God, Eternity, and Existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Neil D
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 06:19 pm
@Krumple,
Time is definitely more then a mind-illusion. Einstein proved this. As stated it is affected by velocity, and gravity. If you were to increase your velocity to near the speed of light for one hour. After your journey, you would only be one hour older. But everyone you know would be considerably older or dead. No mind-illusion there. Time is also slowed with increased gravity as well. In M-theory space-time is considered a seperate dimension.

I'm not understanding "now" as a fixed point. As it relates to the Universe, Now began with the big bang, and is a progression of "moments" that end in the present. I see now as a floating point in this respect.

As now relates to eternity. The only reference point i can find is the present. This is the problem, because without a beginning to time there can be no present, but there is.

Some good posts, and things for me to think about. Perhaps I am mistaken.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:35 pm
@Neil D,
I know time is commonly referred to as spacetime, and the two are closely connected(space and time). I also know that they say time slows as velocity is increased. Like in a previous example, where someone increases their velocity to near light speed for an hour or so. Then afterwards, everyone they know is approximately 50 years older, or dead.

The perception of time, such as how it passes from moment to moment is the same for both the near light speed traveler as it is for those with normal velocity.

Doesnt it seem as you increase your velocity and travel through space faster, you are also traveling through time faster? Would I be incorrect in looking at this as a form of time travel?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:46 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;140797 wrote:
I have been through this argument a billion times previously. Around time number 758,457,564 I learned that such questions are actually meaningless, because unless you are willing to invest the asking of them with some sense of urgency, they don't mean anything. So here I have saved you a lot of trouble.


Well not literally meaningless, since we understand them. But pointless. And nothing to do with philosophy. How can there be any sense of urgency about such a question? What would that mean?
 
Neil D
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;158191 wrote:
Well not literally meaningless, since we understand them. But pointless. And nothing to do with philosophy. How can there be any sense of urgency about such a question? What would that mean?


God, Eternity, and Existence. Pointless, and nothing to do with Philosophy? Do you really believe that?

Anyways, jeeprs posted again after the one you commented on, and said it was a good question upon re-considering it. I assume you glossed over it as well.

Ive seen alot of your posts Ken. I would be surprised anyways if you had anything substantial to add.
 
haribol acharya
 
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 04:34 am
@Neil D,
I always wonder whether or not God exists in point of fact. But not to beleive in the existence of God is difficult, for without God life becomes worthless, and in fact all of us want to be immortal.

Going logically we can never understand God, for God is out of the reach of our material mind or dimensional mind.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 04:38 am
@Neil D,
Neil;149437 wrote:
Time is definitely more then a mind-illusion. Einstein proved this. As stated it is affected by velocity, and gravity. If you were to increase your velocity to near the speed of light for one hour. After your journey, you would only be one hour older. But everyone you know would be considerably older or dead. No mind-illusion there. Time is also slowed with increased gravity as well. In M-theory space-time is considered a seperate dimension.
LOL? ..when did Einstein EVER prove time?
He made a theory that was plausible for the masses, nothing more than that.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 05:38 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;158823 wrote:
LOL? ..when did Einstein EVER prove time?
He made a theory that was plausible for the masses, nothing more than that.


Technically you're right, but one of his theories on time was "proven" in an experiment using atomic clocks. I'd have to look it up to get the specifics.

I didn't think it was necessary to go into all that.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 06:38 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;158532 wrote:
God, Eternity, and Existence. Pointless, and nothing to do with Philosophy? Do you really believe that?

Anyways, jeeprs posted again after the one you commented on, and said it was a good question upon re-considering it. I assume you glossed over it as well.

Ive seen alot of your posts Ken. I would be surprised anyways if you had anything substantial to add.


I think you must mean by "substantial" profound rather than true. And, if that is my choice, I will choose to add something true rather than profound and false any day of the week. I did not say that issues about God, Eternity, and Existence are pointless. Only that yours are pointless. You really ought not to confuse the two.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 09:04 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;159426 wrote:
Technically you're right, but one of his theories on time was "proven" in an experiment using atomic clocks. I'd have to look it up to get the specifics.

I didn't think it was necessary to go into all that.
Yes, I'm aware of that test, but that in itself proves nothing.

It's like saying temperature affects time, or the rocking in a boat affects time, as in times of old we used pendulum clocks which got affected by such things.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 03:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159439 wrote:
I think you must mean by "substantial" profound rather than true. And, if that is my choice, I will choose to add something true rather than profound and false any day of the week. I did not say that issues about God, Eternity, and Existence are pointless. Only that yours are pointless. You really ought not to confuse the two.


This dialog is meaningless, and pointless.

If I wanted to converse in a similar context. I'd go argue with my girlfriend.

You dont know what is "true". Nobody does. If you stumbled upon the truth. You could never prove it.

Your Philosophy is shallow, and your opinion means nothing to me.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 03:51 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;140777 wrote:
Supposing there is a God. By God i mean something fundamental from which everything comes, and it itself came from nothing, but has always existed in eternity. Nothing More is implied by this use of the word "God".

Do you think that anything this God creates would have already been created an infinite number of times? Since it exists in eternity.

Neil


Hello there,

The (something fundamental) that you are implying restricts your boundaries to A one-way version of infinity and also limits your parameters of thought to a sole-universe.
Infinity does not commence with an event - time does - Time is simply a relative measurement of the distance between two occurences within a given realm.

Wheels within wheels within wheels - This entire universe is but a proton in a much more vast multiverse - which is itself but a proton, and so on.

As for there have being a place within all this where "NOTHING" once was - "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE" .

