wrote:
Are you familiar with Plotinus? I mean, what sources have you consulted thus far?

How would you go about asking such a question anyway? 'Finding the eternal being' was the aim of all philosophy before the modern period, when we abandoned the search and switched to physics.

One thing that ought to be said, perhaps, is that in classical philosophy, or theosophy, the asking of such a question could not really be asked at an arms-length as a theoretical concern, because such issues are not truly objective.


(Incidentally, the association of 'God' with the Higgs Boson comes from a book called 'The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question" by Leon Ledderman. I haven't read it.)


Never heard of Plotinus, I seem to think that I can reason my way to an answer that seems logical enough that I could make it my belief system, mainly with respect to God, and the problem I have with time. I know that anything truly concrete would have to come from science, but i dont really need science to give me a complete answer, but just some pieces of the puzzle to work with. Science has given me the bulk of what i have to work with, with a small part coming from other sources(even religion).

I'm only an occasional reader, but if i decide to do some reading I will check out some of the sources you have provided.

Also, i think there is a "truth" out there, or an answer to the questions i ask, and if i were presented with it, or even arrived at it myself, that i could understand it.

thanks jeeprs for all your posts. I know this is a "beating your head against a wall" or "kicking a dead horse" kind of question, but thats ok..at times I do enjoy thinking about it.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 06:43 pm
@Neil D,
So in the same context of fundamental forces, superforces, or unified fields. Does it make sense that something of the kind could be the most fundamental, and which do you think it might be, if any? Also, if applicable, do you think that it could also have a "fundamental being" or conscious awareness associated with it? Or for what reason should this be ruled out as a theory?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:49 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;143377 wrote:
Finally I interpret references to 'the Life Eternal' in Christian and other religious literature, as references to a sense of being beyond time, not references to something of infinite duration.


I totally agree. When we are absorbed in anything from great rock n roll, to the contemplation of a great painting, or perhaps the plotting of a checkmate, time is not real for us. Time is of course just an abstraction, a numerical system imposed on the perception of change. Time is founded on memory and imagination, and complicated social rituals. Such as the tolling of bells. Or nowadays the numbers on our cell phones.

I would argue that eternity is more real than time, that time is the child or offspring of eternity.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;148414 wrote:
I totally agree. When we are absorbed in anything from great rock n roll, to the contemplation of a great painting, or perhaps the plotting of a checkmate, time is not real for us. Time is of course just an abstraction, a numerical system imposed on the perception of change. Time is founded on memory and imagination, and complicated social rituals. Such as the tolling of bells. Or nowadays the numbers on our cell phones.

I would argue that eternity is more real than time, that time is the child or offspring of eternity.


Another butchering of the definition of time but not surprised since very few people seem to grasp what time is and does. You simply can not do anything without time. Time is movement, it differentiates two occurrences or events. Without time, nothing moves, nothing changes, and you can't do anything. You can't have a thought, you can't experience, can't think or be anything. A realm without time would be frozen in a single moment without ever changing. You wouldn't even know you were existing within a realm without time because you would first have to experience it and have the thought, but you can't without time.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 12:31 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;148435 wrote:
Another butchering of the definition of time but not surprised since very few people seem to grasp what time is and does. You simply can not do anything without time. Time is movement, it differentiates two occurrences or events. Without time, nothing moves, nothing changes, and you can't do anything. You can't have a thought, you can't experience, can't think or be anything. A realm without time would be frozen in a single moment without ever changing. You wouldn't even know you were existing within a realm without time because you would first have to experience it and have the thought, but you can't without time.


Well that makes sense, but I wonder what those Physicists are talking about when they say that time didnt exist before the Big Bang. Surely they must be mistaken, or according to the above there never would have been a big bang.

Are we all talking about the same "kind" of time here?
 
rado
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:59 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;140797 wrote:
I have been through this argument a billion times previously.


An infinite number of times I suppose, if everything is repeated eternally?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:55 am
@Neil D,
Neil;148448 wrote:
Well that makes sense, but I wonder what those Physicists are talking about when they say that time didnt exist before the Big Bang. Surely they must be mistaken, or according to the above there never would have been a big bang.

Are we all talking about the same "kind" of time here?