And - EVERYTHING must recur in both exact and random states - infinitely. As has it always.

Think on this long enough and you'll understand Deja vu too...

Thankyou and think well.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 03:52 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;159666 wrote:
This dialog is meaningless, and pointless.

If I wanted to converse in a similar context. I'd go argue with my girlfriend.

You dont know what is "true". Nobody does. If you stumbled upon the truth. You could never prove it.

Your Philosophy is shallow, and your opinion means nothing to me.


I may not know what is "true". But what has that to do with knowing what is true? After all. unless it was true, how could I know it? Have you considered that? Has your girlfriend considered that?
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 03:58 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;159672 wrote:
Hello there,

The (something fundamental) that you are implying restricts your boundaries to A one-way version of infinity and also limits your parameters of thought to a sole-universe.
Infinity does not commence with an event - time does - Time is simply a relative measurement of the distance between two occurences within a given realm.

Wheels within wheels within wheels - This entire universe is but a proton in a much more vast multiverse - which is itself but a proton, and so on.

As for there have being a place within all this where "NOTHING" once was - "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE" .

And - EVERYTHING must recur in both exact and random states - infinitely. As has it always.

Think on this long enough and you'll understand Deja vu too...

Thankyou and think well.

Mark...


Are you talking about M-Theory? I'm in a hurry. I'll read it again later.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 04:16 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;159674 wrote:
Are you talking about M-Theory? I'm in a hurry. I'll read it again later.


Hello nell,
M-Theory? How does that one go then?

Thankyou and I hope your hurry is a moderate one.

Mark...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 06:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159673 wrote:
I may not know what is "true". But what has that to do with knowing what is true? After all. unless it was true, how could I know it? Have you considered that? Has your girlfriend considered that?


In the context of this thread:

People know(or think they know)things that just arent true. Many do in fact. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many different beliefs. When in fact there is only one "real" truth.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;159726 wrote:
In the context of this thread:

People know(or think they know)things that just arent true. Many do in fact. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many different beliefs. When in fact there is only one "real" truth.


Think they know, but need not know, is right. There is not only one (real) truth, but there are a lot of truths. For instance, that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, or that water is H20. Why would anyone think that there is only one true proposition? (Would they think that one true proposition was the one true proposition? Namely, that there is only one true proposition? Wouldn't they think that there was at least one other true proposition besides the proposition that there is only one true proposition? So there would have to be at least two true propositions: that there is only one true proposition, and another one true proposition. Which is, of course impossible. So there cannot be only one true proposition, since that one true proposition would have to be the proposition that there was only one proposition.

Is that profound enough for you?
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:25 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;159672 wrote:
Hello there,
The (something fundamental) that you are implying restricts your boundaries to A one-way version of infinity and also limits your parameters of thought to a sole-universe.

I imagined this "fundamental stuff" as existing in eternity. I only have ideas as to its nature of course. And I tend to conceive of eternity as a circle. But more precisely I define it as no beginning and no end.
mark noble;159672 wrote:

Infinity does not commence with an event - time does - Time is simply a relative measurement of the distance between two occurences within a given realm.

I agree with that. I call that finite linear time. Thus far its the only form of time i feel that i fully comprehend. The Universe is based on this form of time.
mark noble;159672 wrote:

Wheels within wheels within wheels - This entire universe is but a proton in a much more vast multiverse - which is itself but a proton, and so on.

M-Theory speaks of a multi-verse. I'm also wondering if a fractal pattern might apply to what you are describing. Infinity in both directions.

mark noble;159672 wrote:

As for there have being a place within all this where "NOTHING" once was - "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE" .

I dont understand. I feel that if there was ever a time when there existed "nothing", then nothing would exist now.
mark noble;159672 wrote:

And - EVERYTHING must recur in both exact and random states - infinitely. As has it always.

I agree, but i would say "eternally".

I see infinity as having a starting point, and either moving forwards or backwards, or both, forever, from that point. If there is no such starting point then i call it eternity. Which to me is an endless cycle. Dont understand why it would exist as opposed to nothing existing.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 12:58 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;159745 wrote:
I dont understand. I feel that if there was ever a time when there existed "nothing", then nothing would exist now..


Hello Neil,

As I say 'Nothing is impossible'. It has never existed, does not and cannot.
1. something from nothing can never arise.
2. The fact that something, any thing, does exist, proves that it has substance. And substance begets substance.
3 . Without substance present, substance cannot be present.

Nice to meet you.
Thank you and farewell.

Mark...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 05:57 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159739 wrote:

Think they know, but need not know, is right. There is not only one (real) truth, but there are a lot of truths. For instance, that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, or that water is H20. Why would anyone think that there is only one true proposition? (Would they think that one true proposition was the one true proposition? Namely, that there is only one true proposition? Wouldn't they think that there was at least one other true proposition besides the proposition that there is only one true proposition? So there would have to be at least two true propositions: that there is only one true proposition, and another one true proposition. Which is, of course impossible. So there cannot be only one true proposition, since that one true proposition would have to be the proposition that there was only one proposition.

Is that profound enough for you?


Sure there are alot of different propositions about different things that are true. But when there are alot of different propositions about the same thing, in many cases, only one is true.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 06:06 am
@Neil D,
Neil;160164 wrote:
Sure there are alot of different propositions about different things that are true. But when there are alot of different propositions about the same thing, in many cases, only one is true.


But, that is obviously false. For instance, there are a lot of propositions about the Sun: how large it is; how hot it is; how far it is from Earth, and so on. And every correct answer to each of those many different propositions, is true. Isn't that true?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:55:47