Yes. I know I do not hold the popular belief that the BB created time. I do not hold that time was created at the BB. I stand where your question is. That time had to have been there for the BB to even happen. Why physicists do not see this or gloss over it, baffles me.

However; I am not completely opposed to what we understand about time. I say that time can be effected by gravity and even velocity. So I am not in contradiction in fact I take an even broader scope on speed and time.

In my opinion, velocity is just slowing down time. You really don't move faster, you just slow down time the faster you move. We can't really experience this because our relative velocity is very small. But if you were to drastically increase your velocity you would experience a time dilation.

So my question has become, an object or mass that is suspended with absolute zero velocity to all other mass would have what kind of time? Since velocity causes time to slow down, wouldn't absolute zero velocity cause time to speed up? So a stationary object would experience very fast time. In fact if this is accurate then at the point of the BB time was moving much faster than we currently experience it. But that also assumes that the BB singularity had an absolute zero velocity.
 
rado
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 07:11 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;148515 wrote:
Yes. I know I do not hold the popular belief that the BB created time. I do not hold that time was created at the BB. I stand where your question is. That time had to have been there for the BB to even happen. Why physicists do not see this or gloss over it, baffles me.


I'd rather say that time is a mind-illusion, and that there ultimately only exist the "now", and that everything ultimately happens at the same time - now.

In that sense, (the illusion of) time started with BB, where time and space - the medium for the time-mind-illusion - began.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 10:31 am
@rado,
rado;148516 wrote:
I'd rather say that time is a mind-illusion, and that there ultimately only exist the "now", and that everything ultimately happens at the same time - now.

In that sense, (the illusion of) time started with BB, where time and space - the medium for the time-mind-illusion - began.


No I don't think there is a now as you are attempting to convey. My definition still stands, without time, now would just be a non-moving moment, like a photograph or a painting. It simply can not change. The fact that now changes from future to past means time is in effect changing the future into the past. That is the only thing happening now...
 
rado
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 11:34 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;148563 wrote:
No I don't think there is a now as you are attempting to convey. My definition still stands, without time, now would just be a non-moving moment, like a photograph or a painting. It simply can not change. The fact that now changes from future to past means time is in effect changing the future into the past. That is the only thing happening now...


I define Now as a fixed point, an eternal and absolute point of stillness and motionlessness which is the reference point for all motion. And since time is defined by motion (a clock must tick to be able to measure time), time must also be relative to this absolute point of stillness.

The fact that time/motion is relative indicates that it cannot be an absolute reference point. Only stillness/motionlessness can be the reference point in this context since it only has one possible "speed" - zero - while time/motion can have any speed other than zero. If you were to choose time as a reference, which time-speed would you choose then, and why? The only logical reference for all time is therefore zero, just like the logical reference for all temperature is absolute zero.

The absolute point of stillness - zero point - is actually the source of all motion - the fixed point from which motion emanates/radiates. That is the reason why all motion and thereby all time is relative to this point.

Rado
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 11:45 am
@rado,
rado;148573 wrote:
I define Now as a fixed point, an eternal and absolute point of stillness and motionlessness which is the reference point for all motion. And since time is defined by motion (a clock must tick to be able to measure time), time must also be relative to this absolute point of stillness.

The fact that time/motion is relative indicates that it cannot be an absolute reference point. Only stillness/motionlessness can be the reference point in this context since it only has one possible "speed" - zero - while time/motion can have any speed other than zero. If you were to choose time as a reference, which time-speed would you choose then, and why? The only logical reference for all time is therefore zero, just like the logical reference for all temperature is absolute zero.

The absolute point of stillness - zero point - is actually the source of all motion - the fixed point from which motion emanates/radiates. That is the reason why all motion and thereby all time is relative to this point.

Rado


I see that you are the most clever on this issue. However I am not in disagreement with the now being a reference point. It is obvious that now is not an event, however the moment of the now grabbing the future bringing it into the past, is the event, that event is caused by time. Without time, the future would never turn into the past. The now would never change at all. You wouldn't breath, you wouldn't think you wouldn't age, you wouldn't move if time were not the movement. So you can have your motionless now if you want, I will not disagree with you, however you can not have a motionless now and still have movement. It even defies the definition of a motionless now to say you can do something within the now without time.

It is the time which makes the now have meaning, have a purpose and change. Your now, is nothing but a photo.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:45:45